The Iranian Revolution eventually became dominated by the Islamist movement under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. That part of the overthrow of the Shah at least is common knowledge. What is less well known is the role of the Iranian working class, occasionally a leftist party will get a mention -usually the Soviet backed Tudeh party- and some documentaries discuss the importance of urban liberals and students but the role played by ordinary workers is usually ignored.
So here's a piece by Mostafa Saber focussing entirely on the Iranian working class, their struggles goals and opponents.
Some excerpts from A Brief Look at the Situation of the Working Class in Iran, a short description of workers' history and conditions - and their struggles during and following the 1979 Revolution.
Of particular interest is the observation that "in practice the
[workers'] councils, due to their complete accordance with workers'
direct and immediate exercise of power, won an indisputable victory
vis-a-vis the unions. The few attempts at creating unions remained
irrelevant to the real workers' movement."
The long struggles over Mayday mentioned in the text still continue, as seen
here in 2007.
From;
A Brief Look at the Situation of the Working Class in Iran,
Mostafa Saber, 1990 London & Stockholm. Published by Communist
Party of Iran - Organisation Abroad. (Reproduction of these factually
useful extracts does not imply any endorsement of the past or present
politics of the CPI.)
=============
THE WORKING CLASS IN IRAN: SOME BACKGROUND
- class struggles from 1979 - 1989
(Mostafa Saber, 1990)
The history of the emergence of workers in Iran goes back to the
early twentieth century. The first strikes were reported from around 70
to 80 years ago, and the first workers' organisations took form around
1920. In the 1920s the small number of workers were organised in a
national union led by communists. This union, comprising several
thousand workers, was significant enough for the monarchist government
of the time, i.e. that of Reza Shah
[1], to set the crushing of the incipient workers' movement as one of its prime tasks.
Later, with the relative development of capitalism, the establishment
of railways and the growth of factories, the number of workers
increased. During the development of the years 1941-53
[2]
the Iranian working class was organised in organisations with tens of
thousands of members; the oil workers, in particular, had a tangible
presence on the social stage.
The working class in its present sense, however, developed only after
the Land Reforms of the 1960s. As a result of these Land Reforms
capitalist relations were rapidly established. Millions of dispossessed
peasants were driven into the labour market. With the capitalist boom in
Iran in the early 70s industrial workers developed in their millions.
Thus from the 1960s onwards the working class emerged as the main
producing class. The working class in Iran is therefore a young class.
Despite the early existence of workers in sectors such as oil, printing
and textiles, most sections of the Iranian working class are not more
than two generations old.
The first great social experience of this new working class was the
1979 revolution. In fact it should be said that the Iranian working
class in its present political and social form is, more than anything
else, the product of the developments of the last ten to fifteen years.
In the 1979 revolution the working class was the backbone of the
revolutionary movement and the workers' nationwide strikes were the most
radical blows struck at the Shah's regime. The slogan "Our oilworkers
are our staunch leaders" which then became the universal slogan of the
revolutionary masses, reflected this vanguard and decisive role played
by the workers. Although, in general, workers were not able to free
themselves from the domination of the bourgeois-religious opposition,
they put forward their own independent demands. For example, through the
oilworkers they demanded to be present in the "Revolutionary Council"
which was formed in the wake of the Shah's downfall.
With the accession of the Islamic Republic regime to power, workers'
struggle against this new rule of the bourgeoisie began from the very
first days. The first bullets fired by the new regime against the
revolution hit the hearts of unemployed workers who had launched a
widescale movement. Workers' economic struggle in the factories was a
main stronghold for the continuation of the revolution. Workers step by
step were voicing their demands with greater clarity. Workers' councils,
having sprung up from the heart of the strike waves before the
uprising, took the lead of an enthusiastic and profoundly revolutionary
struggle to realise the demands of the working class and safeguard the
gains of the uprising. The revolutionary period 78-81 was the period of
the richest experiences for workers and their direct intervention - in
their millions - in the fate of society, leaving its stamp on the
consciousness of the whole working class. But this period ended in 1981
with the Islamic regime's massacring of the workers' councils, the
crushing of the political organisations and the establishment of an
unprecedented repression.
After 1981 and with the total domination of Islamic
counter-revolution, a new period began in the life of the working class
which is chiefly characterised by the workers' determined defence of
their condition and rights against one of the darkest bourgeois
dictatorships. In the recent period, poverty, unemployment, lack of
rights, war and massacre, and the harshest religious suppressions have
been the lot of the workers. But workers have also gained invaluable
experiences in continuing the struggle under the most difficult
conditions. What we shall consider here briefly is the situation of the
working class at this period, i.e. from 1981 until now. We shall try to
present the most essential information regarding the present situation
of the working class, and only when necessary make fleeting references
to the past.
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE
Iranian workers have almost always been deprived of a legal right to
strike. The current Labour Law and that which is to be passed soon do
not recognise the right to strike. Khomeini had repeatedly declared that
strike is a sin. Many strikes have been confronted and crushed by the
Pasdaran
[3] and the military. Both
under the Shah's regime and under the Islamic Republic many workers
have been sacked, imprisoned and even murdered on charges of going on
strike. Nevertheless, none of these measures has succeeded in preventing
the widespread strikes during the past several years. Going on strike
is illegal, but each year on average over a hundred "illegal" strikes
take place. The strike action has truly proved to be the workers' weapon
in their collective protest against the capitalists and the Islamic
Republic to improve their conditions. Today the next step for the
workers is to impose the right to strike as a legal right on a
nationwide scale.
[....]
WORKERS ORGANISATIONS
With the repression in 1981 when workers' councils were broken up by
the force of the bayonet, the brief 3-4 year period during which workers
had their own real organisations ended. Since 1981 we have rarely
witnessed durable and real labour organisations. Of course, this does
not mean that all forms of organisation have been, or are, entirely
lacking. The relatively widespread and consistent strikes and protests
from 1981 onwards could not have taken place without some degree of
unity and solidarity and, in many cases, without temporary mass
organisations as a basis. Temporary general assemblies
(and in some cases more or less durable ones), as well as protest
gatherings have served as a basis for strikes. Furthermore, circles of
vanguard and socialist workers which in strike periods take the role of
secret strike committees, have played a key part in these protests.
There also exist, here and there, trade unions in certain trades which
have genuine working-class character. Cooperative funds which - though
scattered and in small units - have sprung up in the past few years
reflect other forms in which workers have tried to organise. We should
also mention consumer and housing cooperatives which are the
organisations of workers themselves.
All the same, the fact remains that the absence of public, mass and
durable organisations, despite all the attempts of workers to create
them, has been the most important weakness of the working class in Iran.
Alongside this lack of organisation and of the right to create
workers' organisations, and as an extension of the regime's savage
suppression of the slightest attempts to create genuine labour
organisations, we have witnessed the Islamic Republic's wide-scale
effort to set up state and Islamic organisations in the workplaces.
After 1984, as a way of countering workers' attempts to organise, the
Islamic Republic put great efforts into setting up Islamic Councils.
These organs have now developed into a huge apparatus whose headquarters
are called the "Workers' House". Besides the Islamic Councils, this
body includes a network of Islamic Societies, as well as the Central
Organisation of Consumer Cooperatives (Emkan) and Housing Cooperatives
(Eskan).
The absence of permanent mass labour organisations in Iran has been
an old problem. Except for brief and occasional periods, no long-term
periods of the existence of mass organisations in Iran can be found. The
continuous existence of repression and dictatorship and the banning of
the right to organise is only one cause of this situation. For a
complete understanding of the present situation we have to know the
history of workers' organisation in Iran.
UNIONS
Despite their relatively long record of existence, trade unions in Iran
have not left behind a lasting and dependable tradition. In two short
periods in Iran's history, marked by social upheavals and openings in
the field of workers' protests and struggle, we have witnessed the rapid
growth of unions. The first period was in the years 1921 to 31 and the
second from 1941 to 53.
In the first period when the working class was very small in number
and non-industrial, it is believed that the unions, at the height of
their activity, had organised about 30,000 workers in a national
confederation in several cities in Iran. The main stronghold of the
unions, led by the "League of Iranian Communists"
[4]
(or the Communist Party of Iran), was initially the printworkers and,
later, the oilworkers. The unions were successful in winning certain
demands and organising several strikes. At one point the pri ntworkers'
strike, supported by other workers in the confederation, gained a high
political significance, turning workers into an effective force in
defending the right of expression and free press.
Very few of the memories of those days are still alive in the minds
of workers today (except perhaps, to some extent, in the case of the
oilworkers). The 1931 repression by Reza Shah destroyed the remnants of
the trade unions and the Communist League which by then were exhausted.
The finest activists of the unions perished in prisons under torture;
some gave up union activity, and a number of others only later returned
to work in the unions.
By the second period (1941 to 1953) the number of workers had to some
extent increased; railways had been established; more factories had
been built, and the oil industry had grown. It is believed that in the
national confederation, whose leadership in the end fell into the hands
of the Tudeh Party
[5], between 100,000 and 200,000 workers had organised.
[6]
In this period, relying on the unions, workers played a more
significant and effective role in society. The first labour law in Iran
was introduced in 1946 as a result of pressure by workers. In a number
of notable strikes and political actions workers played a prominent
role, the backbone of which was the oilworkers in the south.
Nevertheless, workers and the unions were under the leadership of the
Tudeh Party and their perspective did not go beyond the framework of
bourgeois reforms. Indeed, in the end they fell victim to the
conciliatory and collaborationist policies of the Tudeh Party. Workers'
revolutionary and radical sentiments, now openly in ferment specially in
the south, were stifled by the confederation leaders and the Tudeh
Party. In the end, with the 1953 coup
[7]
and the renewal of repression, the unions and the workers' movement
suffered a very heavy defeat. It was a defeat which inevitably resulted
in a profound disillusionment in, and pessimism towards, the Tudeh Party
and, to some extent, the trade unions.
From the 1960s onwards and following the land reforms and the
expropriation of the peasants, capitalist relations became dominant in
the Iranian society. The working class thus turned into the main
producing class in its millions. This meant the surge of millions of
peasants into the ranks of the relatively small industrial proletariat,
resulting in great changes in the composition of the working class and,
together with this, in its traditions and experiences. In the early 70s,
with the rapid growth of the oil revenue and the thriving of
industries, a new industrial working class rapidly developed. The
economic boom and the near-full employment allowed workers, relying on
the increasing demand for labour, to bring about relative improvements
in wages and in their economic situation. It is from the mid-seventies
and with the onset of the economic crisis that mass protests and strikes
begin to break out with greater vigour and significance. In the whole
of this period, i.e. from 1953 to 1976 (when the new period of protests
began), workers on the whole lacked real and durable mass organisations
and there was no visible trade-union tradition. The only organs allowed
legal activity were the mandatory official unions which had been built
by the Shah's regime itself. These were never recognised by workers and
were in fact detested.
In view of the factors and conditions which we have glanced through,
it is obvious that the Iranian working class has not enjoyed a strong
trade-union tradition and sufficient experience to found a lasting
trade-union movement. Other important factors which explain the absence
of a strong and well-rooted trade-union tradition in Iran include the
lack of continuity of reformist parties, the non-tolerance by the
bourgeoisie in Iran of an independent trade-union movement, the failure
of unions in their last great experience, the existence of constant
repression, the rapid change in the composition of the working class and
its growth by millions in a short time, and, on the whole, the breaks
which have occurred in the history of struggle and development of the
working class in Iran. But another, undoubtedly very important, factor
has been the incompatibility of the trade-union tradition with the
revolutionary and political needs of the working class in Iran which has
always had a revolutionary and political spirit. During 1977-81 when a
great field of action opened for the creation of labour organisations,
the great majority of the workers turned to building councils and
council-type organisations. Although the question "councils or unions?"
is still posed by a section of the left and also by some older workers,
in practice the councils, due to their complete accordance with workers'
direct and immediate exercise of power, won an indisputable victory
vis-a-vis the unions. The few attempts at creating unions remained
irrelevant to the real workers' movement.
Today there exist trade-union traditions among certain sections of
Iranian workers (including the oilworkers) and among some older workers.
But even here the influence of the council movement is undeniable. In
some trades (such as the bakers, tailors, etc.) we find trade unions
which have often organised the workers and employers of small trades and
which basically attend to problems specific to the trade (such as the
receipt of raw material quotas from the authorities, etc.). These unions
are in fact more of a worker-employer character; the struggle between
the workers and the bosses is carried into these unions themselves. At
times the worker feature of these unions becomes more prominent.
Furthermore, in some other crafts, such as small metal workshops, some
cases of real worker unions have been seen which, since they have not
had much impact on the workers' movement, have been tolerated for some
time and have managed to survive for a while within the tight grip of
the existing laws.
THE COUNCIL MOVEMENT
The most extensive, most effective and liveliest tradition of
organisation among Iranian workers and that which has come closet to a
tradition of organisation, is that of the council movement. The councils
emerged from the heart of the mass, nation-wide strikes of 1977-78.
These were the strikes headed by the oilworkers and broke the last
attempts of the Shah to stay in power. The strike committees which
half-secretly led the strikes, were, after the 1979 uprising, either
chosen to the leadership and executives of the councils, or themselves
directly transformed into "councils" or "founding committees for the
councils". The councils were, in one word, the direct organs of exercise
of workers' revolutionary will. Through the oilworkers, workers had
demanded to be included in the [provisional] government set up in the
wake of the revolution, but had found no share in it. In the event, they
credulously left the political power to Khomeini and co; they now
wanted to use their direct revolutionary power to continue the
revolution and bring it to victory in the confines of the factory and in
their own sphere of influence. The council was essentially the means
and the vehicle for this revolutionary tendency of the workers. A whole
range of economic and political demands were placed on the agenda of the
councils: from workers' control in factories, the sacking of the
management, dissolution of the spying and surveillance organs, down to
the introduction of democratic freedoms, freedom of speech, the
determination of the internal regulation of factories, the enforcement
of a 40 hour week, wage rises, the reinstatement of sacked workers of
all the previous years, the supervision of the general assembly over
matters relating to the firing and recruiting of employees, the payment
of the debts owed to workers under the Shah's regime, equal rights for
women and men, the abolition of the labour law dating to the Shah's
regime and the drafting of a new labour law with the approval of
workers' elected representatives, and the publication of reports of
workers' protests and demands in the official newspapers and the radio
and TV. The fact that councils intervened and engaged in all matters,
were free from bureaucratic strings and provided possibility for workers
to voice and implement their wishes directly, was their remarkable
point of strength compared to all other organisations experienced until
then. Workers enthusiastically set to the work of building councils. In
some cases councils went as far as taking full control over factories.
Often they themselves implemented demands such as a 40-hour week, the
dismissal of the management, the dissolution of spying and surveillance
organs, the trial of the managers and informants in the workplaces, the
drawing up of internal regulations and the election of factory
officials. In many cases the council resorted to the sale of products
and the checking of the company books to provide for increased wages for
the workers.
In its best and fully developed examples, the council organisation
was based on the general assembly as the pillar and basis of the
council. But it was not so in all cases, where by council was understood
the executive board and the elected representatives and officials of
the council. Nevertheless, even in such cases the final decision was the
prerogative of the general assembly. The success of the council
depended on to what extent it truly was the organ for the direct
exercise of workers' will. Councils developed essentially as factory and
district organisations. There are scarcely any factories in these years
in which councils were not formed or where an intense battle for their
formation was not fought out. The councils did not live long enough to
give rise to council federations and national unions of councils. A
number of attempts in this direction only reached the half-way stage.
But they proved the existence of the potential and capacity for building
nation-wide council organisations. As examples we can mention the Union
of Gilan Councils, an association of the councils of 20 to 30 councils
in Gilan, the most industrial northern province of Iran; the Union of
Councils of East Tehran, which had joined together a number of councils
in the factories in East Tehran; and the Union of Councils of the
Organisation of Development Industries, which made efforts to coordinate
the councils of over 100 factories, with tens of thousands of workers.
From the very beginning the councils came into conflict with the new
regime. The Islamic Republic tried to destroy the councils by different
methods: by trying to conquer them from within with the help of
Hezbollahi workers or those who still had illusions in the regime; by
setting up and consolidating "Islamic Councils"
[8];
by exerting economic pressures, especially in the case of councils
which had taken control of the factory. But its main resort was the
suppression, intimidation, arrest and even murder of council activists.
Every wave of onslaught by the regime across society (including the
offensive against the revolutionary movement in Kurdistan - in Western
Iran - the raid on the universities and massacre of left-wing students,
etc.) was simultaneously a direct attack on the councils and the
socialist and communist workers who normally were at the head of these
councils. In the first days of the Iran-Iraq war, in September 1980,
Bani Sadr the President at the time, appeared on television, saying to
the workers: "It is now war; councils and the like are over; you have to
produce, my dear." In the end, on 20th June 1981 when the regime
embarked on its horrific massacres, the councils were smashed and many
of their activists were fired, imprisoned, executed or forced to flee.
The fate of the councils was in fact the fate of a revolutionary
working class which was not as yet ready to fully differentiate its
ranks and draw a clearer picture of its perspectives for the future and
for taking over the control of society. Nevertheless, the council is a
permanent element of the period 1978 to 81, the days when workers were
directly putting their demands and wishes into practice.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The general assembly, i.e. the regular assembly of the workers of every
factory in which workers discuss their issues, make decisions and
themselves carry out these decisions, was in fact the core of the
councils. After the 1981 suppressions, the council tradition continued
in the form of the effort to hold general assemblies and even, in some
cases, by the actual formation of councils. Most of the important
strikes since 1981 have practically been based on general assemblies
held temporarily during the period of protest. The steelworkers' strike
in November 1984 which lasted for one month, in which 10,000 workers of
the construction section of the steel complex took part and 12,000 of
another section gave active backing, could not have been staged without
relying on the general assembly. In some factories (for instance, the
Indamin factory with 700 workers) the holding of regular general
assemblies became institutionalized. Workers normally call their protest
gatherings, the meetings in which they question the management and
discuss and make decisions about their issues, as "general assemblies".
The strikes in the brickyards in the West of Iran which break out every
year over wages and involve several thousand workers, would be
unimaginable without the general assembly. The desirability of general
assemblies is such that even the advocates of unions who regard the
councils as legitimate and possible only for the revolutionary period,
have often had to accept them and include them somewhere in their
schemes for unions. The government, too, has called its own puppet
organisations in the workplaces "councils" (the "Islamic Councils"), and
tries to give the impression that they are based on the "general
assemblies of the employees of the unit".
The influence of the council tradition, the desirability and efficacy
of the general assembly in meeting the needs of workers' current
struggles, and the ease with which it can be held, even under the
repression established by the Islamic Republic, are the most important
points of strength of the general assembly. These are merits which have
made the general assembly the only available means of the Iranian
workers at present for building their own organisations. But all this
does not yet mean that we are faced with a mass general-assembly
movement; something which is possible and now seems to be the only
practical and, at the same time, feasible way for the mass organising of
Iranian workers.
STATE ORGANISATIONS:
ISLAMIC COUNCILS
The "Islamic Councils of Labour" were formed from 1984 onwards as mandatory, state
[9] organisations,
on the basis of the law on Islamic Councils. According to this law, the
Islamic Council is the legal representative of workers. Furthermore,
only those can be elected to the Islamic Councils who believe in the
Islamic Republic and the Velayat-eFaghih (the rule of the clergy), and
whose eligibility has been approved by the "Screening Board" which is
appointed by the Labour Ministry and police authorities. This law openly
assigns the Islamic Council to report every unrest and disturbance to
the concerned authorities. Its duties have been defined as cooperation
with the management, the raising of productivity, and the maintenance of
order and discipline and Islamic ethics in the workplace. The Islamic
Councils were thus formed as tools for controlling workers' protests and
demands and as the government's alternative and barrier to the workers'
efforts to organise. They should in fact be called anti-organisations.
The main reason that the Islamic Republic was hopeful of the Islamic
Councils was that it expected them to be able to take advantage of the
spirit of "pragmatism" among the workers and win a base among them. But
this expectation has definitely proved to be false. The Islamic Councils
have met the same end as that experienced by the state unions under the
Shah. From their very inception they earned the hatred and revulsion of
a large section of workers. In the past several years workers have
confronted the Islamic Councils by widespread resistance and protests
against their establishment, by boycotting their election sessions, and
even in some cases by fighting for their dissolution. There have been
few instances of labour disputes which have not developed into open
confrontation with the Islamic Councils. The demand for the dissolution
of the Islamic Councils, just like the call for the abolition of the
Islamic Societies, is now a demand of large sections of workers. and is
gaining wider dimensions.
THE ORGANISATION OF THE ISLAMIC COUNCILS
The Islamic Councils have a national coordinating and leading centre
called the "Workers' House". The "Workers' House" has branches in every
province and region. The annual congress of the all-Iran Islamic
Councils elects some persons as "Iranian workers' representatives" to
appear in official and international meetings. The Workers' House
authorities claim that over 1,000 Islamic Councils have been established
throughout the country. Regardless of how true this figure is, the
Islamic councils are often formed by threats and pressure, by promising
to realise some demands, by forced elections (the withdrawal or stamping
of the time-cards of those who refuse to vote), or by openly rigging
the "elections".
ISLAMIC SOCIETIES
Alongside the Islamic Councils there are Islamic Societies. They were
formed in 1979 and organise the Hezbollah in the factories. They agitate
for Islam and for the interests of the Islamic government. They are the
Islamic regime's ideological-police organs in the factories with the
task of "Hera'sat" (safeguarding) and "Ettela'at" (intelligence), i.e.
the same organs of the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, in the factories.
Their main duty is to combat the "counter-revolution" in the factories
(i.e., militant and communist workers). They are intensely detested by
workers. The Islamic Councils and Societies cooperate closely in
factories (often several active members of the Islamic Society are
"elected" to the Islamic Council); and at regional, provincial and
national levels, they are coordinated through the Workers' House
organisation. The "Supreme Coordination Council of Islamic Societies and
Councils" is at the same time the highest organ of the "Workers' House
Organisation ".
[....]
WORKERS' STRUGGLES AFTER 1981
After 1981, the whole savagery and crime of the Islamic Republic, which
was aimed above all at the workers and their councils, was not able to
stop the continuation of workers' struggles. Intoxicated by the massacre
in 1981 and the unprecedented repression that it had established, the
Islamic Republic now fantasized even to deny the very social existence
of the working class. Khomeini had said before: "There is no need for a
[special] day for workers. All creatures of the world are workers. The
ant, too, is a worker. Even the God Almighty is a worker." They imagined
the time was ripe to materialize their dreams. They said, strike is a
sin; a sin punishable, according to Islamic principles, by death. In
1982 the Islamic Republic published the draft of a labour law which had
been written on the model of the Islamic "rent laws", the laws of trade
and slavery in the Middle Ages. According to this law, the worker was
actually rented and there was no limitation on working hours and the
minimum wages. Everything was left to the signing of a contract between
the individual worker and the employer and to the "balance of the
parties". Simultaneously a largescale campaign was launched against wage
levels, fringe benefits and the most important rights workers had won
earlier. The Iran-Iraq war, which had been raging since 1980, was the
most effective weapon of the bourgeois government in this savage
offensive.
Workers stood up against these attacks which were accompanied by
repression, gunning down strikers, imprisonment and the most vicious
measures. Since 1981, the most important fields of struggle of workers
have been: the struggle against the Islamic Labour Law, struggle for
enforcing the First of May as the Workers' Day, struggle against the
war, defence of wages and living conditions, struggle against
redundancies and resistance against increasing the working hours. These
have taken the form of continuous strikes. Below, we shall briefly and
separately consider each of these.
AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC'S LABOUR LAW
The first draft of the Labour Law is perhaps one of the rarities of our
times. It was a law which did not even recognise the name of worker.
"Worker" was replaced with "work-taker". There was no mention of a
limited working day, a minimum wage, restrictions on firing of workers
and, in short, of any rights for workers, since the imposition of any
legal restriction on the working day or the specification of a minimum
wage is against Islam and the private property of the employer, and
since no power, even the state, can lay conditions on the employer. As a
workers' leader in Iran put it, this was a law which if put to the
slaves at the time of Spartacus, would make them rebel. Nevertheless,
this law had been written from Khomeini's "Tozih-ol-Masael" (a
collection of religious guidelines, the writing of which is the
condition for becoming an ayatollah - the highest rank in the clergy)
and had the open approval of Khomeini and most of the state authorities
and ayatollahs. This draft was published in early 1983.
All through the winter and spring of 83 there were widespread
protests by workers against the Islamic Labour Law. They wrote
petitions, which were submitted to the authorities and the press, held
meetings in which state officials and management were made to answer to
workers, went on goslows, carried out stoppages and held numerous
discussions in the workplaces against the Labour Law. The workers' show
of outrage and protest and the prospect of its escalation was so strong
that even the Islamic Societies and the Workers' House were forced to
voice opposition to the first draft. In the end, the regime had no
alternative but to back down in disgrace: Khomeini and the other
ayatollahs retracted their earlier backing, and the first draft was
withdrawn along with the Labour Minister who had proposed it. This was a
victory for the workers; a victory not limited to a mere defence of
workers' basic rights, but with far wider social implications. Workers
had made the Islamic Republic, at the height of its power, to back down
on its Islam.
But things did not end with the driving back of the first draft. In
the space of a few years up to 4 different drafts were written; each one
was taken back and altered, having tested the militancy of the workers,
and also as a result of disputes in the ranks of the regime itself. As
far as the demands of workers were concerned, the later drafts tried to
appear more radical and workingclass, as well as to give in to a few of
these demands (such as a 30-day annual holiday, etc.). It was also tried
to dilute its Islamic blend, as far as this was not a loss of face for
the Islamic government. The exponents of the later drafts have been
mainly the Workers' House and the Islamic Councils. The Workers' House
hopes that with the final approval of the latest draft of the Labour Law
(which was approved by the Islamic Assembly in September 1989)
[10]a
compromise is reached between the bourgeoisie and its government, on
the one hand, and the workers, on the other, in the long struggle over
the Labour Law. But the Islamic Labour Law is an entirely anti-working
class law. It is an Islamic and totally discriminatory law in which
neither the right to strike, nor the right to organise, nor, many of
workers' other demands have been recognised. For workers, this law has
no significant preference to the previous drafts. Even the undeclared
Labour Law practically applied by the workers' councils ten years ago is
miles more advanced than the Labour Law of the Islamic Republic. The
vanguard workers in Iran now include in their demands not only their
revolutionary demands of ten years ago but also the real advances in the
workers' movement internationally during the past ten years. The
struggle over the labour law, a fight to achieve the workers' particular
economic and political rights, will no doubt continue.
THE STRUGGLE FOR MAY DAY
In the first May Day in Iran after the 1979 uprising about half a
million people marched in Tehran, and tens of thousands in other cities.
From then on the Islamic regime was taken over by the fear of May Day.
It tried to replace May Day with the birth-day of Ali (the first Imam of
the Shi'a Moslems), calling it the "day of the oppressed". In this way
it was trying to bring upon May Day what it has been trying to bring
upon the Women's Day.
[11] But it
very soon found out that this would only stoke the fire of the struggle
over the recognition of May Day. The regime also attempted to give
prominence, against May Day, to the day of assassination of an Islamic
leader (May 2, designated the "Teachers' Day"). After 1981, the
opportunity had arrived for the government to realise its wishes. But
workers' enthusiasm for holding May Day showed that no force, even the
repression established by the regime, is able to take away the First of
May. In 1983 the Islamic regime tried to pass May Day quietly. But in
the end the Labour Minister had to come to the radio and send greetings
to workers. This was the beginning of the regime's submission on May
Day. In one draft of the Labour Law, May 1st was included as a workers'
holiday, which meant an implicit recognition. They had come to the
conclusion that instead of refusing to recognise May 1st - thus boosting
workers' protests - they ought to organise the event themselves. This
would give them the chance to restrain workers' actions.
But even here the regime ran up against great difficulties. The
workers' boycott and ridiculing of the official ceremonies turned into
an element of the struggle over May Day. In 1985 the official ceremonies
were held in Tehran's largest stadium. But the seats remained empty,
and the 3-4 thousand who had been brought there by force and by
threatening to confiscate their cards, booed the speech by the President
(Khamenei, who has now succeeded Khomeini). The following year the
official events were held in a smaller stadium. But once again the
result was only more disgrace for the government. In 1987 the official
ceremonies were reduced to small events in five places in Tehran, but
even these were openly boycotted and scorned by the workers. Official
May Day events have now become a problem in which the regime has got
bogged down.
In contrast, since 1981 - and in particular from 1983 onwards -
workers have strived to celebrate May Day, as the day of their class and
international unity, in whatever way possible. The different forms in
which workers have held the May Day events in the past few years have
included: refusing to work on May Day, celebrating in the factory,
holding small gatherings of worker families and circles outside cities,
out of reach of the police, and staging events inside the unions of
certain trades. For several consecutive years workers in Sanandaj (in
Western Iran) have been organising several-thousand strong May Day
rallies - in spite of the presence of the military - in which they pass
resolutions containing their demands. Workers' efforts have been so
pronounced that every year the authorities have had to somehow react to
them. For example, Khomeini who once had said that "even the ant is a
worker", expressed his fear and apprehension of May Day 1985 (the year
begun by widespread antiwar protests) in his own special language, in
this way:
"... If four people somewhere go on
strike, they say ... for ever that there is strike in Iran. What's
happened? How many were they? They don't say. They say the factory has
come to a standstill! They were banking all their hopes on the Workers'
Day. ... They imagined that on this day workers would rally behind them.
Workers' Day came and passed and the dear workers were more than ever
on the scene, shouting that we want to give our services"!! (May 6, 1985)
But the battle over May Day, despite visible victories by workers, is
still continuing. The focus of this struggle is more than ever becoming
the issue of the holding of independent ceremonies, workers'
manifestation as a class, and the putting forward of their demands and
solutions before the whole society.
WORKERS & THE WAR
The Iran-Iraq war was a great disaster for all the people and
particularly the workers. At the same time, as Khomeini used to say, it
was a "God's blessing" for the Islamic Republic and the bourgeoisie. The
war mobilised the whole of Iranian nationalism in the service of the
Islamic Republic and the suppression of workers' demands. The war
dislocated the greatest section of people in the west' and south of the
country and the most important sections of the working class - the
workers of the oil industry and of other factories and centres in the
south. The war slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed
tens of thousands of homes of mostly working people over their heads.
It provided the bourgeoisie with the most potent tool for lowering the
living conditions of the working class, of taking away workers' rights,
and imposing the worst kind of poverty and destitution.
In the beginning of the war the wave of nationalism swept even some
sections of workers. But soon, in March 1981, i.e. six months after the
outbreak of the war, protests against the whole situation and naturally
the war began and continued in various forms. The widespread struggles
of the war-stricken and war refugees demanding to be provided with
living amenities, which continued for several years after the start of
the war in particular in the cities of Shiraz, Esfahan and Tehran, were
essentially the protest of workers of the south and specifically the
Abadan oil refinery workers. The forms of this struggle in the
workplaces included resistance against wage cuts to finance the war,
refusal to go to the fronts, refraining from producing war products,
refusal to do overtime because of the war, and the waging of direct
protests against the war. In street protests against the war, too,
workers were in the front line. In 1985 when mass actions against the
war increased, the working-class quarters were more active than the
rest. The most important demonstration of that year was held in the 13th
Aban district, the working class area of south Tehran. In mid 1988 when
protests against the war once again flared up, workers directly and
openly protested against the war in the workplaces. The protest to being
sent to the fronts was particularly notable. No doubt an important and
decisive factor in the sudden an unexpected acceptance of ceasefire by
the Iranian regime, which for eight years had tied its whole existence
to the war, was the continuous protest and resistance of the people and
particularly workers.
CONTINUOUS STRIKES FROM 1982 TO 1989
Shortly after the June 1981 suppression, workers' protests and strikes,
under the totally repressive climate, steadily gained momentum, marking a
new period of workers' strike battles. From 1983 to 89, on average at
least one hundred strikes and a greater number of protests took place.
The main issue of these actions was resisting the regime's assault
against the rights and living conditions of workers. Defence of wages
and calls for their increase was more common than any other issue
(Approximately 50% of the actions were over wages). In the next place
were resistance to redundancies and expulsions, opposing the attempts to
increase the working hours, welfare demands, struggling against the
Islamic Councils, and so on. During 1984 to 86, due to a relative
improvement in the financial situation of the Islamic Republic and the
relative boom in industries (compared to 1980 and 81 ), workers'
protests greatly increased. In 1984 there were over 200 strikes and
protest actions; this is only the number of those which were registered.
In this period the labour protests at times assumed an offensive
character and did not remain confined to a defensive framework. But from
the early 1986, with the fall in the oil prices and the aggravation of
the regime's financial situation, redundancies were begun. In the
debates of the Islamic Assembly mention was made of figures between
200,000 and 500,000 as the victims of the redundancies. But the actual
number of workers made unemployed must certainly have been at least over
100,000. In undertaking the redundancies, the regime was very
frightened of the likely reaction of workers, and had made elaborate
plans in advance. In particular the redundancies of between 7 to 8
thousand in the Iran National car plant (the largest automobile
production plant) could have sparked off a nationwide movement, were it
not for the cunning way in which the management, the Islamic Council and
the Labour Ministry implemented the plan. Their main design went as
offering considerable redundancy payments which led many workers into
believing that with this money they could find a better way of living
than the life as workers. This design was later completed with the
unemployment insurance plan, mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, much
resistance and protest was made against the redundancies and the issue
of redundancy compensations. But these were taking place at a time when
the Islamic Republic had broken the back of a developing movement of
protest.
The redundancies left destructive effects on the life of the working
class. Apart from making a large number of industrial workers
unemployed, they channelled the attention of large sections of the
working class merely to putting up a defence against the redundancies,
while drawing the rest into caution and conservatism in the face of the
uninterrupted attacks of the employers and the state. This was because
the threat of factory shutdowns and mass unemployment was a real one. In
1986 and 87 we witness a relative decline in worker actions.
Nevertheless, there was also, for example, the strike in the Melli Shoe
in 1987 in which 12,000 workers protested against the lengthening of the
working hours.
From mid 87 there was a revitalization in worker actions. Especially
in the first months, there was, as noted earlier, a marked increase in
protests against the war. These continued to grow, up until when the
Islamic Republic accepted ceasefire. The submission to ceasefire and the
ending of the war, however, was a very important development which
immediately influenced the various aspects of the life of workers. It
was accompanied by extensive propaganda by the Islamic Republic that the
situation after the war would be better. The regime was trying to
install a spirit of wait-andsee. This situation limited the scale of
workers' protests for some time. But from early 1989 the protests began
once again, expanding later on in the year.
In 1989 the demand for wage increases - which were frozen in that
year - was the main issue. The call by the people and especially workers
for the rapid improvement of the situation after the war has put the
Islamic Republic under great pressure. Now, eleven years on after the
conflict between the people and the regime, the regime finds itself in
the grips of the workers' demands and expectations; something which is
becoming more and more threatening to the government each day.
NOTES
1 The father of the Shah of Iran who ruled from 1925 to 1941.
2 I.e. the period when after the abdication of Reza Shah and the
weakening of the authority of the central government, Iran was swept by a
wave of turbulence and upheavals; conditions which led to the open
formation of parties and organisations and their intense activities -
Tr.
3 A para-military force created, under the Islamic Republic, alongside the armed forces - Tr.
4 As a successor to the Edalat Party, this party, with the help of
the Bolsheviks, was active among emigrant Iranian workers in Baku. It
was formed in 1920, was a member of the Comintern and with the
suppression by Reza Shah ended completely in 1932.
5 The national-reformist pro-Soviet party which re-started activity
in the 1979 revolution. Until 1983, when it was banned, it was
cooperating with the Islamic Republic.
6 We also come across figures of 300-400 thousand in some cases. It
should be taken into account that in addition to workers, this
confederation organised the owners of small production occupations.
7 The U.S.-engineered coup by which the Prime Minister of the time,
Nosaddegh, was ousted and the Shah brought back to power - Tr.
8 These are not the same Islamic Councils which were established
after 1984. See the footnote [below] in the later section on state
organisations and the Islamic Councils - Tr.
9 Before 1981 we find some examples of Islamic councils of another
kind, completely different from the present ones. Those councils were
often formed with the support of certain sections of workers (who had
put hopes on the Islamic regime and its promises), They came to an end
very quickly, as soon as the illusion of those workers in Islam and
Islamic government disappeared.
10 At the time of writing, Radio Iran announced that the draft of the
labour law passed by the Islamic Assembly was now under approval in the
'Council for Determining the System's Interest' (the highest
legislative instance in times of dispute), and that it is expected to
come into force next year.
11 The Iranian regime has designated the birth-day of Prophet
Nohaanad's daughter, Fatemeh, as the women's day. But this is recognized
by no one in Iran but the government itself and its bands of women
watchdogs (so-called "Zeinab Sisters").
From
Libcom
PDF version
here
Posts
.jpeg)
