Devotion and resistance: Bizhan Jazani and the Iranian Fedaii
Historian Doug Enaa Greene's lecture on the Iranian Marxist theorist Bizhan Jazani, presented to the Center for Marxist Education see https://www.facebook.com/CenterForMarxistEducation
By Doug Enaa Greene
April 30, 2015 -- Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal -- The popular image of the Iranian Revolution in the United States focuses on a series of stereotypical bearded mullahs, an exotic and backward oriental society, and of course the seizure of the US embassy by frenzied masses. While it is true that the current government of Iran is a theocratic Islamic state that hijacked the revolution that brought down the US-backed Shah. There is another story, of brave and dedicated communist revolutionaries who sought the liberation of their people from capitalism, imperialism and the establishment of a revolutionary socialist state. Communists like the brilliant Bizhan Jazani, who thought seriously and sincerely about how to make a revolution in Iran.
Jazani, like so many of his generation was willing to go the distance for the communist cause, paying the ultimate price in the end. It is true they did not succeed, both due to their own errors and to those they had no control over. Despite that, they and not the clerics of Iran, deserve to be honoured, warts and all. This is the story of struggle they endured and the revolution they dreamed of.
I. The coup
Bizhan Jazani was born in 1937 into a political family, his father was a member of the Tudeh (or Communist) Party of Iran and at the age of 10, he joined the party's youth wing. As he grew older, Jazani displayed a keen philosophical mind, which would lead him to take a degree in the subject. He also showed a greater knowledge of Iranian history and a keen independent and non-dogmatic spirit in his approach to revolution. Although Jazani would always remain a Marxist-Leninist, he ultimately believed that the Tudeh Party was not the appropriate vehicle to carry out a revolution. Like many of his radical contemporaries, Jazani broke with the party and tried to forge a new communist path.
Jazani's break with the Tudeh can be traced to the party's response to the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh. Key to understanding these events is the role of oil.
Although the oil industry produced a great deal of wealth, the profits mainly swelled the coffers of British oil companies, and almost none of this went to the Iranian government or to the workers, whose strikes were brutally suppressed. The country remained subservient and dependent on imperialism and most of the countryside was governed by feudal property relations. There was some development of Iranian infrastructure and industry under the monarchy. Following World War II, the Shah was driven from power and there was an opening for change.
In 1951, Mossadegh and his National Front came to power, promising to
nationalise the oil industry and to break the chains of imperialist dependency.
There was a massive swell of nationalist support for the National Front's
program, not only among the national bourgeois, but from the working class and
the Tudeh. The working class pressed for even more political and economic
changes than the government was willing to deliver, and began strikes and
demonstrations. The Tudeh, a critical supporter of the government, was also
tied to the Soviet Union, who did not want to destabilise a friendly Iran,
feared an independent mass movement and worked to defuse the developing radical
Yet the opposition among the comprador bourgeois, the throne, Britain
and the USA were determined to bring down the National Front. In 1953, they
staged a successful coup that restored the Shah to his throne and the oil
company to British and American companies. The Tudeh was unable to prevent the
coup for a multitude of reasons: its dependence on the USSR, lack of initiative
among its leaders, factionalism and a complete failure to use its members organised in the armed forces. In the
aftermath, the Tudeh was hit hard by repression and many of its members
heroically resisted. Overall though, the Tudeh had given up the struggle
without ever engaging in battle.
The new regime of the Shah was completely subordinate to US imperialist interests in the region. A ruthless dictatorship was established, benefitting primarily the throne and a small comprador bourgeoisie who kept the country in a state of dependency and misery. The Shah created his notorious secret police force, the SAVAK, which jailed, tortured and murdered thousands. The primary victims of the Shah's repression fell on its secular opponents: nationalists and communists.
Yet opposition remained and it exploded into the open in 1963 when mass
demonstrations erupted against the Shah's arrest of the outspoken Ayatollah
Khomeini. These demonstrations were quickly suppressed by the army. Repression
was stepped up by the Shah and the last legal openings for dissent were closed.
The Tudeh failed to organise during these protests. This event had a profound
effect on Jazani and his co-thinkers, producing a major change in their
tactics. They were also influenced by their readings on the revolutions in
Algeria, Vietnam, China and Cuba and they concluded that armed struggle was the
only way forward.
II. The self-sacrificers
For the next several years, Jazani and his comrades prepared for the task
ahead, organising cells and demonstrations against the regime. However, Jazani
had little experience in underground activity or armed action, and in February
1968 he was captured by SAVAK and imprisoned. Along with Jazani, most of the
leading members of his group were also arrested. Yet a few of them managed to
escape the police dragnet, and they continued the task of organising. Two
members managed to leave Iran for Lebanon, where they joined the Palestinian
liberation movement to receive training and arms. Other comrades remained in
Iran, to reorganise and recruit new members and prepare for the initiation of
armed action in both the cities and the countryside.
In 1970, the remnants of Jazani's organisation made contact with another group
of Marxists led by Mas'ud Ahmsdzaeh-heravi and Amir Parviz Pouyan. These
activists were younger, from religious backgrounds, less experienced and little
exposed to Marxist theory (although showing an affinity for Maoism). Initially,
this group organised cells in the universities and developed links with other
revolutionary intellectuals, such as Behrouz Dehqani (who was later savagely
tortured and killed by SAVAK, without revealing any names). Between 1968 and
1971, the group developed its own agrarian reform program and theory of urban
guerrilla warfare influenced by Carlos Marighela, Regis Debray and Che Guevara.
In February 1971, the armed struggle officially began with an attack on the northern police outpost of Siyahkal. Twelve guerrillas made up the strike force that launched this bold operation. The attack was a military defeat with most of the guerrillas either captured or killed. Yet it was a political and moral victory, sparking other groups, both Marxist and Islamic, to take up the gun, frightening the Shah and showing that his rule would not go unchallenged. Two months later, the initiators of the armed struggle formed a revolutionary communist group known as the Organisation of Iranian People's Fedaii Guerrillas. Before discussing some of the political line struggles of the Fedaii, we should state that they lived up to the name “Fedaii”, which means self-sacrifice. For the next eight years, the Fedaii would be in the hills and the cities, fighting the armed forces of the Shah guns in hand.
There were two major political lines in the Fedaii, that of
Pouyan/Masoud Ahmadzadeh and the other of Jazani. Pouyan and Ahmadzadeh
elaborated their position in a number of works. Their ideas were very simple --
the repression of the Shah's regime had lulled the masses into a state of
apathy which made it impossible for the Fedaii to establish firm links with the
working class. They argued in opposition to the Tudeh Party, who believed that
a passive theory of survival whereby radicals needed to hold their organisation
together, press for small reforms and wait for better days when political
struggle could be conducted. They summed up the Tudeh's position as defeatist
and reformist: “What we do is to adopt a number of reformist measures, gather
strength, ask the regime to speed up its ‘positive’ steps and to try and force
it into some tactical concessions, the main task is not the overthrow of the ‘Shah's
Dictatorship’ and replacement with a ‘people's dictatorship’, but is to ask for
the gradual change of the ‘Shah's dictatorship’ into the 'Shah's democracy.'”
argued that the passivity of the masses could be shattered by the revolutionary
armed struggle, leading to the establishment of a vanguard organisation of the
working class. Ahmadzadeh
elaborated on this thesis, adopting a focoist
theory of armed struggle, whereby a small motor of guerrillas could ignite the
larger motor of the workers.
Pouyan's faction also had its own socioeconomic analysis of Iranian society.
For instance, they believed that Iran was a dependent capitalist society with a
comprador bourgeois tied to imperialism and that the reforms of the Shah's
“White Revolution” (discussed below) were reactionary, heightening class
contradictions rather than mitigating them – and this created an objectively
revolutionary situation. To them, the main blow of revolutionaries needed to be
struck against imperialism, the state was secondary. Thus, due to the nascent
revolutionary situation, a consistent armed struggle would produce a
spontaneous mass revolt. This theory, which did not have the desired results,
was dominant in the Fedaii until 1976, when it was finally abandoned for the
ideas of Jazani.
Jazani's ideas were elaborated by him in a number of works written in prison, Armed
Struggle in Iran and a collection of writings entitled Capitalism and
Revolution in Iran. Despite the harsh conditions of prison, Jazani was able
to write on a number of issues, such as land reform, dependency theory,
vanguard organisation and military tactics. He also was perhaps alone among
Marxists in understanding the popularity of Ayatollah Khomeini.
Although Jazani was a firm advocate of armed struggle, he argued that the Fedaii needed to put the political aspect first and attempt to create links among the working class. This was essential for victory, as he said, "The vanguard is not able to organise the masses for the revolutionary cause if it is not itself the flaring torch and symbol of devotion and resistance." Jazani acknowledged that the Shah's White Revolution had produced major changes in Iran, but believed that the land reform had eased class conflict in the countryside, meaning that a revolutionary situation did not necessarily exist.
Jazani argued that the armed struggle needed to reflect this, by dividing into two stages. During stage one or the armed propaganda stage, revolutionaries would rise up, strike the dictatorship, organise a vanguard and rally other forces to their banner. Actions would be largely propagandistic – militarily preparing the vanguard and politically preparing the people. Yet he recognised the limits to this, saying: "To put too much value on sensational tactics, and to pay no attention to tactics that can excite the physical support of the masses for the movement, can alienate the former from the latter and ultimately defeat the movement."
In stage two, a mass people's army would be formed. This
meant developing the second leg of the movement, or giving more weight to a
political movement among the workers and non-military agitation among the
people. It was his belief that the revolution would be led by communists and
workers, but as part of a larger alliance of classes, since the working class
was too small. Jazani did not believe that the national bourgeoisie was strong
enough to lead the revolution and that, while the proletariat may ally with
them, communist forces should neither surrender political independence or
leadership to them. After victory, Iran would have to pass through a people's
democratic stage before passing onto socialism. Under a people's democracy,
Iran would carry out reforms of a bourgeois and socialist nature, shattering dependency
on imperialism before moving onto socialism.
It is also significant to note that Jazani also criticised the Tudeh
Party and its subservience on the Soviet Union, believing that this was
detrimental to the revolutionary movement in Iran. He said, “the Soviets and
other powers and world movements have ignored the interests of our movement and
have coordinated their relations with Iran according to their own needs.”
While the majority of the Fedaii had a positive view of the USSR under Stalin,
but a negative one of the post-Stalin era, Jazani was critical of both. By the
1960s, the USSR had developed friendly relations with the Shah, which put the
Tudeh in a difficult position. China also developed close relations with the
Shah in the 1970s. The Fedaii did have strong Maoist sympathies, although it
was more Guevarist, and maintained independence from both the USSR and China.
Although Jazani's line was eventually adopted by the Fedaii in 1976, too late
perhaps, as a revolutionary situation was maturing, he did not live to see it.
On April 18, 1975, Jazani, who was still in prison, was assassinated along with
six other comrades by SAVAK. During his time in prison, he had not only written
extensively for the revolution, but practiced painting and organised resistance
among his fellow inmates. With his death, arguably Iran lost one of its finest
revolutionary minds and most dedicated communists.
While the debates on the strategic line of Fedaii were hashed out, the
war against the regime raged on. During the guerrilla war, the Fedaii lost 172
members, launched nearly 2200 operations -- attacking police and army barracks,
banks, informers, foreign diplomats and industrialists. Yet the army and the
secret police were able to infiltrate the Fedaii and managed to kill or
imprison nearly all of its founding members by 1975. The war produced a stalemate
and led to fissures among the Fedaii with a change in line in 1976 and a
Yet the Fedaii had blazed a trail of heroism and sacrifice for the
revolution in Iran. The organisation managed to attract significant prestige
among intellectuals, students and workers, emerging as the largest Marxist
organisation following the revolution in 1979. Even its adversary, the Shah,
was forced to pay homage to the Fedaii, saying: “The determination with which
they fight is quite unbelievable. Even the women keep battling to their very
last gasp. The men carry cyanide tablets in their mouths and commit suicide
rather than face capture.”
III. The White Revolution
During the 1960s and 1970s, vast changes came across Iran as the Shah, with the full support of his backers in Washington, began a revolution from above financed by an oil boom known as the White Revolution – modernising, building industry and infrastructure. He nationalised forests, introduced profit sharing for workers, privatised state industry and extended the vote for women. Vast government expenditures were spent on health care and education.
At the same time, a land reform was implemented, changing the class
structure of the countryside, eliminating much of the old feudal landowning class.
There was a vast movement of people to the cities, from 1966 to 1976, the
population in the countryside went down from 62 per cent to less than 50 per
cent. Many of these city-bound peasants joined the semi-employed working class
(which was also rapidly growing).
There was major growth in not just the comprador sections of the bourgeois tied to the Shah and US imperialism, but to the national bourgeois of bazaar merchants, shopkeepers, clergy and entrepreneurs. Many of these sectors were profoundly religious, building mosques during the period of expansion and helping to extend the influence of the clergy to the rural population.
The religious sections of national bourgeois resented the westernising
influences of the Shah, along with his economic dependency on imperialism. They
rallied more and more around the popular exiled religious figure, Ayatollah
Khomeini. with most avenues of protest closed off, people linked up with the
Islamic opposition. Khomeini had a broad appeal to the impoverished masses, conservatives,
rural poor and the national bourgeois, promising an eclectic mix of social
justice, patriarchy and theocracy.
On the surface, the Shah appeared to be liberalising, he built up an
enormous military and secret police force, along with running a notoriously
corrupt regime. To solidify his control, he placed restrictions on the
merchants, created a one-party state and subjected the clergy to state
supervision. The Shah's actions provoked resistance and he responded with
brutal repression. By 1975, the oil boom had ended and Iran was hit with
inflation, hunger, unemployment and falling revenues which hit all sectors of
the population from the workers to the bourgeois.
In 1977, open struggle began in the cities, continuing and growing rapidly through 1979. Massive strikes rocked Iran, leading to workers’ demonstrations reminiscent of Petrograd in 1917. Attempts at repression were met with blatant defiance. Strikes ripped through industry after industry. Military rule was instituted, but to no avail, as the army's loyalty began to evaporate.
In January 1979, the Shah was forced to leave Iran. And in the end, it
was the workers and peasants, the ordinary people in the streets of Iran, who
brought down the Shah.
In these final days of the Shah's rule, the Fedaii, emerged from the countryside during the tail end of the revolution. There were still armed forces in Tehran, loyal to the Shah, who refused to stand down and hoped for a last minute coup. The Fedaii and the armed people went into battle, successfully seizing armories and barracks, and distributed their captured arms to the masses.
After the revolution, it was unclear who would rule Iran. There were the
secular liberals from the Mossadeq era. The Tudeh still had prestige. The popular Khomeini
returned from exile. Workers were forming their own councils. And there was of
course, the Fedaii.
IV. The revolution hijacked
It is beyond the scope of this essay to give a full accounting of the Iranian
Revolution, but a few words must be said. After the overthrow of the Shah,
Ayatollah Khomeini was victorious. He was able to unite behind him the national
bourgeoisie with his defence of Iran's industry; gullible sections of the left
with his fierce opposition to US imperialism; conservatives and clergy with his
opposition to secularism and the revolutionary left; the masses with his
promise of freeing them from dependent capitalism and Islamic promises of
social justice. By the early 1980s, Khomeini established a theocratic national bourgeois
regime independent of the USA, but maintained by terror, that suppressed national
minorities and the left.
Following the revolution, the Fedaii were the largest left current with support in the universities and sections of the working class. Its popularity was clear in demonstrations where it could gather up to half a million supporters. Its program was in opposition to a national bourgeois regime and in favour of people's democracy and socialism. Yet they made a number of key tactical errors that prevented it seizing the opportunities opened by the revolution.
For one, the Fedaii maintained an ambivalent attitude toward the shoras, which were Iranian workers' councils that had spread across the country in the aftermath of the revolution. The shoras represented the potential power of the working class, which could have been harnessed and centralised by a vanguard party to push the revolution in a radical direction. While the Fedaii did not dismiss the shoras the way the Tudeh did, they looked at them mainly as recruiting grounds for their organisation and ignored the potential of proletarian power they represented. Splits within the left and a coordinated assault by the Islamic Republic on the councils and the workers' movement meant that the shoras were effectively brought to heel within a few years.
Part of the reason that some of the Fedaii and most of the wider left
did not wholeheartedly support the shoras was because they genuinely believed
that Khomeini was a progressive anti-imperialist. Therefore, any workers’
demands that threatened Khomeini or the “progressive” national bourgeoisie were
opposed by wide sections of the left, especially the Tudeh. The Tudeh, was
second to none in wanting to strip the shoras of any revolutionary content and
make them strictly trade union bodies in support of the Islamic Republic.
The Tudeh position toward the Islamic Republic was outlined by its
general secretary Kianouri as follows: "We have
criticised the establishment. We have made criticism over the position of
liberty in the state and about the rights of women. We have criticised Islamic
fanaticism -- we are against the non-progressive ideas of these conservative
elements. But for us, the positive side of Ayatollah Khomeini is so important
that the negative side means nothing. We think he is an obstacle to fanaticism:
he is more progressive than other elements."
Following the revolution, the Fedaii also split over whether to support the
A majority faction of the Fedaii, closely allied with the Tudeh, came out with its
own position of critical support for the “anti-imperialist” Islamic Republic.
However, a minority of the Fedaii saved the honour of Marxism in Iran by
opposing the Islamic Republic.
What followed the split in the Fedaii was one of the
most shameful episodes in the history of the left. The Tudeh and the Fedaii
Majority condemned the Fedaii Minority as counterrevolutionary and openly
collaborated with the Islamic Republic by handing over inside information on
the minority such as the names of members which led to the arrest and execution
of their members. Such a “generous service” provided by the Tudeh and the
Fedaii Majority to the Islamic Republic did not stop their own suppression by
1983. A further humiliation was inflicted on the Tudeh when its leaders were
forced to confess to heinous crimes during public show trials.
The Fedaii Minority and the Kurdish left found they had to take to the hills
once again to fight the Islamic Republic. Yet divisions in their ranks and the
repressive force of the state prevented them from being able to mount a lasting
A moving story of communist opposition was also provided by the Maoist Communist
Party of Iran (Sarbedaran, which literally means “those who are about to be
hanged”) which launched an armed campaign on the city of Amol in 1982, and this
bold move resulted in the capture and execution of at least 250 militants.
In the late 1980s, the prisons of Iran that were filled with socialists and communists
were emptied in a mass execution of thousands. Despite the ferocious repression,
this was not the end of the left in Iran. Small remnants of the Fedaii and
other groups remain in exile. And though it is illegal to be a Marxist in Iran,
there are still underground worker and socialist groups.
V. Lucha continua
So in lieu of a conclusion, since the struggle in Iran is ongoing, I would like to say that people like Bizhan Jazani, the Fedaii guerrillas and thousands of socialists, communists and thousands of revolutionary workers fought and died for a socialist revolution in Iran. It is true that they made many mistakes, some of them dishonourable and unforgivable, but so many of them gave all they had for a noble cause.
These are the true heroes of the Iranian Revolution, not the religious reactionaries who hijacked their revolution and had them murdered.
For Jazani's background see Mazaiar Behrooz, Rebels With a Cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2000), 53-4 and Bizhan Jazani, Capitalism and Revolution in Iran (London: Zed Books, 1980), i-iii.
For Jazani's own analysis of the development under the Shah see 1980, 11-19.
For the Soviet position on Iran and its relation with the Tudeh see Behrooz 2000, 9-10, 22-5.
For background on the 1953 coup see William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Monroe: Common Courage, 2004), 64-71; Jazani's own view on the coup and the role of the Tudeh can be found in 1980, 19-33; Behrooz 2000, 1-25.
For the impact of the 1963 protests on the clerics see Jazani 1980, 62-4 and for the effect on the left see Behrooz 2000, 35-6 and 43.
The information for this section is drawn primarily from Behrooz 2000, 43-94. See also Ervand Abrahamian, “The Guerrilla Movement in Iran, 1963-1977,” MERIP Reports, No. 86, The Left Forces in Iran (Mar. - Apr., 1980): 3-15.
Quoted in Behrooz 2000, 56.
Pouyan's views are elaborated indepth in “The Necessity of Armed Struggle and Refutation of the Theory of "Survival," Urban Guerrilla. http://urbanguerilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/pouyan.pdf
Ahmadzadeh's view's on armed struggle and Iranian society can be found in “Armed Struggle; both a Strategy and a Tactic,” The Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas. http://www.siahkal.com/english/Massoud.htm
Quoted in Behrooz 2000, 48.
See Bizhan Jazani, “Armed Struggle in Iran” in Walter Laqueur, ed. Voices of Terror: Manifestos, Writings and Manuals of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Other Terrorists from Around the World Through the Ages (New York: Reed Press, 2004), 158.
Jazani's strategy is elaborated in 1980 “Dependent Capitalism” 114-122 and “The Revolutionary Forces” 123-44.
Quoted in Behrooz 2000, 61.
Quoted in Behrooz 2000, 50.
The information in this section is drawn mainly from Henry Heller, The Cold War and the New Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review, 2006), 220-4; Maryam Poya “Iran 1979” in Colin Barker, Revolutionary Rehearsals (Chicago: Haymarket, 2002), 123-41; Jazani “Dependent Capitalism” 1980, 70-110; Andreas Malm and Shora Esmailan, Iran on the Brink: Rising Workers and Threats of War (London: Pluto Books, 2007), 8-12, 16-39; Behrooz 2000, 95-134.
For the Fedaii's role in the revolution see Behrooz 2000, 68.
Malm and Esmailan 2002, 17 and
For more background on the left and the shoras see Malm and
Esmailan 2002, 13-5, 17-8, 2-3, 25; Poya 2002, 143-162;
Assef Bayat, “Workers' Control after the Revolution,” MERIP Reports, No. 113, (Mar. - Apr., 1983), pp. 19-23, 33-34; Chris Goodey, “Workers' Councils in Iranian Factories Author,” MERIP Reports, No. 88 (Jun., 1980): 5-9.
Quoted in Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), 121.
One position that sharply divided the left was over conservative views towards the women's movement. See Hammed Shahidian, “The Iranian Left and the "Woman Question" in the Revolution of 1978-79, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1994): 225-41.
Behrooz 2000, 124-30.
Malm and Esmailan 2002 38
For the Maoists see Behrooz 2000, 133 and Union of Iranian Communists, "Defeated Armies Learn Well — Summation from them Union of Iranian Communists (Sarbedaran),” A World to Win 4 (1985): 45-65.