Interview with a revolutionary Marxist participated the last struggle in Iran

We present an interview that was made with a revolutionary Marxist who was an active participant of the last struggle wave in Iran.

The new century, just as the previous one is an era of wars and revolutions. Capitalism is going through a severe crisis and there are many conflicts and wars. While there are ethnic conflict, imperialistic intervention and wars, the struggle for freedom and equality by the proletarians continues. Through out the world from Nepal to Iran this wave of struggle with the bourgeoisie system continues however in all instances there is a problem of leadership. All experiences of struggle points out the need for a world communist party.

Iran with its revolutionary traditions, political youth is an important area for all the revolutionists. But for us, the Turkish and Kurdish communists the struggle in Iran is more illuminating as the possible refractions and revolutionary movements in Iran could be a signal for a greater movement in the Middle-East. Moreover the geographical and cultural proximity with Iran facilitates the formation of possible bonds within the revolutionary movements. As an example of such a bond, we met with an Iranian revolutionary Marxist comrade Anahitta Hosseini, while we were on a campaign for the Workers Way newspaper in Ankara. Comrade Anahitta later told us that she came near to us as soon as she saw our red flag. Anahitta is an active participant of a socialist student organization in one of the universities in Tehran. She took part in the last movement and lastly participated in the protest in which a woman is killed in front of the cameras. In an environment where many of her friends were arrested, Anahitta was obliged to leave Iran for some time. We think it would be valuable for the Turkish proletarians and young people to read an interview that was made with a Iranian Revolutionist who has a deep knowledge and experience on the last events.

----------

Permanent Revolution Movement: In the beginning of the interview we want to indicate that we respectfully commemorate countless honorable martyrs who have fallen in the struggle of Iranian youth and working class for freedom and equality. Their memory survives in our permanent revolution struggle.

While the big protests which have started after cheating in election are discussed widely all around the world, the question was who these protesters are and what their purpose is. It was widely claimed that protesters are well-of middle classers, so that now everybody knows that north of Tehran is a region where middle classers live intensely. Denoting this point, bourgeois mass media tried to represent these demonstrations as a so called “colored revolution”. Based on the same point, some Stalinist petty bourgeois groups blamed demonstrators to be supporters of colored revolution, since they assume Ahmedinejad to be anti-imperialist and progressive. One example of this is Chavez, who declared full support to Chavez. What do you think about this issue? Where do working class and poor people stand in protests? For example, we have heard that bus drivers' union has been actively supported the protests and made support strikes.

Anahitta: Actually, there is no colored revolution on the scene in Iran. Iran should not be confused with former East-Block countries. Both structure and tradition of Iranian state and ideology of protesters are different than the way in colored revolutions. First, Iranian people have bitterly witnessed the massacre done by USA in Iraq. On the other hand, people like Musavi and Khatami are a part of Mullah Regime in Iran. Maybe this simile was because Musavi used green in election campaign, but unknown point is, every four candidates have chosen and symbolized a color in election, e.g. Ahmedinejad used red and Rızai used blue. Ahmedinejad and Hamaney blamed USA and Britain as defensive reflex and tried to dodge the events. It was very clear what they were trying to do. Anyway one can understand if he tries to.

Western mass media denoted that Ahmedinejad is mostly voted by poor people. That's not really true. It is sure that Ahmedinejad widely supported by peasants, which form one third of the population, because the demand for change rises from cities in Iran, similar to most cases in history. Villages are still influenced by conservatism. Moreover, Ahmedinejad has had some populist practices for peasants like agricultural support. This was effective for Ahmedinejad to be supported among peasants. But in the case of poor people in cities, Ahmedinejad mostly lost his support among these people; Because Ahmedinejad competed with Rafsancani in last election. Rafsancani is the richest person in Iran explicitly known as a thief. This was an important reason for poor people to support Ahmedinejad in last election. But Musavi has the image of an honest politician by his personality and assets. If there was no cheating in election, ıt would be seen that Ahmedinejad's votes much decreased in south of Tehran.

About the class composition of demonstrations; naturally we can not claim recent events to be a working class movement. Likewise, it would be wrong to consider these events as an act of rich Iranians. Actually “people” can stand for a true definition for protesters. Not only northern part but all possible streets of Tehran were demonstration areas. Conversely, the northern part was the first area stopped demonstrating when attitude of security forces became harsh. Attendees were generally from youth. In Iran, students have an important weight in social opposition. And socialist succeeded in becoming an explicit tendency in student opposition. The union named “ Şirkete Vahed ” is a respected and opponent union. They also supported demonstrations. Further more Khodre automotive workers have shown explicit support. But the strike attempts were limited to individual attempts. Workers in opposition thought they can not stop functioning of a whole company and individually unattended the work on the days of call for strike. Of course this is not an effective method of struggle. Basic problem of working class is to be unorganized. There is no organization they can trust in. Unfortunately we have a great problem of vanguard organization and workers are negatively affected by this situation.

About Chavez; Chavez puts on Basij uniforms when he comes to Iran. He completely lost his prestige among Iranian leftists. There is a great anger in Iran against oppressive structure of Mullah Regime. It is clear: Leftist tradition and memories are still vivid and a new generation of socialist youth is growing in Iran. Our aim is to take the movement to an anticapitalist direction and make working class get into a revolutionary breakthrough. Our abilities and efforts will determine the result.

Permanent Revolution Movement: A photo that we also used in our website has become popular all around the world. In the photo a middle ager man who has a green stripe was showing his tattoo of Che Guevara and star to the photographers. Does this mean that socialists or socialist ideas have an explicit effect on protests or is this man just an exceptional personality?

Anahitta: No, this man is not an exception. Despite being minority, there were socialists or people influenced by socialist ideas in protests. But this is clear and explicit: will for change, will to get rid of oppressions of Mullah Regime is quite common. Masses are much more radical than Musavi. They can not limit themselves to Musavi's stance. On the other hand, the movement has no certain program. Reformist expectations are quite common. But socialists can ignore the protests blaming people for not having socialist aims. Socialists have to be interpreters of the way freedom can be achieved.

Permanent Revolution Movement: This year is the 30th anniversary of revolution in Iran. It has been known that Iranian leftists were very effective on overthrow of the Shah and they supported Khomeini as a dramatic mistake. However, general public opinion is restricted with this information only. Could you please give us some information about Iranian left at the present and in the past to better understand class struggle in Iran? What did they do in the past and what did they leave behind to effect today? What were the roles of left groups such as Tudeh, Fedaians, Mujahedins in this process and what are their status today? How did Worker-Communist Part of Iran arise, which Turkish public opinion is not much aware of, but which we know that it was the most effective organization after Khomeini period? What were its roles? What are they doing today?

Anahitta: We should first state that Mujahedins are not considered to be leftists in Iran. This movement was named as Islamic left at 70s, but today it is perceived as an organization that has Islamic sides on dominance, that is why they are not liked by Iranian leftists. They are also not liked by Iranian public because of their position in Iran-Iraq war, supporting Iraq. To explain better, we can co-operate with social democrats for an activity but we definitely do not co-operate with Mujahedins.

If we talk about Iran left, its origin is far about 100 years corresponding to the period of Constitutional Reform in Iran. However, the first significant party is Tudeh, which also carries aristocratic components in it. It is an organization that follows SSCB-Moscow supporting politics. It was a very effective part at 1940s. It had many members; what is more, it managed a wider state of organizing people in military than one can guess. They could have established revolution if they wanted. They had the power to prevent the coup against Mosaddeq at 1953. However, the leadership of Tudeh did not take any action and stayed silent. Commitment to Two Stage Theory on revolutionary program was chaining Iranian revolutionaries, such as defining democratic or anti-imperialist struggle as a first stage. Of course, we cannot analyze Tudeh as a separate organization from SSCB. At those times, before 50s, there were not any phobia of communism, thus a strong organization was created. Conditions were suitable for everything, but Tudeh prepared its own end by not coming up against the coup and it could not regain its power. In contrast to betraying leaders who were killed by Shah's regime and revealed party secrets, many members of Tudeh such as Armenian revolutionary Vartan Salahanyan are still remembered with respect.

It is impossible to call what Tudeh did after overthrow of the Shah rather than betrayal. Almost all parts of Iranian left supported Khomeini, but none of them was as submissive and kowtowing as Tudeh. For instance, Tudeh was the one that suggested the idea of founding Sepah, which is the biggest executioner of today's regime. Furthermore, Tudeh was the one that denounced the members of groups that were struggling against Khomeini to the executioners of Khomeini. Today, all these facts are known by all leftists. Tudeh can more be considered to be a social democrat party today.

Permanent Revolution Movement: It is better to more deeply understand this situation. After overthrow of the Shah, all leftists supported Khomeini. Betrayals of Tudeh are really striking and their turns also came. How could this have been possible?

Anahitta: The power that was struggling and being repressed in the Shah's period was revolutionaries. They were bringing anti-imperialist struggle forward as a main matter. The idea of a socialist revolution in Iran was even not mentioned. Independence and democracy was main lines of struggle. When Khomeini came to Iran by indirect supports of the West and SSCB, leftists accepted Khomeini as an anti-imperialist progressive person and supported him. It is sad but true. Anyway Khomeini could not have targeted leftists when he first came. In his early times, he was giving a pluralistic atmosphere impression; and this embittered the illusions. In fact, Khomeini was not in a state to attack leftists immediately, but he did not hesitate to execute attack when conditions became suitable. Other leftist groups did struggle against Khomeini even it was too late, but Tudeh just betrayed. It was really disgraceful.

Permanent Revolution Movement: Let us continue with the other leftist groups.

Anahitta: After 1982, Islamic regime started slaughtering the leftists. Although the first destroying campaigns against Mujahedin were encountered to resistance, the time was too late to do anything. If we look into the Fedaians, it is a group that has a tradition of armed struggle. They have many martyrs in the armed struggle against the Shah's regime. Also today, Fedaians are widely respected. Their comrades are known to be ethical, responsible and honest. After the revolution, they were separated into many fractions: Fedaian Minority, Fedaian Majority, Dehgani group etc. The Dehgani group was a guerrilla group which fought in Palestine. However, the Majority group is establishing relations with Tudeh and their names are remembered to gather.

After revolution, an organization was founded called Worker's Road. The roots of today's Worker-Communist Party of Iran end up with this organization; and the followers of Mansour Hekmat came from that group, too. Mansour Hekmat, being as a long-haired, guitar player student, lived in the USA during the revolution, and then became a Marxist. His theoretical workings made this group gain power in Iran and cause the failure of other groups at the same time. Supporters of him are called to be Hekmatists.

Permanent Revolution Movement: What is the state of the left in Iran? What do you think about the organizations' perspectives, programs and ways to place themselves?

Anahitta: There are many leftist groups in Iran containing Revolutionary Marxists, Maoists, Fedaians, Tudeh and youth organizations; but most of the leaders are in Europe, especially in Germany, England and Finland. Left had a significant improvement with the movement that started 6 years ago. Before that, there was not any concrete action for struggle and
opposition. Khatami period was a bit more permissive, so left had a chance to develop. Of course Khatami had to be permissive because it needed to satisfy a social demand, and establish some changes even if just a bit. Today, we can say that, class conscious is rising, conflicts are being revealed and awareness is increasing.

Permanent Revolution Movement: We define Mansour Hekmat to be a centralist. What are his theoretical remarks?

Anahitta: He is defending theories of socialism in one country and permanent revolution at the same time. He has a populist method. He is very straight on some issues, for example he does not defend Stalin. He defends rightness of Lenin and Trotsky on what had been experienced in Kronstadt. However, he freakishly claims that Iran can become the only communist country in the world. Another important subject is that he flouts conventional practices of Iran left and declares his style of leftism to be modern. After what he has done in the name of being modern, other leftists in Iran began to think that Hekmatists weaken Iran left. The view of Hekmat on Israel is also very unlikable. He defends Israel state to take an internationalist stand against Jewish hatred which is one of the major areas that serve for Iranian Molla regime to define and legalize itself. His respect for liberalism, his insulations and disrespectful behaviors towards past revolutionaries in the name of being modern are examples to be counted about Hekmat. Today, Worker-Communist Party of Iran is fractionized into three parts: HKK, HKK/Hekmatist and Union of Communists. HKK and HKK/Hekmatist have broadcasting channels in Europe. HKK broadcasts 24 hours a day and is financially supported by Israel. They defend the idea that attracting attention on their channel is really important and to do that they can put entertaining programs on broadcast, even including porn shows. HKK/Hekmatist fraction broadcasts one hour a day and they fill this time with intensive propaganda. There are differences also in arguments that they support. HKK/Hekmatist defends the need for a democratic revolution phase whereas HKK emphasizes the must to establish socialist revolution directly.

Permanent Revolution Movement: How is the latest state of the other groups?

Anahitta: Fedaian Majority group defines itself as social democrat and, as I expressed, they are being mentioned together with Tudeh. Fedaian Minority contains respected, nostalgic young people who are not developed in theory, but active in practice. The remnants of Tudeh, predominantly elderly, can be evaluated as social democrats and nationalists.

There is also a group called as Iraj Azarin. It is like a movement, not a party and generally includes lots of people defining themselves as “Marxist”, “leftist”. They are not very effective, but gaining significant influence inside the youth and recruiting new members. They both accept the heritage of Hekmat and criticize his concept of the party. Their growth results from the weakness of the Hekmatists. It is not wrong to say that Hekmatists will resolve soon. Within Trotskyist organizations, Iranian section of Militant has small number of members and works well. This group consists of reliable professional revolutionaries. This group has a group-centered understanding. It is well-organized, disciplinary organization. They support Maziar Razi. Although Razi is an important theoretician, he focuses not on Iranian issues, but international problems. That's why he cannot constitute strong connections with Iranian youth and students. Besides, there is a Trotskyist organization, considering illegality important and mostly organized in Iran Azerbaijan. It is not possible to give more information about them.

Permanent Revolution Movement: While thinking about Iranian left today, we emphasize the importance of the leadership problem.

Anahitta: I also think that one of the most important questions in Iran is the lack of a political organization that provides leadership for people. A non-secterian party, not caring about personal relationships can become centre of attraction with disciplinary practice. It is really hard to be a revolutionary in Iran. That's why, a leadership, trusted by people can lead the struggle and make difference. Although student movement and organization is very lively, the lack of leadership continues. The problem is certainly the problem of leadership.

Permanent Revolution Movement: What should we expect in Iran in the near future and medium term? Where will Iran go?

Anahitta: Demonstrations will not stop. They will continue through different ways and means. For instance, there will be demonstrations for the memories of the deaths according to Islamic tradition, after the first week and fortieth day of martyrs' deaths. This played a major role in the process of Shah's overthrown in 1970s. In Iran, everyone wants freedom. Mayday and 8 th of March, the world worker women's day, turned into traditional days for demonstrations in Iran. Especially, the leftists are very active in the strong demonstrations of the 8 th of March. Since the regime is very sensitive on woman problem, it is very aggressive. In Khatami's administration we were able to achieve these successes. The issue is not Ahmadinejad, Khatami or Musavi. Our strength is important. I want to emphasize that what achieved was not given by reformers, but taken by our struggle. The regime had to provide them to us, it was forced by us to do that. People will be different after the massacre and the events following the election. At the same time, the Islamic regime has never been so weak. In the debates on TV, the representatives of the regime insult to each other in front of the whole society. In the past it was not unlikely to occur. In the demonstrations, people with reformist ideas radicalized. Workers, youth and women necessitate an organization they can trust. This is the main point.

Permanent Revolution Movement: The Persepolis film, especially in political circles, had a considerable interest in Turkey. It enlightened what happened in Iran. Did the film have implications on Iranian workers and youth? How do you evaluate the film?

Anahitta: Persepolis was very realistic and emotional. Iranians, including me, liked this film very much. Of course as you know, it is not possible to watch the film in the cinemas like in Turkey. However, it was watched and liked by large extent of people. The success of the film depends on the representation of the reality in an intimate way. For instance, Iran-Iraq war, remembered by us as childhood memory, is shown skillfully. Again, the film displays successfully how Iranian immigrants perceive West and what kind of problems they face with. Moreover, the oppression of women under the Islamic regime in Iran is presented in a realistic way.

Permanent Revolution Movement: In the second half of the film, we expect that hero would politicize and become revolutionary in the way of her uncle. However, this would be surrealistic.

Anahitta: Not becoming revolutionary for the film's hero was very normal. The hero represents a generation that is 10 years older than us. At that time, something different than this was not realistic in Iran. If the story was formed as you expected, scenario would have to break with reality that would be in the contradiction with the spirit of the film.

Permanent Revolution Movement: Our final question is related to the new generation. A student organization with socialist slogans in Tehran University had appeared 6 years ago for the first time. It is seen that since then you developed considerably. Now you are in the period of oppression. Many comrades have been arrested; most of the people released had to go abroad. Did socialist students and generally Marxist culture root inside the Iranian youth and students? Will the new generations politicize and collect themselves under the red flag of socialism?

Anahitta: Certainly, Marxism is rooted in Iranian youth. Already, there are socialist students active in demonstrations in Iran. Socialism for the youth opposition is first and foremost an alternative. Since this alternative achieves its reality, it will attract and gather new activists within Iranian youth under its flag. Moreover, as you know, Iran has thousands of martyrs. The memories of these thousands of martyrs have effect on young generations. Apart from this, there are different examples. There are also activists in socialist opposition with fathers who are ones of the most prominent figures in Islamic regime. That is, the opposition includes very different segments of the society.

Permanent Revolution Movement: Thank you.

Anahitta: I thank you.