Those Addressed by The Traitorous Tudeh Party's Central Committee Are Not The People's Fadaee Guerrillas!

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

In February 1971, the Organization of Iranian People's Fedaee Guerrillas (O.I.P.F.G.) initiated the armed struggle in Iran by attacking the gendarmery at Siahkal in Northern Iran. This battle, although militarily a defeat, was an important political victory. Ever since, many revolutionary groups and elements have joined the armed struggle movement and hundreds of revolutionaries have been brutally executed or killed in armed clashes with the regime. Frightened by their heroic struggle, the regime utilized all of its forces to suppress the movement. Imprisonment, torture, and execution were furiously used. But in spite of all the SAVAK raids and arrests, the O.I.P.F.G. survived and the struggle went on. In 1975, the O.I.P.F.G. suffered heavy losses in several raids on the organization's bases and many comrades were killed. This severe blow practically destroyed the organization's leadership completely. Thus, a new leadership was formed, which managed to get through some difficulties. These new leaders were not from the prominent membership, and thus, because of their position and period of membership in the organization, they could not understand the theory of armed struggle as deeply as the martyred prominent comrades had. Also, later, the new atmosphere and relative ease of the conditions of struggle made it possible for opportunists to appear on the scene again and claim the proletariat leadership.

 

Comrade Ashraf Dehghani, a prominent member of the O.I.P.F.G., was arrested in 1971 and savagely tortured. She succeeded in breaking out of the maximum-security prison and later rejoined the organization. During this time, she wrote her memoirs, which have been translated into English under the title, Torture and Resistance in Iran. During the 1975 raids, Comrade Dehghani and Comrade Hormatipour, both members of the High Council of the O.I.P.F.G., lost contact with the organization while on assignment outside the country. They had been put in charge of coordinating the organization's relations with the revolutionary and progressive organizations in the region and throughout the world, and also of providing any possible needs the organization might have within the country. Later, when they regained contact with the organization, they found, to their surprise, that the new leadership had adopted the position that the past policies and methods of the O.I.P.F.G. were not only non‑Marxist but also leftist opportunist, although they would not reveal this to their supporters or publicly announce it. The comrades also discovered that in spite of all the propaganda propounded by the new leaders about the imprisoned comrades, recently freed from jail by the people, they would only accept into the organization those who either somehow rejected the theory of armed struggle, or failed to realize the deviant tendencies within the organization toward this theory.

 

Comrade Ashraf Dehghani at first decided to stay in the organization as a regular member and start an ideological struggle with the new leadership. Later, however, because of certain actions of the leaders, and in the best interests of the O.I.P.F.G., she, along with other comrades, severed ties with this organization. With the support of the people's revolutionary forces, they formed an organization based on the armed struggle theory, and retained the name O.I.P.F.G. At present, both of these organizations use the same emblem and name (O.I.P.F.G.). However, since the new leaders, who reject the theory of armed struggle, always refer to themselves in their publications, as "People's Fadaiyan" and do not use the word "guerrilla", they are for this reason referred to in this pamphlet and by many organizations as "People's Fadaiyan". In this way, one can distinguish this organization and its publications from the other.

 

This pamphlet is one of many such works by the Organization of Iranian People's Fedaee Guerrillas and has been translated by some supporters abroad in the hope that some aspects of the on‑going ideological struggle within the communist movement of Iran be better known to the progressive forces of the world.

 

The Iranian People’s Fadaee Guerrillas

March, 1980

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THOSE ADDRESSED BY THE TRAITOROUS TUDEH PARTY'S CENTRAL COMMITTEE ARE NOT THE PEOPLE'S FADAEE GUERRILLAS!

 

The new communist movement in Iran began to grow under such adverse conditions that facing it, on the one hand, was widespread dictatorship determined to destroy any struggle in its embryonic stage; and, on the other hand, the Iranian people themselves, whose opposition had been abated to almost a stagnant point, because of the treasonous acts and mistakes of the so‑called diligent organizations, especially the Tudeh Party. Dictatorship was therefore able to be effectively imposed on the masses of the people. The Tudeh Party's "revolutionary policy" could be felt anywhere we would go. The party leaders had escaped from the battlefield with such haste that their action befitted the most glorious of traitors. They did not even have the decency to cover up some of their dirty work before escaping. The Shah's regime would discredit any move by branding it as an act of the Tudeh Party. This was possible because for a long period of time the lack of political awareness made it difficult for the masses and even intellectuals to draw a firm and clear line between the Tudeh Party and Marxism‑Leninism. This lack of consciousness led to a very simple equation = members of the Tudeh Party were Marxists. They were not representatives of the people, but agents of a foreign power. They betrayed their people; henceforth, all Marxists were, in this way, followers of a foreign power and traitors. There are two points resulting from such simple and Aristotelian logic, one positive and one negative. The positive result was that it made it impossible for the above‑mentioned Party to grow; and the negative result being that such a view was generalized and prevented contact and communication between the proletariat vanguard and its own class or other classes or strata of the people.

 

Because of such a situation, one of our organizational tasks from the very beginning was to fight opportunism and first and foremost, the Tudeh Party. We had to convince the masses that our movement, from any viewpoint, was quite different from that of the Tudeh Party, so as to have them trust their vanguards. To prove that we would not desert them in a crisis and escape the battlefield, we had to shed our blood in the most difficult conditions of struggle: To show that the real revolutionary vanguard of the people not only would not betray them but instead, would commit his/her whole life to their betterment, and to the benefit of the people, especially the proletariat. Our organization would have to show in theory and in practice, clearly and without a doubt, the great gap between two political lines, two politics, two lifestyles, two cultures, and two moralities; one in the realm of the bourgeoisie, the other of the proletariat; one belonging to the Tudeh Party, the other our own.

 

We then could, objectively and subjectively, wipe out in our own organization any base that would lead to the Tudeh Party's line of thought, and also, we could practically achieve such a necessity in the communist movement and people's struggle as a whole. One basic problem was our organizational fight against the police, which had Tudeh Party members at its service. Because of the above facts, our organization from the very beginning set forth this principle in regard to our contacts with other forces: to assume every Tudeh Party member to be a police agent unless proven otherwise. In this way, we could prevent one of the main ways in which the police could infiltrate our organization.

 

If the Tudeh Party could not train dedicated revolutionary cadres for the masses, it could at least be proud of educating and providing very clever ones for the reaction. These elements trained by the Tudeh Party, who could not do any constructive action for the masses, ingratiated themselves to the other side wholeheartedly. Every Tudeh Party organization inside the country became such a police network that SAVAK could claim they had a "crystal ball" in which they could foresee any slight move even before it occurred. The Tehran Tashkilat [Tehran Organization] under the leadership of the "great" Tudeh Party member, Abbas Shariyari, the man of a thousand faces (1) is one clear and bright example of the Tudeh Party's revolutionary dedication to the people of Iran! The treasonous Tudeh Party leaders who were living in their "brother" countries [fraternal parties], knew for a long time that the police had infiltrated the Tehran Tashkilat "to a great extent" and they also knew that Abbas Shariyari was a police agent, but they ignored it because they knew it would have a very bad effect on their prestige. This muck was afraid that this would hurt their prestige! No wonder that "Conrad" Keyanoori (2), ever since honoring Iran with his return, when speaking of the Party's affairs, has told his members that "nobody would hang his dirty clothes outside to show his neighbor". Now, really! Yes, that's the way he handles the movement's matters; but the problem is not only a question of this kind of philosophy. The real problem is that all of their clothes are dirty.

 

Anyway, as we have said, with the help of our revolutionary policy, we could isolate all the opportunist organizations, the Tudeh Party being foremost. However, because of the general conditions governing the struggle, we never had a chance to analyze fully and in depth the Tudeh Party's basis of thought for the communist movement. Today we are again witnessing such tendencies flickering deep within the viewpoints of many communist movement organizations that claim to strongly oppose the Tudeh Party, that sooner or later will come to the surface. Now, the Tudeh Party leaders, perhaps sensing favorable circumstances, have left their country, meaning their "brother" countries, and have come back to Iran to busily gather the "old" forces together as fast as possible After all, they are of the old Tudeh Party members who had put aside their political lives, at least in regard to the people's interest: the contractors, businessmen, bureaucrats and artists who had been for years the preachers of hopelessness, and the politically disillusioned - ­these are now building the "bulk" of the party. But can any of these add any prestige to the justly lost respect of the Party? It becomes necessary, therefore, to find other forces that could perhaps help to surmount even a little, their political bankruptcy. The Tudeh Party has been trying this for a long time and whenever they found any organization or group anywhere which had politics similar to their own, have tried to benefit from it right away. For example, at a tine when the Tudeh Party despaired of any hope of using our organization, they wrote the following about a group outside the country, which claimed belief in the armed struggle but were showing tendencies to deviate from this policy:

 

"In Numbers 2 and 3 of the Noozdah Bahman (3) publication, which is published under the name of the Organization of Iranian Peoples Fedaee Guerrillas, two articles in which appear detailed political positions of one of the factions of the OIPFG have been published. These articles represent in depth this faction's political stand up to the fall of 1352 (1973). The reason we consider these articles to be political positions from one of the factions of OIPFG is that they in the context differ appreciatively from those of the Nabard Khalgh publication, which is the official publication of OIPFG. These two articles attempt to defend the basic line of the guerilla movement from a Marxist‑Leninist standpoint while attacking anarchism as anti‑Marxist‑Leninist and anti‑revolutionary currents. They point to leftist tendencies within the guerrilla movement as a serious danger for the whole guerrilla movement." ("Again a Conversation with OIPFG", Dunya, Number 3, June 1975). (4)

 

However, now that the Tudeh Party wants to enter into a political deal with the usurper of our organizational name, they are attacking these same publishers of the Noozdah Bahman.  Afterwards the Tudeh Party played the same game with the group that branched out of the OIPFGS which disgracefully exposed them. Now that they see their policies very close to those whom vainly call themselves OIPFG they cannot contain themselves for joy. This time they want to use all of the historical prestige of our organization, all the heroism, truthfulness‑meaning they want to use the blood of the same "young adventurist isolated from the masses" for the sake of their dirty and anti‑people goals; and thus tells "young Tudeh Party followers "Welcome, although you came a little late. But truly, what has happened that makes the Tudeh Party so happy? To understand this point one must perceive the essence of the Tudeh Party's policies, and the similarities of these policies with those of this group. In this manner one can understand the reasons for this Party's happiness.

 

The Tudeh Party is one of the most adamant organizations subjectively and objectively. It is adamant in its decadence, adamant in pursuing anti‑proletarian goals, while assuming the role of being pro‑proletarian. The Party's policy is in accordance with the Party's method, the Party's method is in accordance with its practical tendencies, and its Practical tendencies are in con­formity with the Party's class interest. One can truly say that the Tudeh Party has never abandoned their political line. In every step they take they follow exactly the same goals, the same policies, and the same interest. If today the Tudeh Party imitates the preachers of "Valayet Faghih" (6), if they vote yes on the new con­stitution and add fuel to the fire of the reactionary rulers' power, this is, in fact, the continuation of the same policy that approved Mohammed Reza Shah's reforms; called the 15th of Khordad (7) move reactionary, and called the people of Tabriz ruffians during their heroic revo­lutionary struggle in 1978.

 

We have always stressed the point that the Tudeh Party's actions have never been the result of their theor­etical mistakes, that all of the Party's actions and re­actions have been exactly the logical result of their practical tendencies. If we accept that the same condi­tions necessary for a phenomenon to come into existence, are also necessary to ensure its future growth, many points about the Tudeh Party would be revealed. The formation of the Tudeh Party was not the result of the Iranian masses internal effort. The Tudeh Party came into existence with the support of the Red Army (8) and began its growth not in the womb of the masses' movement, but by getting nourishment from the Soviets foreign policies. Revolutionary organizations always try to be the protector of the people's interest, foremost the proletariat in­terest. The Tudeh Party has always tried to be the pro­tector of the Soviet Union's interest. A revolutionary organization always tries to guarantee its growth through the process of class struggle and by solidifying itself with the people and relying on the masses' power. The Tudeh Party has always tried to guarantee its existence through collusion with the ruling class and for this part, it is not important just who is sitting in the throne of power. Rather, what is important is how far the rulers are ready to politically collude with them and what their role is in regard to world politics. Even during the years before 1953 (9) when the Tudeh Party established a linkage with a portion of the masses, they used the masses' power toward their own dirty goals and now that they lack such support, the Tudeh Party is reduced more than ever to beggary to continue its disgraceful life. Any force that is not dependent on the people's power is forced to rely on a foreign power, not only for its ideology but also for its policy and programs. If we take a look at the Tudeh Party's policies and those of "The Revolutionary Organization" (10) we can see, that in spite of all the insults thrown at each other, how in practice they follow the same policy. This father and son see their mere existence depending on an external ideology, independent of the toilers' interest and on conformity to non‑proletarian interests of this or that‑country claiming to be socialist. Just a glance at the Tudeh Party's disgraceful report card reveals the essence of this party's politics. History witnesses very well, when, in the period between the years 1950‑1953, at the height of our people's anti‑imperialist struggle, how the Tudeh Party leadership took a treasonous position in regard to our people's movement, by their unquestioning pursuit of the Soviets' foreign policy and by diverting the minds of communist forces from a correct realization of society's contradictions and thus the proper position of the forces. Also, how they moved to weaken the movement by drafting a wrong slogan instead of trying to radicalize the movement more than ever. During the years following World War II, 1945 on, when the withdrawal of some of the foreign troops from Iran was under consideration, Mr. Keyanoori wrote the following: "The main condition for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iran is first the assurance of their legitimate interests in Iran." (Mardom for Intellectuals, No. 44, 8/l/45)  It would have been nice if Mr. Keyanoori had explained how foreign forces could have interests in our country and these interests be legitimate ones. Is Mr. Keyanoori stupid? One cannot answer this question positively, although a negative answer is not fair either. Let's just say that Mr. Keyanoori is a highly experienced middleman.

 

During the period 1944‑1946 at the height of the Azerbaijan and Kurdistan peoples' movements, it was the traitorous Tudeh Party leadership who collaborated with the then government and brought about the conditions for the defeat of these movements. These same leaders, at a time when the struggle of the Southern Iranian Oil Workers was at its height, accepted three positions as Ministers in the cabinet of Ghavam Al-sal-taneh  (the well‑known British mercenary); and used their power to break the Southern Oil Workers strike, and later, also to break the armed Workers Organization of the Shirgah Mine in Mazandaran Province; thus, aiding the reactionaries to suppress the people.

 

During the years 1950‑1952 when the Iranian people were solidly in the midst of a determinant struggle against British Imperialism, these traitors, with all kinds of plots and conspiracies and obstructions, and by propagating their own "Tudeh Party" viewpoint, were bringing about the conditions for this struggle's defeat. By announcing their opposition to the slogan of the nationalization of the Oil Industry and substituting "The cancellation of the Southern Oil contracts" instead, they openly stood face to face in opposition to the people and wrote in their official organ: "We want to explain this matter with the utmost clarity: that we do not generally oppose the extraction of Iranian oil nor do we oppose in essence the giving of concessions." (Neeson Paper, Number 20,1949). With such a policy can one say that the Tudeh Party has only made a mistake about Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh? (11) The Tudeh Party could not approve the national movement of Dr. Mossadegh.  Dr. Mossadegh's  "negative balance" thesis (12) naturally was not in harmony with the goals of the Tudeh Party and their practical tendencies. Therefore, these traitorous leaders would have to say that: "Demagoguery is the last arrow in colonialism's quiver and Dr. Mossadegh is their representative.'' (Basouya  Ayandeh, 1949).

 

This was a portion of the Tudeh Party's policies up to the time they could use the people's power as a means for their own political dealings. But after the treacherous act of 1953 (CIA coup), the masses recognized the nature of this party and cut their ties with it. At this stage, the Tudeh Party leaders had to make themselves available to be used. Is the condemnation of the mass movement at the 15^th of Khordad or the condemnation of the mass struggle in Tabriz (13), and disgraceful acts such as these, the result of the Tudeh Party's lack of understanding? When stated in Navid Extra, 1977: "The regime, in accordance with its usual method and by committing a series of destructive acts through the knife‑wielding ruffians of the SAVAK, is trying to justify its barbaric murderous actions, and insult, torment and persecute those who, by using their lawful rights, have demonstrated in civil peace." (14) Was their propaganda against the armed revolutionary organizations inside the country only because of differences in Marxist‑Leninist perception? The answer is negative. All of these ingratiating acts were only to gain some privileges from the rulers. The Tudeh Party was ready to sell its soul to Satan perhaps to save its body but the real problem that the treacherous Tudeh Party leadership faced was that Satan was not willing to deal with them. The general conditions governing society and the fact that the Tudeh Party was not an accountable force, made it possible for the traitor, Mohammed Reza Shah to disregard them. In spite of this, anytime that the government of the Shah would sign an economic contract with the so‑called Socialist block, the party, "with all its strength" praised his "national independent" policy and interpreted the Shah's "tendency toward the East" as anti‑imperialist, all of which seemingly occurred without the knowledge of the Shah's masters; although their propaganda advocating activities within the framework of the constitution and attacks on the people's revolutionary gains and people's violent struggle was "the result" of their activities during recent years and before their return to Iran.

 

Anytime the Shah would disappoint the Tudeh Party's "Marxist‑Leninists"; they would inquire about lower ranking officials. That is why the "Party" established close contacts in Baghdad in 1969 with the murderer Bakhtiar, the first head of SAVAK. When this shameful scandal came to the surface, they put all of the blame on Radmanesh, their puppet who at the time was the party chief. In this way, they ended the power struggle for party leadership in favor of "Comrade" Eskandari, and then Keyanoori. We mustn't forget their brilliant theses such as "battle against the Shah's individual dictatorship" and the formation of a "United Front against dictatorship" which they presented. With the propaganda and the advocacy of these theses, they would, on the one hand, divert the people's struggle against imperialism and reduce it to merely a fight against the Shah's dictatorship, and, on the other hand, make it possible through "the invitation of the provident factions of the ruling clique" for unification and cooperation, to get a piece of the action, and together with the comprador bourgeoisie and bureaucrats pursue, shoulder to shoulder and in "comradeship",  "the non‑capitalist path of development".

 

Now there have been some changes in the rulers and different people are sitting on the throne. The Tudeh Party's program is also obvious; collusion with the rulers and the possibility of growth in this way. Changes of the rulers bring apparent and strange mutations in the Tudeh Party. "Tudeh Party Socialism" conforms itself to religion and the Tudeh Party leaders themselves become mullahs (priests).  The rulers proceed to suppress the democratic bases while the Tudeh Party begins propaganda against democratic structures. Why are we only saying propaganda? Because it lacks practical ability. The ruling body brings the most inadmissible accusations against the progressive press and behold, the Tudeh Party also starts propaganda against the press in order to be able to publish their anti‑people newspaper named "People" (15), alongside the Islamic Republic newspaper. The ruling clique starts the phony drama of the "expert assembly" election. The Tudeh Party takes part in the election and introduces Ayatollah Khalkhali (16), as one of their candidates. The ruling clique claims that their attack on the Province of Kurdistan is because of the Zionist and Imperialist agents' infiltration among the Kurdish people. The Tudeh Party confirms this accusation by publishing many leaflets in which they stress the word Zionism a hundred times more than the word Imperialism, in order to be able to take part in the negotiations between the new regime and the Kurdish people. Suddenly, the rulers become "anti-imperialist" and in the meantime, ratify the constitution.  The Tudeh Party also proudly votes yes to this license to kill revolutionaries and Iranian peoples.

 

The Tudeh Party's unconditional confirmation of this reactionary regime is not much different in content and form than their view about the Shah's regime and, in this manner, the Party leaders are keeping "the Party flag flying high". Let it be so until the people bury them along with all the other reactionaries in the graveyard of history. The most deserving propaganda about the Tudeh Party is what they have said about themselves: "The Tudeh Party provides security and growth of wealth and ease of conscience for the capitalist and landlords." ("What We Are Truly Saying", from the publication of the Tudeh Party's temporary head committee after the Azerbaijan event).

 

Now what has happened that the Tudeh Party happily receives and welcomes those who have taken the opportunity to use our organization's name for the sake of their anti-revolutionary policy? In the past, the famous letters and messages of the Tudeh Party addressed to our organization have always caused this Party ever increasing disgrace. However, the most interesting point is that although the essence of these letters and messages have always been invitations to inactivity, unscrupulousness and conciliation, the Tudeh Party has never, in any matter, found us engaged in a field of action that would please them. Therefore, they could never extend their welcome to us.

 

We mentioned that the basis of the Tudeh Party movement is collusion and conciliation with the ruling class and we also mentioned that due to the present conditions, this party's disgrace among the masses blocks the possibility of this "Party's" growth through deceiving them. Therefore, the Tudeh Party is compelled to use the reputation of other forces. To achieve this, they hunt down those forces in which they can see these practical tendencies. We would now like to see whether the Tudeh Party's recognition of those whose activities are under the name of "People's Fadaiyan" (17), is correct or not!

 

At this point, we do not want to start an argument of how these people utilize the conditions in order to infiltrate our organization and start activities against it. However, at least, since they are fearful of the name guerrilla and have quite understood that applying such a name to themselves is meaningless, and have always called themselves "People's Fadaiyan" instead, we also will refer to them by the same name. At the same time, we do not want to start a discussion here on how, with the same "Tudeh Party" reasoning, they have denounced our armed‑struggle policy and organization's glorious past, while still opportunistically claiming this very organization's past. At this point, we only want to discuss some of their specific actions during the past several months to show that these actions are in essence convergent with those of the Tudeh Party and with all the conciliatory forces. Since Marxists believe that one should not judge individuals by their fancy appearance or title or whatever nickname they carry, but rather from their behavior and what they advocate practically, this investigation can contain very important points.

 

It is about 10 months now since the new rulers have come to power. But up to now, the "People's Fadaiyan" has not come up with any class analysis of the government and have not taken a clear and firm position on it. If we accept that as far as class struggle is concerned, the discernment of the government's class nature is a very fundamental matter, then we have to stop and ask ourselves: how and according to what plan "People's Fadaiyan" is struggling? The truth is that their "plan of action" is determined by day‑to‑day conditions. Under any given condition, depending on their internal tendencies, they express some vague notion about the government and its factions. The utilization of this method is to create a scope and a possibility for later flip-flopping, which the "People's Fadaiyan" perhaps call flexibility in tactics.

 

To justify not fighting against the imperialist puppet regime of the Shah, the Tudeh Party put particular stress on the internal contradictions of the rulers. It was always trying to discover the formation of different factions in the ruling clique and it always tried to distinguish the "provident factions of the ruling clique", "recognize the important from the unimportant and grab the main chain" with all its power. It always tried to reduce the struggle with the whole imperialist dependent apparatus to one of abusiveness toward one faction or some elements of within the Shah's regime. They follow the same method under present conditions by attacking Bazargan to weaken this so-called faction and let another faction become stronger.

 

At present, the "People's Fadaiyan", using the exact same Tudeh Party method, have begun to recognize contradictions and factions among the new ruling clique. They concentrate so much on the factions of the ruling clique and try so hard to determine the line between "liberal bourgeoisie" and "reactionary caste", and to recognize "the internal struggle in the ruling clique on the basis of three policies" (18), that they have completely forgotten to state finally toward which class interest the economic wheel of the country, as a system, is turning; and, whether the political power strengthens the Iranian economy which is dependent on imperialism or resists such a turning, i.e., ultimately what class or stratum is holding the present political power? Being expert in recognizing the factions in the ruling clique has led the "People's Fadaiyan" to brilliant and truly "Marxist" results. For example, in their view the caste faction " had followed a conciliatory and concordant policy in facing imperialism and had tried in every manner only to stop any powerful widespread anti-imperialist move and control it"; but, from the "People's Fadaiyan" point of view, with the capturing of the U.S. Embassy, this faction suddenly becomes the center of anti-imperialist struggle and "began to take up anti-imperialist actions." Naturally, such a clear (!) and decisive (!) analysis would be followed by some oscillation. Therefore, it is natural that the "People's Fadaiyan" puts out a pamphlet in regard to the embassy incident and then speedily collects it back and then again, lets out another leaflet and again, with a 180 degree turn, publishes a manifesto which is, by far, more disgraceful than the first one.

 

But what class basis does this caste have that makes them anti-imperialist? The "People's Fadaiyan" viewpoint is that "their class basis is the backward petit-bourgeoisie who still has not been separated from the modes of production of the rising period of capitalism". This kind of analysis falters very badly at one point. If this petit-bourgeoisie is anti-imperialist and "the clergy, only when stimulated by the petit-bourgeoisie's anti-imperialist moves, embraces anti-imperialist slogans and moves", then why do they suppress Iranian peoples, especially the Kurdish people? How can the interest of an anti-imperialist force be secured by suppressing people? The "People's Fadaiyan" answer to this question is: the reason that an anti-imperialist clergy "orders the suppression of the masses" and proceeds "to revamp the system"; and the reason they move toward restoring capitalist organs such as suppressive organs in the interest of big monopolies is that the big monopolies have deceived them. (Refer to Kar, No. 35 Annex -attached). That means that in their "class" analysis which is quite "Marxist", an anti-imperialist force instead of moving in the direction of their own class interests is serving imperialism with all its power because of having been gullible enough to be cheated by imperialist monopolies. In this case, in their view, practice is not the criterion of the truth, but on the contrary, a force which determines the government's direction and is sitting on top of the power pyramid; a force that has bought spare part weaponry from the U.S. in preparation for a general massacre of the Kurdish people; orders a Jihad  (holy-war) to suppress the just struggle of the Kurdish people; a force, that systematically used the news media against the Kurdish people; has done all of this just because of being "gullible", and having been deceived by the big monopolies, and therefore, is still anti-imperialist!

 

The "People's Fadaiyan" insistence on purifying the ruling clique feature has released them from struggle against it, and as we know their job is limited to attacking some elements in the government apparatus -like Chamran, Ghotbzadeh, etc., whose true faces are known to everyone, and try instead to "recognize the important from the unimportant, and to grab the main chain with all their power". Sometimes they turn to this faction, sometimes to that, trying to unite with them. Not a long period of time has elapsed since the time when they believed that the "Bazargan administration" must be supported against the "backward caste", and then suddenly with the embassy incident, they become the defender of the other "faction".

 

Analyzing the Kurdistan question and the "People's Fadaiyan" standpoint during different phases of it, reveals their conciliatory face very well. When the attack on the Kurdish people began and the "national" administration of Bazargan along with the "anti-imperialist" caste had their hands bloodied by the murder of the Kurdish people, their period of silence started. They could no longer recognize "the important from the unimportant". They could have justified not participating in the war according to their theoretical formulas. Armed struggle being the ultimate form of struggle, the "People's Fadaiyan" as a "diligent organization", and given their beliefs, hold that only with the existence of a party could they have a program necessary for this struggle and thus participate. The Tudeh Party was also demanding that they announce clearly and officially in such a way that the masses and the most backward intellectual forces could understand, that they are not involved in the Kurdistan war. However, the Tudeh Party had ignored one important point here. The "People's Fadaiyan" has usurped the name "Organization of Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas" and naturally, the masses were expecting to see them in the struggle alongside and in the forefront of the people. So, if the Tudeh Party could easily take a position in regard to these matters, the "People's Fadaiyan" had no alternative but to commit all their collaborative acts undercover to avoid showing their true nature. The organization's supporters in Kurdistan wanted a real involvement in the struggle and have actually participated in some of the battles. At this point, the opportunist leadership had to either respond to the revolutionary thirst of the supporters or sever its ties with them. Conciliatory policy would not make it possible to answer the supporters' demands, and severing ties with them would also result in losing forces and thus, their political death. Therefore, they would have to follow an ineffectual policy and try with all their ability to deceive their followers. They started exposing the already known elements of the ruling clique, published some of the Kurdistan news, but in their publication they never mentioned the involvement of their supporters in the clashes.  In this way, on the one hand, they want to show the ruling clique that, like the Tudeh Party, they are a "well-intentioned" and "rational" force; while on the other hand, by conveying that they are seemingly fighting in Kurdistan, continue to use their supporters' energy, in the service of their goals and viewpoints.

 

Even a not so incisive look at the theoretical manifesto about the Kurdistan question from their viewpoint, reveals their conciliatory nature. They said: "The imperialists and Zionists and their internal reactionary lackeys have now utilized all their forces to suppress the Iranian peoples and revolutionary and militant forces. Naturally, with such a statement, one expects them to have a quite clear position about the Kurdistan war. The Kurdish people are not the imperialists' agents or their internal lackeys, therefore, it is the opposing side who is the imperialist force; thus, anti‑revolutionary violence must only be met with revolutionary violence. In response to an unjust war, one must proceed with a just war. It is certain that communists never desire any war, no one hates war as much as communists do. The communists' struggle and activities are all to create peace and freedom for humanity, but how? The communists are realistic. They know all too well that as long as they live in a class society, only with war can they destroy war. This is precisely the reason why they always defend the just war of the people and always stand in the forefront of the people. Thus, if imperialist forces have attacked the Kurdish people, then the Kurdish people's war is a necessary, essential, and revolutionary war. But suddenly the "Peoples Fadaiyan" pull out a different understanding from up their sleeves, and the headlines of Kar, Number 29 reads: "Solving the question of peoples through war is only in the interest of imperialist Zionism and its dependent reaction." Thus, everything becomes intermixed and vague. With this interpretation, which likens to the style of today's rulers, an invisible imperialist Zionist force has deceived everybody, both the people and the rulers; it has pitted them against each other for no reason. Therefore, out of all this, the "People's Fadaiyan" can claim both this side of the "immaterial" contradiction and the other side, both the people and rulers! But we promise you, that with such a worthless interpretation, which is only to coddle the rulers, one cannot stop a bullet that has been fired from a revolutionary guard's G‑3 gun. They would keep attacking people and keep massacring, pro‑people's forces, in the same way that the Turkeman people, Kurdish people, Arab people, and Belouch people have experienced it up to now. Thus, if they write in Kar: "Any force, who under these critical conditions, wants to pursue a military solution instead of a political solution, intensifies the internal contradiction among the people and, whether he intends to or not, has served the imperialists and their dependent reaction." or: "Those who aggravate undesirable clashes, those who add fuel to the fire, and those who have been unknowingly sacrificed by a calculated conspiracy of American Imperialism and world Zionism and their internal agents are now destroying the result of the heroic struggle of the Iranian people." (Stress is the author's) ‑this does not serve any purpose except to blur the line between people and anti-people; deceitfully fill the gap between a just war and an unjust war; and cover the ruling class's interests with phrases like "undesirable clashes" and "being unknowingly sacrificed", and so on. Thus, they cover up the essence of all the events, which are clearly happening in reality, with a coating of phrases pleasing the rulers, and divert and destroy the revolutionary power and energy of the masses, which are involved in the war, along with the revolutionary forces. Such nonsense really can only spill out of the brain of a "Tudeh Party member". Apparently, in those above phrases the addressee is not specified and all they endeavor, is to cover this matter with a shadow of a doubt. In their "Kurdistan statement", the force spoken to was called a "progressive faction, anti‑fascist and national" force, but one must demand that they specifically name these forces. The Kurdish people had not invaded, but rather had been fascistically attacked. So who is the addressee? Is it a faction of the ruling class? Is it possible in reality that a force, which stains its hand with the people's blood, also be a "national" force? Therefore, they are trying to purify reactionary forces by giving them nicknames such as "national". To this effect, were the Kurdish people fighting against a national force? Or were those who fought in the name of the Kurdish people not Kurdish people but on the contrary, imperialist agents who had started a war with this "national force"? When the Tudeh Party also condemned the heroic struggle of the Tabriz people and branded it as "the actions of SAVAK agents and ruffians", they never mentioned that they were talking about the people and never abandoned their claim that they are the supporters of the people and the working class.

 

The analysis does not come to an end at this point. When they say, "The solution to the peoples' question through war is only in the interest of Imperialist Zionism and their dependent reaction." (Kar Headline, No. 29), or: "We announce one more time that the solution to the people's problems and also the problem of nationalities through war is only in the interest of Imperialist Zionism and their dependent reaction." (Kar, article No. 19), what are they hinting at? We see that class analysis, once again, disappears from their writings. Certainly the "People's Fadaiyan" do not believe that the proletariat is in the ruling power. How is it then that in a condition where a non­-proletarian class or classes are in power (with whatever analysis they may have), they want to solve the people's problems and the problem of nationalities, and yet through peaceful means, and they consider any outbreak of war to solve these problems in the interest of Imperialism, Zionism, and reaction? Can such a discourse, whether the "People's Fadaiyan" intend to or not, be anything else but the thesis of the "peaceful transition" of the old experi­enced revisionists? The "People's Fadaiyan" will say: You see they distort our discourse. Have we propounded these matters with respect to today's conditions? We answer: Today's conditions are a general topic. You have frequently, during the course of your movement since the uprising in Iran, appealed to "today's conditions" and every time, you have justified your actions without specifying these conditions. If you remember, you hinted at "this present period of time" during the well known "experts' assembly" election and justified your participation in the election without giving the least specific explanation of "this present period of time". You said: "In our viewpoint, at 'this present period of time', for the sake of showing the above facts to the masses who are in the stage of acquiring sociopolitical education, our active and enlightening participation in the election would be of great help." (Kar, Number 21). And, at that very time we said: "It seems that their intended meaning for 'this present period of time' is the combined subjective and objective condi­tions. But why aren't they trying to explain this combi­nation? What we say is that let's first explain 'this present period of time' because without such an explana­tion, your reasons for participating in the election cannot have a basis." ("Why Participation in the Formal 'Experts' Assembly' Election is Deceiving the People"). If we accept, that you believe under present conditions, "Imperialism and Zionism and their internal lackeys have now utilized all their forces to suppress the Iranian peoples and revo­lutionary and militant forces", then how would you expect the "solution to the nationalities' question" and "the way to solve people's problems" to be achieved through peaceful means? Let's ignore all these reasons that we have mentioned; however, you're only talking about a "solution to the nationalities' question" but are not trying for a solution. It means you acknowledge that today's rulers (whatever they might be, they certainly are not a proletarian force) can solve the nationalities' question through peaceful means. Is this anything else but a typical "Tudeh Party" analysis? What is the difference between the essence of your statement and that of Ehssan Tabbari, who says: "Our party has mentioned it so many times, that in accordance with its revolutionary humanism, without doubt it prefers to achieve society's transition through peaceful means." (Emphasis is the author's). But why, whenever it becomes necessary, would the "People's Fadaiyan", these passionate defenders of the proletariat, put aside their class analysis and present such analyses? Are they encountering frequent theoretical mistakes? If the reason for the Tudeh Party's actions is notional mistakes and not practical tendencies, are the "People's Fadaiyan" also caught up in making theoretical mistakes? Such analyses would give a political organization an "opportunity" to utilize political, diplomatic flip-flops and the "People's Fadaiyan" in our view, are doing such analyses not for revelation of the truth, but to please the ruling class. The peoples' contradiction with the present rulers is going through such an acute period that its essence is readily apparent, therefore, anybody who at this particular period, does not see the truth, is pretending to be deaf and blind. With such analyses, the "People's Fadaiyan" are inclined to reduce the reaction's pressure on their own organization. And, as we have stated before, would repeat again: "You want to reduce this pressure by surrendering. Your calculation is wrong. The more acute the field of struggle becomes, the more pressure the class forces exert on each other, and you have to know that class problems of the proletariat and it's allies against the enemy can be solved not through collusion and flip-flopping, but by the way of acute and relentless struggle. You must know that any revolutionary organization can be immune from reaction's attack only when they occupy a larger place in the hearts of the masses. They can immune themselves only at such a time when, with the material support of the masses, practically cripple the enemy's conspiracies. Only with revolutionary truthfulness, exact realization of the stage of struggle and specific conditions, and presentation of suitable solutions can one conquer the masses' hearts." ("Why Participation in the Formal Experts' Assembly Election is Deceiving the People").

 

In the pamphlet, "Interview with comrade Ashraf Dehghani" in regard to those opportunists who reject the method of armed struggle on the grounds of its being "isolated from the masses", we have said that they fundamentally oppose the masses' revolutionary violence and everyday bring this up under various topics. Now, when the "People's Fadaiyan" divulge that the war in Kurdistan is in the interest of imperialism and Zionism; and thus, refuse to take part in the masses' war; and talk about "democratic peace" in Kurdistan, and distort the events that happened there in this manner, wouldn't it confirm the truth of what we have said? Does utilization of revolutionary violence against anti-revolutionary violence end up in the interest of imperialism and Zionism? Isn't the "democratic peace" of the "People's Fadaiyan", the same age‑old thesis of the "Tudeh Party"?

 

Just a review of the "People's Fadaiyan" practical report card during the last 10 months would be enough to reveal the essence of their conciliatory actions. When the regime was forced to accept the Fadaiyan's activities in their open headquarters because of the prevailing situation in society, it was the same "People's Fadaiyan" who wrote a letter praising Bazargan calling his government a national one, and along with Bazargan, whose affection for the comprador system had now been revealed to everyone, asked the people to be patient and wait for this national government to act. (Refer to the letter of the "People's Fadaiyan" to Bazargan, March 10, 1979). This letter was so pleasing to Bazargan that he immediately, in his first televised speech following this action, thanked the "People's Fadaiyan", waged an attack on the workers, and supported the capitalists who seemingly had suffered some losses during the uprising.

 

Their next conciliatory move was their participation in the formal election of the "experts' assembly', with the excuse that they wanted to go along with the masses. When it would be discussed with them why they didn't take part in the referendum for the same reason, "to go along with the masses", they would verbally and coyly criticize their leftism in regard to the referendum. Then on July 20, they cancelled their own independent demonstration and sneaked under the flag of the clergy in Baharestan Square to accomplish "unity in expression" without realizing that the very next day, this same clergy in their Friday public prayers would curse these "petty communists". Afterwards, with the "capturing" of the U.S. Embassy, the "People's Fadaiyan" completely revealed themselves in reality, and not only became the obstinate defenders of the "militant clergy under Ayatollah Khomeini's leadership" but also with all their power, praised the theological school of Qom. It was unimportant to them how the rulers would benefit from the embassy event, and how, using the excuse of anti‑imperialist struggle, would frequently call the People's Fadaee Guerrillas pro‑American in the same manner that Mohammed Reza Shah, in his propaganda used to call us Iraqi agents. When we proposed the slogan of armed mass mobilization in confrontation with imperialist attack, the "People's Fadaiyan" for this reason called us anarchists. Now that the rulers for the purpose of deceiving the masses, propose the same slogan but in a quite formal manner, the "People's Fadaiyan" immediately fall in love and become infatuated with armed mass mobilization in confrontation with imperialist attack.

    

Analyzing another move of the "People's Fadaiyan", which also contains some essence of the "Tudeh Party", is worth giving consideration to. Due to its own weakness to confront those organizations that oppose it, the Tudeh Party always tries to unleash the rulers against them. In this manner, they, on the one hand, weaken the opposing organisation and on the other, show their ingratiation. In this regard, we can give many examples such as the last one when they claimed that the Revolutionary Organization of Kurdish Toilers has been involved in capturing the Tabriz radio and television stations, and one of its members was arrested having in his possession a French passport. Up to now, we had not seen this kind of approach from the "People's Fadaiyan" but our "congratulations!" that they have also adopted such a method. In the article, "Economism and Anarchism Are Enemies Only in Words but Practically, They Go Together Hand‑in‑hand" (Kar, No. 37), they have taken up the exact same "Tudeh Party" method.

 

Considering all the events that have happened and are going to happen, the Tudeh Party's happiness is not without reason. The Tudeh Party realizes very well who have hidden their fear-stricken faces behind our organization's red revolutionary flag. Thus, what better suits the occasion than to remind them of their father and son relationship! These "People's Fadaiyan" have frequently pointed out that they consider all of our organization's activities to be leftist and anarchist. They have frequently, in private conversation, called our martyred friends, adventurists who have sacrificed themselves for the sake of their own petit‑bourgeois goals, while revealing this also in their crafty actions. Then, why wouldn't they give up our organization's name? Why are these, who so desperately run away from the word "guerrilla" and believe that the word "guerrilla" is synonymous with adventurism, still using the glorious emblem of the Organization of Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas? Why do they in their publication "Kar", wickedly express their appreciation of our organization's martyrs? Why, while their viewpoints and methods have turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction to our organization's strategy and programs, do they still attach themselves to OIPFG? The answers to these questions are clear. In the same manner that the Tudeh Party knows that on its own with the name "Tudeh Party" alone, it cannot ascribe themselves even a little to being truthful, brave and revolutionary; the "People' Fadaiyan" know that without such a wicked action and without abusing our organization's name, they would turn into one of the tens of groups and organizations whose inevitability of bankruptcy has already been guaranteed. They must, therefore, while constantly and systematically directing their propaganda against our organization's viewpoints and class standpoints, relate themselves to it also. In the meantime, this notion would cause them some difficulties. As long as their activities are under the name of "OIPFG", the masses' attitude and expectation of them would be the same attitude and expectation that they would have of a People's Fadaee Guerrilla. Therefore, any conciliatory move would cause them grave difficulties, as it has been the case up to now. The "Tudeh Party's" course of action is obvious and our people's expectation of them is quite clear: if the "Tudeh Party" does not commit treason it will cause consternation in the people. But is it possible for a People's Fadaee Guerrilla to follow the "Tudeh Party" line? Thus, we suggest to these Tudeh Party offspring, to these "People's Fadaiyan", in order to free themselves from all the commitments that our organization has toward the people and especially the working class, in order to free themselves from the framework of proletarian actions, and to avoid having constant organizational crises, to let go of our organization's name. In this way, they could then, like a "sincere Tudeh Party follower", arrange their methods and policies in accordance with their exact practical tendencies and their own class interest; since anyway whether they want it or not, the course of struggle would separate the wheat from the chaff, the revolutionary from the non-revolutionary, and the People's Fadaee Guerrillas from the enemies of the People's Fadaee Guerrillas.

 

Today, it has been revealed to all the sincere supporters of the organization and all the revolutionary forces that the turnabout of these opportunists, nested in our organization, from the armed struggle policy is a turnabout from all the revolutionary standards and positions and is necessarily treading down the path to class conciliation. It was not long ago that we warned the revolutionary forces of our society. We warned them that the deviant and opportunistic method of those "sitting in the headquarters" is in clear contradiction to the entire perception, traditions and past struggle of the OIPFG. We warned that the oppor­tunist leadership and their disciples do not have any connection whatsoever with the decisive struggle of our comrades who laid down the foundation of the armed struggle movement and the Organization of Iranian People's Fadaee

Guerrillas, and would try to divert it to the path of conciliation and submission; an organization which has been founded upon the blood of the best, the most sincere, and the most militant of our society's communists, and in the course of time, would turn it into a caricature. We warned that these opportunists, after negating the armed struggle, would place all their effort in draining the organization of its uncompromising revolutionary content. Based on these premises, we reminded all the revolutionary forces of the grave responsibility to preserve the pres­tige of the People's Fadaee Guerrillas and the need for efforts to prevent the contamination of the word communism with their conciliation. We asked them that in order to preserve and protect our people's armed revolutionary struggle to start a serious program of struggle against the opportunist policy of those "sitting in the headquarters" and by strengthening the People's Fadaee Guerrillas, do their duty to contribute to the progress of the Iranian communist movement. Ever since, a great number of the organization's supporters from all corners of the country have perceived the importance of our message and by nega­ting the opportunist leadership, who still usurp our organization's name, have joined the line of those who are continuing the true line of the People's Fadaee Guerrillas. In the meantime, as time passed, the intense class struggle in society gradually has revealed the essence of these so‑called "People's Fadaiyan" more than ever. Everyday, they offer a new excuse to vindicate the new reactionary rulers in spite of all their crimes, terror, suppression of workers, peasants, and peoples, and their frenzied anti­-communism, and still call them progressive, anti‑imperi­alist and defendable. The new rulers' anti‑communism, which chiefly serves to divert the people's anti‑imperi­alist struggle from its main path to that of solidification of the basis of dependency on imperialism, finds its causes and motives in imperialist ideology. But, according to those "sitting in the headquarters", a faction (that is, the ruling faction) inside the government apparatus is anti‑imperialist, but does not have any motive or class interest to unite with truly anti‑imperialist forces for this struggle, or to at least stop the furious and the harshest accusations and attacks on communism. With the mandated embassy incident and the unquestioning propaganda of those "sitting in the headquarters" in support of the new rulers' crafty plans, they quashed their last efforts to assume revolutionary poses. Now, after releasing the well‑known manifesto, they have left not even a trace of doubt for any sincere element concerning their opportunist policy and tactics. The timing of the release of the manifesto in support of "the combatant clergy under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini" exactly coincides with the arrangement of a disgraceful conspiracy against the communist movement by the reactionary strata. These so called "People's Fadaiyan" instead of replying to Khomeini's strong accusations against the Kurdish people, and against the Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas, and starting a serious program of struggle against it, gladly received the "realistic message of Imam Khomeini to the oppressed Kurdish people" and "the Yesterday's Pamphlet of the theological school in Qom"(19), and forgot all the crimes, atrocities, pigheadedness, and the slaughtering of the workers, peasants, revolutionary forces, and all of the other toiling masses. With the recognition of the conciliatory nature of these opportunists and our knowledge of their complete departure from the OIPFG method, we will never wait expecting them to defend the reputation of the People's Fadaee Guerrillas. These people are not only irresponsible towards the comrades who founded the armed struggle movement, but also since the past history and the honored name of the Organization of Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas are not in harmony with their organizational content, they're waiting to see them destroyed by the dirty hands of reactionaries and, in this way, finally get rid of this inconvenience.

 

We announce, once more, to all true people's revolutionaries and to the militants of the working class that such an organization with such methods and policies is completely alien to the honored Organization of Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas, and these opportunists' efforts and standpoints can only divert the movement and repeat the painful defeats, and as a result, discredit the Fadaee's name.

 

That segment of the revolutionary forces that has the responsibility of continuing the communist movement for­ward, with regard to the point that today the name communism is identified with the name OIPFG among the masses, must with ever more responsibility and commitment strive for the pres­ervation and the reputation of this name. Vindication of the activities of those who usurped our organization's name or silence in response to that would give a free hand to the opportunists to contaminate the Fadaee's name with all kinds of conciliation.  Also, it would make it possible for the other opportunist forces and the reaction to discredit the OIPFG among the masses through the channel of the "People's Fadaiyan".  Struggle, rejecting the existing conditions without any conservatism and efforts toward changing them, is the basis for the movement of all the proletarian forces. Therefore, those revolutionaries who want to put their lives at the service of the proletarian cause, those who like our martyred comrades want to deserve to be called communist, must expose the nature of these opportunists by any possible means, and not allow the name of the Organization of Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas to be associated with conciliation, treason, and collusion with the ruling clique.

 

Ever strengthen the ranks of the people's fadaee guerrillas!

Down with wicked penetration of opportunism in the communist movement of iran!

Down with imperialism and its chained lackeys!

 

 

WITH BELIEF IN THE VICTORY OF OUR PATH,

THE IRANIAN PEOPLE'S FADAEE GUERRILLAS

 JANUARY 19, 1980

 

 

 

 

Endnotes

1) Abbas Shah-ria-ri was a CIA trained SAVAK agent, and a member of the Tudeh Party. By setting up the Tehran Organization he was able to establish contact with many opposition elements and burgeoning groups, and thus was responsible for the arrest and execution of a number of revolutionaries, several of whom were very famous. He was executed by O.I.P.F.G. in 1972.

 

2) Keyanoori is the present First Secretary of the Tudeh Party.

 

3) The Noozdah Bahman was a theoretical publication printed abroad and many of its issues contained the original text of theories and ideas of Comrade Jazani and his group, formulated while in prison. These ideas formed a line that was critical of the then dominant line in the O.I.P.F.G., namely that of Comrade Ahmad-Zadeh.

 

4) Dunya is a theoretical publication of the Tudeh party.

 

5) A few members of O.I.P.F.G. split from the organization on the basis of discarding the theory of armed struggle. Their views, presented in a pamphlet, clearly revealed the basic elements of the Tudeh Party's political line. The Tudeh Party boisterously capitalized on the event, and attempted to portray it as a widespread convergence within the O.I.P.F.G.

 

6) "Valayet Fagheh" i.e. "The rule of the supreme clergy", has been set forth by Ayatollah Khomeini. It asserts that the only rule is the rule of God, and it can only be realized through the supreme clergy in the land. Therefore, the supreme clergy must be the supreme ruler of the land.

 

7) The socioeconomic crisis in Iran during the late 1950's and early sixties weakened the regime and brought about a resurgence of the demonstrations and anti‑imperialist struggles in 1960‑1963. In June 1963 (15th of Khordad), thousands of people staged a demonstration to protest the passage of the Capitulation Law ‑ the law that forbids the trial of foreigners. Earlier that month the clergy's objection to this law had resulted in the arrest of Ayatollah Khomeini. This was an added reason for the demonstration. However, the demonstration was brutally attacked by the reactionary army of the Shah and several thousand people were massacred.

 

8) The USSR's Red Army remained in Iran for some time after the Allied Forces had occupied Iran in 1945. Under its protection, communist forces were capable of conducting their activities.

 

9) The year 1953 was the year in which the infamous CIA engineered coup took place in Iran, returning the Shah to power.

 

10) Disillusioned Tudeh Party cadres in the mid-sixties formed the "Revolutionary Organization". Even though they strongly castigated the Tudeh Party's policies, they lacked a specific line. Later, they adopted the "thoughts of Mao" and upheld that Iran was a "semi-feudal, semi‑colonial" society and the main contradiction facing the people was feudalism. They also adopted the thesis of "Social‑imperialism" and thus concluded that the Shah, being against the USSR's social‑imperialism, possessed some progressive elements. They are now firm supporters of the present regime in Iran.

 

11) Dr. Mossadegh was a national Prime Minister (1951‑53), who opposed any foreign influence including that of U.S.S.R

 

12) Dr. Mossadegh produced a balanced budget without the oil revenues, thus trying to decrease the role of the oil industry in the economy, and declining to sign any oil contracts with the USSR.

 

13) The mass demonstrations in Tabriz, a city in Azerbaijan Province, predominantly inhabited by Turkish people, initiated the mass struggle throughout the country, which later led to the insurrection of 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah's regime.

 

14) The allusion is made to the mass struggle in Tabriz before the Insurrection of 1979. In one particular case, the Tudeh Party, believing that mass demonstrations must be orderly and non‑violent, condemned the inevitable outbreak of violence and ascribed it to the conspiracy of SAVAK agents.

 

15) The name of the publication is Mardom, which means "people" in the Iranian language.

 

16) Ayatollah Khalkhali is the head Islamic judge, who has personally ordered the execution of many Kurdish and other peoples' revolutionaries.

 

17) "People's Fadaiyan" and "People's Fadaee Guerrillas" are terms used to designate the two factions of O.I.P.F.G. "People's Fadaee Guerrillas" adhere to the original line of the organization.

 

18) The "People's Fadaiyan" contend that there are three forces in political power, each pursuing its own policies: the comprador bourgeoisie, the liberal bourgeoisie, and the traditional petit‑bourgeoisie.

 

19) A short time after the takeover of the American Embassy, Ayatollah Khomeini released a public message ordering a cease‑fire in Kurdistan and to recommence the negotiations. The Theological School in Qom issued a leaflet to the same effect immediately. The "People's Fadaiyan", in a public announcement, praised both messages and regarded that of Khomeini's as realistic and promising. The realities of Iran show that the economic and political conditions and their military defeat at the hands of Kurdish people forced this guileful and temporary retreat on the part of the new rulers.