At
a time when stupidity and ignorance have been elevated to the norm,
when we are ruled by the country’s most incompetent and brazen
government, and when we hear from the collective mouthpiece of the
imperialist system, which calls itself “the media” and sometimes
pretends to engage in “journalism,” when basically anything goes, it is
not surprising that there may be some confusion. This is even though
all, or at least most, of the cards are already on the table, with
various beer-swilling journalists and genocide enthusiasts spewing their
reactionary guts and presenting it as “independent facts,” and we have a
situation where the thief ironically cries “catch the thief” and the
slaughterers from the ongoing genocide in Palestine suddenly play peace
doves and feel sorry for the “peaceful demonstrators who are to be
hanged in Iran.”
This
text aims to clarify the complex web of contradictions and intrigues
surrounding the current situation, which is obscured by the sudden
appearance of blood-stained Israeli flags at demonstrations around the
world and the US’s sudden desire for us to look at Greenland instead,
and to apply and explain two important themes. The first is a humble
attempt to analyze bureaucratic capitalism, its role and functioning,
and the second is the question of contradictions, specifically how the
main contradiction colors all other contradictions and how a shift in
this can occur, as well as the communists’ relationship to it. But this
article is primarily about Iran, so let us first go through what has
happened, though since the Persian Empire has a history stretching back
thousands of years, this should be done in a very concise manner.
However,
certain extensions to the basic theses are required, and for those who
cannot be bothered to read more than three lines, there is a summary and
a list of things to do at the end.
About the “peaceful demonstrations” that turned into bloody riots
Lenin
taught us, when he spoke of revolutionary situations, that revolutions
do not come about through speeches or resolutions, but because millions
of workers, rather than dying of starvation, choose to give their lives
for the revolution. People do not take to the streets because a failed
pretender to the throne says so in words; there is always more behind it
than that.
Human
thinking (consciousness) is a reflection of her accumulated experiences
(sensory impressions), which are then processed (thought) and colored
by other experiences (secondary knowledge such as books and TikTok)
according to her individual reasoning ability, which is partly shaped by
her biological capacity but primarily by material conditions. We are
thus all a product of our specific environment, and in a modern society
(which is collectively constituted, albeit privately owned today), we
are therefore a social product. This means that what drives us first and
foremost (apart from reflexes) is the brain, and all people have an
ideology (a collective worldview), even if they deny this by saying “I
don’t care about politics,” and this ideology is rarely expressed but is
objectively there. However, the ideological conception that most people
have is an unscientific ideology that originates from the ruling class,
which deliberately and systematically influences them. Common interests
hold groups together, and the most important of these is economic,
i.e., your position in social production; this is your class, for
example, the proletariat. Since the classes have different interests,
there is a constant conflict between them, both in the world of ideas
and in the daily struggle for economic demands (wages, working hours,
length of coffee breaks, rent, etc.), which is class struggle, and it is
this that flared up in Iran, mainly due to economic issues surrounding
the lack of basic necessities.
Class
struggle is the driving force of history, and this is the central
thesis of Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto from 1848. But why is
this so? Because it is the most fundamental contradiction (labor and
capital—concrete workers versus capitalists) in capitalism and similar
systems in every class society. In concrete terms, it is about how
everyone gets food on the table: are you someone who works or provides
for others, or someone who parasitizes on others? For the ruling class,
the most important question is how to extract wealth (exploit) without
generating real and dangerous resistance. In class society, from the
perspective of the rulers, it is therefore a matter of stopping those
who work from thinking like workers, without educating proletarians with
a capitalist mindset and capitalist dreams. In Iran’s case, the
counterrevolutionary government wants the people to see themselves not
as workers and farmers but as subjects, through religious dogmas to the
regime, in a corporatist manner.
This
becomes even clearer if we take the example of one country occupying
another, such as when a colony is created. When an individual is
oppressed and their living conditions cannot be met under the current
circumstances, and when their ideological understanding of this
situation is combined with knowledge of alternatives to the status quo
(which may be a conscious communist understanding as well as envious
glances at the lifestyle in the United States), this can lead to action
(read: the combination of objective factors and subjective
consciousness). In Iran, life is relatively hard (compared to Sweden)
but also relatively easy (compared to Palestine) for the average person.
The Ayatollah’s regime is deeply reactionary, in many respects medieval
in its rule, and the economy is under severe pressure. In addition to
this, there is plenty of information available in Iran about the outside
world, which raises the idea that “we could have it differently” (this
applies to everyone; even in Sweden, many people think “I should live in
Thailand” – the principle is universal and not only related to
poverty). Analysis is also required for thoughts to become actions, and
analysis can lead to different conclusions. For example:
A: I live in poverty → I could become rich if I win the lottery, I’ve seen it on TV → I’ll buy a small lottery ticket.
or…
B:
I live in poverty → We can become one if we organize ourselves → We see
the historical examples → We can, want to, and will win in a people’s
war.
So,
in order to understand the events and the seemingly shifting loyalties,
we must start from the internal situation within Iran, and only then
can we take on board the analysis of Iranians abroad. This is done in
the same way that we handle and distinguish between a primary and a
secondary source. Since this primary source is extremely rare, most
ideas about how the demonstrators think are, at best, educated guesses.
Furthermore, these expressions of discontent are occurring throughout
the country, making it completely impossible to produce a fully
acceptable “concrete analysis of concrete situations.” That said, there
are certain things that are objective, such as the fact that the masses
harbour enormous dissatisfaction with their situation, economic
vulnerability, political oppression with religious overtones, constant
threats of war, and so on.
The
concrete discontent that was expressed at the beginning of 2026, which
immediately attracted the attention of the outside world, began when
crowds took to the streets and squares and showed their discontent in
several cities simultaneously. It was partly an expression of the
contradiction between the people and bureaucratic capitalism, and the
masses exercised their most obvious and sacred right, to “rebel against
outdated authorities,” as our Chairman Mao Zedong established, in this
case against the reactionary semi-colonial, semi-feudal, and
bureaucratic capitalist Ayatollah regime. On the other hand, this regime
was also held accountable for the damage caused to it economically by
sanctions that were unacceptable, even according to bourgeois law,
“illegal,” whose purpose was to make life as unbearable as possible for
the people of Iran in order to later turn this discontent against the
regime with the aim of bringing about a long-awaited “regime change.”
(now referred to as an imperialist coup, even though Trump has said that
the term “regime change” is not “politically correct”). See the pattern
that can be discerned here:
We,
the communists of the world, have read the Manifesto and know that it
is the masses who create history, which is an extension of Marx’s thesis
that “all history to date is the history of class struggle,” and we
base our entire practice on this central thesis of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but it is not only we who do and understand
this, but also the reactionaries. That is why the US and its perverse
colonial project on steroids, Israel, are doing everything they can to
fan the flames and wish to exploit the demonstrators for so-called
“regime change,” even though they know that the regime must be
overthrown militarily because “war is politics with bloodshed,” and the
backbone of every state is its armed forces, and the Islamic Republic of
Iran has a strong army and has placed great emphasis on missiles and
air defense, holding Israel hostage, and the world knows they can once
again send their missiles against the hated Tel Aviv.
This
is the background to the riots, i.e., the low standard of living of the
masses, their frustration with the government and the reactionary
nature of the state system, and the activities of Yankee imperialism’s
agents. As we know, the masses are a “battlefield” for different ideas
and ideologies, as Chairman Gonzalo explained, and the expression “the
masses create history” should not be understood or misinterpreted as
“the masses only create progressive history”; fascists can also create
and lead reactionary mass movements, as can religious leaders. “The
masses” are, by definition, large numbers of people in motion, and are
not a specific class. There is also no doubt that the US and its most
important “allies” in the despicable Zionist regime in Israel are on the
ground, distributing both small arms (as acknowledged in the Israeli
Netanyahu-loyal press) and the latest Starlink communication equipment
from the arch-reactionary billionaire Elon Musk (which is banned in Iran
and this distribution is acknowledged by the world reaction), and here
we also have Trump’s “spontaneous” statements on his own social media,
Truth Social, that “we have locked and loaded our guns” and “we are
coming to rescue you”, and finally: “MIGA!”. All this behavior by Yankee
imperialism during the heated situation led to the demonstrations in
some places turning into armed riots, which of course were met with
armed response.
The
failed pretender to the throne, Phalavi, the “unemployed Yankee
prince,” has cynically responded from his safe haven in Washington,
D.C., to the question of whether his call for the people to take to the
streets (with distributed firearms) led to the slaughter, saying that
“people die in war, and this is war” in an interview with the Yankee
media. The riots have burned a number of buildings (including some
mosques and government buildings as well as private cars) and there has
been gunfire, and various figures, obviously plucked out of thin air,
are circulating about the total number of deaths. There is a sea of
information and disinformation surrounding the riots, but at present it
seems that the riots have subsided and both sides have failed: the
protests and the imperialists’ plan for regime change. It is obvious to
anyone with eyes to see that this is a fusion of genuine discontent with
the paid activities of provocateurs and the activities of the
monarchists, and now think logically:
-
Why would anyone burn mosques unless it is to force a genocide from the provoked regime?
-
Why
are there so many pictures circulating of agents inside Iran holding
signs calling on Trump to bomb the country with the slogan “Trump
help!”?
The same applies to the “primary sources” cited in Western media:
-
Human
Rights Activists In Iran, often referred to as HRA or HRAI, HRANA in
the media, is the “expert group” most frequently used as a source by
Western media outlets and has been the basis for articles in CNN, The
Wall Street Journal, NPR, ABC News, Sky News, and The New York Post,
among others. It is funded by the CIA through its special organization,
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
-
The
second most cited source is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human
Rights in Iran (ABCHRI), which is funded by the NED. This is, of course,
the same NED, the US regime change organization that attempted to
overthrow Chavez and install Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado, was
behind the election of Yeltsin in Russia in the 1990s, the Maidan
revolution in Ukraine in 2014, etc.
Well,
this Phalavi number three is obviously a total reactionary puppet of US
imperialism who has lived his pathetic life under the protection of
imperialism and been nurtured and raised so that one fine day he could
ascend to the throne that crumbled and finally fell in 1979. He said,
“The real Iran is a different Iran, a beautiful, peace-loving, and
abundant Iran. It is an Iran that existed before the Islamic Republic
and will be so again after the Islamist regime falls.” He also promises
to immediately “recognize Israel,” etc. This is a pathetic salesman
hoping to be appointed king. However, there are many Iranians abroad who
naturally hate the current regime so much that they grasp at any straw
they can find in the hope that the mullahs will fall. This is a result
of the lack of a unifying force which, instead of replacing a hostile,
reactionary, country-selling bureaucratic capitalist regime, built on
the exploitation of labor, with another, builds a state to defend that
is not built around the exploitation of one person by
another—concretely, there is a lack of communists, proletarian
leadership, and a militarized Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, and let us
return to this central issue.
Bureaucrat capitalism
First,
we need to touch on some of the “games” being played around us, which
in modern university language are called “geopolitics,” but which the
ancient Romans would have called: Divide et Impere! (Divide and rule!).
Imperialism is a colossus with feet of clay in temporary alliances but
always in conflict, because in their nature (essence) there is always
competition, as they hate each other, sometimes more than their natural
enemies. So, all imperialists serve their own interests first (this is
the explanation for why the EU project is fundamentally a house of
cards), but these sometimes coincide with those of others, they
converge, and in this respect they are no different from bureaucratic
capitalist regimes. Remember that imperialism is capitalism today, a
final phase, monopolistic, parasitic, and dying.
From the Line of the Democratic Revolution, PCP, 1988:
Taking
up Chairman Mao’s thesis, he teaches us that it has five
characteristics: 1) that bureaucratic capitalism is the capitalism that
imperialism develops in the backward countries, which is comprised of
the capital of large landowners, the big bankers, and the magnates of
the big bourgeoisie; 2) it exploits the proletariat, the peasantry, and
the petty bourgeoisie and constrains the middle bourgeoisie; 3) it is
passing through a process in which bureaucratic capitalism is combined
with the power of the State and becomes State monopoly capitalism,
comprador and feudal, from which can be derived that in a first moment
it unfolds as a non-State big monopoly capitalism and in a second
moment, when it is combined with the power of the State, it unfolds as
state monopoly capitalism; 4) it ripens the conditions for the
democratic revolution as it reaches the apex of its development; and, 5)
confiscating bureaucratic capital is key to reaching the pinnacle of
the democratic revolution and it is decisive to pass over to the
socialist revolution.
Bureaucratic
capitalism is the sick and shackled form of capitalism that develops in
oppressed nations and is dependent on a whole or semi-colonial power
that dominates them to varying degrees (Kosovo is more dominated than
Turkey, for example, and its regimes therefore have different room for
maneuver). A bureaucratic capitalist regime, like a weak imperialist
power, can play its imperialist masters, who dominate it, off against
each other to gain advantages. In the case of Iran, which is clearly a
bureaucratic capitalist nation, dominated as a semi-colony mainly by
Russian and Chinese imperialism (and is a member of both the economic
body BRICS and the political-military Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), under social-imperialist hegemony).
About the concept of the principal contradiction
A
recommended reading here is Chairman Mao’s On Practice and On
Contradiction to use this method of analysis in this situation. Every
thing or process consists of a number of contradictions, one of which is
the principal contradiction (because there is no exact or total
equality) and dominates the thing or process and defines and colors the
others. In the world, the main contradiction is between imperialism and
the oppressed nations, and here in particular the countries of the Third
World (there are several oppressed nations that do not belong to the
Third World, such as Quebec and Catalonia, whose struggles may be
important but are nevertheless secondary in this regard). Within a
specific country, the main contradiction may be different. For example,
at the beginning of the people’s war in Peru in 1980, the main
contradiction was the masses versus feudalism, while the main
contradiction at the global level was imperialism versus oppressed
nations. Anyone who has been in or is familiar with the situation in
Latin America should understand exactly what this means. Yankee
imperialism dominates and influences all these countries: economically,
politically, and militarily. In Venezuela, with the US’s criminal
kidnapping and bombing of the capital Caracas, the principal
contradiction in the country changed from the people-bureaucratic
capitalism (the Maduro government, now without Maduro) to oppressed
nations-imperialism. In Ukraine, there was a similar development during
the Russian imperialist attack, when the regime surrounding the beggar
clown Zelensky was extremely racist, reactionary, hostile to the people,
and provocatively pro-imperialist.
What, then, is the position of communists toward reactionary regimes?
The
goal of communists is communism, and to achieve this, one must
constantly analyze concrete conditions and not rely on dogmatism or
attempts to adapt the world and reality to one’s own ideas. To
understand how we should proceed in Iran, we can look to China and
Chairman Mao. A brief history lesson: First, the communists and
nationalists (KMT) fought side by side against warlords (feudal lords)
and bandits, then conflict arose and the main contradiction changed.
then Japan invaded and there was once again a united front between the
CCP and the KMT, but after the victory against Japanese fascist
imperialism, the conflict changed again and the people’s war turned
against the KMT, driving these reactionaries into the sea, where they
had to pack up and flee to Taiwan. The united front is a front between
classes to muster the greatest possible fighting force in order to
strike against the main enemy (which is determined by the main
contradiction). We also want to emphasize that everything is matter in
flux, with the word flux underlined, and that it is a political trap to
get stuck in a way of thinking because a phenomenon was a certain way at
one time.
Take
Iran’s modern history as an example. The Ayatollah regime seized power
in 1979. The US, in true divide and rule spirit, used its then puppet in
Iraq, Saddam Hussein, whom it armed to the teeth with advanced weapons
(including biological ones) to strike against Iran. After eight years of
the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the alliance between US imperialism and
Iraqi bureaucratic capitalism turned into a dispute and they became
sworn enemies. After Operation Desert Storm in 1991, sanctions, and
finally Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 (the full-scale US invasion),
Iraq had turned from being Iran’s sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein had been
transformed from a Yankee puppet to an “international terrorist,” and
today Iraq is more Iran-friendly than ever before.
The
logic of the imperialists is, as Mao pointed out, “fail – try again –
fail again.” They are the fallen horsemen of the old world and are
doomed to strategic defeat. They are a colossus with feet of clay,
staggering and fumbling, but that does not mean they are harmless.
Remember, however, that Mao says they are a paper tiger but have real
claws and kill millions of people.
What is the principal contradiction in Iran?
It
is incumbent upon Iranian communists to finally analyze and define
these contradictions, but in the absence of such an analysis, we present
the following: in Iran, it is reasonable to view the contradiction
within the country between the people and feudalism, and between the
people and the reactionary bureaucratic-capitalist regime, which bases
its power on religious dogma and whose mainstay is the bureaucratic
faction of the big bourgeoisie, which clings to state power by any means
necessary. But the main international contradiction
(imperialism-oppressed nations) can be divided into two or three
different tracks here, as several imperialist powers are involved.
1.
The contradiction with Russian imperialism, which dominates the country
and has made it dependent on its military exports without giving much
in return. Putin’s imperialist regime, the “skinny dog,” works in
collusion and dispute with the United States, the “fat dog,” and has
shown itself ready, like the United States, to sell out its allies, such
as Assad in Syria.
2.
Chinese social imperialism (social imperialism means socialism in
words, imperialism in essence and action), which presents itself as
righteous and peaceful, but carries out unjust imperialist economic
projects (capital export with Chinese characteristics) and extracts many
benefits through trade agreements with Iran for goods created by the
hard work of the people.
3.
Yankee imperialism (and their obedient and fawning minions, the
so-called “allied” Western powers) and its Israeli murder squad of dogs,
robbers, and rapists who threaten to destroy the country, and even a
“nuclear solution” seem to be on the Zionists’ fateful wish list.
As
long as imperialism does not establish a full colony (total economic,
political, and military domination) but remains a semi-colony,
interfering only minimally and “contenting itself” with exploiting the
country’s resources and people, internal conflicts are often the most
important factor. However, when imperialists invade, kidnap, pirate,
manipulate, bomb, and so on, the contradictions change. Then many of the
regime’s critics in Iran become loyal (temporarily) to their
reactionary government. Very few want a foreign invasion, and in order
to “win,” the imperialists must defeat all resistance militarily, and
that can only be done through genocide. Even Mr. Trump (and his shadow
cabinet) knows this and commented on the possibility of the latest Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Machado, being installed as a puppet dictator in
Venezuela, saying (quite correctly) that she does not have “the support
of the people.” She is eager for imperialism to bomb and murder her own
people and grovels to Trump like a shameful dog. The Trump regime knows
that, in the same way, the unemployed prince lacks support in Iran. The
heroic Iranian people would never bleed in the streets to reinstate
their old hated dynasty of corrupt lackeys to the US and Britain.
The dirty role of revisionism in Iran
Now
that we have discussed the contradictions in the case of Iran, we would
like to raise another question. Why is there a lack of proletarian
leadership in Iran, and why is the failed, unemployed pretender to the
throne even being considered as a new puppet on the fallen throne?
Then
we must explain, briefly because the subject is complex, the role of
revisionism and why revisionism produces half-baked revolutions such as
in Iran in 1979, Cuba, or Venezuela. Even though the main contradiction
is decisive, when communists talk about the “main danger,” we mean
something else, something whose danger far exceeds the bloody claws and
bombs of imperialism, namely revisionism. Revisionism is “rewriting”
Marxism, changing its revolutionary essence and coming up with
meaningless liberal ideas and packaging them as Marxist. Revisionism as
an idea does not want to make revolution or introduce socialism but,
most often, wants to remain as a conscience opposition and soften the
extreme right because they live in their comfortable villas and enjoy
the stolen fruits of the old society. When revisionists take over a
socialist country, such as the Soviet Union in 1956 or China in 1976,
and already possess power, they want to cling to it with tooth and nail,
but still play with ideas about different ways to enrich themselves and
their loved ones at the expense of others in the name of socialism,
such as Deng Xiaoping’s quote, “to get rich is glorious.”
During
the so-called “Cold War,” there were two superpowers that were
superpowers in the sense that they differed significantly from the other
imperialist powers in terms of economic, cultural, political, and
military strength, and that together they were far superior to the
others: the reactionary liberal United States and the revisionist state
capitalist (when the state acts as a capitalist and the revisionists do
not formally own factories but do so in practice via the state) Soviet
Union. The Soviet Union quickly came to play an extremely reactionary
role, but in a world where the people wanted revolution and socialism,
but also had genuine trust in the Soviet Union, which had previously
done so much good in the world, such as defeating Hitler and supporting
all oppressed peoples’ struggle against colonialism, they had great
support around the world. This meant that the Soviet Union’s ideological
influence was enormous, and when socialist China also fell in 1976 to
the destructive fascist revisionism of Deng Xiaoping, many movements
became confused. Here, it was largely only the Communist Party of Peru
(of the parties that were relevant with weapons in hand) that directly
distanced itself from Chinese revisionism and also went against the tide
and started the people’s war in Peru on May 17, 1980.
Ideology
and ideological issues are of utmost importance, and the first thing
revisionists do when they usurp power in a communist party is to stop
studying Marxism so that they can peddle all kinds of political rubbish
and philosophical postmodern drivel to the membership and pretend that
it is enough to read, for example, old Anders Carlsson’s (former leader
of the Communist Party) is sufficient, and that Marx and Lenin are for
older leaders who want to immerse themselves in historical curiosities.
When
the International existed, there was not much room for strange
aberrations to lead revolutions (of course there was revisionism, for
example Trotskyism, but it remained irrelevant) because the comrades,
and Comrade Stalin, led the ideological struggle, and then Chairman Mao
took up the banner when the Soviet Union was distorted in the
counterrevolution of 1956. But after 1976, there was no longer any
recognized leadership, and few even knew about the great heroic poem of
history that was written in the village of Chuschi in the department of
Ayacucho in Peru. Suddenly, there was no longer the same power and
leadership within the International Communist Movement (ICM), and the
conscious communists were scattered, creating an ideological vacuum and
political confusion as a result. In our history, there has been too much
of a tail mentality and a tendency to blindly follow the field
marshal’s staff. Therefore, we must carve in stone that each of us must
be a bastion of our ideology, of Chairman Gonzalo, and always make a
concrete analysis of concrete conditions and, under any circumstances,
persevere on the necessary path of people’s war and never reconcile with
revisionism and opportunism.
It
was precisely in this ideological vacuum that the imperialists
(primarily the Americans under President Jimmy Carter) had the
opportunity in 1979 to send Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran in a specially
chartered Air France plane, in line with the imperialists’ collective
aim (in collusion and conflict) to lead the revolution astray and give
it a religious and supposedly harmless (for imperialism) character.
Why
didn’t the imperialists stop the Iranian revolution? Simple answer:
they couldn’t, they are only experts in genocide against unarmed masses
and defeat, and specifically because the dictatorial and genocidal
Pahlavi dynasty (which gained its dictatorial powers with the overthrow,
or “regime change,” of the popularly elected Mossadeh in 1953) with its
SAVAK (the Iranian monarchy’s “SÄPO”) agents, torture, disappearances,
corruption and waste, and whose state finances were in free fall (and to
top it all off, they held the world’s most expensive party in the
desert to celebrate the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire), was
extremely dilapidated and the people rose up and were armed. However,
there was a lack of proletarian leadership. The communists were or
became confused and divided and did not have the necessary support among
the deepest or broadest strata, but above all, they did not have the
initiative to seize power when the king was in checkmate (which means
“the king is helpless” in Persian). In many cases, they were blinded by
the Ayatollah, who came to Iran somewhat like a “jack-in-the-box,”
suddenly promising the moon and the stars and espousing anti-imperialist
rhetoric. So, when he, Mr. Khomeini, descended from the plane at
Merhabad Airport in Tehran in February 1979, he was met (having lived
abroad for more than two decades, most recently in a villa in France) by
an enthusiastic and expectant crowd. Once again, this was confirmation
that the masses are the creators of history, regardless of the direction
history takes.
The
communists who did not flee Iran were subjected to the most brutal
persecution and became victims of torture and executions. The communists
who subscribed to Mao Zedong’s thinking carried out a heroic armed
resistance in the city of Amol in 1982, but were defeated and those
arrested were hanged, and the organization came to be known as
Sarbedaran (roughly: We who held our heads high when we were hanged) and
their exile organization joined the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement (RIM), but unfortunately they fell into the clutches of Bob
Avakian and the RCP’s revisionism.
How should the protests in Iran be interpreted?
The
protests in Iran are an expression of the world’s main contradiction,
which is intensifying and being resolved. Imperialism consists, as we
know, of two poles: the imperialists and their lackeys, and the peoples
of the world. Dialectics teaches us that, as in all things, imperialism
develops on the basis of the struggle between its internal
contradictions, which identify it, consisting of the main contradiction
between imperialism and the oppressed nations, which has increased the
exploitation of the oppressed peoples of the whole world. The strength
of the imperialists lies in the fact that, through the exploitation of
the peoples of the world, created through hunger and hardship carried
out with violence, war, and oppression, they have been able to build
technologically advanced apparatus and mighty militaries. The strength
of the world’s peoples lies in the fact that they are fighting for a
just cause that serves their own interests and that they are the
absolute majority. Based on the thesis that “the masses create history,”
the nature of the imperialists becomes their gravedigger.
Back
to dialectics. All phenomena and things consist of two poles
(opposites) that create their identity. The struggle between opposites
leads to one side taking over the other, even if this struggle can be
long and uneven. Every thing or phenomenon thus possesses a tendency and
a counter-tendency. At certain times, one is predominant, and at other
times, the other is predominant. What is crucial in all contradictions
is to see who has the strategic advantage—who has the key to victory? In
history, revolution is the main tendency, as each class society has
been replaced by a new one, which has driven history forward, but during
certain periods, counterrevolution has been the main tendency
temporarily. In the early days of imperialism, counterrevolution was the
main trend. But imperialism, which is monopolistic, parasitic, and
dying capitalism – its final stage, is no longer in a strategic
advantage over the peoples of the world. In the past, it could create
colonies and semi-colonies and wage victorious wars of plunder. Today,
this is no longer possible. Today, the imperialists can only continue to
fail and fail again in their plans and campaigns. The only thing the
imperialists have to offer the peoples of the world is misery, war, and
death.
The
crisis of imperialism, starting in the 1980s, is evident in the fact
that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to extract surplus
value from labor, which is exacerbating all contradictions within
imperialism. This has led the imperialists to try to solve this inherent
problem by increasing the exploitation of the world’s people, forcing
them to work harder for lower wages, demanding more money for goods, and
cutting back on all the gains the world’s people have won through their
hard struggles (such as the crumbs known as welfare). and by turning
people into cannon fodder by preparing for a new war of redistribution
of the Third World, which will mean a Third World War. All this means
that the peoples of the world are, objectively speaking, more powerful
than before and have the strategic advantage. It is no longer
counterrevolution that is the main trend in the world, but revolution.
One
expression of this is that, across the world, the masses are rebelling
more and more with each passing day. Just look at the past year, a year
that could well be remembered as “A Year of Uprising.” This is something
we will elaborate on in a subsequent article. But the synthesis of this
is that revolution is the main tendency in the world today and that the
objective factors for revolution and the sweeping away of imperialism
are better than ever.
But
again, the uprising of the masses can be hijacked by forces that lead
the masses’ struggle astray. So, even though Iran’s streets and squares
are not only teeming with honestly frustrated masses, but also
with Mossad agents and CIA affiliates, this is an expression of the
strengthening of the objective factors for revolution around the world.
Once again, the question of proletarian leadership is central, and the
necessity of the Communist Party is clear for all to see. Without the
constitution or reconstitution of Communist parties, ready to initiate,
defend, and develop people’s wars, the uprising of the masses will be
prolonged, the mass slaughter will continue, and opportunities for the
overthrow of the masters will be missed. We are living in the 50-100
years that Chairman Mao predicted that imperialism would be swept from
the face of the earth. We fully support this thesis, as imperialism’s
internal contradictions are intensifying and it is more likely that
communists will take up their duties around the world and fight this
beast than that the peoples of the world will continue to suffer under
the yoke of imperialism!
Synthesis
It is right to rebel, support the masses in Iran and elsewhere who are rising up against reactionaries.
Condemn all imperialist interference and provocation.
In
the event of an invasion of Iran, the principal contradiction will
shift from the people versus bureaucratic capitalism to the nation
versus imperialism.
The consequence of this is that our position on the reactionary regime changes in accordance with Yankee intervention.
Revisionism
has had a devastating impact in Iran, which lacks proletarian
leadership capable of leading the struggle of the masses.
What must be done?
In
Iran, all progressive and communist-minded comrades must fight to
recreate their glorious Communist Party under the great red banner of
Maoism and, in doing so, embrace Chairman Gonzalo’s universally valid
contributions, which are collected in the General Political Line and
deal in particular with the militarization of the Party (an issue that
is probably not questioned by any serious-minded Iranian comrade) and
concentric construction, the purpose of which is to be capable of waging
people’s war in a new democratic revolution, overthrow the government,
and then establish a people’s republic to introduce the dictatorship of
the proletariat in order to, through cultural revolutions and shoulder
to shoulder with the peoples of the world, march inexorably into the
realm of great harmony, communism.
Abroad
(from an Iranian perspective), a tough fight must be waged against
those who have fallen for the siren song of imperialism and Zionism, and
it must be patiently explained to them that there is a great risk that
their efforts and struggle against injustice will play into the hands of
worse enemies, monarchists, the US, and Israel. There is an old Persian
expression that says, “A wolf does not eat another wolf” (gorg gorg ra
nemikhord), which means that corrupt and despicable rulers stick
together against the people. However, it must be pointed out that there
is hope and that one must not choose the first wolf-monarch that comes
along, but that the future lies in the previous point.
This
is important, comrades: in today’s world, where public consciousness is
distorted, like in a funhouse where up is down and right is wrong and
it is difficult to navigate, it must be said more than clearly so that
no one misunderstands and so that everyone who hears our voices can be
assured that we are serious when we shout:
YANKEE GO HOME! DEATH TO ZIONISM!
DEFEND IRAN AGAINST IMPERIALIST PLANS FOR GENOCIDE AND OCCUPATION!
IT IS RIGHT TO REBEL!
RECONSTITUTE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF IRAN AS A MILITARIZED PARTY WITH A CONCENTRIC CONSTRUCTION!
LONG LIVE MAOISM! DOWN WITH REVISIONISM!
CREATE A UNITED FRONT AND UNITE THE PEOPLE OF IRAN FOR THE GREAT INITIATION OF PEOPLE’S WAR IN IRAN!
PEOPLE’S WAR UNTIL COMMUNISM!
Kontakta oss via Kommunisten@riseup.net!
