Behold him
and when dawn appears,
raise your hands
take him
as the life-giving warmth of the sun…
NOTE
The following text is a translation of an
article printed in Nos. 59 and 60 of "Khabarnameh",
a periodical published by the Iranian People's Fadaee
Guerrillas in the early 80s prior to the IPFGs'
current publication "Payam Fadaee".
The above mentioned article elaborates upon the illuminating essay titled
"On the Necessity of Armed Struggle and Refutation of the Theory of
Survival", written in the spring of 1970 by comrade Amir-Parviz
Pouyan, one of the great founders and leaders of the
Organization of Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas.
REMARKS
ON "THE NECESSITY OF ARMED STRUGGLE AND REFUTATION OF THE THEORY OF
SURVIVAL"
More than ten years have passed since the writing of
comrade Pouyan's article titled "On the Necessity of Armed Struggle and Refutation of the Theory
of Survival". This short article was one of the factors, which
absorbed a numerous force of revolutionaries into our people's most difficult,
most acute and bloodiest anti‑imperialist struggle. And on the other
hand, it opened a new chapter in the history of Iranian communist thought.
Evidently, comrade Pouyan wrote his article under conditions,
which were significantly different from the present ones. Nevertheless, it
cannot be denied that comrade Pouyan's article
is, till this day, one of the outstanding works of Iranian armed struggle
literature.
"On the
Necessity of Armed Struggle and Refutation of the Theory of Survival" was written under the conditions when national and
class struggle in our society was passing through a less eventful period. And
now, we are in a period of time when our people's history of revolutionary
struggle, in the last few years, has amassed numerous events. Comrade Pouyan, besides
describing the conditions of that time, presents a solution for change. Now
that we have witnessed a period of activities, a look into the past can clarify
history's judgement on this work.
Comrade Pouyan's article can
be analyzed from various aspects and studied with different attitudes and
understanding. For example, the comrade's work can be studied as an independent
article, or it can be considered as a phase in the development of the process
of formation of the revolutionary line. Only under the second condition can the
latent intelligence of the article be realized, and the comrade's real position
and thoughts be comprehended. In that case, it is necessary to study comrade Pouyan's article
in relation to comrade Massoud Ahmad‑Zadeh's
article. In fact, each of the comrades has summed up the groups' inner
discussions at different stages. The interval between " On the Necessity of Armed Struggle and Refutation of the Theory of
Survival" and "The Armed
Struggle both a Strategy and a Tactic" is equal to the interval
between " exercising
revolutionary power" and " the protracted massive war ".
The work of comrade Pouyan, if considered as a single
system, will leave ambiguities. The comrade himself, in a short introduction on
the article, addressed the comrades of the group: "…This article is being published without any alterations so that
it may be corrected and developed in the future with the help of comrades. At any rate, it should not be considered
complete (flawless), in my opinion,
its development is necessary" (1), and then he adds: "In the three months that have passed
since the writing of this article, tens of times we have tested the policy of
armed action, and naturally, each one of our encounters has taught us new
things. Therefore, it seems necessary that I reflect in my article what we have
learned and if these lessons necessitate some changes in parts of the article,
I shall do so." This warning by
comrade Pouyan
instructs us to study his article in relation to its developed system, meaning " Armed Struggle, both a Strategy and a
Tactic". This is only a recommendation.
The article, which is presented here, attempts to
further describe the fundamental thesis of comrade Pouyan's article. The necessity of this is felt mainly because the
revolutionary young generation does not have enough knowledge on the literature
of armed struggle and its formation. Their acquaintance with different angles
of the theory of armed struggle should be tried, followed by a detailed
discussion of it so that greater accuracy in the process of learning would
contribute to its enhancement.
If comrade Pouyan's article is considered as a totalisation
of our groups' beliefs on objective observations, the theoretical
considerations and their practical conclusions in a particular period of its
evolutionary growth, then the process which resulted in the creation of this
work can clarify many important problems. This exigency still exists to
consider the circumstances in the process of formation for the theory of "the Armed Struggle both a Strategy and
a Tactic" given that this theory was born to refute the old ideas and
show their non-conformity with the objective process of our people's struggle
against imperialism and its various lackeys, as today, we are witnessing that
again, the same ideas in another form, continue their existence.
However, some of the most important problems here
have been considered and the comrades' methods of action have been shown in
some facets. In order to clarify the problems which were posed to the comrades,
the prominent work of comrade Massoud Ahmadzadeh called "Armed
Struggle, Both a Strategy and a Tactic" is a confident source to refer
to. Comrade Massoud
wrote: "In this way, we have
accepted that our goal and that of other communist groups must be the creation
of the Marxist‑Leninist Party. Immediately, this question was posed: what
should be done in order to create such a party? Two fundamental tasks then
confronted us. The other groups and we would have to educate the cadres for the
future party amongst the masses. That is to say, by working among the masses
and participating in their combative life, particularly that
of the proletariat, we had to prepare them for the acceptance of such a
party…." (2)
As it is clear, our group, because of the lack of
the necessary experience of struggle and under the effect of the experiences of
the past revolutions, set forth in its program the creation of the
Marxist-Leninist party. Yet, our group could not find its independent identity.
And, in addition, could not establish an exact and appropriate relationship
between accepted "principals" and conditions of practice.
Yet, whatever made it possible for our comrades that
revolutionary development could rectify the incorrect views and attain the
nature and essence of Marxism‑Leninism, was their revolutionary passion
and devotion to participate in the fundamental reconstruction of the conditions
of struggle which had surrounded them.
Immediately they asked themselves "what should be done" to create
such a party? And thus, determined their fundamental tasks.
Now, the conditions in which these tasks should be performed are to be studied
and researched furthermore. Without any doubt, in preparing the grounds for the
creation of a party and preparing the people, especially the proletariat, to
accept it, it was necessary to have an active and revolutionary relationship
with the masses. We should be capable of bringing revolutionary consciousness
to the masses. What methods should we employ? Could participating in the
production process of a factory, establishing a relationship with some of the
more progressive workers and, in this way, affecting the whole situation, be
the way that would lead us to our goal?
On this basis, there were some experiences that
could count as evidence for many realities. After the "White
Revolution", a relatively strong current was created among the political
forces, which placed all of its efforts into establishing contact with the
masses. Many students as Sepahe-Danesh workers and other apparently
appropriate forms tried to establish contact with circles of the masses, and to
create the necessary grounds for the merger of the vanguards with the masses.
This trend lasted only a few months. The students,
who had embarked on this task, became disillusioned and returned with
disappointment and regret to their social classes and continued their normal
intellectual life. Whereas, our comrades, who were involved in the process of
this encounter and also enjoyed having conscious workers in their line, were
soon able to totalize this experience. They also emphasized this point; that
the purpose of bringing awareness amongst the masses does not mean to be in
contact with some isolated individual workers. But, rather, it means that class-consciousness
should affect the entirety of the class (working class) and its practice, and
determine its content. The first condition for the accomplishment of this task
was that the vanguard would have an active relationship with a vast number of masses
of the working class and second, the spontaneous movements of the working class
and the assemblance of the masses would exist.
As a matter of fact, such a relationship was non‑existent. Neither was the problem that the
intellectuals could not, due to their place in social production, at least
accept to undertake such duties under the given conditions, and leave a
revolutionary influence on the struggle of the class or even a segment of it.
Reality showed that even the conscious worker elements that had worked at their
workplace for many years and had extensive relations with their fellow worker
comrades, could not have any revolutionary influence with ordinary methods even
in one factory. Given the extensive police network, any protest from anybody would
result in his/her prosecution, assault and if the individual belonged to a
particular political group, this would endanger the totality of their
organization. All these observations forced the groups themselves to refrain
from having extensive and active connections. Such groups became ever more
isolated and transformed into mere intellectual circles that had broken with
any ties and any active connection with their surroundings. Under such
conditions, the class-consciousness that was carried on by the vanguards could
not have a class-function on the basis of such methods, and even to a more
limited extent, it could not penetrate into some segments of the working class.
On the other hand, participating in the life-struggle of the masses required
the existence for a particular condition of struggle. When, in a society, an
active struggle is not in process, when our people's movement, and among that,
the working‑class movement encounters stagnancy and abatement; and when
the masses themselves, because of a series of reasons which will later be
discussed, have evaded active practice in struggle and avoided contact with
revolutionary vanguard elements, and have not expressed any fervor or devotion
to struggle, then how can one talk about participating in the masses'
life-struggle actively?
No doubt, these realities persuaded our comrades to
review the experiences of the world's revolutions once again, and to take the
following problem under consideration and evaluation; under what conditions did
the revolutionary parties come to exist? The reconsideration of these
conditions exposed important differences between the conditions of our country
and the conditions of others, like
The problem, however, did not resolve itself easily.
In the course of analyzing and considering the differences of our country's
conditions with the experiences of previous revolutions, several other problems
have been identified and solved. It was on the basis of identifying and solving
these problems that the theory of "The Armed Struggle both a Strategy and
a Tactic" was formed and consolidated. Comrade Pouyan's article is a statement
of the view and discussions of the group and a point of the evolutionary
process of these discussions.
When our comrades assessed the conditions of
formation of the party in
The same justification that all large and small
opportunists make is: "the absence of spontaneous movements is due to the
insufficient growth of "contradictions". On the contrary, considering
the society and the analysis that the comrades presented showed exactly the
opposite. These studies showed that the land reform not only did not reduce the
contradictions, but rather intensified them. Therefore, the question raised was
'how is it that the masses feel this suffering with their skin and bones, yet,
we are not witnessing the mass spontaneous movements on a large scale, or to be
more precise, they exist on a much less extended and limited one?' This was not
the kind of problem whose answer could be found in 'the books'. Direct
encounters should be made with reality. Only through studying the specific
state of affairs of class struggle in our society would it be possible to give
a definite and realistic answer. In fact, one of the important theses of
comrade Pouyan's
article was to answer this very question. He wrote: "If we express the oppression brought against them in words, they
themselves feel this oppression with their whole being. If we write about their
sufferings, they themselves constantly experience these sufferings.
Nonetheless, they tolerate them, accept them with patience and, by taking
refuge in petty bourgeois entertainment, try to ease the burden of this
suffering. Why? The various reasons can be summed up into one. They presume the
power of their enemy to be absolute and their own inability to emancipate
themselves as absolute."
Comrade Pouyan's article was subjected to the criticism and the
curse of the opportunists. The pathetic opportunists also criticized 'that from
the point of view of dialectical materialism, if there is no such thing as
"absolute ", then how is it that comrade Pouyan talks of absolute
inability and absolute power?'
They had heard of something yet were unable to
understand its meaning correctly. Whatever dialectical materialism has said
concerning this, is related to the movement of matter
and it does not mean that an individual or some people cannot be found whom in
their minds consider a subject as absolute. The pathos of opportunists, who
in criticizing comrade Pouyan's
article capitalize and use different rules of punctuation for the word
absolute, become exposed especially when they look, for once, at the world
around them in a superficial manner and see how religion makes many thoughts
"absolute" and how millions of people keep these thoughts in their minds
for thousands of years.
The professor‑like
writers of "Rahe
Kargar"(the so-called Workers' Path),
inspired by some Russian writers, wrote that they [I.P.F.G.] intend to "psychologize" all the laws of society's movement. It
would be enough if these gentlemen study the letter of Engels
to Boloch once more, and ask themselves once more
again; what do the subjective conditions of revolution mean? It is probable in
this case that they can independently find the answer. But these individuals
who know of no art other than the parrot‑like memorizing of the texts,
are accustomed to saying repeatedly that the preparedness of the objective
conditions means the existence of the party, and it cannot go beyond this
limit. Whereas, besides that, objective conditions are
related to the sensations and perceptions, inclinations and wishes of millions
of people. Now, how is it that considering these conditions means,
"psychologizing" the laws of society? For example, when writing that the workers lose
their old beliefs of the indestructibility of the system and they are drawn
to struggle, was Lenin engaged in "psychologizing"
the laws of society? Concerning the latter, it should be stated that comrade Pouyan does not
believe that the enemy has absolute power, or the masses have absolute inability. Rather, comrade Pouyan says that
the masses' perceptions are such. And his problem is to find a true path
in order to eliminate this perception.
Setting aside these illiterate criticisms, it should
be said that the formation of these perceptions in the people's minds is the
consequence of a relatively protracted process of our people's practical
struggle. Certainly these praxis of a period of
struggle, its consequences, and its reflection in the masses' minds, and its
transformation into a material force, affect the quality of the process of
future praxis. According to this dictum, whose correctness has been proven by
the realities, the manner in which the formation of these perceptions have
dominated the people's minds for years, should be sought in the history of our
people's struggle.
Since August of 1941 during which our masses'
struggle reached its culmination till July 1953, and later on in more limited
dimensions and with some fluctuation till the year 1961, our people's struggle
continued. During this period (1941‑53), the masses assembled in
different groups and organizations, where the Tudeh
Party and National Front were the most important ones. Approximately for
eighteen years our people's struggle, which was conducted mostly under the
leadership of these two currents, had been consistently defeated. Under the
conditions where the masses had entered the scene of struggle with a combatant
morale and preparedness for any dedication, the parties and groups could not
correctly use the masses' historical energy. By specifying goals and utilizing
methods and tactics that by no means had any conformity with the laws of our
society's movement, these parties and groups caused the defeat of our peoples'
struggle. After the imperialist coup d'etat of July
1953, all the masses' organizations had been demolished. In fact, the dispersed
strength of the masses concentrated in the form of an organization will find
the opportunity to show its opposition to its enemy's concentrated power. The
disintegration of the masses' organization resulted in the destruction of the
people's organized struggle from its limitations and poor content, and
consequently fragmented the struggle among the different segments of the
population. Under these conditions, we are confronted with the enemy's
concentrated crushing power on the one hand, and with the dispersed and
unorganized power of the people on the other. Our people lacking a proletariat
revolutionary vanguard in such a situation,
encountered all of its resistance with defeat.
Right at the point when the masses' movement needed
leadership more than ever, it found a vacuum of this leadership instead. The
consistent defeat of the masses' dispersed struggles created the mentality
within the masses that the enemy is an almighty power, and they are unable to
confront it.
We see that comrade Pouyan's thesis precisely
reflects an angle of reality in our peoples' struggle. The reason that the
working class, and also other toiling masses reach this incorrect conclusion,
is because they cannot independently put forward a scientific statement of
their experience in struggle.
As far as spontaneous mass movement or their
struggle independent of revolutionary vanguard is concerned, they chiefly and
"fundamentally" judge the correctness or incorrectness of their
actions based upon their immediate consequences. They alone could not realize
the fact that power and its magnitude are relative concepts so much so that the
manner of struggle of the opposing sides, their methods, organization and other
various factors render power and its magnitude conditional. They could not
single-handedly discern the fact that their struggle and resistance in
confronting the enemy was quite fragile for the enemy's power acts through a centralized
apparatus somewhat organized, whereas the masses' power is dispersed and
unorganized. With brutal means and methods, the organized power of the anti‑people
regime can undoubtedly be more effective than the power of the masses who still use the same means and methods as in the past
while facing completely different conditions.
This was the reason that after the coup of 1953,
through a process, our peoples' dispersed resistance was brought to defeat and
the remnants of the previous organizations were gradually wiped out. After the
so-called land reforms known as "The White Revolution", following the
events of
The enemy succeeded to impose its power upon the
masses and to terrify them by violently suppressing the masses' struggles,
crushing the popular organizations, and by preventing the reconstruction of the
people's organizations, which is an inevitable point for unity between the
conscious vanguards and a relatively vast number of masses, and finally by
extensive propaganda on and alongside these counter‑revolutionary
actions. The enemy strove to make the masses have a pessimistic view toward any
leadership, thereby weakening the people's morale of resistance more than ever.
Publishing admonitory remarks, exposing the Tudeh Party's betrayals and the other leading figures of the movement,
disgracing genuine honest individuals, all in all were used at the service of
this goal. In practice, the masses witnessed their own consistent defeats on
the one hand, and watched the betrayal of the previous leaders
right in front of their astonished eyes, on the other. These were all
realities. It was within the same process that a type of distrust was formed in
the minds of the masses toward the "vanguard". The masses, who
instinctively realize that they certainly need a revolutionary vanguard in
their political struggle against the enemy, witnessing these facts then, and
also realizing the defeats of their struggles, thus avoided the revolutionary
political struggle.
In short, by dispersing the masses first and then
suppressing their fragmented ranks, the enemy could consequently shatter their
material resistance and along with that by extensive and various propaganda
about its own power, about their leadership's betrayal and about the elements
who claimed to have struggled in the past, it could break the masses' resistant
morale and consequently establish its domination. In fact, the success and
victory of the land reform also automatically meant the suppression and
refutation of the political forces of the time. In the center of these events,
a new communist generation began to grow. Considering the historical activities
of the traitorous Tudeh Party and its tragic
consequences of political activities, this generation, could by no means
believe in following and utilize the same paths and methods propounded by the
traitorous and fugitive leadership of this party. This generation now needed
profound thinking about the new conditions, needed to search the theoretical
and practical ways, and all this was to take place under the conditions where
police control had been established all over the society.
After suppressing the people's struggle, that also
being the process of separation of the vanguard from the masses, the anti‑people
regime strove to maintain this condition. The regime was well aware of the fact
that the conscious sources, mainly the revolutionary vanguard elements
possessing class‑consciousness, should be kept separated from the masses,
for the working class can fight against the influence of the degraded ideology
of other social classes only with the help of its vanguards. Therefore, the
police was trying more than ever to deepen this separation and prevent any kind
of connection. But this was not the revolutionary vanguards' only problem. In
addition, the negative experiences and the despair and hopeless morale of the
masses had made them desolate and disappointed toward any political struggle or
political connection. The masses found themselves disabled of participation,
and evaded those connections.
Therefore, we can see that the above mentioned
picture is the consequence of a specific national and class struggle, which was
in progression in our country. Undoubtedly, this consequence can also be
eliminated through the course of class struggle itself and likewise compensated
by a promoted and revolutionary morale.
Between comrade Pouyan's analysis
on the absence of spontaneous movements, and the thesis of the traitorous Tudeh Party and its masked or unmasked followers, there
exists a fundamental difference.
The traitorous Tudeh Party
and its followers, who believe that the reason for the absence of spontaneous
movement is the insufficient growth of class contradictions, lay the
foundations along the same line and common interests of the majority of
classes in society. Consequently, there remains no place for active and radical
class struggle. In this thesis, the existing reality is accepted as an
obstinate fact. From these dictums, there appears a non‑revolutionary or
even a counter-revolutionary pacifism.
Comrade Pouyan considers the reasons for the absence of spontaneous
movements to be the violent suppression of the masses' struggle by the regime,
the despair and hopelessness of the masses, and the vanguard's weakness.
From this viewpoint, a searching and revolutionary
radicalism is deduced. Furthermore, the whole question is of how the vanguard
can participate in changing this reality and draw the masses to the acute scene
of struggle. This revolutionary proletarian radicalism, which too demands
revolutionary practice, will become a river through which the truth in all its
dimensions will be discovered. The revolutionary confidence and determination
based upon proletarian ideology is the basis upon which to obtain the factual
truth as the passion and excitement of obtaining the truth finds its
revolutionary conclusions in taking a proletarian stand.
In comrade Pouyan's thesis, this reflection is accepted as a reality
but its justification is not. It is the incorrect understanding of the masses'
practice that is pictured in their minds. And the enemy, with the help of these
subjective conditions, strives more than ever to restrain the grounds for the
penetration of proletariat ideology. As soon as this fact becomes evident, it
should be brought to the masses; it should be made known to the masses.
Although during the Shah's time, even a logical mind
searching for the truth was able to comprehend the realities as they were and
to analyze them correctly, and even though there existed a loophole for
inverting and freezing the truth in the past, this ground was diminished from
the beginning of the revolutionary elevation of our people's movement. During
the whole process of struggle of the past few years, our people used any
tribune in order to explain and describe their endured pain and suffering. Only
by referring once to the publications of different political groups, the
speeches and letters of workers, peasants and other toilers can be studied; and
the truth can be seen for what it was. In the majority of these letters and
speeches, the peasants and workers talk about their grave fears. They state how
terrified they were to raise their voice of protest during the Shah's time,
because "any voice of protest was answered back by bullets". They
also describe how the Shah's regime and its terrible police apparatus had put
them under such pressure that any objection could cost them their home and
shelter, and so they tolerated the conditions. The peasants talk of the immense
and boundless pressures, and of the usurpation of their lands. The majority of
them talk about the "just" land reform and many other things, which
confirm all what comrade Pouyan
had reflected in his thesis. Even today, a logically minded individual can
easily listen to the words of many people and hear straight from their mouths
the story of their lives during the Shah's time.
The course of our peoples' movement reveals how the
masses, as soon as they perceived the government to be in a weaker position
than before, gradually recaptured their courage and sprang into the realm of
action. All these facts indicate that comrade Pouyan had been able to correctly analyze the realities of his time.
Comrade Pouyan utilizes the Marxist‑Leninist dictum, mainly
the full-fledged and resulted dictums from the experiences of the world
proletariat. And by relying on the concrete analysis of the conditions, he presents
a concrete action and determines particular revolutionary duties.
The general task of all the revolutionary vanguards
of the proletarian is to raise the awareness of the masses and the practical
leadership of the working class in the course of class struggle. But in what
struggle does the proletariat finds its class self‑consciousness and
takes the effort of reconstructing history? This is exactly one of the problems
that Lenin discusses in his magnificent work "What Is To Be Done?" Lenin clarifies
that proletarian self‑consciousness appears and grows only through the
proletariat struggle against the capitalist system. As long as the proletariat
limits its struggle to the corporal economic struggle, it cannot perceive its
position within the whole system of society's class relations. And this
limitation will not allow the working class to present its great strength as a
revolutionary class and realize its immense force through practice.
Only through changing the whole socio-economic
system does the proletariat recognize its real enemies, its unwavering allies
as well as its temporary ones for the proletariat self‑consciousness is
accomplished through subtlety and the precise re‑recognition of its
relationship with other social classes. When the proletariat is determined to
change the system, it has to destroy the obstinate resistance of the
reactionary classes. The first condition is in setting up new relations for the
seizing of state power. It is through the course of this struggle and in the
pursuit of such goals that the proletariat has to destroy the ideological
barricades of the other classes, and has to explain its practice in the light
of its ideology.
The masses do not analyze first and then act. They
do not ask themselves what the revolutionary "principal", is in order
to conform their future practice in accordance to these principals. The
learning of the proletariat doesn't take place through polemics, but rather
takes shape mostly by relying upon the experiences of struggle. It is precisely
with the help of their vanguards that the masses can relate all the social
events to their own combative experiences. It is with the help of their
vanguard that the masses can present the correct explanation of their own
position and practice. Consequently, they cannot obtain their class ideology
otherwise. On the other hand, the proletariat lives in social interactions and
relationships with other classes and is always vulnerable to the ideological
propagation of these classes. As a result, there exists the ongoing potential
of non‑proletarian ideology penetrating into the working class. It is,
therefore, one of the vanguard's important tasks to prevent the penetration of
other class ideologies into the ranks the working class. Should we arm the
proletariat with Marxist-Leninist ideology, and in this way lead its practice
to make its stand ever stronger and determined through class struggle? Having
presented this introduction, let us now see what comrade Pouyan says in this regard.
Comrade Pouyan
wrote: "A relationship with the
proletariat, with the aim of drawing this class into political struggle, cannot
be established except by changing this assumption, by destroying these two
absolutes in their minds. Thus, under existing circumstances, where there exists
no democratic possibility of making contact with, giving political
consciousness to, and organizing the proletariat, the proletarian intellectuals
must of necessity make contact with the masses of its class through
revolutionary power. The revolutionary power establishes a moral tie between
the proletariat and the proletarian intellectuals and the continued exercise of
this power will lead to organizational ties."
The main goal of the vanguards' relationship with
the proletariat is expressed within the first sentence, "A relationship
with the proletariat, with the aim of drawing this class into political
struggle…." The reason for this dictum has been explained, however, this
is the general task of all revolutionary vanguards in the world. Under specific
conditions, one should realize as to how the vanguard could provide the
circumstances in order to achieve this goal. Comrade Pouyan here relies on the
concrete analysis of concrete situations in his argument and expresses the
circumstances for achieving this goal.
In raising the question: 'What the fundamental reason for the absence of
the extensive spontaneous mass movements is', comrade Pouyan has answered that 'the
masses have an incorrect perception, i.e., the enemy has absolute power, while
they have absolute inability. Therefore, how can the masses, who cannot enter
the realm of active struggle, think of freedom with absolute inability facing
absolute power, unless this image is destroyed? Comrade Pouyan specifies that, one of the
important conditions, therefore, is to destroy this image, but with what method
and how? In order to reach these objectives, connections must be established
with the masses, yet, we were in circumstances where "the absence of any
democratic conditions" had made our connection with the people very
difficult. Even in using the most indirect and hence the least fruitful method
of communication, we could not embark upon the previous known models and
methods of activity. Not only would the analysis of the objective reality and the
code of understanding the class struggle in our dominated country show the
weaknesses and the inefficiency of those methods, but also the experience of
eighteen years of struggle would cancel them out.
No, by recognizing the basic ways, "…that the
enemy had chosen for keeping us separated from the proletariat and the
proletariat from us…", we proportionally should
choose the methods that would neutralize the enemy's methods. Not by
ideological struggle, but basically by violently suppressing the people's
movement along with the spreading of an extensive police network, the enemy
could draw the movement to stagnation. It was in this context that extensive
anti‑people propaganda became useful. But this was not the only problem.
As mentioned in part one of this article, through a
relatively protracted struggle, the masses realized the inefficiency and
inability of the chosen methods of struggle and forms of organization, and had
lost all confidence in those methods and in the vanguards. If our comrades were
only satisfied with propaganda leaflets and exposure, they would not be any
different from the opportunists of the time. We did not believe that the defeat
of our people's movement was due to their lack of preparation. Through the
pages of history, all can see the heroism of our people during that period.
Rather, in our opinion, the lack of proletarian leadership and appropriate
line, the adaptation of wrong and inappropriate methods of struggle, and the
disproportional forms of organization led the movement to defeat. Furthermore, as was previously pointed out,
for instance, it wasn't that the workers didn't know the meaning or importance
of "strike" nor was it that they were not familiar with this kind of struggle.
Rather, the problems existed precisely for the reason that the people had
constantly experienced these methods of struggle only to witness negative
consequences. As a result, they divorced themselves from active struggle and
adopted an inactive stance toward any serious agenda of struggle.
Therefore, a method had to be presented so that the
working class and other popular classes could experience its material
development in practice. This was the core of the problem. A certain method had
to be adopted that would neutralize police procedures in practice, and
demonstrate our revolutionary power; a method of struggle and organization in
which the circumstances of class struggle in our society would guarantee its
survival.
This great task was both theoretical and practical.
It was under these circumstances that Comrade Pouyan wrote, "the proletarian intellectual
must establish ties with the masses of the proletariat through the vehicle of
revolutionary power", and he immediately expressed the outcome of this
method of connecting in the process of movement. "Revolutionary power
establishes spiritual ties between the proletarian intellectuals and the proletariat", and the application of this power in its
continuity shall lead to organizational ties. Revolutionary application of
power practically shows the masses that the enemy is vulnerable. The
continuance of this revolutionary practice shows the masses that we can resist
and struggle against the enemy. The masses, who feel
the pain and suffering with their own skin and bones, see their future in the survival
and growth of this course and hence are attracted to it. The existence and
growth of the revolutionary power teaches the masses that they can keep the
enemy under attack; that they can begin to resist and struggle and it is
important that with the correct method and proper organization they begin the
struggle. Application of both the correct method and the survival of the
organization together with "distinct political propagation" that, in
particular, could be useful in such a process, weakens the previously described
misconception in the masses' minds, and eventually provides a basis for
creating a revolutionary change in them.
The opportunists tried to find a similarity between
comrade Puyan's
views and the Nardonics of Lenin's time. The
opportunists thought that the finding of a pretext would strengthen their
ideological viewpoints. They strove to reduce the reasons for the necessity of
armed struggle to the level of the Nardonics'
reasoning, and to represent the armed struggle merely as an agitational
issue so that they could then comfortably ruminate
Lenin's work.
As it was briefly explained, our main goal of
"exercising the revolutionary power" that comrade Pouyan suggests, was not to
"encourage" the proletariat to go on strike nor was it to "agitate"
them.
It is not necessary to create struggle by
"motivating" the masses. The motivation for struggle exists in the
heart of the material conditions of the masses' lives. Thus the mentioned
objection like the other objections is both futile and groundless.
The important task was that the misconception of the
"absolute" in the peoples' minds would practically be shaken. And
only the application of revolutionary power by the revolutionary vanguards and
continuance of this struggle could prove this reality to the masses. The
problem was to determine the specific methods through which the energy of the
masses could heave its tremendous revolutionary force, and demonstrate its
power in its entirety and completion.
This is the idea that comrade Pouyan pursues. However, that is
not comrade Pouyan's sole idea presented in his short and
substantially meaningful essay. Comrade Pouyan's essay
could be considered from various angles, but unfortunately there is no
opportunity here to discuss them all. However, a subject that we cannot ignore
and which should be discussed, even if briefly, is the section of the article
where he argues the refutation of the theory of survival. In this part, comrade
Pouyan
severely criticizes and exposes the pacifist views of those who evade any sort
of revolutionary action in order to save their own sordid existence or that of
their group's.
Here again, two main currents can be distinguished.
One current stays aside of the struggle, evades face to face confrontation with
the enemy, and denies active struggle so that it saves itself for the
"promised moment". This current considers its submission to the
existing reality as the only condition for the perpetuation of its survival.
The other current is determined to change the status quo through revolutionary
practice and by face to face and direct combat with the enemy.
The former creates the "theory of survival" and the latter the "refutation of the theory of
survival". The former, being secluded, considers itself isolated and
its growth independent of its social circumstances. The latter is a source of
the breakdown of airy optimism. It is all rebellion, and it is determined to
destroy the deterrent forces through its active practice, and to open the way
by annihilating those forces to a more advanced development. One is the praiser of silence and tranquility and the other is the
follower of the philosophy of movement and progress.
Comrade Pouyan represents the latter current in his work, and
strongly criticizes those supporting the theory of survival.
Indeed, why do we need an organization consisting of
conscious elements within the working class? Why is its preservation and
continuance necessary? The answers to these questions are clear for Marxist‑Leninists.
We need an organization for change, for revolutionary practice and for a new
rebuilding of the present reality, and as long as it can undertake this great
task, its preservation and continuity is necessary. "Survival" at all
costs is not what is sacred to Marxist‑Leninists, but rather, it is both
development and revolutionary survival of their organization that is vital to
them. A form of survival that gives the organization the possibility to create
radical changes under given circumstances, to improve and radicalize itself while providing the circumstances for ever more
profound and revolutionary changes. The revolutionary organization cannot be
assessed by its very existence, but rather by the roles it plays in the course
of combative conditions. Only through the process of revolutionary practice and
the active participation in changing the circumstances can the revolutionary
organization develop itself, mature and become evermore prepared for playing an
increasingly advanced role in the revolutionary struggle. What did become of
those groups who thought they could protect their survival without any active
association to their surroundings, without confronting the existing problems
deterring the revolutionary struggle, and without continuous revolutionary
activity? They became putrefied swamps contaminating their surroundings.
These groups thought that their "cadres"
would be able to undertake the task of leadership at the promised moment, when
the masses had risen all at once. Only the metaphysically minded could accept
the elusiveness of this type of thinking. The cadres will become skilled
through problems that they encounter; they will enrich their acquired knowledge
through the course of struggle and thereby obtain the preparation for an even
more comprehensive and profound understanding of the realities.
If the cadres do not gain experience through the
process of struggle, they certainly will never achieve effectiveness at the
moments of crisis, at the moments when millions of people will have risen to
change their history. Just as people discover their identity and change
themselves alongside changing circumstances, revolutionary cadres develop their
potentials as well and constantly expand their practical abilities purely
through revolutionary practice. A revolutionary organization, too, attains its
identity through revolutionary policy, that is, revolutionary practice. And in
this manner, it broadens and advances. It is only through this active practice,
through radical changes and the reconstruction of society that they warrant the
name vanguard. If they are not able to play their revolutionary role, then they
do not merit the name revolutionary vanguard.
Comrade Pouyan's theoretical work is one of the explicit
contributions in the literature of the armed struggle. Nevertheless, as it has
been already mentioned, it should be noted that comrade Pouyan's article was not the last stage of the group's thoughts concerning
the Iranian revolutionary approach. But rather, our comrades studied the
problem from all angles "tens of times" thereby acquiring an all
encompassing view toward the armed struggle whose summary crystallized in the
work of comrade Massoud Ahmad-Zadeh,
a great leader of the Iranian People's Fadaee
Guerrillas. If comrade Pouyan's
work is read single-handedly, his actual views cannot be fully
comprehended, but if this work is studied in the context of the revolutionary
thought process of our organization in connection with revolutionary modus
operandi, then one can better acquire the inner intelligence of the article.
In comrade Pouyan's work, the meaning of "Armed Struggle; both a Strategy and a Tactic" latently
exists, in spite of the fact that it does not appear in its completed form.
Studying comrade Pouyan's
and comrade Massoud's
works in relation with each other can provide a basis for perceiving the
process of the theoretical evolution of our organization, which demonstrates
that only through answering these theoretical and practical problems the
inscription of the revolutionary theory of the armed struggle became possible.
The
Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas
1981
In memory of
Comrade Amir-Parviz Pouyan
Twenty-eight years will have passed this July since
the martyrdom of comrade Amir‑Parviz Pouyan, one
of the founders and leaders of the Organization of the Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas. Comrade Pouyan was a revolutionary
combatant, and a truthful, pensive revolutionary thinker. He was a conscious
combatant and full of enthusiasm. He deeply loved the working class, and was a
devotee to a future in which "for its achievement found any hesitation
inadmissible."
The memory of this great comrade will be immortal in
the history of Iranian armed struggle. And the followers of his path will be
inspired by his unconquerable firmness and determination and his unique
enthusiasm and perception.
In memory of
Comrade Eskandar Sadeghi-Nejad
The one who was all "fury and courage".
The People's Fadaee
Guerrilla, comrade Eskandar Sadeghi‑Nejad,
was one of the workers who himself played an important role in the establishment
of the armed struggle.
Comrade Eskandar actively participated in syndicate and political‑syndicate
struggles of Iranian workers for many years, and was known as one of its
leaders. Years of living in a working‑class neighborhood and numerous experiences
of combative life eventually led him to the conclusion that the only path to
freedom is armed struggle.
His deep hatred toward imperialism and all of its
chained lackeys, his determination in fighting against them, his devotion,
revolutionary passion and courage, indeed made him a combatant revolutionary
worker.
His indestructible confidence in armed struggle, and
his obstinacy and hatred toward opportunists will undoubtedly be an example for
the followers of his path.
In memory of
Comrade Rahmatolah Payro-Naziri
Comrade Rahmatolah became familiar with political issues in his
youth and played an active role in advancing our people's political struggle.
The armed struggle of our Siahkal
comrades in Feb.7, 1970 was a turning point in his political life. From then
on, he joined the struggle with a firmer and stronger determination.
Comrade Rahmatolah Payro‑Naziri, along with the great comrades Amir‑Parviz Pouyan and Eskandar Sadeghi‑Nejad,
accomplished the revolutionary execution of the anti-people Farsio (supreme commander of the
military court) on
We honor the memory of this Fadaee
Guerrilla, the co‑combatant of the heroic Pouyan and Eskandar. His everlasting memory
will always be with the Fadaee Guerrillas.
You rose even stronger than death
And sang your revolutionary words;
Your prolonged red songs
On the chained asleep plateau;
"Rise you
oh! The poverty‑stricken!", you sang,
"Rise you
oh! The starved!"
"Rise you
oh! The oppressed!"
You chanted with the fire of your machine‑gun
So great, so powerful
That the weary masses moved
And the palaces of blood and oppression
trembled;
So the storm bloomed…
FOOTNOTES
1) All comrade Pouyan's quotations are taken from "On
the Necessity of Armed Struggle and Refutation of the Theory of Survival",
published by the supporters of I.P.F.G.
2) P.33 of the "Armed
Struggle; both a Strategy and a Tactic", English translation.
3) P. 33 of the "Armed
Struggle; both a Strategy and a Tactic", English translation.