Sociologist Chahla Chafiq was a 25-year-old Marxist activist during the 1979 Iranian revolution. Now in exile in France, she looks back on the tensions between socialism, feminism, and anti-imperialism that have roiled Iran’s opposition politics for decades.
  • fifthedition [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    The Shah's repression was nowhere near the Muslims'. It's OK to say something is bad and another thing is worse.

    Under the Shah: Marxists exist. Just look at the variety and diversity.

    There was the Tudeh party, which was the classic pro-Soviet party, and there was Fedayeen, an urban guerilla party more similar to the Cuban leftist movement. Fedayeen was also pro-Soviet but maybe not as aligned as Tudeh. My group was close to a third party, Line Three, which was the independent left. We believed that the Soviets were an imperialist force, so that’s why we were not pro-Soviet.

    There were so many different parties. There was also the Mujahedin [People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran], which mixed a Muslim line in with the leftism. But our group was nonreligious.

    Under the Muslims: Marxists no longer exist due to physical removal. You know that right-wing psychopathic "free helicopter rides" thing? That's what the Muslims did. But without the free helicopter rides.

    • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      my dude the SAVAK would literally pour acid into peoples' noses, boiling water into their rectums, they'd torture them with metal masks on so that their screams were amplified enough to cause more pain, and even worse

      • fifthedition [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        All that you say is true. Nobody is arguing that SAVAK were the good guys. They were fascists. But so were the Muslims. The article states this very well, if you've read it (which I recommend).

        The Shah had his secret police, but you knew who they were. You could recognize them. Whereas Khomeini said, we are going to create a secret police of thirty million, which was more or less the whole population. He created these Islamist surveillance presences everywhere, in every place of work and every place of study within the whole society. This is how they’ve been able to keep the power for more than forty years.

        But at that time, Khomeini attacked this idea of giving the women the right to vote, saying that women are supposed to stay at home. It was a misogynistic attack, but none of the left groups took it seriously, or even criticized him for that. He was always who he was. All the opposition groups were happy with him because he was radically against the Shah.

        It's OK to say that one thing is bad, and another thing is worse.

        • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I didn't say anything is worse or better but the logical conclusion to draw after the Shah's secret police kill tens of thousands of primarily communists and subsequently there is an Islamic revolution is that there probably wasn't much of an organized Left remaining after they were tortured to death by the Shah

          • fifthedition [none/use name]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Uh...the entire premise is that such an organized Left did exist, it was a positive force in the Revolution, and after they helped the Muslims gain power they were physically removed from Iranian society.

            After the revolution began moving forward, Tudeh supported Khomeini. Fedayeen split into a number of different groups. When they started to break up, most of their members went and supported the Tudeh line and thus supported Khomeini also. Those leftists supported the imams because they thought that was the anti-imperialist line.

            Khomeini didn’t use the word “anti-imperialism.” He talked about “Big Satan” and “Small Satan.” The Big Satan was the United States. The Small Satan was Europe. The leftists who went toward him translated that as anti-imperialism in their minds. In their minds.

            Chafiq emphasizes this last point, raising her eyebrows and speaking in English to ensure that I get it.

            My group was independent. We were not supporting Khomeini or his line or his discourse, but we were not clear on it, either.

            One thing that the whole Iranian left agreed upon was this anti-Western, anti-imperialist line. It was the most important thing.

            How was there a "whole Iranian left" if the Shah's men had wiped them out?

            • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              How was there a “whole Iranian left” if the Shah’s men had wiped them out?

              do you think "the left" would support Khomeini if they had 5x the numbers due to not being tortured to death by the Shah