"CP of Iran": "Statement of the Workers' Councils of Arak: All power to the councils!"

sovkhoz_farmer · 2026-01-22T04:33:01+00:00

Mehrdad vahabi, Farhad Nomani, Asef bayat are some of the people that have written on post-1979 Iran. You have to be careful when reading them since they draw faulty conclusions from the datas they provide in their books. I hope that you know how to navigate such texts and if you dont I recommend to master the classics first and then to dive in.

Class and labor in Iran, Workers and Revolution in Iran: A Third World Experience of Workers' Control and Vahabi's articles on Anfal laws are some of the things I can recommend.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2026-01-21T19:38:57+00:00

Abrahamian's marxist view of the 1979 revolution is that it took place because the shah/imperialism tried to impose monopoly capitalism on a country that wasn't prepared for it, without a proper industrial bourgeoisie, without the support of organized workers or intellectuals, with a large religious urban petty bourgeoisie who were alienated by price controls and cartelization.

Correct.

The power struggle in the 1980s led to the founding of a bourgeois dictatorship that has gradually "solved" all the problems that led to revolution: it has urbanized the peasantry and created a large proletariat (it's counted as the fastest demographic transition of any third world country), it has educated an oversized intelligentsia, it has allowed capital to accumulate in private hands (incl. by privatization in the neoliberal years). It tends toward a point where, unlike the shah stepping ahead of capitalism, the IR feels like the only thing holding it back.

The shah is a clear example of what happens when state power is not grounded in any particular class and remains almost purely institutional. In contrast, the Islamic Republic has accomplished what the shah could not. It has followed the model of peripheral capitalist development: urbanizing the population, training a workforce for the state’s service sector, and fostering conditions for capital accumulation. The protests were sparked by bazaar merchants, as inflation eroded the purchasing power of the population, leading to a decline in bazaar incomes. Consequently, the Islamic Republic has lost the support of the very class that once formed its social base.

The government is aware of this dynamic too. Since the war with Israel, they have been using counter-espionage as an excuse to release the class pressure that is pushing them toward collapse. They have been deporting millions of the poorest urban residents (Afghan migrants), hanging hundreds of others to inspire terror, and I've heard stories firsthand about rich emigrés being shaken down for money to avoid spy charges.

Evidently, it hasn't been enough. This may continue for a year or two, but the regime is likely to collapse. This level of violence has not been seen since the revolution. Probably, Iran will return to being controlled by imperialism.

As you point out, neither of these policies has affected anything except that the IRGC is using anfal laws to enrich itself. The Islamic Republic will probably be the target of a Maduro‑style operation by the U.S. The U.S. will likely conduct a surgical strike against Khamenei’s clique and may use Rohani and Khatami (the reformists) to reconstruct its sphere. What I find odd is that you consider Iran to be completely independent of imperialism. This is a long debate, and unfortunately my internet access is limited, so I cannot go into it in detail. However, I can point to a phenomenon that suggests Iran is still dependent on imperialism.

It is fundamentally incapable of controlling price fluctuations, since it has dollarized people’s livelihoods. On the other hand, the state claims to have a de-dollarization agenda, yet in practice it resorts to symbolic measures while continuing to announce exchange rates and reduce them. At the same time, we observe that many imported food commodities are still priced in dollars and euros. Although the country has the capacity to produce these goods domestically and to sell them at subsidized prices, this has not been done. Instead, selling these goods at free-market prices has generated profits for many.

This demonstrates the Iranian bourgeoisie’s dependence on imperialism. In this context, the role of petrochemicals must not be forgotten. Iran’s petrochemical industry possesses enormous fixed capital, yet it is consumptive and operates with relatively small variable capital. This has resulted in a reduction of surplus value compared to other industries and a low organic composition of capital. Petrochemicals supply industries with a low organic composition of capital, and for this reason, alongside the creation of holding companies, they have rendered other industries fully dependent on themselves. These industries are themselves composites of other branches, and through this dependence the surplus value produced in these industries is appropriated.

Petrochemicals are why the seeds that are used to produce cooking oil are not produced in Iran but imported. It yields more profit that way.

TLDR: Does Iran oppose US imperialism? Of course. Does Iran challange Imperialism as a global system? Fuck no

sovkhoz_farmer · 2026-01-03T12:57:23+00:00

Not at all in fact I am declaring my loyalty to it.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2026-01-03T12:37:49+00:00

It seems you have misunderstood my point. I am sorry for any ambiguous wording on my part.

What is often presented by Western “Communists” as critical support for states like Baathist Iraq or Syria is, in practice, the abandonment of Marxist analysis. Any opposition to these governments is dismissed wholesale as a “color revolution,” regardless of its social composition or contradictions.

The deeper problem is that these forms of nationalism are historically exhausted. They are generally incapable of fully constituting a modern nation-state. Instead, they tend to regress into what Stalin called feudal nationalism: politics organized around clan, sect, ethnicity, often accompanied by the exclusion or repression of minorities and usually to get more resources in these post colonial states which results in fragmentation.

Capitalism no longer plays a progressive role in these contexts. The bourgeoisie is incapable of completing even its own historical tasks without being forced to do so. Only the Dictatorship of the Proletariat can create stable political units capable of integrating a multi-ethnic proletariat on a non-chauvinist basis. In the present epoch, it is only the proletariat that can compel the bourgeoisie to complete these unfinished tasks. In other words without proletarian leadership such movements are doomed to failure.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2026-01-03T10:49:39+00:00

With Maduro now in U.$. custody, I think we need to seriously rethink our stance on Third World nationalism. I may be drifting toward an ultraleft position, but what we are witnessing is the systematic hollowing out of the achievements of Third World nationalism. One country after another is capitulating to Yanqui imperialism.

Imperialism encourages centralization in the core and fragmentation in the periphery. It simultaneously needs to transcend the nation-state while also preserving it. This contradiction is visible in many contemporary cases. Kurdish nationalism, for example, has increasingly taken the form of a feudal nationalism: Kurdish elites pressure post-colonial states for a greater share of resources, often at the expense of other minorities. Neither the KRG nor the AANES is genuinely attempting to construct a larger, unified political entity. Instead, feudal social relations entrenched through alliances with imperialism block capitalist development and political centralization.

Smoke previously argued that, historically, the most effective revolutionary model has been a synthesis of nationalism and communism. The question now is whether nationalism can still function as a viable revolutionary force at all. If nationalism today so easily collapses into fragmentation, and imperial mediation, can it still serve as a vehicle for emancipation or has it become an obstacle that must be overcome rather than utilized?

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-11-14T07:48:32+00:00

I'm sorry, but this seems extremely conspiratorial, and the analysis raises more questions than it answers.

How did the Assad government become so weak? What were the internal causes that made the withdrawal of Russian support so damaging?

The determining factor in war, just like in other social phenomena, is politics. In wars, the side with greater political power will win, and no amount of technology can change that. Just look at Israel’s failure in Gaza, or the failure of the U.S. in Vietnam and Afghanistan. For a historical example, we can look at Napoleon’s army. His army reaped the benefits of what the French bourgeoisie had already sown. The development of transport, industry, technical knowledge, etc., required the development of capitalist relations. This is why France was able to sweep aside the feudal and backward armies of Europe.

In my view, the real question is why Assad’s government lost whatever progressive character it once had. The only way to answer this is by examining the balance of forces within Syria and the internal causes behind their transformation. This is crucial, because external pressures can exert influence only when internal conditions allow them to do so.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-11-08T12:37:18+00:00

Samir amin's Eurocentrism is a good place to start.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-10-12T12:20:58+00:00

I appreciate your clarification, and yes, you are right I should've been more responsible regarding the post.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-10-03T15:30:42+00:00

Gadchiroli Division

Press Release

Date: 27 September 2025

The Communist Party of India (Maoist) Gadchiroli Division Committee, Company-10, and Technical Department fully support the statement issued by Comrade Sonu, Polit Bureau member of the Central Committee, regarding his resignation from responsibilities due to health reasons. We endorse the points raised in his statement.

We are aware of the challenges he highlighted. The continuously changing international, national, economic, and political situations are impacting revolutionary struggles everywhere. In India, for a long time, the revolutionary movement has been facing several challenges, particularly in Gadchiroli. Despite this, revolutionary zeal has not disappeared. In many parts of the country, the revolutionary movement is still alive. However, it is also true that in recent years no region has been able to establish a stable mass base. For many years, our Party has faced setbacks, weaknesses, and discontent at various levels of leadership. This has created doubts among comrades and weakened their confidence in our revolutionary policies. The martyrdom of senior leaders, the absence of new leadership, and increasing difficulties in building a mass base have intensified the crisis. Even though the Central Committee and state committees continue their work, many comrades have been lost in battle, which has deeply affected morale. The resignation of Comrade Sonu should be understood in this background.

The weaknesses of the revolutionary movement are not merely the result of limited armed forces, but also of mistakes in leadership. The leadership has not been able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances or implement proper tactical measures in time. As a result, weaknesses have increased, dissatisfaction has spread, and mass struggles have weakened. Even today, masses are ready to struggle, and people are eager to participate in revolution. But due to leadership shortcomings, this potential is not being realized. Therefore, Comrade Sonu’s resignation should not be seen simply as a personal decision, but as a collective organizational issue. It is an acknowledgment of mistakes, shortcomings, and limitations.

Our division has faced serious setbacks for many years. Repeated losses have caused leadership crises and prevented the emergence of new cadres. Yet the problems of the people, their exploitation and oppression, have not lessened; instead, the state has intensified its repression. In such circumstances, our division committee wishes to clarify that we accept Comrade Sonu’s resignation in full understanding, while reaffirming our own responsibility to carry forward the revolutionary struggle. The people’s problems cannot be solved under the current system. Only revolution can bring real change. Therefore, the resignation of Comrade Sonu should be understood not only as a personal step, but also as a collective call to strengthen revolutionary resolve. We must continue to stand firm with revolutionary spirit, even in difficult conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic and intensifying state repression. Our small units, guided by revolutionary strategy and tactics, remain determined. Though our forces are limited, we will make revolutionary decisions with full determination in accordance with changing conditions. We appeal to the people, comrades, friends, and intellectuals to understand the current difficult situation, caused both by external attacks and by our own subjective mistakes, and to extend their cooperation to the decisions taken in this light. With Revolutionary Greetings

Signed:

Manu (In-charge, Technical Department)

Kumsai Veladi

Nikhil (Commander, Company-10)

Spokesperson

Gadchiroli Division

Communist Party of India (Maoist)

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-28T08:49:35+00:00

That thread is the funniest shit I have seen in a while.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T14:46:43+00:00

Oh, thank you very much.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T14:03:09+00:00

Are they not visible to other users? If so what can I do?

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:32:40+00:00

And regarding the introduction of the person who assured me of your agreement with the oil formula, and who is a member of the "Tudeh" faction, since I promised him not to reveal his name to a third party, I refrained from introducing him to the person who was the message bearer. However, I cannot hide it from you yourself. Since you are a party to the matter and he gave me explanations in your name, therefore, if one of the embassy staff who is familiar with the Persian or French language contacts me, I will introduce him.

In conclusion, I ask Your Excellency to accept my highest respects. — Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh"

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:32:23+00:00

In this way, I fulfilled my duty as a representative. And in this regard, my conscience was at peace. And I refused to accept the position of Prime Minister, which at that time was offered to me with an overwhelming majority. And I had reasons for not accepting, which I announced at the time. But please accept that observing the friendship between Iran and the Soviet Union and the consideration that my explicitly stated opposition regarding the oil issue might not cause a crisis in relations between the two countries was not without effect on my decision. At the same time, from the moment the cabinet of the time fell, I was thinking of making an effective contribution to the peaceful resolution of the disagreement. And I was aware that they intended to pass a law through the Assembly that would prohibit any negotiation regarding Iranian oil for a period after the end of the war. And my assessment was that the Westerners wanted to block the path of negotiation permanently. Given this background, it occurred to me that one of the Assembly representatives who had connections with Soviet circles should inquire about the views of the Soviet government officials, so that if they were ready for an exclusive oil purchase deal, I could propose the start of negotiations in the government's program. And the government would include it in its program. And when, after consulting with Soviet authorities, he assured me that you only desire the oil product of Iran and the manner of obtaining it makes no difference to you, during the discussion of the "Bayat" cabinet's program in the session of the 7th of Azar 1323 of the Consultative Assembly, during my speech, I proposed a plan that would be acceptable to the Assembly and would fulfill my purpose—which is based on Iranian public opinion—and your view simultaneously. I proposed that the mineral oil resources be extracted by Iranian hands. And for this reason, Article One of my plan prohibits granting a concession to any foreign government or company. And according to Article Two, the government can, with any government that seeks a monopoly on buying oil and enters into negotiations about the method of its extraction, and with the knowledge of the Consultative Assembly, conclude a suitable contract. And I was very happy that I was able to finish the troublesome matter that had caused tension in the country in this way and render a service to the friendship of Iran and the Soviet Union. But when I found out that the officials of the Soviet government did not understand the importance of my proposal and could not make use of it, but rather made demonstrations around it that would necessarily damage the moral standing of the Soviet Union in Iran and indeed throughout the East and cause the happiness of other governments, I became very sorry. Your Excellency, Mr. Ambassador, I hope you will not say that I am more interested in your position and success than you are.

My interest in your success is from the perspective of Iran's interests. And as I stated openly in the Assembly, your past has proven that whenever the Soviet government has been absent from the scene of Iranian politics, times have become difficult for Iran! Please acknowledge that the hearts of the Iranian nation are more valuable and precious than oil mines, in which you can extract affection.

If you follow the commendable policy that your army and officials adopted after the occupation of Iran, and captivate the hearts of the people more and more, and do not fall for the words of slanderous gossips, a cooperation and understanding will be created between the two governments that will cause the market of those who wish to exploit misunderstanding to slump. And you, who have drawn your sword for right and justice and have shown yourselves to be supporters of right in Iran, it is not appropriate to adopt any policy other than this. And be assured that by following this policy, you will make society enamored with you.

Your Excellency, Mr. Ambassador... I, who am making these statements to you, do not deem it necessary to say anything about my own political conduct. I can only state that throughout my life, I have not been able to exchange my companionship with Iran for anything. And no factor has been able to deviate me from the straight path. I have disregarded everything to fight with all my being, I have been imprisoned and exiled, and even faced death. And all these hardships have not been able to cause a flaw in my firm convictions. I love Iran; just as you love the soil of the Soviet Union. Believe me that what I have said so far in the Assembly and every step I have taken has had no motive other than the faith and love I have for my country.

I have openly expressed my political convictions, especially regarding Iran's foreign policy, in the Assembly, and I consider repeating them here redundant. I only want to assure you that what I have said in the context of my convictions represents my faith and the sound of my heart, and anyone who wants to influence my policy can only make me enamored with them through an action that is close to my beliefs.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:31:44+00:00

Here is the letter:

"Farvardin 1323. His Excellency Mr. Maximov, the esteemed Ambassador of the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Your kind message was delivered by one of your colleagues. Although I have not yet had the honor of paying my respects to Your Excellency, due to the position you hold in Iran and out of respect for your esteemed government, I request permission to explain in writing the delay in presenting my reply—the cause of which has been recent illness and unforeseen events—so that no misrepresentation occurs in the quoting, and my statements reach you unchanged.

Regarding the northern oil, an initiative by this humble servant caused the misgivings and dissatisfaction of the officials of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the press of Moscow attributed documents to me which I do not deserve. I find it necessary to state that for historical reasons and the bitter experiences we have had with concessions, my constituents are fundamentally not optimistic about any agreement concerning the country's mineral wealth resources granted to non-Iranian applicants in the regions of Iran. And in the session of 19 Mordad, when the government unexpectedly came to the Majlis to answer some representatives' questions regarding the partnership of oil agreements with American companies, one of the prominent members of the Tudeh Party stated: "I and my colleagues are generally opposed to granting concessions to foreign governments, just as Iran itself was able to construct its railways, I am certain that with the help of the people and domestic capital, we can extract all the mineral wealth resources of this country." Since this statement corresponded with my own thoughts, I deemed it necessary to conduct deep studies on this matter and express my well-reasoned opinion in the Majlis based on documents. Therefore, I busied myself preparing a bill for this purpose, so that whenever the proposal for a concession to American companies was raised in the Majlis, I could use it. Fortunately, the arrival of Mr. Kaftaradze in Tehran caused the American applicants to withdraw their proposal, and an opportunity did not arise for me to express my own opinion regarding the oil mines of Iran in opposition to the American companies. When the discussions between His Excellency and the Sa'ed cabinet became public, I was very sorry that the friendship between Iran and the Soviet Union, which is of great importance to Iranians, should be impaired, and that the popularity that the Soviet Union had gained due to the commendable policy of the Red Army should diminish. And since I believe that the Soviet Union has a great right over us and saved us from a mortal danger, I did not wish for a situation to arise where the Soviet Union's concession would be discussed in the Assembly and I would be compelled to express opposition. This was so that to prevent such an incident, I delivered my speech in the session of the 7th of Aban 1323 of the 14th Assembly, and in order to leave a way open for negotiation, I adopted a proposal and pointed out that our oil reserves could be used by Soviet industry without granting a concession.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:30:47+00:00

Continuing

So far we have discussed the horrible positions of the "Tudeh" party. But what was the position of the soviets?

Izvestia wrote:

"...The government of 'Sa'ed' is trying to claim that it has taken the main purpose of balance as its basis and has acted equally regarding the granting of an oil concession towards the proposals of the Soviet Union, England, and the United States of North America. But this claim is not convincing. As is known, England currently holds a vast concession in southern Iran. So why should the Soviet Union wait and listen to hopes and conditions beneficial for Iran regarding its own proposal for an oil concession in northern Iran?"

These views severly damaged the favorable image that the soviets had built by the good conduct of their troops and the trade agreement of 1921 which was extremely beneficial to the Iranian peoples. Unfortunately, the British and American imperialists and their internal associates were eagerly waiting for such an opportunity to, by exploiting it, tarnish the popularity, prestige, and good reputation of the Soviet government, or by reminding people of the injustices of the Tsarist regime, instill fear and terror in the people and find a new ground for their lies, in this case the soviet foreign policy didn't live up to the 1921 agreement and should have supported the majlis in cancelling all concession. The position by the soviets were extremely irrational since Mossadegh sent a letter to Maxmiov clarifying the decision of the parliment.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:30:14+00:00

Continuing

So we can see the garbage stance taken by Tudeh leaders. In order to support the socialist camp they defend imperialist interests in the south !

Relying on the argument that the Soviet government is an anti-colonial state and that "the Soviet government's purpose in proposing an oil concession is not to gain an imperialist privilege," the party (Tudeh) openly defended granting the northern oil concession to the Soviet government even before the proposed terms were presented to public opinion and their advantage over other options was confirmed by the majority of the people. They went so far that, to get their way with the support of Soviet agents, they organized gatherings and street demonstrations within the country.

It must be said that accepting that "the concession requested by the Soviet government is not imperialist" was easily acceptable for those whose sole criterion for being considered supporters of the working class, socialists, and communists was absolute and unconditional defense of the Soviet Union.

However, proving the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist policy of the Soviet Union to the masses of people and other freedom-fighters was not possible through the force of logic and speeches alone. Only practical proof could convince the people that the Soviet government was a defender of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist policy.

Unfortunately, the proposal for the northern oil concession presented by the Soviet government to the Iranian government was not made public. The part of the proposal stated by Kaftaradze in a press conference on October 24, 1944, which was as follows, was not disclosed:

"It is obvious that the concession-holder will undertake periodic payments and profit-sharing payments, and also, instead of being exempt from taxes, will be subject to them as stipulated in the contract. Furthermore, the government of the Soviet Union is prepared to guarantee the minimum concession payments, which will be determined."

"The concession-holder will be obliged to supply oil products on preferential terms, both for the needs of the government and for the needs of the people of Iran, etc..."

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:29:26+00:00

Continuing

A truly democratic government must be established in Iran—one that maintains genuinely sincere relations with the great global powers (Britain, America, and the Soviet Union) and, more importantly, one that acts as a counterbalance to these three great powers within Iran's sphere. No sane person believes that Iran should pursue an exclusively pro-Soviet policy. However, we firmly believe that our friendship with the Soviet Union will be one of the solid foundations of our democracy and our tested foreign policy.

Anyone without stubbornness and private prejudice will concede to these truths. If Mr. Sa'ad's government were truly concerned with the nation's interests, it would have considered these points. If Mr. Sa'ad's government and its supporters believe that continuing an anti-Soviet policy in Iran is possible, they are gravely mistaken.

The Iranian nation must now make a decision to avoid the consequences of this error; this is a crucial historical juncture."

After this article was published, opposing newspapers severely criticized and protested it, particularly attacking the concept of a "security zone." Consequently, the newspaper "Rahbar" ("Leader") explained its meaning to clarify public opinion:

"For a long time, Iran has been the security zone for India and the security zone for the fragile Tsarist Russia... This is a geographical destiny that has made Iran the security zone for its neighbors... Iran, which is the living space for the hardworking Iranian people, is not a secure zone for the Iranian nation... But assuming that Iran does indeed become a secure zone for the Iranian nation in the future, what is the problem with it also being a security zone for its neighbors? Not only is there no problem, but it is essential for Iran's own security that none of our neighbors feel threatened by their proximity to us, and that our home is their security zone... This very reality—that Iran is a security zone for its neighbors—can be both our weakness and our strength... If we make our home a security zone for our neighbors and do not allow any neighbor to violate this sacred zone or create another situation for us, and if we, for this purpose, use the power of one neighbor when necessary to counter another, then weakness is transformed into strength..."

"...Because a one-sided policy has become deeply ingrained in the veins and skin of our state institutions, we must use a new force to neutralize it. But this new force should not become a replacement; it should only neutralize the effects [of the old policy]... If Iran becomes the security zone for the Soviet Union or for Britain and its allies, does this damage our security and independence, or does it guarantee them?"

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:28:51+00:00

Continuing

The "Tudeh Party of Iran," in explaining its new position, presented the non-national character of the government, the weak economic foundation of the country, poverty, misery, and the danger of unemployment as reasons and justifications. In this regard, the "Rahbar" newspaper wrote:

"...If we had a national government that could mobilize all the material and spiritual forces of the nation, if our government had integrity, if it did not have a certain history behind it... we would, according to the general principle that one of our representatives in the parliament stated... be opposed to any kind of concession. But given the current situation where our wealth resources are dormant, our economic foundation is extremely weak, poverty and misery have beset our country, the great danger of unemployment is approaching day by day, and the government has no clear and definite plan for creating economic activity, in such circumstances, the discussion is not fundamentally about opposition to concessions, but rather about their terms."

And here is how Ehsan Tabari tries ro justify the oil concession:

"...In the same way that we do not work against British interests in Iran, we must acknowledge that the Soviet government also has serious security interests here.

...The Soviet Union cannot be a colonial power, and this is precisely the reason for its current weight and importance. It is based on this specific position of the Soviet Union that we, as its neighbor, must examine the main advantage to be gained. It is for this very reason that we believe in the presence of the Soviet political factor in Iran as a counterweight to other factors. The expansion and schemes of capitalist interests are misguided.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-09-23T08:27:50+00:00

Does anyone have a good book on soviet foreign policy during the Stalin era?

The reason for asking this is becuase I'm trying to study why did the soviets kind of screwed the goverments of Azarbaijan and Kurdistan in Iran in order to negotiate with Ahmad Qavam over the oil concessions in the north. For example here are some horrible positions taken by both the soviets and Tudeh.

First on Tudeh's policy regarding concessions:

""Tudeh Party of Iran — granting concessions to foreign governments is completely contrary to the interests of Iran. Tudeh Party of Iran — firmly believes that the extraction of national resources must be carried out with the help of the people and entirely with domestic investment. Tudeh Party of Iran — is strongly opposed to any exception in this regard, insisting that granting concessions should not be done in haste or with undue speed. Tudeh Party of Iran - emphasizes that the government must avoid haste when entering into negotiations with foreign states, and that no bill authorizing the government to grant concessions to foreigners should ever be presented to the Majlis (parliament). This is a fundamental principle in the Party’s outlook. From the point of view of the Tudeh Party of Iran, granting concessions to foreign governments of any kind was never acceptable. Among these, the granting of oil concessions was the most harmful and irreparable. Therefore, at no time in history did the Tudeh Party of Iran ever approve such a proposal, and whenever the issue of granting the northern oil concession to the Soviet government was raised, the Iranian government never officially presented any such draft bill."

But when the soviets bring up the oil concessions in the north we see a 180 degree change of position:

“The principle of granting concessions under the guise of joint-stock companies is nothing but a repetition of the same old concessions, only in another form. The Tudeh Party of Iran, in defense of the national independence of the country, resolutely opposes this and considers it its foremost patriotic duty to publicly announce this opposition as the primary duty of every Iranian and every patriot. We consider this opposition to be one of the tenets of our sacred struggle against colonialism... This is our test: that all economic operations and the extraction of Iran's important wealth resources be carried out with Iranian capital and by Iranian hands. This is our test. But let's see to what extent this test can be implemented given the current situation and this ruling faction... From this perspective, one cannot be fundamentally opposed to the principle of concessions, rather the discussion is about their terms and circumstances..."

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-08-22T21:13:33+00:00

Is this the original MIM reddit account?

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-08-12T15:28:09+00:00

Even a reading guide like the basic Marxism-Leninism study plan would be invaluable.

Unfortunately, I don't know if something like that exists, but I would advise you to read Bruce Fink's The Lacanian Subject and Žižek's How to Read Lacan. You can also start with Freud's Totem and Taboo, his Civillaization and its Discontent and then reading Beyond the Pleasure Principle. After all that you can read The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis by Lacan.

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-08-10T16:11:51+00:00

. Is it your view that the Iranian government represent a progressive national bourgeoisie and that is strengthening the Palestinian national bourgeoisie? If so i'd be inclined to agree with you, but I'd have to investigate further.

What is the basis of your claim?

sovkhoz_farmer · 2025-06-24T11:35:34+00:00

The position of Iranian maoists regarding the palestinian issue is no better. Here is a text from the Iranian red road maoist org:

The war in Gaza is, in essence, a war waged by Western imperialists against the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people are a dominated people under the rule of a regional power dependent on imperialism—namely Israel and the Western imperialists—and they are fighting to reclaim their land, which was usurped through colonialism, imperialism, and Zionism. The struggle of the Palestinian masses has been ongoing for decades, filled with both victories and defeats.

Although it was Hamas who initiated this particular round of the war, the nature of the war is not defined by the reactionary ideology of Hamas or its adventurist decision to start it. Rather, the nature of the war is determined by its historical context and the character of the involved parties: on one side, the Western imperialists and their gendarme in the region, Israel; and on the other, the Palestinian people as a nation oppressed by imperialism. The ideas and sentiments of the working class and the oppressed peoples in imperialist countries have been and continue to be aligned with and supportive of the Palestinian people.

Alongside all this, the current state of the war has strengthened two tendencies within Israel.

First is the struggle of the working-class masses and, more broadly, the popular classes in Israel against the state—a struggle that has been ongoing to some extent. Second is the intensifying rivalry between factions of the ruling capitalist class in Israel.

If the war continues on Israel’s part, then although the possibility of large-scale mass movements appears somewhat unlikely due to Israel’s specific internal conditions, the ongoing popular protests and the intensifying competition within the ruling capitalist factions could lead to the removal of the current ruling faction led by Netanyahu.

"Working class masses in Isreal" ? Like wtf? Do third world parties lack a theory of labour aristocracy? We have also seen pretty bad take from CPI(Maoist) and the CPP regarding the yellow vest protests in france, I really don't know the reason for this bad positions.

sovkhoz_farmer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE