Audio The Iranian Revolution and the question of the State
Core Argument¶
The central thesis is that the mass protests in Iran following the 2009 presidential election represented a genuine revolutionary upsurge, but one that remained politically trapped within the framework of bourgeois democracy. The article argues that the movement, while expressing deep class anger against the Islamic Republic, was led and contained by reformist layers — the Mousavi camp and sections of the liberal bourgeoisie — who sought not to overthrow the capitalist state but to secure a more palatable faction of the ruling class. The key claim is that without a revolutionary party capable of articulating a socialist programme — the abolition of the capitalist state and its replacement with workers' councils — the uprising would be defeated, co-opted, or channelled back into safe parliamentary forms. The article insists that the question of the state is not secondary to the Iranian struggle but absolutely central: the Islamic Republic is a bourgeois state, and any genuine revolution must aim to smash it, not reform it.
Theoretical Grounding¶
The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist theory of the state, drawing directly on Lenin's State and Revolution and Marx's writings on the Paris Commune. The article distinguishes sharply between the state as an instrument of class rule and the forms of political regime that can clothe it. It argues that the Islamic Republic, despite its theocratic trappings, is a capitalist state — defending private property, managing class exploitation, and operating within the logic of the world market. The article also deploys Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, implicitly arguing that in a semi-peripheral country like Iran, the democratic tasks of the revolution (overthrowing the dictatorship, securing democratic rights) cannot be separated from the socialist tasks (breaking the power of capital). The reformist illusion — that a change of personnel at the top can deliver genuine change — is subjected to a thoroughgoing critique, drawing on the Marxist tradition's long experience with reformism from the Second International onwards.
Conjunctural Relevance¶
The article was written in the immediate aftermath of the June 2009 Iranian protests, which erupted after the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The movement, known as the Green Wave, saw millions take to the streets across Iran, facing brutal state repression. The article connects this specific conjuncture to the broader crisis of neoliberalism after 2008, arguing that the global economic crisis was deepening class contradictions across the Middle East. It notes that the Iranian regime was itself divided between factions — the Ahmadinejad camp representing a more populist, nationalist wing of the bourgeoisie, and the Mousavi-Rafsanjani camp representing the liberal, pro-market wing. The article argues that the masses, in their hatred of the regime, were instinctively moving beyond the limits set by the reformist leadership, but lacked the political organisation to generalise the struggle into a direct assault on the state itself. The relevance extends beyond Iran: the article treats the Iranian events as a case study in the general problem of revolutionary strategy in the twenty-first century — how to build a revolutionary party capable of leading mass movements beyond the limits of bourgeois democracy.
Where the Argument Continues¶
The article is a spoken presentation and therefore leaves several theoretical threads for further development. It does not provide a detailed class analysis of Iranian society — the composition of the working class, the role of the bazaar bourgeoisie, the position of the peasantry — which would be necessary for a fuller strategic assessment. It also does not examine in depth the specific character of the Iranian state's theocratic apparatus, the role of the Revolutionary Guards as a distinct layer of the ruling class, or the relationship between the state and the oil economy. These questions are taken up in other IDOM articles on Iran, including analyses of the 1979 revolution, the rise of Ahmadinejad, and the later 2017-2019 protests. The broader theoretical argument about the state and revolution connects to the IDOM corpus on the Arab Spring, the Ukrainian events, and the general crisis of bourgeois democracy. Listeners are directed to the written articles on marxist.com and to the Against the Stream podcast for ongoing analysis of the Iranian situation.
Connections¶
This article should be read alongside Lenin's State and Revolution and Trotsky's Results and Prospects for the theoretical foundations. Within the IDOM corpus, it connects to Fred Weston's other writings on the Middle East, particularly analyses of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the later uprisings. It also connects to the broader Marxist debate on the character of the state in post-colonial and semi-peripheral societies — a tradition running from the early Comintern debates on the "colonial question" through to contemporary analyses of the "rentier state" in oil-exporting countries. For a fuller picture of the Iranian conjuncture, readers should consult IDOM's articles on the 2017-2019 protests, which show the same class dynamics recurring with greater radicalisation.
Key Quotes¶
"The Islamic Republic is a capitalist state. It may be draped in religious garb, but its function is the same as any other bourgeois state: to defend private property, to manage class exploitation, and to suppress the working class when it threatens the existing order."
"The masses in Iran have shown immense courage and revolutionary energy. But courage is not enough. Without a revolutionary party and a socialist programme, that energy will be dissipated, co-opted, or crushed."
"The reformists say: change the faces at the top, keep the state. Marxists say: the state itself must be smashed. There is no middle ground between these two positions."
"The division between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is a division within the ruling class. It is not a division between the rulers and the ruled. The working class must have its own independent political expression."
"What we are seeing in Iran is not a simple electoral dispute. It is a revolutionary situation. But a revolutionary situation does not automatically produce a revolution. That requires conscious intervention, organisation, and a correct theory of the state."
"The tragedy of the Iranian revolution of 1979 was that it was betrayed by the Islamists. The tragedy of the current movement is that it is being held back by the reformists. The lesson is the same: the working class must rely on its own forces."