Lessons of the revolution
Opinion
The basic cause of the defeat of the Iranian revolution was the absence of a revolutionary proletarian organisation with a revolutionary strategy and programme rooted in the vanguard layers. There was no revolutionary organisation of any significance which had a programme reflecting, albeit in a distorted way, the objective necessities of the Iranian revolution or providing a consistent and clear perspective for the revolutionary masses.
Such an organisation must exist before the revolutionary upheaval — it is extremely unlikely that it can come about in the course of the revolution itself.
This basic dilemma is even more acute in a country like Iran, where revolutionary periods are usually sandwiched in between long periods of severe repression in which mass organisations cannot develop This only increases the importance of a revolutionary organisation capable of offering a political and organisational lead to the masses.
In the years following the defeat of the Iranian revolution, there had been much discussion on the Iranian left, resulting in numerous splits and realignments. Yet there had been almost no real reassessment of the tradition with which the left operated through the 1970s and into the period of revolution. At best, there had been some rhetorical denunciation of 'Stalinism'. But there has been little understanding of Stalinism's class basis and its impact on the left world-wide.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of the Iranian left abandoned Marxism and adapted themselves to the bourgeoisie. Today, most of the Iranian left is either either attached to the old formulae or has gone to social democracy. The old ideas (Stalinism or reformism) dominate every area of theory.
During the 1979 revolution the strategies of the left, dictated by the Stalinist tradition, made it much easier for Khomeini to destroy the workers' movement and consequently the revolution itself. About half of the left supported the Khomeini regime because it was "anti-imperialist" - reflecting the Stalinists' obsessive search for "progressive" and "anti-imperialist" sections of the bourgeoisie and petit bour-
Today the tragedy is going to repeat itself in Iranians face one of the most repressive regimes in modern history. The struggle for democracy and political freedom should be at the top of the agenda of every political group and opposition current. Even the monarchists and the most rightist groups accept the need for a "democratic" transformation of Iran.
But Stalinist "stagist" theory contlates the struggle for civil rights and democracy with the "democratic revolution". But since there is no evident dynamic towards the formation of "democratic" sections of the bourgeoisie or petit bourgeoisie, Iranian Stalinists attribute this historic task to one of the factions within the regime.
In every revolutionary upsurges in Iran's modern history, the central political demands of the masses have always been around the questions of democratic rights. The 1979 revolution brought about many democratic rights, after struggles which have marked the country's 20th century history. It was a consummate sequel to the unfinished popular movements that had sporadically shaken the thrones of the Persian Shahs during the previous hundred years.
But all those gains were brutally suppressed in Khomeni's counter-revolution. Iranians today have no more democratic rights than their great grandparents in the late 19th century.
Iran *
The historical task of the Iranian revolution in democratising the state has been pushed back by a regime that - even in its demagogic "legal" expression - openly claims that all power rests with one man. The "Supreme leader" is completely outside all forms of control. He is chosen by the conservativedominated Assembly of Experts (a body whose members are appointed by the same Supreme leader). But even this Assembly is legally forbidden to criticise his actions. In practice, he is accountable to nobody. He controls the judiciary, the security and police forces, the army, radio and television.
Iran is supposedly a republic. But no representative body can make any decisions that contradict the wishes of the supreme leader. He decides who may become a candidate in an election, overrule the results of elections, change any social and political institution, and decide on the allocation of all social resources. The country is run by a clerical-capitalist dictatorship which claims to have unlimited, absolutist "divine" authority.
The only "rights" recognised by Iran's clerical rulers are complete subjugation of everything to the arbitrary rule of the mullahs. The "Islamic Republic" is so repressive that it intervenes even in the private lives of citizens. What the masses are allowed to believe, wear, eat or drink are all decided by the
International Viewpoint #316 November 1999 7