This text have been were recently published in socialist alternative of australia
website
Iranian socialist, former student leader and exile Amir Mohsen Mohammadi spoke at a recent meeting about the revolutionary left in Iran – in particular the formation, activities and ultimate repression of the group Students for Freedom and Equality. The meeting was hosted by Socialist Alternative and Iran Solidarity in Melbourne. This is an edited version of his speech.
Students for Freedom and Equality was formed by individual left wing activists who were unable to reconcile their views with the ways of the old Iranian left. Many of these activists were influenced by Eurocommunism.
I was not around when the group was taking shape, but was one of the first members in Esfahan. Different city groups were more or less independent from each other. While we all looked to Tehran, the biggest section of our group, we did not take direct instructions about our activities from a central committee as a party normally would. For example in Esfahan we had our own internal charter.
Students for Freedom and Equality remains the only instance of the formation of a left student movement after the Islamic Revolution. This association had the traits of a student movement and not that of an organised section of a political party or a workers’ party functioning inside the university campuses.
In the past left wing activists had an influential presence on university campuses. Before the revolution the youth wing of the Tudeh Party, which at the time was ideologically committed to Stalinism, had the upper hand in the universities. Immediately after the revolution, revolutionary and left wing organisations such as the Fedayeene Khalgh Guerrillas were noticeably active on campuses. But in all these cases these sensational activists were members of socialist groups which were based outside of campuses or even outside of Iran.
It has been 5 years since the height of the brutal crackdown on the leftist student movement in Iran. Now we can look back and ruthlessly criticise the shortcomings, the individual mistakes and the political mistakes yet still consider the experience a very successful one.
It was the first time since the early years of the Islamic Republic that socialist and radical slogans and red symbols appeared and a kind of revolutionary call resonated in university campuses around the country. Of course other trends were also present in the universities, like some who belonged to the “left worker” tradition. But in terms of numbers and influence, none could compete with Students for Equality and Freedom.
In the first stage 80 to 90 percent of left wing student activists were either members of the Students for Freedom and Equality or were sympathetic and oriented towards us. In terms of our influence and practical activities, we organised several different protests in Iran’s capital, Tehran, as well as in other major cities.
Part of the reason why we were more successful as a political movement was because we operated differently to the old left. We were engaged much more with the day to day political issues and our members were active in publishing their ideas and analyses. Our publications – “Raahe Khaaky” in Esfahan, and “Khak”, which was produced in Tehran and sent out to the other cities for distribution – were filled with political articles orienting to the general student population that was looking to become politically involved with the left. Our publications were an indispensable tool for the recruitment of new students and key to our success in relation to the traditional left.
The student activists of the old left emphasised classical Marxist studies and study groups around theoretical issues. They did not put the same effort that we did into trying to relate to other students around topical political issues which most people were familiar with. In my opinion this was critical in their failure to grow.
Repression
Today there is nothing left of the Students for Freedom and Equality. After holding protests to mark Student Day on 13 Azar 1386 (4 December 2007), nearly 100 prominent Students for Freedom and Equality members were arrested and tortured by a section of the Intelligence Ministry that was specially tasked with the persecution of the “new left”. Hundreds more have been summonsed since and have been forced into signing statements acknowledging that should they continue their political activities they will be sent to prison.
The fact that the Intelligence Ministry has a section devoted to the persecution of the left is illustrative of the seriousness of the threat we posed to the authorities. To explain why a small Marxist student group would be considered a threat one must take into account the realities of capitalism and oppression in Iran
In a country where there is upward of at least 100 strikes every year it is absolutely crucial for the regime to keep the radical students away from this potential powder keg and stop them from applying the sort of spark which could turn these strikes into a revolution.
The Students for Freedom and Equality’s protest on 4 December 2007 was a turning point. This was the biggest left wing student protest in terms of numbers and one of the most radical. Revolutionaries turned out in huge numbers and blanketed Tehran University with the colour red and shouted slogans such as “Long live freedom and equality!” “University is not a garrison house!” and other slogans that expressed our solidarity with the workers’ movement and the women’s movement. The entire political system of the Islamic Republic felt threatened and as a result responded with repression.
One of the important developments was that many working class activists came out and protested in support of our arrested comrades. It is not uncommon for workers to organise protest actions or strikes in response to issues that are immediately relevant to their own conditions. But this was a rare show of solidarity between working class activists and radical left wing students.
If we are to ruthlessly criticise ourselves, we would have to acknowledge our own tactical mistakes. We did not have any recent experience of organisational work in universities and did not know how to confront and resist the repression. The last written accounts of prison and torture relate to events that took place around 20 years ago. The Islamic Republic’s genocide of thousands of left wing and political prisoners in 1988 severed the links of communication between us and the previous generation of activists.
In the past, it was customary in Iran that when a guerrilla was arrested he or she was expected to resist torture from 24 to 48 hours so that his or her comrades would have time to cleanse the relevant places of evidence and to sever any threads linking people on the outside to the detained individual. After this the detained individual could reveal the now useless information which he or she had withheld.
But what were we to do? There was no comparable experience which we could refer to in the history of the left in Iran. How can a left wing student who spends the entire day in view of the surveillance cameras of the university and whose ID card is checked upon entering and exiting the campus undertake underground activities?
How can a known left wing student activist who is constantly under the watchful eye of the security institutions on campus be able to establish contact with his or her desired parties or organisations, which due to the particular conditions imposed by the Islamic dictatorship are most likely outside of the country?
If I were to try to answer some of the questions raised here, I would have to say that in my opinion, a left wing student activist in Iran, irrespective of his or her political tendency, should not under any circumstance contact leftwing parties or organisations outside of the country. I say this only in the case of student activists and not all left wing activists. The capacity of the security institutions of Iran, and other similar countries under dictatorship, to control communications channels is very high; all internet and telephone contacts can be scrutinised. We can say that a student activist is struggling inside an aquarium of surveillance and chastisement.
The only remaining option is to be active in more peripheral activities such as study circles, cultural and artistic forums, groups defending women’s and children’s rights, and student publications. Open political contact must be restricted to the student population only.
The reason for this is that it is highly likely that a radical student activist is going to be arrested and subjected to torture. In the event that this student or his or her movement is associated with a foreign based party or group it is far more likely that they would be dealt with in the harshest manner by the Islamic Republic judiciary. This could include anything up to the death penalty being imposed on student activists.
The Esfahan section of the Students for Equality and Freedom was able to endure the repression of the state longer than sections in other cities. The reason for this has to do with our independence from other political currents, which saved our arrested activists from receiving the harshest penalties.
Esfahan-based activists, including myself, were arrested 3 times during 2008 and 2010 and were able to return to activities each time after being released. On the other hand some activists in Tehran did establish contact with overseas-based communist parties. Because of this all activists in Tehran were wrongfully accused of establishing contact with overseas-based communists, and were given prison sentences after the first wave of arrests. This contact jeopardised the entire movement.
The biggest reason for our inability to survive the repression in Iran was that we were not ready for the consequences. We were not psychologically ready for the heavy costs associated with our activities. The worst that we thought would happen to us was that we would get arrested. We were never prepared for the realities of torture and forced confessions. When we came out of the dungeons of the Islamic Republic we lost the trust we once had in each other. Political differences turned into personal animosities.
Would you be able to work with your comrades again if they were forced to confess and compromise you? Have you thought about how you will preserve your organisation after a violent crackdown? Are your relationships with your comrades strong enough to withstand that sort of pressure?
The third anniversary of Alireza Davoudi’s death occurred recently. Alireza was the spokesperson of the Esfahan section of the Students for Freedom and Equality and he was my best friend. He died in suspicious circumstances after being released from prison. His family, friends and I are of the opinion that he was killed but we cannot prove it. We had nobody with the necessary leadership qualities to replace him.
Yet from a political perspective, I believe that our experience was successful. We may all have been arrested and subjugated, and many of us were forced into exile, but we instigated an important development. Red symbols of socialism and revolutionary radicalism rose up in the universities and resisted for as long as possible. Despite the left wing traditions of universities, never before in history did a left wing current raise its flag independently from other political currents on Iranian university campuses.
The problems facing leftist refugees
When our comrades are forced to flee the country they come up against the anti-refugee policies of the first-terminal countries such as Turkey, Malaysia or Iraq. They spend months and years forgotten and neglected in these countries. They are sometimes imprisoned or detained in refugee camps for the crime of trying to preserve their lives.
I myself am one such example; I spent more than 22 months in Turkey and my comrade. Davoud Bagheri spent 21 months in camps and prisons in Turkey and even undertook a hunger strike.
Other comrades who are still in Turkey such as Mohammad Pour Abdullah, who is among the most well known left wing student prisoners of recent years and who has spent 3 years of his life under torture in the worst Iranian prisons, is now up against the negligence of the UNHCR. Why? His crime is that he is left wing, a socialist and a radical.
I will never forget the time one of my friends in Turkey, who also worked for Amnesty International, told me in private that all of our history and current political activities are archived on the internet; other countries do not want left wing and radical activists. This is why many left wing activists who come out of Iran face many problems.
The Green Movement
The post-election incidents in Iran, which have come to be known as the Green Movement, began around 18 months after the start of the crackdown on the left wing student movement. As a result there was no coordinated response from us.
The reaction of the left wing student activists who had been part of our organisation can be divided into three categories. The first category, which regarded the Green Movement as principally bourgeois and of the middle classes, decided that this was not “our” movement and therefore did not respond or conduct any activities in relation to it. As a result of the lack of our organisational ability at this time to conduct independent action, most of the activists belonging to this faction simply ceased to be politically active.
The second category completely supported the Green Movement without maintaining any of their differences. They changed their colour completely from red to green. The third category, to which I belonged, stood firm in opposition to some of the politics of the reformists, while recognising the movement as a popular uprising.
We can also divide the practical responses of the left wing opposition parties and organisations along the same three lines. I still defend my position on this issue and believe that the other two groups have made historical and tactical mistakes. The group which regarded such a widespread movement as “bourgeois” and advised its forces to not participate lost its last historic opportunity to return to the people and to try to occupy the streets. The group which followed the Green reformists exhausted the last of their credibility in pursuit of preserving and reforming the regime instead of aiming to overthrow it.
Despite the reformists’ claim that the Green Movement is composed of a spectrum of intellectual currents, the movement’s media and leadership are completely homogenous and belongs to the reformists. Uncritical activity within this environment can only mean choosing reformism over revolution. Yet the movement that had a presence in the streets, which was repressed and dragged to the prisons, really did belong to different intellectual trends and colours. I can confirm that the lower strata of society – workers and activists – were present in the movement. Street protests of this magnitude cannot possibly take shape without the participation of different social groups. But the reformists did not allow the street protest to remain pluralistic and to retain their different political elements.
Unfortunately in the absence of a left wing student organisation, the people’s numbers in the street protests declined until ultimately they stopped coming all together. We can now clearly sense the lack of a left wing student current in the post-election events. This current, if it had managed to survive for another year until the start of the street riots, would have been able to, hand in hand with the worker’s movement and of course the women’s movement, take responsibility for playing a historic role in the emancipation of people from their binding chains, in the realisation of freedom and equality and in the blossoming of humanity.
