Shuaiyan BJMES PDF

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:47 20 April 2007
British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, April 2007

34(1), 4361
Mustafa Shuaiyan and Fadaiyan-i

Khalq: Frontal Politics, Stalinism,
and the Role of Intellectuals in Iran
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH*
ABSTRACT This paper presents a glance into the life and times of the forgotten
Iranian revolutionary and political theorist, Mustafa Shuaiyan, and his
engagement with the orthodox and militant Iranian Left of the 1970s. A brief
biographical sketch situates Shuaiyan in the context of the leftist groups of his
time. In particular, the paper shows how upon his agonizing organizational
relationship with the Peoples Fadai Guerrillas, he set himself the unenviable
task of launching the pathology of Stalinism that dominated the Iranian Left for
decades. In this context, his bitter debate with the Fadai Guerrillas on the role of
the intellectuals in revolutionary struggle appears as a step toward unravelling
the plagues that have won the Iranian Left its ill repute of being ideologically and
organizationally undemocratic.
For more than half-a-century, ever since it has grown as social movement to
reckon with, the Iranian Left has won itself for the most part the unenviable infamy
of being undemocratic, authoritarian and Stalinist. This paper looks at an
overlooked diagnosis of these problems of the Iranian Leftas its case study
that emerged from within the Left: in the years of heightened urban guerrilla
activity in Iran in the 1970s, there emerged a singular and maverick militant
theoretician who uncompromisingly challenged the entire culture of the Iranian
Left and the new communist movement (as the new generation of militant Left
called itself) both ideologically and in terms of the prevailing organizational
Stalinism. The works of Mustafa Shuaiyan (1936 1975) must primarily be
treated as the pathology of the scourge that disfigured the Iranian Left. He is the
writer of some 2,000 pages of works on history, theory, criticism, memoirs, poetry,
open letters, reports, and policy reviewsworks that have been written under
extreme human conditions with utmost dexterity, enjoying an eccentric lexical

The author wishes to thank Professor Cosroe Chaqueri who provided invaluable information regarding
Shuaiyans life as well as copies of his scarce works. The author also gratefully acknowledges the funding
provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship (20012003).
* Assistant Professor of Sociology, peymanv@uvic.ca. Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, P.O.

Box 3050, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3P5. Tel: 1 250 721 6353. Fax: 1 250 721 6217. E-mail:
peymanv@uvic.ca
ISSN 1353-0194 print/ISSN 1469-3542 online/07/01004319 q 2007 British Society of Middle Eastern Studies
DOI: 10.1080/13530190701224140
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
system that defied the norm of the leftist jargon of the time and as such has
remained virtually unstudied to this day.
The study of Shuaiyans place in the history of the Iranian Left goes beyond
the scope of this paper and should be the subject of an independent study. The
debate on Shuaiyans controversial treatise in Revolution (third authors edition:
1974), the rejoinder to it by Hamid Momeni, the theorist of the Organization of
Iranian Peoples Fadai Guerrillas (OIPFG or the plural Fadaiyan-i Khalq), in Not
Rebellion, Judicious Steps on the Path to the Revolution (1974), and Shuaiyans
reply in Injudicious Replies to Judicious Steps (1974 1975)a lively, and at
times bitter, debate about the fundamental elements of Marxism, revolution, and
social mobilizationmust also be set aside for a different study. This first paper on
Shuaiyans work in English situates Shuaiyan in terms of his frontal thinking
and his tormented relationship with the OIPFG. Next, the paper investigates the
way in which his insightful and obstinate attendance to the Stalinism that defined a
period of the Fadaiyans organizational life assigned him the unenviable task of
ideological pathology of Stalinist and organizational fetishism in the Iranian Left.
Finally, the paper will attend to the debate between Shuaiyan and Momeni on the
role of intellectuals in the new communist movement, before drawing
conclusions about the ramifications of Shuaiyans pathology of authoritarian
tendencies in the Left.
The Emergence of a Singular Voice

Born to a lower class family in southern Tehran in 1936, Shuaiyan worked
evening and night shifts to support himself throughout the secondary school years.
In 1958, he joined what is now the Science and Industry University (back then
called Tehran Technical Institute) in East Tehran as an engineering student
and graduated at the top of his class in 1962. He automatically qualified for a
government scholarship to the United States, which he refused. Instead, he went to
the town of Kashan as a secondary school teacher where he was soon promoted as
the principal. In 1966, based on the medical grounds his friends facilitated, he was
transferred to Tehran where he mostly taught history and social sciences in various
secondary schools for two years.1
His political activities began with the premiership of General Razmara during
which time he joined the Pan-Iranist Party. After the 21 July 19512 uprising against
the Shah which reinstated the National Front leader Dr Mosaddeq as the Prime
Minister, he left the Pan-Iranists and began leaning toward Marxism.2 In the late
1950s, he joined a circle of former Tudeh Party members who were now critical of
the Partys performance and policies. The main figure of this circle, colloquially
known as Jaryan (or Prusih, the Persian for Process but also connotatively
circle, because the group had no designation), was Mahmoud Tavakkoli who
wrote two critical analyses about the Tudeh Party. While with Jaryan, Shuaiyan
wrote an extended essay criticizing the Society of Socialists (Jamiih-yi Susialist-
ha)3 led by Khalil Maleki who had broken ranks with the Tudeh Party in the
aftermath of the bloody defeat of the Autonomous Azerbaijan Province in 1948.
1
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Shish namih-yi sargushadih bih Sazman-i Charikha-yi Fadai-i Khalq-i Iran [Six Open
Letters to the Organization of Iranian Peoples Fadai Guerrillas ] (Tehran: Edition Mazdak, 1980), pp. 1112.
2
Ibid., p. 13.
3
Ibid., p. 22, no. 2.
44
MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ
With the rise of the Second National Front in 1960, Shuaiyan joined the Left wing of
the National Front, where he met several times with the originator of an underground
group that later founded the Fadaiyan-i Khalq, Bizhan Jazani, between 1962 and
1964.4 It is during these years when Jazani gave Shuaiyans circle, Jaryan, the
derogatory label, the American Marxistsa label that discredited and stuck with the
circle. In his historiography of the Iranian Left, written a decade later, Jazani tried to
confuse the Tavakkoli-Shuaiyan circle, Jaryan or Prusih, with Prusih-yi Marxist-
Leninistha-yi Iran (The Process of Iranian MarxistLeninists)an apparently
underground group that was part of SAVAK (Iranian intelligence force) sting
operation to capture the surviving, dedicated members of the Tudeh Party after the
coup.5 While Shuaiyan confirms that the Process of MarxistLeninists was indeed a
trap,6 it is interesting to note how Jazani constantly tried to discredit Shuaiyan
through guilt by association.7 The term American Marxists, as Shuaiyan reflects
later, comes from one of the circles analyses: Jaryan held that there was a
competition between American imperialism and the comprador bourgeoisie, on the
one hand, and British imperialism and the feudal class, on the other, in Iran. Since
the latter alliance represents the older imperialism on the evolutionary scale of
capitalist social development, the victory of the former will provide the
socioeconomic structures necessary for the future revolutionary stage.8 A decade
later, the Fadai theorist Hamid Momeni took Jazanis derogatory label further and
called Tavakkoli a CIA agent in order to discredit Shuaiyans past struggles.9 In the
1950s and 1960s, Shuaiyan was associated with the intellectual journal Thought and
Art (Andishih va Hunar), edited and published by Nasser Vosuqi, where several noted
figures from Malekis Society of Socialists introduced the broader socialist and
liberationist ideas of such thinkers as Jean-Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon, and Aime
Cesaire. In this case, too, guilt by association became a stigma that Jazani and
Momeni exploited to discredit Shuaiyan. However, his association with Thought
and Art gifted Shuaiyan with an astute anti-Stalinist inclination supported by
meticulous theoretical analysis.
In 1968, when he wrote A Review of the Relations Between the Soviet Union and
the Revolutionary Movement of the Jungle, a 500-page historical-analytical study
of Mirza Kuchek Khans 1920 1921 movement in the Caspian region, he
admittedly had not yet made an intellectual departure from the older nationalist
tendencies. The 500 printed copies of the book were seized and destroyed by
SAVAK before distribution. The book was published ten years later outside the
country, and is yet to receive the attention it deserves.10 Shuaiyans first book soon
4
See: Karim Lahiji, Haqq-i dusti [By Friendships Obligation] in Kanun-i Girdavari va Nashr-i Asar-i
Bizhan Jazani [Centre for Collection and Publication of Works of Bizhan Jazani] (ed.), Jungi darbarih-yi zindegi
va asar-i Bizhan Jazani [On the Life and Works of Bizhan Jazani ] (Paris: Editions Khavaran, 1999), p. 234.
5
Bizhan Jazani, Tarh-i jamayishinasi va mabani-yi istratizhi-yi junbish-i inqilabi-yi khalq-i Iran; bakhsh-i
duvvum: tarikh-i si salih-yi siyasi fasl-i avval) [A Sketch of Sociology and Foundations of the Strategy of Iranian
Peoples Revolutionary Movement; Second Part: The Thirty-Year Political History Chapter One ] (Tehran,
Mazyar Publishers, 1979), p. 86.
6
Shuaiyan, Six Open Letters, p. 24, no. 3.
7
Jazani repeats the charge in: Guruh-i Jazani-Zarifi: pishtaz-i mubarizih-yi musallahani dar Iran [The Jazani-
Zarifi Group: The Vanguard of Armed Movement in Iran ]. 19 Bahman Teorik, 4 (April 1976), p. 9.
8
9
Hamid Momeni, Shurish na, qadamha-yi sanjidih dar rah-i inqilab [Not Rebellion, Judicious Steps on the Path
to the Revolution ] (np: Support Committee for the New Revolutionary Movement of Iranian People, 1977), p. 37.
10
Recently, almost 30 years after Shuaiyans death, the first book on Shuaiyan was published in Tehran, but
alas, with no substantive discussion on his works. See: Houshang Mahruyan, Mustafa Shuaiyan: mutifakkir-i
yiganih-yi tanha [Mustafa Shuaiyan: The Unique Lonely Thinker ] (Tehran: Nashr-i Baztabnegar, 2004).
45
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
led to his path-breaking Rebellion (Shurish), which he later renamed Revolution

(Inqilab). His criticism of the role Lenin and the Soviets played in the demise of the
Jangali movement instigated Shuaiyan to trace and identify the ideological roots
of the Soviets betrayal. Revolution sets itself such an arduous task.
In 1971, he left his job as a teacher to create an urban guerrilla cell and he soon went
underground as the groups plan to sabotage the huge Isfahan steel plant was exposed
(allegedly by Reza Asgariyyeh, an engineer in the plant who was a member of the cell)
and some members were arrested,11 including Behzad Nabavi, a devout Muslim,
arrested on 24 July 1972, who became a prominent political figure in recent years.12
According to Nabavi, Shuaiyans group was formed in 1970 and was first in contact
with the Mujahedin and only later with the Fadaiyan.13
In 1972, Shuaiyan sent his books, Jungle and Rebellion, to the National Front
director in Europe, Dr Hassan Habibi, via one of his friends, Mr. Mofidian, in
England. Mofidian managed to erase all traces of how these writings had reached
Europe and who or where their author had been. Mofidian was terminally ill with
cancer and died shortly after his return to Iran. Shuaiyan had not yet gone
underground at this time and wrote under the many aliases he used (Surkh, Sirtiq,
Yuldash, Rafiq, Dust, Timar, Sarbaz). The essays he sent never appeared in the Third
National Front publications abroad. Instead, the National Front activists tried to find
out about the identity of the author of these texts. As they found out his identity,
Shuaiyan asserts, so did the police.14 This was coincidental with the failure of the
Isfahan operation.15
Shuaiyan was in contact with both the Mujahidin and the Fadaiyan, but far
more closely with Mujahidin-i Khalqto the extent that he had detailed
knowledge about their activities.16 After the near eradication of the Mujahidin in
August 1971, Shuaiyan was directly involved in rebuilding the OIPM, working
with and assisting Reza Rezai,17 the Mujahidin leader. Aside from his dedication,
this example shows how deeply Shuaiyan believed in creating a unified front that
would contain the Mujahidin, the Fadaiyan and smaller militant groups (like his
future PDF). Much of his later works are dedicated to the theorization of the
national liberation front.
After the failure of the first attempt, in 1972, Shuaiyan became acquainted
with Nader Shayegan Shamasbi (henceforth: Shayegan) who had also organized
11
Shuaiyan, Six Open Letters, p. 14. New information show that the Isfahan cell consisted of four individuals,
Nabavi, Asgariyyeh, Said Vafa Davudi, and Marami. It was Marami who revealed the details of the cell to the
police, which indicates that Shuaiyan has made an error in judgment. See: Ananymous Letter to Mazdak
(dated: February 20, 1977). Retrieved from The Shuaiyan Archives in Hoover Institution on War, Revolution,
and Peace (Box 2, Item 10).
12
While in prison, Nabavi developed great sympathy toward Mujahidin-i Khalq (or OIPM), before the leftist
coup among the Mujahidin (1975) caused him lose faith in eclectic Islam and in cooperating with Marxists. Upon
release and after the 1979 Revolution, Nabavi became a founding member of the Organization of the Islamic
Revolution Mujahidin (Sazman-i Mujahidin-i Inqilab-i Islami) that unified seven formerly underground militant
Muslim groups. He also served as the Deputy Prime Minister in Executive Affairs before disappearing from the
public arena. He returned to politics with the 1997 Reform Movement in Iran, served as a one-time Member of
Parliament and advocated legal and political reforms.
13
See: Behzad Nabavi, Razha-yi Bihzad Nabavi [The Secrets of Behzad Nabavi]. Hamshahri, 2706
(Saturday, 27 April 2002). Available at: http://www.hamshahri.org/hamnews/1381/810207/polig.htm (accessed
22 March 2004).
14
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Pardihbardari [Unveiling] in Chand nivishtih [Selected Writings ] (Florence: Edition
Mazdak, 1976), p. 1; article individually paginated.
15
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Inqelab [Revolution ] (Florence: Edition Mazdak, 1976), p. 13.
16
Anonymous, Authors Telephone interview with Anonymous (Vancouver, 6 November 2001).
17
46
an underground cell. Upon reading Shuaiyans Revolution, Shayegans group

and the group Shuaiyan was in the process of organizing unified and created the
Peoples Democratic Front (Jibhih-yi Dimukratik-i Khalq, or PDF). Reportedly,
Shayegan was also critical of Leninism and the Soviet Union and upon reading
Revolution he uttered that he had eventually found what he had been seeking for a
long time. In May 1973, the chemical laboratory of the PDF (where they made
explosives) was raided by SAVAK. In the raids and surveillance operations on the
group, Shayegan, Hassan Rumina and Nader Atai were killed and about ten others
were arrested. SAVAK, however, only managed to identify Shayegans team that
consisted of Shayegan, Atai, Rumina (all killed) and Bizhan Farhang Azad,
Abdullah Anduri, Reza Purjafari, Aqdas Fazelpur and a few others who were
arrested.18 Shuaiyan and the rest of the PDFat least two teams, Shuaiyans
team in Tehran and another in Tabrizsubsequently joined the OIPFG. Marzieh
Ahmadi Oskui (henceforth Oskui), Saba Bizhanzadeh, Mitra Bolbolsefat, and
probably Shirin Moazed (Fazilatkalam) were among the noted women from the
PDF who later grew significantly in the Fadaiyans ranks. Oskui, an able
recruiter who acted as the OIPFGs link with the former PDF team in Tabriz, was
in the team headed by the leader of OIPFG Hamid Ashraf, Irans most wanted
dissident (with a reward for information leading to his arrest), when she was killed;
Bizhanzadeh became a member of the Central Cadres after the eradication of
OIPFG leadership in June 1976 until her death in February 1977. Also joining the
OIPFG along with Shuaiyan were Nader Shayegans mother, Fatemeh Saidi
(alias: Comrade Mother) and her three young children Abolhassan (arrested in
1976 at the age of 15) and Arzhang and Nasser (killed in 1976 at very young
ages).19 The Tabriz team was uncovered by the police a year later as it functioned
under the OIPFG. Ahsan Nahid (summarily executed by the Islamic forces during
the first Kurdistan civil war in the summer of 1979), Hushang Isabeglu, Dr Mahjubi
and his sister were among those arrested.20 In tracing their connection with the
Fadaiyan, SAVAK uncovered a rendezvous and in the street battles that followed
Moazed and Oskui lost their lives.
Shuaiyans joining the OIPFG soon proved to be painful. He joined the
Fadaiyan on the condition that his Revolution be distributed among the Fadai
teams and debated. With the possibility of quickly absorbing a number of
competent militants, Ashraf opportunistically accepted Shuaiyans condition.
However, right from the beginning, it was obvious that the Fadaiyan would not
perhaps could not organizationallyrecruit anyone as maverick, principled,
experienced, and self-confident as Shuaiyan (not to mention that he was half-
generation older than the oldest Fadai leaders). The other members of the PDF
were scattered and allocated to different operative teams of the Fadaiyan.
However, Shuaiyan, Comrade Mother and her younger children, Nasser and
Arzhang Shayegan, were organized in a team, moved to Mashhad and placed
under the severe gaze of Ali Akbar Jafari, the OIPFGs second-in-command.
Shuaiyan stayed with the Fadaiyan between June 1973 and February 1974
when, first he was pressured to relinquish the Shayegan brothers (whom he
attended to after the arrest of their mother in early February 1974) to Ashraf
18
Anonymous, Authors Telephone interview with Anonymous (Vancouver, 6 November 2001).
19
Ibid. (Vancouver, 9 November 2001).
20
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Shishumin namih-yi sargushadih be Chirikha-yi Fadai [The Sixth Open Letter to
Peoples Guerrillas ] (Florence: Edition Mazdak, 1976), p. 43.
47
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
(in late February), and then was unilaterally disconnected by the OIPFG
leadership. Ashraf had already taken in the oldest of Shayegan brothers,
Abolhassan, and housed him a Tehran team. It was not an accident that Shuaiyan
was placed under the authority of Jafarione of the members involved in the
purging of at least one dissident OIPFG member in the early 1970s. Jafari was to
test the loyalty of Shuaiyan. According to Shuaiyan, the test of loyalty led to the
unnecessary arrest of Comrade Mother. Jafari had reportedly ordered Saidi, a
middle-aged woman, to return to a vacated team house and collect some of the
organizational property from the house, while Jafari and someone else acted as
lookouts. In ordering Saidi back into a dubious place, Jafari obviously broke a
fundamental rule of guerrilla life: never to return to a place if you consider that there
is even a slight chance it has been identified by the police. The fact that the
Fadaiyan had abandoned this house in such a rush to have abandoned some
property behind (but nothing like documents or weapons; they had orders to take or
destroy them) should have provided enough reason for any guerrilla not to ever
return. In any case, Saidi was confronted by SAVAK agents, hiding in the house,
upon arrival and was arrested after a chase during which Jafari and the other
lookout did not try to use their arms to rescue her.21 Saidi was severely tortured, for
SAVAK knew about her connection with Shuaiyanone of Irans most wanted.
One account points out a secret report of Tehran Police, retrieved after the
Revolution, that reveals the formation of a special taskforce of security agencies,
assigned to track down Shuaiyan, described as one of the theorists and architects
of, and an influential individual in militant groups.22 Saidi managed not to
disclose essential information.23 The incident infuriated Shuaiyan who had now
experienced first hand the Fadaiyans discriminatory treatment against him and
anyone allegedly associated with him.
Meanwhile, the recruitment of Shuaiyan did not escape Jazani, who
approached the captured members of the PDF, Anduri and Farhang Azad, in prison
to find out about the ideological inclinations of the group and Shuaiyans
Shurish. But the two denied Jazani any discussion on the subject. Moreover, when
in 1973, recently arrested Fadai member Mehdi Fatapour met Jazani in prison and
confirmed about the absorption of the PDF by the Fadaiyan, Jazani warned him
that Shuaiyans presence in the OIPFG would be dangerous because his
knowledge of theory and his radical and Trotskyist ideas would overwhelm
Ashraf and others and he would eventually take over the OIPFG. Later, Fatapour
was informed by Anushirvan Lotfi and Ashraf that the relationship between
Shuaiyan and the OIPFG was far from rosy, as a result of which he was cut off.
It is unknown whether Jazanis warning against Shuaiyan had anything to do
with Ashrafs decision to expel Shuaiyan.24 Moreover, upon joining the
Fadaiyan, Shuaiyan had loaned Jafari a suitcaseful of internal documents of his
group as well as his own writings. These documents were never returned25the
Fadaiyan had apparently destroyed them.
21
Ibid., pp. 1618, 27.
22
Ahmad Runasi, Yadi az Mustafa Shuaiyan [A Remembrance of Mustafa Shuaiyan]. Inghilab-i Islami
509 (19 February4 March 2001), p. 8.
23
Shuaiyan, The Sixth Open Letter, p. 29.
24
Mehdi Fatapour, Authors Telephone Interview with Mehdi Fatapour (Vancouver, 24 November 2001).
25
Shuaiyan, The Sixth Open Letter, pp. 35, 38.
48
It was therefore to be expected that with such biased predisposition against

Shuaiyan his relationship with Ashraf, Momeni and Jafari would turn sour.
While still with the OIPFG, Shuaiyan had detected the manifestations of
Stalinism and set himself the task of documenting them. He holds that the roots of
spite toward him go back to his Revolutiona work so unconventional and
inaccessible to the militants of the time that even the OIPFG theorist, Hamid
Momeni, had a hard time grasping it. As an observer remarks, Shoaiyans isolation
did not simply result from his idiosyncratic language. His style was a symbolic
expression of a fighters dignified distinctiveness who did not wish to succumb to
the predominant Stalinism of the Iranian communist movement at the time.26
Unable to challenge him theoretically, the Fadaiyan accused Shuaiyan of
opportunism, lack of responsibility, and cowardice. Shuaiyan had lived long
enough among the Left to understand that the Fadaiyan were in the process of
dossier-making ( parvandih sazi) to expel him. They had pressed Shuaiyans
former comrades in the PDF, Oskui (alias Fatemeh) and Mahin (alias; she could be
Moazed or Bizhanzadeh) to provide reports on his personality.27 Oskuis
celebrated book, Memoirs of a Comrade, was written, according to Shuaiyan, on
Ashrafs orders and contained reminisces of her time in the PDF that never found
their way into the published version of her Memoirs. Shuaiyan was denied a copy
of the full version despite Ashrafs promise. Ashraf had told him that in the
Memoirs Oskui claimed that she and Shayegan had already decided to expel
Shuaiyan from the PDF.28 Likewise, the young Shayegan brothers, now in the
custody of the OIPFG after their mothers arrest, were asked to write their
recollections of Shuaiyan.29 The Memoirs and all like material, Shuaiyan rightly
observed, functioned as an internal tribunal, the Stalinist style, waiting for him.
In any case, Shuaiyan was eventually expelled from the OIPFG, left alone, and
being one Irans most wanted political activists, without proper coverage or
resources. The way he was treated reports the feeble moral stance of the Fadaiyan
vis-a`-vis an intellectual contender. One of Irans original political theorists found
refuge in the abyss of the masses, so to speak, disguising himself as a vagabond
and living in cemeteries from time to time, but staying resolute to continue with
his struggle by using his vast connections.30 A most wanted man and without
support, he wrote his open letters in the corners of city parks and buried them in
remote areas at the outskirts of Tehran for posterity.31
His last meeting with Ashraf on 8 September 1974 at 14:00 was arranged by the
Mujahidin.32 The Sixth Open Letter to the Fadai Guerrillas meticulously documents
this meeting. In this meeting, Ashraf tells Shuaiyan that the Fadai members who
were entitled to read Shuaiyans former open letters (the Central Cadres?) had read
them and believed: We cannot be together in one organization. But we are not each
others immediate enemies either. Of course, if things lead to a confrontation
whose day will inevitably comethen we will stand facing each other.33 Shuaiyan
26
A. K. Dastan (Spring 1988), Sih chihrih-yi Marksism dar Iran [Three Marxist Figures of Iran]. Kankash,
1(23), p. 69.
27
Shuaiyan, The Sixth Open Letter, pp. 5, 20, 23.
28
Ibid., pp. 42, 34.
29
Shuaiyan, Six Open Letters, p. 133.
30
Cosroe Chaqueri, Authors Interview with Cosroe Chaqueri (Paris, 28 August 2001).
31
32
33
Ibid., p. 5; emphasis added.
49
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
bitterly rejects the very notion of being a Fadai member and reciprocates Ashrafs
threat. While it is obvious that Ashraf threatens Shuaiyan, it seems rather unlikely
that the OIPFG leadership had any plan to purge Shuaiyan, as they had earlier
purged at least three members of the group (which cannot be discussed here). By this
time, if bothersome and eccentric for the parochial mindset of the Fadaiyan,
Shuaiyan had proven himself as a trustworthy and resilient fighter: he posed no
security threat to the OIPFG.
Shuaiyans life remains obscure between this point and his death. It is said that
he managed to form a new underground cell. We know only one name, Parviz
Sadri, as the member of his last cell. According to one account, in 1974 SAVAK
briefly detained Sadris brothers and sister to inquire about his and Shuaiyans
whereabouts, claiming that they had obtained proof that the Fadaiyan were intent
upon assassinating them.34 Of course, one cannot rely on SAVAKs claim and
should treat it as a deceptive means to get information about Shuaiyans group.
However, it also reports that SAVAK was cognizant of the bitter relations between
Shuaiyan and the OIPFG and at this point was only one step away from tracking
down Shuaiyan. What is known, however, is that between his departure from the
ranks of the Fadaiyan and his death, he was provided coverage by the leaders of
Mujahidin-i Khalq but was not organizationally connected to the group. The new
leaders of Mujahidin, especially Taqi Shahram, had turned the Mujahidin into a
Marxist Leninist group through bloody purges in 1975 1976. In the absence of
knowledgeable Marxists in underground movement, Shahram in earlier years had
been obliquely influenced by Shuaiyan, although it should be clear that given
Shuaiyans inclusive and democratic attitude, he would not have approved of the
methods used to hijack the Mujahidin-i Khaq as a Muslim group.35
On Thursday 4 February 1976, around noon, as Shuaiyan emerged from his
hideaway house in Estakhr Street in central Tehran, he was identified by the
security agents. Although it has been reported by revolutionary accounts that he
had engaged in a shootout with the police and was shot, a new account holds that
he was not armed and simply committed suicide by swallowing his cyanide
capsule.36 The police took his body to the Anti-Terrorist Joint Task Force prison
(known as Kumitih prison) in central Tehran and brought Shuaiyans imprisoned
comrades, including Nabavi, to Kumitih to identify his body at least several
times.37
Frontal Thinking and Pathology of Stalinism

Shuaiyans early admiration of, and later bitter relations with, the OIPFG, along
with his original inclination toward a liberation front, led him to a systematic
ideological formulation of the plague of sectarianism and Stalinism that had
greatly infested the Iranian left.
As his earlier attempts indicate, Shuaiyan has always been inclined toward the
creation of a nationwide front. Given his admiration for the toppled nationalist
34
The report is made by Parviz Qelichkhani in Arash, 79 (November 2001), p. 33.
35
See: Sazman-i Mujahidin-i Khalq: piydai ta fajam (1344 1384) Jild-i avval [Mujahidin-i Khalq
Organization: Arising and the End (19652005) Volume 1 ] (Tehran: Political Studies and Research Institute,
2005), pp.554, 566.
36
Ibid., p. 566.
37
50
Prime Minister Dr Mohammad Mosaddeq, whom he describes as the wise and

audacious leader of the Iranian people,38 he must have been inspired by the
National Front. In the early 1960s, he unsuccessfully invited the three most
influential Ayatollahs of the countryKhomeini, Shariatmadari, and Milanito
call upon their followers for a complete economic boycott of the states financial
institutions in an effort to create a fatal socioeconomic crisis for the state.39 This
effort was admittedly an attempt to test the potential for passive resistance as
well as the extent of political commitments of Shii clerics.40 His recruitment of
Muslims like Nabavi and close relations with the Peoples Mujahidin also indicate
his frontal thinking. While sound and critical adherence to Marxism (without the
later additions to it) was of utmost importance to him, ideology should not impede,
he held, the convergence of all militant forces under the frontal umbrella.
In Shuaiyans view, the necessity of the front for militant Marxists comes
from the internal plurality of the working class, which in turn stems from the
diverse relations of production of various sectors of the working class. The task of
the working class enlightener (rawshangar), the vanguard, is to educate and
prepare the class for the revolution. In terms of politics, the enlightener of the class
is the educator of the class, an educator who has previously received [his or her
own] education in the school of the life of the [working] class.41 Those familiar
with the thought of Antonio Gramsci can clearly see the resemblance between
Shuaiyans concept of the enlightener and Gramscis organic intellectual.
Since he rejects the possibility that the seeds of the revolution are exclusive to only
one class, Shuaiyan acknowledges the need for various representations of the
rebellious seeds.42 No party structure can adequately represent this diversity
because as the structural configuration of the intellectual representation of each
sector of the working class (or other classes for that matter), the party can only
speak for the specific sectors it represents. One of the characteristics of Iran is that
the rebellious vanguard ( pishtaz-i shurishi) in this society does not have a single-
organizational profile (chihrih-yi tak-sazmani).43 The front, therefore, provides
the alternative structure under whose banner the existing forces representing the
people converge against colonialism. This structure weaves together and directs
diverse forces toward one united front, moving from the few to the many.44
In Shuaiyans thought, advocating the front as a non-ideological and supra-class
alliance does not negate the necessity for the formation of the working class party.
These are simply two different tasks.45
Two elements make the frontal convergence possible: armed struggle and
revolutionary consciousness. Like Masud Ahmadzadeh, one of the founders of
Fadaiyan-i Khalq but on a more sophisticated level, Shuaiyan maintains the
38
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Chihillumin ruz-i darguzasht-i Mosaddeq dar Ahmadabad [The Fortieth Day of
Passing Away of Mosaddeq in Ahmadabad]. Kitab-i Jumih 29 (6 February 1980), p. 10.
39
See: Mustafa Shuaiyan, Jahad-i imruz ya tizi baray-i taharrok [Todays Jihad or A Thesis for
Mobilization] in Selected Writings (op. cit.).
40
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Chih bayad kard? [What Is to Be Done? ] (Unpublished manuscript), p. 34.
41
Ibid., p. 62.
42
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Chirikha-yi Fadai-yi Khalq: Naqdi bar Nimgami dar rah: Jibhih-yi rahaibakhsh-i
khalq [Peoples Fadai Guerrillas: A Critique of Half A Step on the Way: the Peoples Liberation Front], in
Nimgami dar rah: Jebheh-yi rahaibakhsh-i khalq [Half A Step on the Way: the Peoples Liberation Front ]
(np: Enqelab Publisher, nd), p. 7; article individually paginated.
43
Ibid., p. 5; article individually paginated.
44
See: Ibid., pp. 34, 9, 10; article individually paginated.
45
See: Ibid., pp. 3, 5, 89; article individually paginated.
51
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
priority of practice over theory. As such, he conceives armed struggle as the nexus
of the front, the formation of which rests with convergence, in the beginning, of
the militant groups like the Fadaiyan, the Mujahidin or the Peoples Ideal.46
However, the measure for drawing the line between the people and the peoples
enemy must be sought in resistance against the reactionary-colonial forces. In the
present conditions of Iran, he continues, the Fadaiyan and the Mujahidin must
form the nucleus of the future front by cooperating with one another over their
unified threads, starting with a special joint bulletin.47 It is noteworthy to point
out, with emphasis, that Shuaiyans inclination toward the praxis of armed
struggle places the OIPFG one step ahead of the OIPM in organizing and initiating
guerrilla warfare in Iran because, unlike the Mujahidin, the Fadaiyan have
outlined their strategies based on mobilizing the masses.48
This non-ideological attitude toward the front, of course, would not be received
well by the OIPFG leadership. Let us recall that Jazani, the imprisoned Fadai
theorist, rejected any alliance in which the leadership of militant Marxists (read:
the Fadaiyan) would be in doubt. Likewise, Ashraf reportedly and expectedly
refuted the organizational unity of different ideologies.49 In 1973, Shuaiyan
raised the point to his Fadai interlocutors that the very designation Peoples
Fadai Guerrillasthe original designation of the group when founded by
Ahmadzadeh and Ashrafimplied a front, not an organization: anyone willing to
militate for the cause of liberation would automatically become a Fadai,
regardless of organizational-ideological connections. We can see how astute
Shuaiyans observation is once we note that the Fadaiyan once instructed the
militant cells that: The Marxist Leninist groups that could not establish contacts
with the Peoples Fadai Guerrillas should operate under the name Peoples
Fadai Guerrillas (with a suitable addendum).50 Shuaiyan found it contra-
dictory on the Fadaiyans part to adhere to ideological puritanism and still ask
various militant cells to operate under the OIPFGs name.51 Given that this debate
took place in 1973, one can hypothesize that the Peoples Fadai Guerrillas (the
PFG) might have been renamed as the Organization of the Peoples Fadai
Guerrillas (the OPFG; i.e. renamed as a party) in 1974 in reaction to Shuaiyans
meticulous criticism. In any case, Shuaiyans view allows us to see that in
retreating into its sectarian-ideological cocoon, the Fadai Guerrillas foreclosed on
their potential as a hegemonic core in the peoples liberation front.
In Revolution and the works that followed, the organizing concept in
Shuaiyans theory is rebellion or shurish. He calls his thought a rebellious
thought based on the principle of constant and uncompromising revolution of the
exploited masses until the world is rid of capitalism. Armed struggle represents the
arch manifestation of the rebellious essence that defines our epoch of advanced
capitalism and liberation movement. The praxis of uncompromising militants in
Iran and in many other societies across the world is the true measure of the
rebellious essence (gawhar-i shurishi). More precisely, shurish refers to the
situation in which all social and productive relations report exploitive and
46
47
See: Shuaiyan, Peoples Fadai Guerrillas, pp. 4, 14, 27; article individually paginated.
48
Shuaiyan, The Sixth Open Letter, pp. 39 40.
49
50
Nashriyih-yi Dakhili [Internal Bulletin of the OIPFG ], 14 (AugustSeptember 1975), p. 37.
51
52
suppressive relations while the popular resistances against such relations are not
yet quite in place. As regards the Iranian society, like Jazani, Shuaiyan believes
that the revolutionary conditions do not exist in Iran and urban guerrilla warfare
should not be mistaken with the revolutionary war of liberation, although the
former certainly moves in the direction of creating the latter.52 Given the lack of
popular participation, the role of the revolutionary vanguard is highly accentuated.
This is when the rebellious essence provides the frontal diversity of the militant
groups with unity in their struggle.53
There are conditions in the life history of a class in which the vanguard neither has the
freedom to deliver its message to the entire class and society nor can it submit to
complaint and surrender. And this is a historical condition in which the class intends to
militantly shake off its chains, but its organizational solidarity and connections are so
shattered that it must start the enlivening battle of armed movement using whatever
number of the connecting cords [available]; and this is precisely the stage of sowing the
rebellious seeds.54
What sharply separates Shuaiyan from the rest of his generation of leftist
militant activists is not simply his rejection of Leninism; rather, it is his harsh
judgements of the Marxist Leninist tradition through his concept of the
determinacy of rebellious essence. The revolution will happen with or without
the Party. Being a true revolutionary (i.e. loyal to the essence of revolution) does
not require being a communist or belonging to the working class (although the
working class plays a central role). Likewise, being a Marxist Leninist does not
necessarily guarantee being a revolutionary. By the same token, one who is not
communist is not automatically a counterrevolutionary either.55 That is why the
war of liberation involves the liberation of consciousnessindeed a complete
cultural deliverance: To deliver the masses, the working class has to elevate the
masses to the summit of its own culture and essence. And this is not doable unless
in rebellion. A global rebellion! Rebellion is the best cultural school.56 The
subjective element, or consciousness (agahi), now weaves different loci of
rebellion together and creates a front that aims for such global undertaking.
Measured against the essence of rebellion, Leninism is a betrayal of the
revolution. Not only did Lenin reject guerrilla warfare as desperate petit-bourgeois
terrorism, he betrayed the world revolution through his thesis of peaceful
coexistence with imperialismthe fabricated Leninist thesis that Shuaiyan
called socialism in one country and found it counterrevolutionary and [a]
treason of the international working class revolution.57 Lenin transformed into
a counterrevolutionary around 1920, according to Shuaiyan.58 Here, one can
observe Shuaiyans attunement to practice: in theory Lenin worked along the
lines of Trotskys permanent revolution (a refutation of the Stalinist thesis of the
socialist homeland),59 while in practice he pragmatically sold out the Jangali
52
Shuaiyans letter to C. Chaqueri, in C. Chaqueris personal archives (unpublished).
53
Shuaiyan, Half A Step on the Way, p. 8.
54
Ibid., pp. 78.
55
Shuaiyan, Chand naqd-i nab [Some Pure Criticisms], in Selected Writings, pp. 27 28; article individually
paginated.
56
Shuaiyan, An Inquiry Into A Critique, in Half A Step on the Way, p. 13; article individually paginated.
57
Shuaiyan, Revolution, p. 27.
58
Ibid., p. 249, no. 135.
59
In this respect see: Leon Trotsky, The Three Conceptions of the Russian Revolution. Available at: http://
www.internationalist.org/three.html (accessed 5 October 2004).
53
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
revolution in Iran to make concessions with the British who were backing the
Russian White Guards that launched their counterrevolutionary offensives partly
from the Iranian soil. Next, Shuaiyan ponders whether Lenins thesis is a
revision of the fundamental principles of Marxian thought or is Marx just as guilty
in this regard. Pushing the question to the limits of the Marxist canon, he
acknowledges the possibility that:
It seems that the criticism made of Lenins thoughts on the party and the revolution are
also pertinent to Marx himself. But for two reasons, I could not start from Comrade Marx.
First, I did not have sufficient knowledge in this respect [i.e. Marxs thought]. And second,
the translated works of Comrade [Marx] shows that his political works are few and
especially synoptic compared to his philosophical and economic works; as if Marxs
political works were only written under certain inevitable urges of responsibility. In any
case, the basic reason why I could not analyze Comrade Marx was because of my
negligible knowledge of Marx and his ideas.60
Reactions against Leninism can be found in the practices of great
revolutionaries such as Che Guevara, the internationalist guerrilla of the
proletariat, who acknowledged in his 26 February 1965 speech in Algeria that just
like capitalism the socialist camp treats the Third World in an exploitive manner.61
The peaceful coexistence policy of the USSRa policy clearly arid and
un-dialecticalcaused catastrophes for the people of Iran, Algeria and Greece, to
mention a few examples. The disastrous policy of the Soviet Union with respect to
Prime Minister Mosaddeq can never be justified, and the later USSRs
opportunistic support of national-liberation movements in different Third World
countries only came after letting the Iranian people down.62 Adherence to puritan
ideological dogmas, in Leninism and Maoism alike, undermines the rebellious
essence that manifests itself in the praxis of armed uprising of exploited peoples
around the world. Shuaiyans approach, once again, is indicative of the practical
spirit of the generation that dominated the 1970s Iranian politics. As Nader
Shayegan reportedly averred, The very fact that I carry a weapon and live
militantly means the rejection of Leninist methods.63
For Shuaiyan, the Leninist digression from the revolutionary path led to faulty
and opportunistic policies and approaches in the communist movement. Stalinism
is not the only monster child of Leninism. An opportunist attitude has now become
the predominant symptom of Leninist abandonment of revolutionary principles.
Shuaiyan calls this kind of opportunism shuravismthat is, Sovietism.
In 1975, Shuaiyan did not hide his resentment toward the Fadaiyan when he
mapped Sovietism as bound by the Stalinists on the North (the Soviet Union), new
Maoists on the East (China), the ancient Tudehists on the West (in exile), and the
Fadaiyan on the South. The common denominator of these representations of
Stalinism and opportunism is the lack of revolutionary principles manifested
through dossier making and purges.64 Shuaiyan makes an excellent observation
when he argues that only by fabricating the equivalence of the Soviet Union with
the working class can one conceptualize the Soviets as progressive. He expressly
rejects that equation, depriving the Soviets and the Tudeh from their shaky
60
61
Ibid., p. 265, no. 204.
62
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Jang-i sazish [A War to Compromise ] (Florence: Edition Mazdak, 1976), pp. 5, 6.
63
Quoted in Shuaiyan, Revolution, p. 116.
64
Shuaiyan, The Sixth Open Letter, pp. 6 7.
54
legitimation as working class parties. The Tudeh had never been the working class
party, he argues, not even before the 1953 coup.65 The founders of OIPFG failed to
recognize this subtle distinction. For instance, Hassan Zia Zarifi holds: If, as the
political organization of the working class, the Tudeh Party had carried out its
revolutionary duties and led the action against the counterrevolutionary forces, it
would have inevitably maintained the leadership of the [Tudeh] Party over the
entire movement.66 This is precisely the point that Shuaiyan rejects: had the
Tudeh ever been the working class party, had opportunism not permeated its every
cellule, it would not have succumbed to the coup or the USSR foreign policy and
would have staged armed resistance against the 1953 coup. Failure to detect
opportunism in the world communist movement caused the Fadaiyan to contract
Sovietism. While Jazani sharply criticized the Soviet Union, he too fell short in
identifying the ideological basis of Soviet policies and eventually concedes the
international socialist hegemony of the USSR. In Shuaiyans judgement, an
unmistakable position against Sovietism is the precondition for revolutionary
action. To challenge the pervasive domination of Sovietism one must arm oneself
with the weapon of critiquewith categorical criticism, that isand dislodge all
expressions of Sovietism and Stalinism from their hideouts.67 One must not only
expose and criticize the Soviets and the Chinese but also the Tudeh Party and the
Fadaiyan.
A critique of Leninism, of course, would not have been received well by the
Fadaiyan for whom the advocacy of the working class cause equalled adherence
to Leninism. One could not claim to fight out the working class struggle, the
Fadaiyan held expressly, without subscribing to Leninism.68 Overall, the
OIPFGs understanding of Marxism was schoolish, rigid, and dogmatic; so much
so that it did not yield to the understanding of Marxism on analytical levels. In
fact, the OIPFG clearly rejected analytical Marxisma task apparently carried out
by armed-chair intellectualsin favour of ideological, programmatic Marxism.69
Having gained the insight granted by the experience of living as a rank-and-file
Fadai member, Shuaiyan was now able to connect the dots: the lack of a firm
stance against Sovietism led to Stalinism and sectarianismboth conditions
identifiable in the OIPFG by 1974. Conceiving of themselves as a strictly
ideological party, the Fadaiyan showed their sectarianism and annulled the
possibility of a liberation front.70 Stalinism also revealed itself in the inner-
organizational life of the OIPFG, which Shuaiyan experienced first hand for a
short period. Ashraf reportedly postponed internal organizational democracy until
the realization of favourable conditions. The movement is still very vulnerable,
he told Shuaiyan. Let us grow to a certain extent and gain some strength. Then,
well, anyone will be free to express any view she or he holds.71 Shuaiyan is
alarmed by such indefinite deferment of organizational democracy, for he senses
65
Ibid., p. 13.
66
Hassan Zia Zarifi, Hizb-i Tudih va kudita-yi 28 Murdad 32 [The Tudih Party and the 18 August 1953 Coup
detat ] (Tehran: np, 1979), p. 33.
67
Mustafa Shuaiyan, Du intiqad bih Chirikha-yi Fadai Khalq [Two Critical Essays on the Peoples Fadai
Guerrillas ] (Florence: Edition Mazdak, 1976).
68
OIPFG, Jibha-yi muttahid-i zidd-i diktaturi va dar u dastih-yi Hizb-i Tudih [The United Anti-Dictatorship
Front and the Tudih Party Bunch ] (np: OIPFG, May 1978), p. 20, no. 1.
69
Payam-i Danishju (Student Organ of Organization of Peoples Fadai Guerrillas), 1 (OctoberNovember
1975), p. 28.
70
Shuaiyan, Half A Step on the Way, p. 7.
71
Ashraf as quoted in Shuaiyan, Six Open Letters, p. 49.
55
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
the tradition of killing thinking72 creeping up on the OIPFG. His reply (to Ashraf)
is therefore uncompromising and insightful: Dear comrade, an organization that
blocks the opinions it does not approve at the time of weakness, once formidable,
will crush any brain that thinks a thought other than what the organization
dictates.73
Revolution and the Intellectuals

Amidst the debates between Shuaiyan and the OIPFG theorist Hamid Momeni
there is one that has direct ramifications for understanding the role of secular-Left
intellectuals in the liberation movement. Given the fact that the vast majority
of militant activists in the 1970s were intellectuals or students, formulating the
position of the intellectuals in the new communist movement became a priority
particularly given the Marxist Leninist class analysis of the intellectuals. Not
surprisingly, Shuaiyans never-ending inquiry into the roots of puritan ideologies
placed him in a crash course with the dominant Leftist notion of intellectuals as
represented by Momeni.
It is essential to clarify that Shuaiyan first came under attack by Momeni upon
the latters criticism of the elitist Persian of the first edition of Shurish (that was
written in the puritan style of prose as advocated by secular reformer Ahmad
Kasravi, 1890 1946). The writing style and convoluted lexicon were blamed for
the inaccessibility of Shurishwhich is indeed a complex book even after its third
authors revision that rendered the prose far more accessible. Momenis reaction
against lexical elitism of Shurish brought him to the problem of intellectuals in the
workers movement. Momenis objection begins with Shuaiyans nuanced but
crucial distinction between rawshanfikr (or intellectual; literally, enlightened-
minded) and rawshangar (literally, enlightener).
Despite the hostility that reigned over the personal relationship between the two
interlocutors to the extent that they had to terminate their face-to-face debates,74
Shuaiyan and Momeni managed to document their major arguments. The
exchange was instigated upon Momenis harsh criticism of Shurish in which
the concept of rawshangar or enlightener of the working class plays a key role.
The entire Chapter 4 of Momenis Not Rebellion, Judicious Steps on the Path to the
Revolution is devoted to unravel the flaws of the concept of enlightener as a supra-
class concept and how it reports a significant deviation from rigorous Marxist class
analysis of the intellectual as a superstructural stratum. The choice of the term
rawshangar, he held, is a product of the Shuaiyans elitist language and is
allegedly meant to encompass seven different connotations under one class-free
concept.75 However, under capitalist economic formation there can never be a
freestanding layer of people outside the existing relations of production. Therefore,
Momeni argues, all intellectuals belong to the exploiting classes. Despite the fact
that intellectuals differ in terms of class origins, they are nonetheless the products of
bourgeois education and belong either to the bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie.76
72
73
74
Hamid Momeni and Mustafa Shuaiyan, Juyishi piramun-i raushanfikr ya raushangar-i tabaqih-yi kargar
[An Inquiry into the Intellectual or Enlightener of the Working Class ] (np: Enqelab Publishers, nd), p. 10.
75
Hamid Momeni, Not Rebellion, pp. 102 103.
76
Ibid., pp. 104105.
56
Momeni uncompromisingly holds that: The intellectuals [constitute] a vast stratum

in society which belongs to the bourgeois class in terms of class origins because they
feed on the surplus value. But this stratum is internally incoherent and diverse.
Some of them have risen from the masses and are in continued contact with the
masses in their private lives. Such and such Harvard professor and Samad Behrangi
are both intellectuals. Can one use the stereotypical term intellectual to refer to
both of them?77
Reflecting on the problem of Stalinism and bureaucracy (in his exchanges with
another Marxist group, Sitarih), Momeni discusses the perils that intellectuals pose
for socialism as they represent the remnants of the abolished bourgeoisie: The last
remnants of bourgeoisie under socialism are nothing but the intellectuals . . . . The
dictatorship of proletariat . . . cannot eliminate the intellectuals. The elimination of
intellectuals depends on the full automatization of production and the vast and
complete reduction of physical labour and this can only be achieved in a communist
society.78 That said and closer to home, however, Momeni admits that due to
congruity with the masses and reading revolutionary literature, a small number of
intellectuals, even under acute repressive conditions, may incline toward the masses,
especially the working class and its progressive ideology.79 In other words,
witnessing the harsh realities of capitalist unequal distribution of wealth, these
individuals become intellectually influenced by the great reality of their time, i.e. the
working class, transform into revolutionary intellectuals or proletarian intellectuals
and become the servants of the proletariat. As a result, the task of resolving the
technical leadership of the proletarian revolution falls upon them.80 Because in
joining the struggle of the masses these intellectuals are not motivated by material
hardship (like the masses) but by their intellectual and moral (manavi) impulse, they
forfeit their class interests and continue to struggle by dissolving themselves into the
aims and interests of the proletariat.81 Political commitment sets the revolutionary
intellectual apart from the intellectuals at large: while the latter remains an economic
category, the former constitutes a political category. The task of revolutionary
intellectuals is to establish organic relations with the masses.82
But in what sense did Shuaiyan use the notion of rawshangar or enlightener?
First, Shuaiyan does not hide his dissatisfaction with the commonplace term,
rawshanfikr or intellectual, because the word intellectual, while originally a
neutral term, was brought into the Persian language through the political discourse
and has therefore acquired an unmistakable political overtone. Because of
its political overdetermination in Persian, the term intellectual has lost its
philosophical signification. Shuaiyan reserves the term rawshangar or
enlightener to strictly refer to the political intellectual (and he thereby de-
politicizes the term rawshanfikr or intellectual).83 In a vein almost reminiscent of
the Gramscian notion of organic intellectuals84 (in the 1970s Iran Gramsci was
77
Hamid Momeni, Pasukh bih forsattalaban dar murid-i Mubarizih-yi musalahanih, ham stratizhi, ham taktik
[A Rejoinder to the Opportunists on Armed Struggle: Both Strategy and Tactic] (Tehran: Intisharat-i
M. Bidsorkhi, 1979), p. 28.
78
Momeni, Not Rebellion, p. 105.
79
Ibid., p. 107.
80
Momeni and Shuaiyan, An Inquiry, p. 2.
81
Momeni, Not Rebellion, pp. 107 108.
82
Ibid., p. 119.
83
Momeni and Shuaiyan, An Inquiry, pp. 1920.
84
Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. & trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell
Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), pp. 543.
57
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
unheard of), Shuaiyan speaks of how each social class in society consists of
different layers (layiha). The enlighteners make up a layer because every layer of
enlighteners has its particular characteristics that distinguish it from the class of
its origin. Although enlighteners are the products of the class and class
conflict,85 dissimilar to Gramsci on this point, Shuaiyan holds that the
enlighteners differ from the class they represent because, first, economically they
do not directly participate in the process of production, and second, politically
the enlighteners function as the mentor [amuzgar ] of the class.86 Contrary to
Momenis position, he argues, the fact that the enlighteners (or intellectuals for
that matter) enjoy social mobility indicates that the class essence (sirisht-i
tabaqati) is not determined simply by ones class origins. Rather, it is the praxis
of a class that allows an enlightener to identify with it: Living the life of a class
determines ones class essence.87 Stated simply, class position determines class
belonging, not vice versa, and that goes against the deterministic grain that
theoretically reigned over Iranian militant Left.
In objecting to Momenis rigid and bookish notion, Shuaiyan is not alone.
The Internal Bulletin of the OIPFG shows that some Fadai members also held the
position that an intellectuals class belonging is defined by his or her (political)
class position and not class originsan objection Momeni does not entertain,
calling all intellectuals members of the exploiting class.88 Shuaiyan
categorically refutes Momenis conception that all intellectuals, regardless of
their political position, belong to the bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie and puts to
Momeni the contradiction in his argument: how can the intellectuals that belong to
the bourgeoisie become proletarian intellectuals and fight for the proletarian
cause?89 How can the Fadaiyan be the working class intellectuals if they all
belong to the bourgeoisie despite their revolutionary practice?
In response, Momeni accuses Shuaiyan of confusing the three Marxist
concepts of the conscious layer of the [working] class, the revolutionary
vanguard, and professional revolutionary by encompassing them in his notion of
rawshangar, which, according to Momeni, only designates the revolutionary
vanguard.90 He stays on his path of offering a strict class analysis of the
intellectuals and is aided in his effort by the Marxist analysis of the dual class
character of the petit-bourgeoisie: on the one hand, a small number of intellectuals
can transform into the greatest advocates of the masses, while on the other, a vast
majority of them become a major obstacle for the revolution and socialist
society.91 The working class revolutionary vanguard consists of revolutionary
intellectuals, who have been involved with and touched by the life of the workers,
as well as revolutionary workers or proletarian intellectuals.92 The proletarian
intellectuals make up only a small segment of the large layer of intellectuals.
The vast majority of intellectuals simply submit to the socialist revolution without
believing it in their hearts.93 If the intellectuals lose contact with the masses and
85
86
Ibid., p. 5.
87
Ibid., p. 7.
88
Nashriyih-yi Dakhili, 14 (August September 1975), pp. 58, 60 61.
89
90
Ibid., p. 23.
91
Ibid., p. 26.
92
Ibid., p. 29.
93
Ibid., pp. 3031.
58
stop learning from them, they will betray the working class cause and return to
their own class origins. Examples include Trotsky, the (then) Soviet leaders, Tito,
and Dubcek. One observes that Momenis adherence to strict class analysis of
intellectuals actually leads to nave populism: that the measure for the vanguard
intellectual is to stay on the path of the masses as seen through the prism of
Marxism Leninism. Here, in discussing how to deal with deviationist
intellectuals, Momeni reveals the Stalinism that he must have shared with at
least parts of the Fadai leadership:
On the other hand, our intellectuals [in general], deviationist intellectuals in particular,
should go and labour through physical work. A sentimental intellectual, for example,
who says, Machinism is evil, it enslaves humans, etc. [Momeni mocks certain
existentialists here], must go and furrow the land with an ox or dig a well using shovel
and pick to understand his mistake. Moreover, the masses surveillance over
intellectuals and especially the cultural revolution of the masses [reference to the
Chinese Cultural Revolution is clear] can prevent bourgeois tendencies in science, arts,
and politics.94
No doubt, Momeni had already built a Gulag labour camp in his thought, ready
to serve the non-Party intellectuals (Stalinist style). The dismissive, if not
suppressive, attitude of the OIPFG leadership toward non-conformist intellectuals
cannot be any clearer. As we will see, it is not surprising that disciplinary measures
against Fadai members who deemed to carry petit-bourgeois symptoms were
implemented throughout the OIPFGs life.
Shuaiyans term enlightener, as mentioned, is strictly reserved for the
political intellectual. He refuses the populist attitude of his interlocutor and places
the class enlightener one step above the masses. Class enlightener is the class
guide in its class struggle, in its political battle, in philosophical knowledge, in its
revolutionary (Shurishi) war, etc., as well as in its assuming of power . . . . The
class enlightener is the mentor [amuzgar] of the class. The Party is the guiding
organization of the [working] class in class war. Thus, the Party is the field of
organic solidarity of [working] class enlighteners with one another.95 What is
significant about Shuaiyans defense of the enlightener vanguard is that he
makes no apologies about it or its plurality, nor does he try to justify his position
by overstretching alleged Marxist class analyses. His observation is rather an
existential one: he looks at his own life as an advocate and activist who fights for
the liberation of the masses. That should provide sufficient insight into the life of
the enlightener or intellectual sector. And this is precisely how he tries to give
Momeni an awareness about his place in society without using pregiven Marxist
conceptual constructs: if the intellectuals are parts of the exploiting classes
(Momenis point), he polemicizes, then Behruz Dehqani (the head of early
Fadaiyan Tabriz branch who died under interrogation in 1971) must belong to the
Iranian dominant and exploiting class as well. The rigid categorical analyses do
not necessarily reflect nor explain our existence as militant Iranian intellectuals,
Shuaiyan argues. He holds that Momenis thesis is nothing but a class
multiplication tablethat is, a simplified, formulaic approach that does not
account for the complexity of the issue.96
94
Ibid., p. 33.
95
Ibid., p. 36.
96
Ibid., pp. 44, 46.
59
PEYMAN VAHABZADEH
Conclusion
The brief sketch of Shuaiyans life shows how remaining true to his diverse
existential background as a dissident Iranian intellectual informed his taking a
stand against ideological dogmatism and organizational fetishism that defined the
Fadai Guerrillas as the representative of the 1970s Iranian Left. No doubt,
Shuaiyans work is not immune to criticism: above all, while his radical notion
of the revolution or shurish is not compatible with the diversity of social forces, his
theory of the front needs such diversity. Also, while capturing the praxis of
intellectuals of his time, his notion of the rebellious essence does not really relate
to the working class revolutionary struggle against capitalismthe reference point
he uses to bring his theory into alignment with the Marxist tradition. Moreover, he
leaves the question of the fronts leadership pragmatically open, a risky
shortcoming whose peril was revealed when the clerics managed to take over the
leadership of the 1979 Revolution despite the great efforts of the secular-Left
dissidents to create a democratic Iran.
Thanks to his in-group experience, however, Shuaiyan bitterly abandoned the
Fadaiyan he had formerly venerated and idealized. Shaken out of his presumed
impression of the OIPFG, he increasingly realized that such symptoms as
organizational Stalinism and ideological dogmatism did not really stem from
alleged deviationism from orthodox Marxism. Rather, these symptoms accurately
reported the malaise of canonical beliefa religiously faithful attitude by any
standardthat reigned over the Iranian Left at the time. Shuaiyan was too
maverick to subscribe to the formulaic Marxism of his Fadai interlocutors, not to
mention that his being half-generation senior provided him with a secure and
overwhelming personality. What makes the presence of Shuaiyan in the context
of Iranian Left important is not so much his direct criticisms of canonical and
faithful understanding of revolutionary Marxism as it is the implications of his
thought for rethinking Marxism while remaining a diligent and devoted activist at
the same time. In other words, Shuaiyan showed that practice should be not
derived from theory; it is theory that must submit to practical requirements.
Like most other leftist traditions of the twentieth century, the entire edifice of
Iranian Left has been based on certain canonical interpretations of Marxian
thought that reduced Marxs critical method to a revolutionary manual. From the
establishment of the Iranian Communist Party, to the Tudeh Party, to the Maoists
and Fadaiyan, and later to the Trotskyists: all of these attempts at the
re-foundation of the Left were based on adherence to one or another offshoot of
the twentieth century canonical Marxism Leninism. Shuaiyans significance
rests in the fact that he questions all these schools by showing the Stalinism that
stems from all rigid and derivative approaches to revolutionary theory: these
schools could only be elevated to the superior level of revolutionary guidebook
by suppressing the competing narratives and maintaining, at all costs, their own
ideological unity and purity. No wonder why Shuaiyans thought was suppressed
or why no leftist tradition today claims allegiance to his thought. While ideological
allegiances among Iranian leftists have been the variable, canonical belief in the
leftist school of choice has remained constant. Shuaiyan punctured a rupture,
however fleetingly, in this constant. His thought is not entirely safeguarded against
dogmas either and has its own moments. His main contribution should be regarded
as his ability to heed his existential conditions as a militant activist and revise
60
theory so that it would match praxis. He did not subsume praxis under theory; he
allowed praxis to rewrite theory. His debate with Momeni on the role of the
intellectuals sheds light on this last point. Momenis canonically sanctioned
suspicion of the intellectuals does indeed pave the way for the labour-camp
attitude toward non-conformist intellectuals. In maintaining his revolutionary
authority, Momeni is aided by a fictitious but ultimate construct (the working
class and the masses), in order to champion himself as a purified intellectual.
Shuaiyans notion of the enlightener is an acknowledgement of the role of
intellectuals in society, a role that reports not only the connection between the
intellectuals and the masses, but also the relative autonomy of the two. In the end,
it comes down to the enlighteners, to use Shuaiyans term, to provide the masses
with vision and direction. To that end, a more pluralistic approachepitomized by
the frontis indeed necessary.
61

Shuaiyan BJMES PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Shuaiyan BJMES PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:47 20 April 2007

British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, April 2007

Mustafa Shuaiyan and Fadaiyan-i

* Assistant Professor of Sociology, peymanv@uvic.ca. Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, P.O.

The Emergence of a Singular Voice

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

led to his path-breaking Rebellion (Shurish), which he later renamed Revolution

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

an underground cell. Upon reading Shuaiyans Revolution, Shayegans group

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

It was therefore to be expected that with such biased predisposition against

Frontal Thinking and Pathology of Stalinism

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

Prime Minister Dr Mohammad Mosaddeq, whom he describes as the wise and

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

Revolution and the Intellectuals

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

Momeni uncompromisingly holds that: The intellectuals [constitute] a vast stratum

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

MUSTAFA SHUAIYAN AND FADAIYAN-I KHALQ

Вам также может понравиться