Led Zeppelin
3rd September 2005, 13:58
Our organisation is about to become 25 years old. Now, as we are going to accomplish a quarter-century of the Organisation of Fedaian(Minority)´s life-struggle, it is worth assessing the organisation´s positive and negative experiences. Because of the role and importance which our organisation has had during this time, we will review this period of its activities and struggles and assess the positive and negative experiences which have been valuable lessons for the Iranian communist movement.
The circumstances under which the Organisation of Iranian People's Fedaii Guerillas was formed
A scientific and objective assessment of the OIPFG´s struggle, role and importance in the communist and labour movements and of its positive and negative experiences cannot exist, unless we have an exact knowledge of the situation and conditions under which our organisation came into being, and the stage which the communist and labour movement was in at that time. Therefore it is necessary to return to the 1960´s and consider the objective and subjective conditions of this period. This was a period in which the Iranian society witnessed a series of objective and economical changes. The Shah´s regime´s bureaucratic reforms, for instance the Agrarian-Reform, paved the way for the growth and extension of capitalist relations, the ever-growing export of imperialistic capitals and the extension and development of large capitalistic enterprises. So the mode of capitalist production became the dominant mode of production in Iran. Together with these changes in the spheres of economic and production relations, there were other changes which took place in the social and class spheres. Consequently some contradictions were solved, others become weakened and some new ones were created with the death of feudalism. Feudalism, because of the changes during the decades before these reforms was already dead, and landlords had completely lost their power and influence and the comprador-bourgeoisie, which had gained remarkable power before that, now became the primary power. Contradictions between the peasants and the feudal were completely solved and the smallholding mode of production became dominant in villages. A large group of peasants who hadn't any land, flocked to towns and joined the ranks of the working class. Another group of small peasants, which had large expectations of the reforms when they began, were even given a piece of land.
With the extension of capitalist relations in villages and the aggravation of class polarisation amongst peasants, and under the financial pressure of the state bureaucracy, these peasants had gradually been ruined. A group of them who were employed in capitalist enterprises (especially in towns) joined the working class. Another group settled in town suburbs and, as the inhabitants of the towns, constituted a part of the workforces reserve army. The traditional petty-bourgeoisie of the towns, which with the beginning of the reforms had been in grave danger, had been ruined because of the extention and growth of large capitals and a large number of them joined the ranks of the working class. But the modern petty-bourgeoisie had to some extent grown. These reforms were also the final straw for the rest of the so-called "national bourgeoisie". It was only the working class, which together with increasing of its role in production, vastly increased its number. The forementioned changes had begun to temporarily soften the contradictions of society. By the late 1960´s the situation was relatively quiet and the mass movement experienced a standstill. Nevertheless, by the second half of the 1960´s, together with the aggravation of contradictions, the open protest movements had gradually grown. The first manifestation of this growth was the student movement, which developed a "mass characteristic". The death of Takthi and protests against the rising price of bus tickets in Tehran showed this "mass characteristic". However, as yet there were no signs of a spontaneous labour movement.
In this situation the tendency towards socialism was extended, especially amongst the activists, and the communist movement began to consistently grow in number. The matter of an organised struggle, the relations of communist and labour movements, and the necessity of proletarian leadership were the most important questions on the agenda.
Concerning the labour movement at this time, we should say that the working class, because of the dictatorship and the repression of the Shah's regime and the betrayal of the Tudeh party, and because of the fullness of the working classes´ ranks with peasants and urban petty-bourgeoisie lacked the minimum level of independent class organisation and consciousness, and there was no relation between this movement and the communist movement. Because of reforms and economical ruin, the petty-bourgeoisie had joined the ranks of the working class, but did not yet have a complete proletarian characteristic. Though the communist movement had grown constantly during this period, it had also suffered from an internal crisis. Tactlessness, confusion, and passiveness were the general characteristics of the all groups which had been formed in this period. After the defeat and dissolution of the Tudeh party, two tendencies were formed by its opponents. One branch recognised the matter of defeat and betrayal of the Tudeh party, not because of its reformist and conciliatory line but because of the betrayal of its leadership. So it tried to reorganise the party with a new leadership.
The another branch apparently made a distinction line between the Tudeh party's reformism and revisionism, but it still kept the essence of the Tudeh party's way of thinking. The latter group followed the mirage of the long term mass war and the capturing of the towns from villages, just as the Chinese model did. For a while both of these two branches gained remarkable support. But since they were not able to break definitely off from the afterthoughts of the Tudeh party and produce a new revolutionary line in accordance with the new conditions, they rapidly lost their credibility. The groups and circles which came into being often lacked even a minimum level of experience. Before they could establish any contact with the working class they were crushed by police attacks. These attacks had a negative effect on some of these groups, and it was used to justify the passiveness, which the Tudeh party propagated. It was claimed that nothing could be done for the time being, and that there should be an end to intertvention,: "we should keep ourselves safe and wait for better times". These groups also became rotten from this passiveness and dissolved after a while. Geneally the constant attacks of the police, the confusion of the different groups, the inability to find answers to questions which the new conditions created, the inability to establish a connection with the working class, the disagreements in the international communist movement and finally the passiveness, which was dominant amongst these groups all played a part in aggravating the existing crisis.
Under these circumstances, which books cliché as an attempt to copy Russia and China's experiences, these attempts ended in defeat. The question remained - what should be done in order to leave this vicious circle of passiveness and crisis. Some of these groups did not want to condescend to existing conditions and wanted to break the existing deadlock and intervine revolutionary in the class struggle. Using revolutionary methods this was not possible unless a concrete foundation of economical, Social and political conditions was created, on which a new mode of struggle and form of organisation could be obtained. These duties were undertook by those who became the founders of our organisation. For the first time a concrete assessment of Iran's condition was produced. In the sphere of economics, the domination of the capitalist mode of production was shown. The importance of this foundation was immense because it became a solid foundation for the forthcoming activities of communists in Iran. On the one hand the confusion and disorder which had been created by the pro-China groups because they still represented Iranian society as a half-feudal - half-colony society, was ended. On the other hand, by showing the role of the comprador-bourgeoisie and imperialism, the opportunist claims of the Tudeh party said that the Shah´s regime´s measures had had a progressive characteristic cancelled. It was shown in the political sphere that, despite the domination of the capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois political superstructure, there were no changes in the reactionary character of political rule and the reasons and role of the open dictatorship in Irans comprador-capitalism were explained. A concrete answer was then given for the classes´ position and role in society, and the revolution of Iran and its motive power.
In this sphere a distinction line was also drawn between the existing tendencies which were propagated by the Tudeh party and divided streams. The illusion, that the so called national bourgeoisie could have a revolutionary and progressive role, was eliminated. Comrade Ahmadzadeh propounded that, despite the revolutions democratic character in the first stage; "struggle with the imperialist dominion, i.e. the world capital, has some elements of struggle with the capital itself " and " Therefore some elements of a socialist revolution are also born in this struggle. This anti-imperialist struggle is starting to grow up while the struggle is going on". So the national bourgeoisie essentially can not be constant in such a struggle and because of the historical conditions of its existence and its relations with the foreign capital are wavering and unable to mobilise the masses" . He even took a step further and talked about its absolution: "the national bourgeoisie has weakened under the pressure of the foreign capital before it grows at all, it is missing the possibility of class organisation and will finally die away gradually" . On the role and position of the petty-bourgeoisie it is also said that "because of the material conditions of its production, it can never constitute an independent political power, so it should either be lead by a proletariat or give itself to the bourgeoisie" . And finally attention is paid to the role and position of the proletariat and it is concluded that "the proletariat is numerically weak, but because of its quality and possibilities of organisation, it is strong" . Here the proletarian leadership of movement is presented as the condition of every revolution victory. "The more the state has become bourgeoisie, the more the socialist elements of revolution become increasingly important, both internally and externally and the struggle with the dominiation of the world capital becomes more a struggle with the capital and the necessity of a proletarian leadership becomes clearer".
Regarding the level of communist movement at that time, this socio-economical and political assessment was a great creation and an important step forward. Therefore, it was not without reason that it soon become the dominant theory of Iran's communist movement. But the aim of this assessment, as we said before, was to find a way out of the existing crisis. The question was somehow to "Go further from the simple gathering" of the communist movement forces, continuity, connection with the working class and the revolution´s proletarian leadership. In this period the question of foundation of the class party of workers was not general but concrete and immediate. Comrade Ahmadzadeh explains: "So we accepted that our and other communist groups´ aims should be to found the Marxist-Leninist party. This question Immediately asserts itself to what should be done in order to organise such a party? Then these two tasks stand behind us : on the one hand we and the other groups should train the forthcoming party's cadres and on the other hand we should prepare the conditions of this party amongst the masses".
Yet we have not seen that the necessity to found this party has shown itself, without the very same practical process of struggle demanding it and without preparing its background between workers and non-worker masses".
At that time, when there was no sign of a spontaneous workers movement, no sign of a connection between the communist and labour movement and no sign of an elaborate proletarian program or tactics, the foundation of the party was unrealistic. Today, many years later, the working class has passed through a revolution and the communist and labour movements are at a different level. Nevertheless, the difficulty of founding such a party is our movement's present problem. It is obvious to everyone that this achievement was unrealistic at that time. Even though our comrades were not among that group of so-called socialists that merely talked and did not put their talks in action, their commitment was not merely a superficial acceptance of Marxism and proletarian aims, and they tried to put their aims into practice. For them, Marxism-Leninism was an instruction to revolt and a means of ending the existing crisis and putting an end to the rift between theory and revolutionary practice. Therefore, with regards to the question of founding the party they didn't become confused and passive. They rapidly corrected their mistakes and concluded that there was a long way to go in order to found a working class party: The solution which they produced to achieve revolutionary intervention in a revolutionary struggle, was to unite the military and political activities.
On the verge of the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Organisation of Fedaian (Minority) (http://www.geocities.com/~fedaian/english/25years/text.html)
The circumstances under which the Organisation of Iranian People's Fedaii Guerillas was formed
A scientific and objective assessment of the OIPFG´s struggle, role and importance in the communist and labour movements and of its positive and negative experiences cannot exist, unless we have an exact knowledge of the situation and conditions under which our organisation came into being, and the stage which the communist and labour movement was in at that time. Therefore it is necessary to return to the 1960´s and consider the objective and subjective conditions of this period. This was a period in which the Iranian society witnessed a series of objective and economical changes. The Shah´s regime´s bureaucratic reforms, for instance the Agrarian-Reform, paved the way for the growth and extension of capitalist relations, the ever-growing export of imperialistic capitals and the extension and development of large capitalistic enterprises. So the mode of capitalist production became the dominant mode of production in Iran. Together with these changes in the spheres of economic and production relations, there were other changes which took place in the social and class spheres. Consequently some contradictions were solved, others become weakened and some new ones were created with the death of feudalism. Feudalism, because of the changes during the decades before these reforms was already dead, and landlords had completely lost their power and influence and the comprador-bourgeoisie, which had gained remarkable power before that, now became the primary power. Contradictions between the peasants and the feudal were completely solved and the smallholding mode of production became dominant in villages. A large group of peasants who hadn't any land, flocked to towns and joined the ranks of the working class. Another group of small peasants, which had large expectations of the reforms when they began, were even given a piece of land.
With the extension of capitalist relations in villages and the aggravation of class polarisation amongst peasants, and under the financial pressure of the state bureaucracy, these peasants had gradually been ruined. A group of them who were employed in capitalist enterprises (especially in towns) joined the working class. Another group settled in town suburbs and, as the inhabitants of the towns, constituted a part of the workforces reserve army. The traditional petty-bourgeoisie of the towns, which with the beginning of the reforms had been in grave danger, had been ruined because of the extention and growth of large capitals and a large number of them joined the ranks of the working class. But the modern petty-bourgeoisie had to some extent grown. These reforms were also the final straw for the rest of the so-called "national bourgeoisie". It was only the working class, which together with increasing of its role in production, vastly increased its number. The forementioned changes had begun to temporarily soften the contradictions of society. By the late 1960´s the situation was relatively quiet and the mass movement experienced a standstill. Nevertheless, by the second half of the 1960´s, together with the aggravation of contradictions, the open protest movements had gradually grown. The first manifestation of this growth was the student movement, which developed a "mass characteristic". The death of Takthi and protests against the rising price of bus tickets in Tehran showed this "mass characteristic". However, as yet there were no signs of a spontaneous labour movement.
In this situation the tendency towards socialism was extended, especially amongst the activists, and the communist movement began to consistently grow in number. The matter of an organised struggle, the relations of communist and labour movements, and the necessity of proletarian leadership were the most important questions on the agenda.
Concerning the labour movement at this time, we should say that the working class, because of the dictatorship and the repression of the Shah's regime and the betrayal of the Tudeh party, and because of the fullness of the working classes´ ranks with peasants and urban petty-bourgeoisie lacked the minimum level of independent class organisation and consciousness, and there was no relation between this movement and the communist movement. Because of reforms and economical ruin, the petty-bourgeoisie had joined the ranks of the working class, but did not yet have a complete proletarian characteristic. Though the communist movement had grown constantly during this period, it had also suffered from an internal crisis. Tactlessness, confusion, and passiveness were the general characteristics of the all groups which had been formed in this period. After the defeat and dissolution of the Tudeh party, two tendencies were formed by its opponents. One branch recognised the matter of defeat and betrayal of the Tudeh party, not because of its reformist and conciliatory line but because of the betrayal of its leadership. So it tried to reorganise the party with a new leadership.
The another branch apparently made a distinction line between the Tudeh party's reformism and revisionism, but it still kept the essence of the Tudeh party's way of thinking. The latter group followed the mirage of the long term mass war and the capturing of the towns from villages, just as the Chinese model did. For a while both of these two branches gained remarkable support. But since they were not able to break definitely off from the afterthoughts of the Tudeh party and produce a new revolutionary line in accordance with the new conditions, they rapidly lost their credibility. The groups and circles which came into being often lacked even a minimum level of experience. Before they could establish any contact with the working class they were crushed by police attacks. These attacks had a negative effect on some of these groups, and it was used to justify the passiveness, which the Tudeh party propagated. It was claimed that nothing could be done for the time being, and that there should be an end to intertvention,: "we should keep ourselves safe and wait for better times". These groups also became rotten from this passiveness and dissolved after a while. Geneally the constant attacks of the police, the confusion of the different groups, the inability to find answers to questions which the new conditions created, the inability to establish a connection with the working class, the disagreements in the international communist movement and finally the passiveness, which was dominant amongst these groups all played a part in aggravating the existing crisis.
Under these circumstances, which books cliché as an attempt to copy Russia and China's experiences, these attempts ended in defeat. The question remained - what should be done in order to leave this vicious circle of passiveness and crisis. Some of these groups did not want to condescend to existing conditions and wanted to break the existing deadlock and intervine revolutionary in the class struggle. Using revolutionary methods this was not possible unless a concrete foundation of economical, Social and political conditions was created, on which a new mode of struggle and form of organisation could be obtained. These duties were undertook by those who became the founders of our organisation. For the first time a concrete assessment of Iran's condition was produced. In the sphere of economics, the domination of the capitalist mode of production was shown. The importance of this foundation was immense because it became a solid foundation for the forthcoming activities of communists in Iran. On the one hand the confusion and disorder which had been created by the pro-China groups because they still represented Iranian society as a half-feudal - half-colony society, was ended. On the other hand, by showing the role of the comprador-bourgeoisie and imperialism, the opportunist claims of the Tudeh party said that the Shah´s regime´s measures had had a progressive characteristic cancelled. It was shown in the political sphere that, despite the domination of the capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois political superstructure, there were no changes in the reactionary character of political rule and the reasons and role of the open dictatorship in Irans comprador-capitalism were explained. A concrete answer was then given for the classes´ position and role in society, and the revolution of Iran and its motive power.
In this sphere a distinction line was also drawn between the existing tendencies which were propagated by the Tudeh party and divided streams. The illusion, that the so called national bourgeoisie could have a revolutionary and progressive role, was eliminated. Comrade Ahmadzadeh propounded that, despite the revolutions democratic character in the first stage; "struggle with the imperialist dominion, i.e. the world capital, has some elements of struggle with the capital itself " and " Therefore some elements of a socialist revolution are also born in this struggle. This anti-imperialist struggle is starting to grow up while the struggle is going on". So the national bourgeoisie essentially can not be constant in such a struggle and because of the historical conditions of its existence and its relations with the foreign capital are wavering and unable to mobilise the masses" . He even took a step further and talked about its absolution: "the national bourgeoisie has weakened under the pressure of the foreign capital before it grows at all, it is missing the possibility of class organisation and will finally die away gradually" . On the role and position of the petty-bourgeoisie it is also said that "because of the material conditions of its production, it can never constitute an independent political power, so it should either be lead by a proletariat or give itself to the bourgeoisie" . And finally attention is paid to the role and position of the proletariat and it is concluded that "the proletariat is numerically weak, but because of its quality and possibilities of organisation, it is strong" . Here the proletarian leadership of movement is presented as the condition of every revolution victory. "The more the state has become bourgeoisie, the more the socialist elements of revolution become increasingly important, both internally and externally and the struggle with the dominiation of the world capital becomes more a struggle with the capital and the necessity of a proletarian leadership becomes clearer".
Regarding the level of communist movement at that time, this socio-economical and political assessment was a great creation and an important step forward. Therefore, it was not without reason that it soon become the dominant theory of Iran's communist movement. But the aim of this assessment, as we said before, was to find a way out of the existing crisis. The question was somehow to "Go further from the simple gathering" of the communist movement forces, continuity, connection with the working class and the revolution´s proletarian leadership. In this period the question of foundation of the class party of workers was not general but concrete and immediate. Comrade Ahmadzadeh explains: "So we accepted that our and other communist groups´ aims should be to found the Marxist-Leninist party. This question Immediately asserts itself to what should be done in order to organise such a party? Then these two tasks stand behind us : on the one hand we and the other groups should train the forthcoming party's cadres and on the other hand we should prepare the conditions of this party amongst the masses".
Yet we have not seen that the necessity to found this party has shown itself, without the very same practical process of struggle demanding it and without preparing its background between workers and non-worker masses".
At that time, when there was no sign of a spontaneous workers movement, no sign of a connection between the communist and labour movement and no sign of an elaborate proletarian program or tactics, the foundation of the party was unrealistic. Today, many years later, the working class has passed through a revolution and the communist and labour movements are at a different level. Nevertheless, the difficulty of founding such a party is our movement's present problem. It is obvious to everyone that this achievement was unrealistic at that time. Even though our comrades were not among that group of so-called socialists that merely talked and did not put their talks in action, their commitment was not merely a superficial acceptance of Marxism and proletarian aims, and they tried to put their aims into practice. For them, Marxism-Leninism was an instruction to revolt and a means of ending the existing crisis and putting an end to the rift between theory and revolutionary practice. Therefore, with regards to the question of founding the party they didn't become confused and passive. They rapidly corrected their mistakes and concluded that there was a long way to go in order to found a working class party: The solution which they produced to achieve revolutionary intervention in a revolutionary struggle, was to unite the military and political activities.
On the verge of the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Organisation of Fedaian (Minority) (http://www.geocities.com/~fedaian/english/25years/text.html)