Editor's Note: In early February we received an inquiry from a self described council communist, internationalist tendency by the name of "Shoraha" (Arabic for council). Initially excited to work this group, a closer review of their literature revealed some fundamental disagreements: in their 2025 manifesto, "Shoraha" declares its support —on the basis faulty notion of imperialism—for bourgeois revolution in Iran. We, by contrast, think that the largest danger to proletarian revolution in Iran (outside of the IGRC) is bourgeois democratic revolution. 

Unsurprisingly, upon outlining our disagreements in no uncertain terms, we have received no response. While we consider the matter with "Shoraha" effectively closed, the question of proletarian revolution in Iran is by no means settled. In the face of the escalating war between the US/Israel and Iran, it is more important than ever to have a clear understanding of imperialism.

8 February 2026

Dear Comrades,  

Greetings and solidarity,  

We hope this message finds you well. We are writing to you on behalf of a group of Persian-language comrades involved in a project called Shoraha.  

Shoraha is a Persian-language analytical and news website operating with a council communist orientation, focusing primarily on conditions in Iran and the wider region. Our main activities include:  

• Translating and publishing theoretical works by council communists, including texts by Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, Paul Mattick, and other authors within this tradition, into Persian.  

• Covering news and analysis of workers' struggles, social protests, and class movements in Iran, from a clear class-struggle and anti-capitalist perspective.  

•  Providing a systematic critique of the Iranian theocratic-capitalist regime and all forms of capitalist and state oppression.  

We believe in the importance of internationalist links and the exchange of perspectives among revolutionaries across different contexts. We would like to invite you to visit our website, Shoraha, to learn more about our work: http://www.shoraha.net.

We would be very interested to hear your thoughts, and we are open to potential forms of collaboration or exchange in the future, should you find it valuable.  

If you wish to get in touch for any reason—be it discussion, feedback, or exploring ways to connect our efforts—please feel free to contact us at the email address used for this message, or alternatively at: shoura1398@gmail.com.  

Thank you for your time and your ongoing commitment to the cause of proletarian emancipation.  

In solidarity,

Comrade S., For the Shoraha collective

Dear comrades,

We are very pleased that that you reached out to us. Our group has actually been following your website and telegram channel for some time. Needless to say, we are very interested in cooperation. Otherwise, we have many questions about the origins of your tendency and your relationship to other groups in the Iranian left. Below are some of our positions and impressions of your group.

Our tendency

We are a publication which focuses on council communist perspectives. Our main positions are outlined in our 2025 charter, which you can find here: https://www.councilist.org/charter. In general, our position is very close to the Communist Workers Party (Germany): we support a council dictatorship and the existence of a party; we oppose unions, party-dictatorship, and anti-imperialism. Some of these positions have not been published, so if you have any further questions, please ask. 

Your tendency

On your website, we have taken the time to read both your manifesto and your articles on the “Woman, Life, Freedom Movement”. Some of your positions agree with, such as the negative effects of the USSR and its 21 theses and your insistence on independent workers struggle. Others we disagree with, such as cooperations with anti–imperialists (indigenous governments, nation-liberation groups) and  popular movements (Podemos, “Syriza”, the yellow vests). 

Comparison, Cooperation

In general, it we seem to hold a looser definition of the “proletariat” (more than industrial factory worker: including the unemployed, the poor, those involved in domestic labor, all types of wage-laborers) and a stricter definition of a “proletarian movement” (excluding “identity” formations and “national liberation” movements, which we see as controlled by the bourgeoisie). That being said, our poverty in the Persian language limits our understanding.

Thus, in order to clarify matters, we suggest: 

1) translating a few essential texts  from each other's traditions, historical or contemporary, and publishing  them.

2) discussing our respective positions on various important topics.

With communist greetings,

M.S., S.S.

P.S.: We are very curious about the history of council communist activity in Iran and would be happy to hear what you can elaborate about its historical development. We would also like to know if you are in contact with any other groups or individuals sympathetic to the council communist perspectives. We are aware of two other Persian publications – alayhesarmaye.com and manjanigh.com (english-language site slingerscollective.net) – who also seem to advocate workers’ councils. What is your opinion of these groups? 

Another influential figure we have recently learned of is Mansood Hekmat. We would like your assessment of his work and influence. Likewise, we are curious about your opinion on the Workers' Communist Party of Iran and the Hekmatist splinter group.

12 February 2026

Dear Comrades,

Thank you so much for your warm and encouraging response to our previous email. It is truly heartening to know that a movement focused on Council Communism and the historical legacy of the KAPD is following our activities in Iran.

We are also very eager to open a channel for theoretical and practical dialogue. Naturally, following the valuable traditions of communism, we approach these matters with sincerity and precision, and we warmly welcome our mutual cooperation. Below, we have tried to provide clear and preliminary answers to the points raised in your letter. We believe that through further correspondence and by sharing our respective documents and programs, we can openly benefit from each other’s critical insights.

We appreciate your candor in highlighting our points of convergence and divergence. Regarding your critique of cooperation with national or “populist” movements, we must clarify that our analysis is rooted in the material conditions and the balance of class forces in the Middle East. That said, we agree that the fine line between “tactical support”  and “class independence” is a crucial topic we must explore in our future discussions.

Furthermore, your definition of the proletariat (including domestic labor and the unemployed) aligns closely with our reading of contemporary capitalism. As for the “poverty of the Persian language" you mentioned, we believe this will be swiftly resolved through the exchange of texts.

We fully agree with both of your proposals:

We are preparing a list of our key texts for translation and are very interested in translating your “2025 Charter” and documents regarding the “Council Dictatorship” into Persian.

Thematic Dialogue: We suggest dedicating our first meeting or correspondence to the relationship between “The Party and the Council” as this is a pivotal point of our potential differences.

In response to the specific questions in your letter, here are some concise points:

1) Anti-Imperialism and Regional Movements: You expressed opposition to a perceived leaning on our part toward cooperating with anti-imperialists, including local governments and liberation groups. We must strongly reject this. We do not support or agree with movements entrenched in the region under the guise of “fighting imperialism and Israel” while partnering with Islamic terrorism; in fact, we advocate for their suppression. Our analyses and statements provide clear evidence of this stance. Regarding Podemos, Syriza, and the Yellow Vests, within the context  of contemporary Europe, we are not opposed to them. We generally support their struggles as dictated by current conditions and the level of class struggle, particularly in Greece and Spain.

2) The Labor Movement and the Iranian Revolution: As you noted, we view the labor movement within the framework of wage relations and wage-earners, not limited solely to the industrial sector. A key issue for us—given the relatively low level of class struggle in Iran despite nearly 2,000 strikes (which remain mostly trade- unionist, scattered, and unorganized)—is the strategic redefinition of the “active historical subject”. Our analysis is that a national-scale revolution is currently underway in Iran. We believe it is, at best, a progressing democratic revolution. However, the radical demands seen in February 2026 (Bahman 1404) often call for a liberal democratic system led by Reza Pahlavi. While we do not engage in direct struggle against this trend—and unlike the traditional Left or remnants of “Russian Communism”, we do not simply label them “fascist” or lump them in with the regime and its enemies—we welcome this revolution with a critical eye, aligned with the peoples will. We believe the lived experience and self-awareness of the masses are the keys to our country’s complex historical transformation. Simultaneously, we promote the slogan “Council Republic” and “Freedom, Equality, Council Administration.” Even if we don;t expect these slogans to become immediate mass demands, we advocate for council organization as the most vital discourse to prevent the return of despotism and reaction during this transition.

3) Council Communism in Iran: Historically, there isn’t much to report. Unlike “Russian Communism”, councilist discourse has rarely seen serious practice or theory in Iran, especially regarding the independence of councils from a centralized party. To fill this vacuum, since launching the Shoraha (Councils) website seven years ago, we have translated works by pioneers like Pannekoek, Paul Mattick, and Karl Korsch, as well as later writers like Cajo Brendel, Henri Simon, and Richard Gombin. We have supplemented this with nearly a thousand hours of seminars and debates on Paltalk, Zoom, and Clubhouse.

4) Other Groups: We are familiar with “Against Capital” and “Manjanigh”. While there are similarities in our anti-capitalist stance, we differ strategically on “organization” and “social movements”.  As for the third group you mentioned, we heard of them first from you. Frankly, such groups often have limited theoretical impact and, despite their empathy for the people, align themselves with the Islamic regime’s foreign policy through “anti-imperialist” rhetoric. This has unfortunately turned parts of the radical left into a “Resistance Axis” Left. Note: A site called KAVOSHGAR  previously translated council communist texts but has since gone offline without a trace.

5) Mansoor Hekmat and the Hekmatists: Mansoor Hekmat played a unique role in challenging populism and shaping “Worker-Communism”; in Iran. His influence was massive, particularly in his critique of nationalism. However, our critique of him centers on his “party voluntarism”  and top-down organizational view, which often clashed with councilist principles. We also believe he never fully moved past the orthodoxy of the October Revolution and Leninism before his untimely death in 2002. The “Hekmatist”  groups that split from the Worker-Communist Party remain loyal to his “A better world” program.

With Communist Greetings,

Council Communism Tendency

Dear comrades,

After reviewing your latest letter and more of your material, we have drawn some sharper conclusions. We do not agree with your assessment of the nature of our disagreement. The dividing line between our positions is not the relationship between the party and councils, but the nature of imperialism and proletarian internationalism. You also asked for documents pertaining to the idea of a council dictatorship, which you can find attached below. For us, “council dictatorship” means exclusive rule over society by the working class, through its councils. We use the term interchangeably with “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “workers democracy.”

Before elaborating these disagreements, it is necessary to clarify one of our previous statements. When we said that we opposed your support of national liberation, we did not refer to your (non-)support of the current Iranian regime, we refer to your manifesto’s call for an opposition to capitalism on “equal footing with national and indigenous governments.”

To sum up our differences: you hold a partial theory of imperialism, from which you derive your support for national-democratic revolution and select national liberation movements; we hold a theory of the era of imperialism, from which we derive support for international proletarian revolution. Comparing our perspectives, it seems we  have some fundamental disagreements. Thus, we have elected to give a brief summary of our positions, including ample references to give you an impression of our theoretical foundation. 

Our theory of the Imperialist Era

With the division of the world into spheres of capitalist influence at the end 1900, capitalism entered its imperialist era. The term “imperialism” merely describes the fact that in a fully developed capitalism, all states are forced into a mutual competition for power to secure their continued existence. This competition exists through a variety of dimensions. There is competition in terms of profits, control of the labor process and raw material, currency exchange, etc. But the highest form of imperialist competition, which occurs regularly as capitalism moves through its various contradictions, is war: a direct battle for the existence of the state vis-à-vis other states. 

In terms of the history of capitalism, the significance of the imperialist era is many sided. 

Firstly, imperialism dismissed the revolutionary capacity of “national wars” or “wars of national liberation”. The individual nation now only exists as a part of a network of imperialist nations, rendering the phrase “sovereign nation” a contradictio in adjecto. Every nation state is forced by necessity to be imperialist, and any change to the political form of the state cannot divorce itself from the necessity of imperialism or put it outside of imperialist relationships.

Secondly, imperialism ended the period of bourgeois revolution. Once capitalism dominated all national economic life in the form of the world market, and the world market all state-policy, the world capitalist regime had reached its final form. No “world historic tasks” remaine for the bourgeoisie to complete.

The Dutch-German Left on imperialism

With the outbreak of the First World War, the Dutch-German Left realized that a decisive turning point had been reached in the history of capitalism. The entire capitalist world had been brought into mutual conflict, and the entire world proletariat had subsequently been brought into the same conflict. Reflecting on this shift in terrain of class struggle, Herman Gorter wrote in 1915: 

“...the principle change, the immeasurable intensification and exacerbation produced by imperialism in labor/capital relations—for the first time in world history the entire international proletariat is now united, thanks to imperialism, in times of peace as well as in times of war, it forms a whole in a fight which can only be against the entire international bourgeoisie.” (Gorter, “Imperialism the World War and Social Democracy”, 1915)

The next year, Pannekoek published “The Economic Necessity of Imperialism”,  a polemic against Luxemburg’s “purely economic” and Kautsky’s “purely political” theories of imperialism which argued for a theory of imperialism based on the mutual struggle for power. 

“Kautsky once said that imperialism was a question of power. This is correct, but not in the sense he meant. He said: a question not of necessity, but of power – and he meant by this that the other capitalists, who had no interest in imperialism, as soon as they set their power against the imperialists, could suddenly put an end to it [...] He said: imperialism is not necessary, but a question of power. We say: imperialism is a question of power, and therefore necessary. The development of capitalism has strengthened and increased the power of big capitalism, which wants imperialism, and has steadily reduced resistance among the bourgeoisie – and even among the workers! That is why imperialism is now supreme, i.e. necessary.” (Pannekoek, “The Economic Necessity of imperialism”, 1916)

What they both concluded was that all further class struggle would have to be, by necessity, international.

“Fight imperialism and war with the mass action of the international proletariat.” (Gorter)

“...that imperialism is only necessary, i.e. inevitable, as long as the power of the proletariat is not great enough to overcome the power of capital. As soon as the will and the power of the proletariat rise above the power of the bourgeoisie, imperialism is finished, it is no longer necessary.” (Pannekoek)

The theses of both pieces remain as true as the day they were written. Since 1914, the imperialist system has vastly increased in the complexity and interrelation of its component parts, but the proletariat is still confronted, in its various locales, by the international bourgeoisie. And that bourgeoisie is forced both economically and politically to compete with the rest of the bourgeoisie. Internationalism thus a material necessity of the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie. At the highest point of the struggle – the struggle for political power – this is even more true: no proletarian dictatorship can survive without world revolution.

Drawing conclusions

This brings us to your analysis of events in Iran. You say that Iranian worker’s current demands are democratic This situation is not totally dissimilar to the situation in 1979, when a large part of the working class found a common cause with the Clergy against the Shah. This begs the question of the nature of the Iranian working classes' allegiance to certain sections of the bourgeoisie.

You claim that this is because Iranian workers have a common interest with bourgeois democrats in progressive demands against the reaction. For our part, we readily  acknowledge that Iranian workers are acting together with elements of the bourgeoisie. But this is not because the workers have a common interest with elements of the bourgeoisie, but because they are not acting as a class united along their common interests, and consequently are being directed. This applies equally to the workers who back the regime as those who favor the Shah’s democratic republic.

Let us compare the situation to 1979 once more. In 79’, large swaths of the Iranian workers were also allied with an out of power faction of the bourgeoisie, the Clerics. But in that case, the Iranian working class demonstrated a large degree of class independence in the form of wildcat strikes and spontaneously created councils. The creation of these autonomous organizations, although few knew it, opened the brief possibility of an alternative regime than either the Shah and Ayatollah in the form of workers councils. Had shorahs of 1978-9 congealed into a unified body, the revolution in Iran might have resulted in a rule of councils instead of the Islamic republic. 

Analyzing a similar possibility during the German Revolution, Anton Pannekoek wrote: 

“We have said, people are not equal to each other, therefore their votes should not be equal to each other. A man who lives only on his capital does not work, he lives like a parasite on the body of society. A leech should not have as much to say as a worker, who by his labor sustains society. This reason was to a certain extent an ethical one. Now it is better to say that the purpose of our politics, the now necessary work of socialist construction of society, is so completely opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie that it wants to hinder and undermine this work as much as possible [...] Once it is established that the working masses want to use their political power to build socialism, then they must exclude the bourgeoisie from cooperation; capital interests will not get a say. This may not be formal democracy; but in practice it is a higher, better democracy, workers' democracy, representing the vital interests of the masses. It is the same thing Marx called the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is what used to be called communism and is now called Bolshevism. It has now been widely implemented in Russia, after the Paris Commune of 1871 showed its first beginnings.” (Pannekoek, “Bolshevism or Democracy”, 1918)

But the council movement stalled. By the time Khomeini returned, the opportunity for a different society had already passed. After picking up power where the Shah had left it, the Clerics were able to quickly neutralize the threat of a rebellious proletariat through their program of Islamization. As a method, Islamization is actually somewhat universal. In 1920, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) played a similar trick when it replaced the German workers councils with legalized “Works Councils” in order to crush the German working class.

Today, the balance of power between the Clerics and Shah is reversed, but this just drives home the fact that the working class has no common interest with either. Inverting the regime (again) would not help the working class, nor would orienting such a new regime towards a council-like structure increase workers' power. On the contrary: incorporating councils into a democratic revolution would actually stymie the possibility of proletarian revolution, just as Islamization did in 1979 or the Works Councils Act did in 1920. Your slogans proposing a new regime founded on legal councils are therefore not only mistaken, but dangerous if seen through. 

When the class struggle picks up again, the decisive question is whether workers will fall back on a bourgeois program or gain the self-confidence of an independent class. The former would result in either the maintenance of the Clerical regime or the creation of a democratic one; the latter would require a break with both the Clerics and Shah for the pursuit of proletarian dictatorship and world revolution.

Communist greetings,

M.S., S.S.

PS: Given the rapid escalation of the war between Iran the US, Israel, and various other international players, we expect that the three way struggle between the pro IGRC bourgeoisie, anti-IGRC bourgeoisie and the proletariat will be pushed to new limits. These are dark times. Under these circumstances, your opposition towards the current regime and the imperialist war is important. However, your ambiguous position on Reza Pahlavi -- who supports America and Israel in the war -- must be discarded in favor of a purely internationalist program in order to play a positive role in a potential resurgence of class struggle.

Appendix 1: An inconsistent position within council communism

While the council communist movement did adopt a program of exclusive international proletarian revolution, which they called on the Third Congress of the Communist International (CI) to adopt in their “Theses on the role of the party in proletarian revolution” (1921), contradiction in their analysis of imperialism: namely, their analysis of the “bourgeois revolution” in Russia. Already in Gorter’s “Open Letter to Comrade Lenin” (1920), he had distinguished between Western European and Russian Tactics, based on the fact that in Russia was still burdened by feudalism. This contradicted his own analysis of imperialism, which posited that Russia, as a capitalist nation, already was dominated by capitalist relationships of production ie., practically capitalist. Thus, despite the KAPD being practically correct in positing proletarian internationalism as the only communist tactic in the age of imperialism, they made an unfortunate exception in the case of Russia. They codified this mistake in their thesis the revolution in Russia as partially bourgeois and partially proletarian. The Group of International Communists later adopted the same position  in the form of Helmut Wagner’s “Theses on Bolshevism” (1934); Cajo Brendel also used these for inspiration in his “Theses on the Chinese Revolution” (1974).

We consider this a large mistake in our tradition. [please see our "Theses on the Revolution in Russia"—Ed.]