The workers resist (May 1982 - May 1983) THE FOLLOWING is the second in a series of three articles on the working class movement and the Khomeini regime. The first, in the last issue of International Viewpoint, described the onslaught of "Islamic" repression in the period June 1981 through May 1982.
ur nedaquarters nas been bombed.
In fact, it appears that the government set a trap for the M-19, since it had learned of the plan, which it expected to be carried out when French president Francois Mitterand was in Bogota. Desperate to regain the military and political initiative after the failed kidnapping of Samudio, the M-19 went ahead with the plan that they knew was no longer secret. They acted as soon as the authorities withdrew the security force from the building, an action that seems to have been a lure.
The episode has closed the stage of the "truce." Raids and other attacks on the legal left parties, which had begun before the battle in the Palace of Justice, seem certain to be stepped up now under the pretext of fighting "terrorism" New violations of human rights can be expected. By killing the judges the army showed that no one has immunity from its attacks.
What seems to lie ahead is a resumption of the sort of "violencia" that started in 1946. But this time, there is an extensive armed movement in the country, although it is divided in accordance with various political positions. Moreover, the workers organizations are now more experi. enced.
On the military level, what the FARC does now will be crucial. If they reach an accord with the other guerrilla groups, the armed confrontation will reach unprecedented levels in the country.
Betancur promised that not a single drop of blood would be shed during his term. Now he is dripping with it. The day after the massacre, he boasted that the messages of support it got from Latin heads of state, as well as from Reagan, had shown " Colombia has the admiration of the hemisphere." That is mutual self-deception. Ordering this massacre and letting himself be pulled in the tow of the generals has wiped out his political credibility. •
The article below describes how pared the way for a new rise of geois regime. SABER NIKBEEN
By May 1982 there were a number of indications of growing resistance by the workers to the regime's offensive. For example, a substantial increase in the number of industrial actions could be noted between May 1982 and May 1983 (over thirty strikes and many more go-slows and sit-ins).
The forms of the workers' protests were more militant than in the previous year, when the dominant methods were writing letters to the authorities or collecting signatures on petitions. There were even attacks on the Islamic anjomans. (1) Moreover, in this period, many new layers were brought into the strikes.
The effect of the workers' protests can be measured by the fact that in September 1982, in a seminar of managers to study the problems of Iranian industry, it was acknowledged that 50% of cuts in production were owing to industrial actions, as opposed to the general problems of the economic crisis, shortages of raw materials, and the war.
The president, Khamenehi, warned that "if this situation continues, the government will be forced to take some drastic measures against these go-slows." (Etela at, November 8, 1982.)
Despite the fact that in this period, the repression indeed increased and that the armed forces of the regime (mainly, the pasdaran) intervened in almost every industrial dispute, the workers won victories in many cases.
At the same time, there was a sharp decline in the fortunes of the Islamic Anjomans. They became very isolated and lost a lot of their members. A boycott of all Islamic instithe workers fought back and preopposition to the clericalist bourtutions within the factories became widespread.
Most protests in this period were against attempts to lower wages in all sorts of ways, to increase working hours, and to lay off workers. There were also many protests against the Islamic Anjomans or their members.
The first major strike in this period came in late May in the steel industry in Esfahan. Thousands of construction workers occupied the main building of the steel complex, protesting plans to push them out of the industry.
The strike began on May 17, and went on for two days, despite constant attacks by hezbollahis. On May 19, the munagement was forced to organize an assembly to explain its plans. In this meeting, the workers protests became so violent that the chief manager (Mr Neely) was obliged to flee. The workers passed a resolution including demands for the resignation of the management, the minister of labour, and the governor of the province.
In Fulad Shahr, there was widespread support for the construction workers. Many steelworkers organized solidarity actions. On May 21, the regional TV had to devote two hours to explaining the government's plans and at the same time to an attempt to intimidate the workers. One of the speakers, for example, was Foroutan, the representative of the pasdaran!
The next day, however, about 8 thousand workers demonstrated. The
1. The word means "society." The anjomans were set up by the Islamic forces to replace the shoras, or councils, which were the first bodies to arise in the factories. - IV.
International Viewpoint 9 December 1985
Burning the US, Israeli and Soviet flags on Woman's Day in Tehran April
10. 1984 (DR)
10, 1984 (DR) pasdaran attacked the demonstration, arresting many workers (three were later executed). They dispersed the crowd. The regime was, nevertheless, forced to back down and withdraw its plans. This dispute had a major impact on the working class as a whole. Because of the scale of the conflict, it got wide publicity (including national coverage on radio and TV).
Only a few months before, the regime claimed that the workers were completely behind the Islamic Republic, and all "conspiracies" and "subversions" had been crushed. Now, it felt obliged to say that there were still "Communist troublemakers" around, and that they had a considerable influence on workers.
After this incident, there was a definite increase in the number of industrial actions. In many factories over this period, a number of actions took place. Battle after battle, workers go on resisting •In the Chit-e-Momtaz textile factory, for example, workers organized a sit-in protest against embezzlement in the workers' cooperative. The yellow shora (2) brought in the pasdaran to force the workers back to work. Four workers were sacked. A few months later, in July, there was a dispute with the management over the annual holidays. The workers also raised the demand for reinstatement of their sacked mates. The manager went into hiding to avoid the violent protests.
Pasdaran were brought in once again. This time, a member of the 10 pro-regime shora was also arrested. The minister of labour announced subsequently that the shora was illegal, and disbanded it.
On November 6, the workers were on the move again over the question of the cooperative. The management was obliged to hold elections for its executive without the participation of the workers. In early March 1983, the workers in the Chit-e-Momtaz factory were again involved in a struggle, this time against the government's proposed labour code.
In the Renault factory (now called Saypa), workers went on strike late in May 1982 to protest against the cancelling of Thursday closings. The manager's attempt to explain the measure so angered the workers that he was beaten up. The pasdaran came in and arrested a lot of workers.
On July 2, when the management announced its plans to cut annual vacations, the workers organized a goslow. After one week, the manager was forced to back down. In February 1983, workers organized a committee in this factory to draw up a list of the workers' grievances concerning the proposed labour laws. In April, they organized a goslow 1 the question of over-time pay. In the summer of 1981, the railway workers had faced terrible repression. But by the spring of 1982, the struggles on the railroads recommenced. In May, there was a strike against the minister of transport. He was forced to apologize for his insulting remarks, which had sparked the protest.
Later on in the spring of 1982, a plan was introduced in rail to increase working hours. The workers did not accept this, and left work at the previous quitting time. The next day, pasdaran were brought in. There was even some shooting. But the management backed down.
In June, the workers instituted a ban on over-time work because the management refused to pay overtime rates for work over the New Year holidays (the Iranian New Year comes on March 21).
In July, the workers brought in five of their colleagues who had been sacked previously by the management. The pasdaran came in and arrested the five.
In August, a representative of the Ministry of Labour came to organize an Islamic Anjoman. But nobody, except a few reactionary pro-regime thugs, put up any candidates.
By September, the Islamic Anjoman was more or less integrated into the management. The workers were forced to attend weekly ideological classes, but turned them into discussions of many grievances. In October, the anjoman suspended the classes.
In Pars Metal, where the workers lost five militant leaders in July 1981, there were at least four go-slows in this period. In August, a major confrontation took place between the workers and the Islamic Anjoman and some of the foremen belonging to it.
October 25, there was an assembly to hear the management's plan to increase production. As soon as the leaders of the Anjoman began to speak, almost all the workers walked out.
On February 4, the workers went on strike over payments for productivity deals. They were forced to abandon the strike, but continued their protest with a go-slow. At the beginning of March, the management backed down.
In General Motors, where the anjoman had been responsible for many arrests and lay-offs, a group of workers calling themselves "the Committee to Revenge the Militant Workers" executed the leader of the anjoman on June 23. A few weeks later, the homes of three other members of the anjoman were burnt down. In February, 1983, the factory went on strike.
In August, September, and January 1983, there were three strikes in the Monso food-processing factory. In the Gherghereh Ziba textile factory in May, there was a go-slow. In June there was a short strike. In August,
The word means "council." Them were the first bodies to arise in the footer ies in the heat of the revolutionary upsu
In the process of breaking them, the Khon eini forces moved to set up anjomans.
previous note.) -IV. International Viewpoint 9 December 198
there was a call for the boycott of the Islamic Anjoman.
In September, there was a boycott of the canteens. In these same three months, there was a total ban on doing the compulsory over-time work for the "war effort." All these actions ended with partial victories for the workers.
In Pars Elektrik, where 300 workers were sacked in 1981, workers beat up anjoman members in October 1982. The pasdaran arrested over a hundred workers. In the Tolidaru chemical works on January 24, 1983, workers downed tools over productivity pay. Over 400 workers demanded the expulsion of one of the managers (a member of the Islamic anjoman).
Other major strikes in this period were by Tehran's taxi drivers in August, the Tehran Bus Company workers in September, the National Airlines technical workers in January 1983, the Shisheh Ghazvin glass factory in March 1983, the Bridgeston tire factory in Shiraz in February 1983. New labour code touches off major battle
The most important struggle in this period, however, was the one against the proposed labour laws. The maktabi (Islamic fundamentailist) minister of labour, Mr Tavakoli, who is in fact a supporter of the Hojatieh faction (rightists who use religious arguments to defend the prerogatives of private property), had indicated during the celebrations of the Third Anniversary of the Revolution that a commission had been set up under his authority to draft an Islamic Labour Law to replace the Taghooti (pagan) law of 1970-1971 much hated by the workers. There had, for example, been many protests against the retention of Clause 33 of the shah's law, which permitted arbitrary sackings.
On May Day 1982, Tavakoli indicated that the draft was ready but was still being studied by the Faghihs (experts on Islamic law). Along with a delegation from the Ministry of Labour, he visited Imam Khomeini, who approved the main principle of the proposed law, and sent them on to Ayatollah Montazeri, Khomeini's crown prince.
Montazeri also approved the main principles, and sent them on to the Qom theological school, which also approved the draft. It was then discussed and approved by the cabinet and presented to the parliament, or Majles.
So, at the end of 1982, it was announced that the draft was ready. The government refused, however, to publish the text. In the words of the minister of heavy industry, Nabavi, "this bill is still in its draft stage ... It is not helpful to make it public ... We must not allow the counter-revolution, especially the left, to utilize this draft and the discussions around it for their own purposes." (Keyhan, November 24, 1982.)
When, later on, the draft was published the reasons for this reticence became clear. It is hard to imagine how they could have made it any more reactionary. The sole purpose of this bill was to encourage and legalize super exploitation, and to intice the rich away from hoarding and speculation toward making investments.
Islamic capitalism in Iran meant simply increasing the working day as much as possible, cutting wages to the minimum, and spending as little as possible on machinery, etc.
In any case, investment in new machinery and the rationalization of production were impossible because of the shortage of foreign exchange and the lack of interest on the part of the capitalists in making any longterm investments.
In order, therefore, to promote an increase in the production of absolute surplus value, the new proposals were to allow the capitalist (called "the owner of work"!) to "hire out" the workers (called the "acceptors of work"!) on the basis of a "labour contract" between the individual worker and the individual capitalist (all forms of collective bargaining were considered un-Islamic).
The hours of work, wages, benefits, retirement age, pensions, etc. were all to be set by the contract, and no legal safeguards (even those accepted in the shah's labour laws) were deemed to be Islamic.
The premier, Musavi, said: "It is only natural that support for the farmers or workers or any mostazaf [disinherited] layer, must be within the framework of Islamic principles. We cannot ask the Karfarma [literally, the person who orders work, i.e. the capitalist] to guarantee his workers to give such and such a number of holidays or to pay such and such minimum wages." (Keyhan, November 9, 1982.)
In response to protest that the law favoured the rich, the deputy minister of labour proudly proclaimed, "In Islam there is no contradiction between wealth and poverty. But there is a contradiction between Islam and paganism." (Keyhan, November 9 1982).
In reply to charges that the law was based on antiquated conceptions, the minister himself, said: "Work relations have not changed in essence since the time Imam Ali [who lived in the seventh century AD] hired himself out to a Jew and [the situation of] today's Iran National workers. They have simply broadened. " (Keyhan, December 22, 1982)
The protests against the new law, however, were so widespread that all of these gentlemen and their retainers had to eat their words a few months later. Even many of the Islamic Anjomans had to denounce the Islamic labour laws.
Many petitions were signed and sent to the authorities. (For example, the steel workers in Esfahan collected 20 thousand signatures.) In many factories, commissions were set up to study the proposed bill and prepare a list of criticisms (we know of at least 75). Victory
In a lot of cases, leading figures in the regime were forced to go to the factories to try to explain the "virtues" of the new bill. The protests continued, nonetheless, to mount.
The heat became so intense that the Islamic Anjomans were obliged to organize a national seminar to discuss the bill and to propose amendments. It was held on March 2 and 3, 1983.
The esteemed ayatollahs, such as Montazeri, who had all certified the Islamic orthodoxy of the bill were obliged to say that they had had nothing to do with it. Some even went so far as to say that it might not, after all, be that Islamic (for example, Ardabili).
The government, for its part, said that it would consider all proposals to amend the bill. Before the Iranian New Year (on March 19), they announced that the bill was being withdrawn. (And later, the minister of labour, Tavakoli, himself lost his job.)
Once again, the government of the bourgeois mullahs had underestimated the working class. A year and a half of butchery had not cowed the workers to the extent that they could be forced to accept such draconian labour laws. The defeat of the regime over this bill had important results.
Not only did the regime lose its last vestiges of popular support among the working class but the workers themselves become more confident of their ability to resist the capitalist regime despite the repression. Thus, the following period, which I will take up in my next article, saw a sharp rise in workers struggles.
11
International Viewpoint 9 December 1985