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!
.jpg)
