Zaher Baher

01/01/2026

The Iranian protests have spread to nearly 30 cities and towns by the fifth day. Meanwhile, the gendarmerie and the Revolutionary Guards have responded with brutality and continue to repress the protesters through killing, arresting, and kidnapping them.

There are no exact figures, and no one knows how many people have been killed or injured, arrested, or kidnapped. What is clear, however, is that the people have gone beyond demonstrations and protests, and the movement has turned into an uprising. Likewise, their everyday demands about the rising cost of basic necessities have shifted into political demands, reflected in slogans such as “Down with the regime,” “Out, out, dictators,” “Women, life, freedom,” and many others.

Meanwhile, Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, claims that he is trying to talk to the protesters peacefully, saying that he is “listening to their demands, solving their problems, and wanting to meet their representatives and talk to them.” However, as Farhad, not his real name, a university student, said, “Only a fool would believe them. If they want to listen to us, why are they killing us in the streets? Why don’t they release the prisoners? Why don’t they change people’s lives?”

There is extensive reading and analysis among some of Iranian and Iraqi people about the current situation, much of which is pessimistic and even suggests that the outcome may be worse. These views are often justified by examples from previous years, such as Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. In addition, some leftists and Marxists argue that changing one regime for another will not improve the lives of workers.

Of course, just as uprisings are unpredictable, their outcomes will not necessarily follow our plans, wishes, or goals. What is clear is that the course of history cannot be stopped by anyone, and change often takes place beyond our will.

If the Iranian uprising succeeds, I believe there will be major changes not only in Iran but also across the region.

First, it will restore people’s will and confidence in themselves. When they are able to change a regime that has been in power for 47 years and has controlled all aspects of life, they will be able to change future rulers more easily. The people of Iran will gain valuable experience that can serve as an example for the whole world, especially the region.

Second, changes in Iran would lay the groundwork for change in Iraq, because it is widely believed in Iraq that Iran dominates and controls many aspects of the country and has diverted large amounts of Iraqi money to Iran and to pro-Iranian forces.

Third, the threat of Israeli and US attacks on Iran would disappear, even if only temporarily. This would not only prevent casualties but also restore a degree of security to the region for a period of time.

Fourth, the major Shiite and Sunni powers that confront each other will become better armed, boosting weapons and ammunition companies in developed countries. This also encourages the formation of armed groups in other countries to fight each other and be used as proxies against Israel and the United States. With a change of regime in Iran, these tensions would ease to some extent, even if only temporarily.

Fifth, the dependent political parties of the Iranian authorities would lose their logistical, ideological, military, and financial support, leaving them weakened.

Sixth, the weakening of nationalist and other authoritarian parties in Iran would occur, which is a very positive development.

Seventh, the Iranians’ 47-year experience with this regime makes it less likely that another religious regime will take its place, leading to significant improvements in the situation of women in Iran.

Eighth, it is clear that demonstrations and uprisings are always driven by basic necessities, rising prices, and lack of freedom, not by distant goals such as those envisioned by leftists and Marxists who aim to establish a workers’ government or a dictatorship of the proletariat. We must understand that people prioritize secure access to food and essential needs over the lofty slogans of authoritarian parties and organizations. People who are hungry, lack medical care, or cannot send their children to school cannot wait for a better labor or proletarian government; they need solutions immediately.

Undoubtedly, the points above are the main positives of a change in the mullahs’ regime in Iran. There are many other benefits that need not be discussed here. At the same time, the uprising could be silenced or suppressed, either through the control of political parties, which is unlikely, or through authorities negotiating with a few demonstrators chosen as envoys rather than electing delegates through mass meetings and direct democracy. Another significant danger is the involvement of US, European, Russian, and Israeli leaders, who have heavily influenced media coverage and openly supported the demonstrators.

In my opinion, and that of many others, the success of this uprising would be very positive. The people in Iran are highly conscious and experienced just as workers and citizens organized themselves during the 1978–1979 so-called revolution, they can now act with even greater experience, both in Iran and globally. They can make important decisions themselves through non-hierarchical assemblies in workplaces, universities, streets, and neighbourhoods, practicing direct democracy. Together, they can implement these decisions, work collectively, and establish cooperatives to manage and improve their own lives.

Doing this is necessary, and life shows that socialist or anarchist communities, whether small or large, can be created and serve as examples for other places and regions.

Let us hope that the people leading the uprising in Iran are taking these steps.

Zaher Baher

30/12/2025

The situation in Iran, as in many countries, has deteriorated in almost every aspect of life. High inflation, the rising value of the dollar, pound, and euro, the collapse of the national currency, the soaring cost of living, and the lack of basic freedoms have created unbearable conditions. Repression, arrests, kidnappings, and violence against anyone who speaks out against the regime have become routine.

These conditions have led to demonstrations and protests that began three nights ago in Tehran and have since spread to many neighbourhoods, as well as to cities such as Karaj, Qeshm Island, Hamadan, Kerman, Alborz, and others. Shops and markets have closed in solidarity with the protesters and joined the movement.

Iranian society has specific characteristics that shape these uprisings. A large portion of the population is young and largely unemployed. The country has been ruled for more than four decades by a dictatorial clerical regime. At the same time, there is a conscious and experienced working class across many sectors, especially in oil and gas. Decades of repression and failed political organizations have left the population deeply disillusioned, but also experienced.

What is happening today is a continuation of earlier uprisings, including the student protests of 1999 and 2003, the Green Movement of 2009–2010, the general protests and strikes of 2018–2019, the fuel price protests of 2019–2020, and the Woman, Life, Freedom movement of 2022–2023.

The current demonstrations, which began on December 27, have an uncertain outcome. They are being met with extreme repression, including live fire, arrests, killings, and kidnappings.

After all these painful but valuable experiences, there is hope that people will organize themselves in neighbourhoods, streets, schools, and workplaces through non-hierarchical, horizontal groups. By forming neighbourhood assemblies and then city-wide assemblies, people can make collective decisions and take direct action through genuine direct democracy.

By: Zaher Baher

December 2025

Authoritarian socialists, communists, and even some anarchists believe that the labor movement and the socialist/anarchist movement are the same and share identical goals. In this article, I want to show that there is a difference between these movements and to explain how this misunderstanding arises. This does not mean that the working class which drives the country’s economy should be overlooked. On the contrary, we can say that a socialist or anarchist revolution cannot take place without the participation of the working class and the vital role it plays.

It can be understood that workers are not inherently (or necessarily) revolutionary in the way that some expect or demand. The labor movement is primarily a union movement,

and its demands arise from the reality of exploitation and oppression they face. Workers fight for more holidays, higher wages, better workplace safety, the right to form unions, shorter working hours, improved living and working conditions, and other rights that affect their families. Among their most ambitious demands are participation in the management of factories and companies and the acquisition of shares. In other words, their efforts are aimed at modifying and reforming the capitalist system to ensure its survival. This has been the historical condition of workers and remains so today. We can observe this more clearly now, especially with the rise of a sector of the aristocratic working-class workers employed in key industries and advanced technologies.

The workers’ struggle remains primarily an economic struggle, not a political one a trade union struggle, not a struggle led by a political party. It is not directed against the authorities or the state, but rather seeks to adapt to and secure a better position within the existing system. Workers may be able to change governments or administrations in a short period, but overthrowing the system and fundamentally transforming it is neither their role nor their responsibility.

The socialist and anarchist movements are fundamentally different from the labor movement. Their aim is to abolish wage labor and the capitalist system entirely, and to create a classless, non-hierarchical society.

Authoritarian communist and socialist elements, along with their political parties, are fully aware that workers are not inherently revolutionary in the sense of abolishing the system and establishing socialism or communism. Because they see themselves as fundamentally different from the workers, they believe that by seizing power, they can bypass mere reforms and guide society toward a classless, non-hierarchical structure.

They are fully aware of the workers’ situation. Workers are the backbone of the country’s economy and have the power to halt daily life, stop profits, and weaken the state and its system.

What is clear to me is the following:

First, workers possess class consciousness simply because they exist. The existence of any person, animal, or living being necessarily involves a form of consciousness shaped by the environment in which they live.

Second, as I stated above, there can never be a revolution without the participation of workers, since they control production and profits. However, this does not mean that workers can or want to abolish the system of wage labor. That task is not their responsibility and lies outside their immediate agenda of struggle.

Third, I also know that, historically, many socialist movements and parties emerged from working-class organizations. Through these organizations, the working class became familiar with socialism, and socialist ideas were introduced to them and spread among them.

Throughout history, we see many uprisings and events in which workers clearly played an important role. These have often been cited by socialists, authoritarian communists, and some anarchists as evidence that past uprisings and revolutions prove the labor movement and the socialist movement are the same, and that every revolution is essentially a workers’ revolution.

I find it necessary to cite important examples of labor movements from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to support my argument. To do this, I will refer to some statistics to illustrate my point about the size of the working class in these countries at the time, as well as their membership in and support for the organizations and political parties of that period.

First: The Paris Commune:

The Paris Commune took place in 1871 and lasted only 72 days. During this period, it abolished many capitalist institutions and practices, such as night work, child labor, poor housing conditions, and private ownership. It also replaced the old ministries with ten executive commissions, each functioning like a ministry, along with many other significant measures.

The revolutionary workers were largely influenced by the supporters and followers of Louis Blanqui, commonly known as “Blanquists,” as well as by socialists and anarchists. This experience is often described by Marxists as the first serious attempt by the working class to overthrow capitalism.

The administration that emerged there, largely because it lasted only 72 days, was neither a fully developed workers’ administration nor a bureaucratic one. The Commune was simply too short-lived for such structures to fully take shape.

The legislative and executive body of the Commune, the Communal Assembly, was elected on March 26, 1871. Although 92 members were elected, only 79 were active at any given time. Of these, approximately 30 to 40 were workers. In addition, teachers, journalists, employees, and small shopkeepers also participated in the councils. Professionals such as lawyers and doctors formed a small minority, mostly drawn from working-class or lower-middle-class backgrounds, and many of them earned extremely low incomes.

At the time, Paris had a population of between 1.8 and 2 million, although war, famine, and expulsions significantly reduced this number. Even so, workers who supported the Republicans or Jacobins also known as “Red Republicans” numbered between 400,000 and 500,000.

The socialists, particularly the Blanquists (revolutionary socialists), had between 200,000 and 250,000 worker members. The First International, also known as the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), which included both Marxist and Proudhonian factions, had between 65,000 and 70,000 members in Paris. Communists and Marxists formed a small but influential minority. Anarchists were intellectually important and influential, especially the Proudhonians, but they were not numerically dominant.

Overall, the vast majority of Parisian workers were republicans, leftists, or socialists who were not aligned with any organized political party.

Second: The Bolshevik Revolution.

The Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 led to the creation of the Soviets (workers’ councils), and many factories were taken over and brought into the Bolshevik movement. Although the Bolshevik Party had many supporters, members, and activists among the workers, it was the workers’ strong support for the party that enabled it to lead the overthrow of the Provisional Government.

Let us examine the statistics concerning the number of workers in Russia and the participation of socialists, communists, and anarchists in the 1917 Revolution.

In 1917, the Russian working class included about 3 million industrial workers. If transportation, construction, and other categories of labor are included, the total rises to between 4.5 and 5 million. However, the industrial proletariat what Marxists define as the working class numbered approximately 3 million.

Supporters of the Bolshevik Party made up 40–60 percent of the workers, and the party itself had between 150,000 and 200,000 worker members out of a total of 350,000, up until October 1917. The Mensheviks accounted for 10–20 percent of labor membership. Other parties and organizations also had worker members. Anarchists represented about 5 percent of industrial workers, while other active workers mainly in Petrograd, Kronstadt, and Ukraine supported roughly another 5 percent.

The events in Russia represent a historic moment in which the Bolshevik Party successfully leveraged the movement of the working class and the broader Russian population to seize state power.

 Three: The German Revolution of 1918-1919

Revolutionary workers’ councils were formed across Germany with the goal of replacing capitalism with a council republic (Räterepublik). In certain regions, particularly Bavaria, these councils proclaimed a socialist republic aimed at overthrowing capitalism; however, these efforts were short-lived and ultimately failed.

Germany, which was far more industrialized than Russia at the time, had approximately 7.5 to 8.5 million industrial workers. By late 1918, about 3 million of these workers were members of trade unions. Many workers were divided among the Social Democrats the largest workers’ organization the Independent Social Democratic Party, and several other political groups. Anarchists, although significantly weaker than their counterparts in Russia and Spain, numbered between 50,000 and 150,000 workers.

Four: Spanish Revolution 1936-1937

The revolutionary forces in this movement, known as the CNT-FAI, were anarcho-syndicalist organizations. The FAI (Federación Anarquista Ibérica, or Iberian Anarchist Federation), founded in Spain in 1927, was closely aligned with the CNT as well as with the General Workers’ Union (UGT), established in 1888. These groups sought to abolish both capitalism and the state. They occupied as many factories, farms, and transportation systems as possible.

It is clear that anarchists and anti-government socialist elements played a major role in this revolution, which controlled large parts of Catalonia and Aragon. The revolution ultimately failed due to internal conflicts and the pressures of war.

The Spanish working class in 1936–1937, in a country less industrialized than Germany and Britain, numbered between 2.8 and 3.2 million industrial workers. In addition, a large portion of the population consisted of rural wage laborers and landless peasants, bringing the total working population to between 5.5 and 6 million.

Membership in the anarcho-syndicalist unions (CNT) ranged from 1.5 to 2 million workers, representing approximately 70 to 80 percent of the workforce. These organizations also enjoyed broad support, with an overall following of between 2.5 and 3 million workers, concentrated mainly in Catalonia, Barcelona, Aragon, and parts of Madrid. The largest revolutionary group within the working class was the FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation), which had between 70,000 and 100,000 fighters, almost all of whom were workers.

Five: The 1919 Hungarian Soviets

In Hungary, workers’ councils were established in 1919 by socialist and communist parties with the aim of overthrowing capitalism and creating a socialist republic. This system was implemented but lasted only 133 days before being defeated by Romanian forces and local opponents.

The Hungarian working class in 1919, following World War I and the collapse of Austria-Hungary during a period sometimes referred to as Magyarstan included an urban industrial workforce of approximately 800,000 to 1 million workers. Hungary at the time remained predominantly agrarian. A much larger number of workers were employed in agriculture or were landless farm laborers, numbering between 1.5 and 2 million.

The dominant political forces among workers were socialists and communists. Anarchists were neither numerous nor well organized in Hungary during this period.

Workers were divided between communists and social democrats. In early 1919, the Social Democratic Party had between 500,000 and 600,000 members, including landless peasants and industrial workers; in total, its membership ranged from 800,000 to 1 million.

The Hungarian Communist Party, founded in 1918, officially had between 30,000 and 50,000 members by March 1919. Despite its relatively small membership, it exercised significant influence. An estimated 100,000 to 150,000 workers supported the party.

Conclusions

According to the above examples, the Social Democratic Party, the Bolshevik Party, the Socialists, the Trade Unions and the Anarchists had a very active and widespread position among the workers. It is obvious that this great position and power is reflected in the activities and movements of these parties and they have been very strong, so they have been able to have a great dominance and influences over the workers. In some countries, workers, party members and supporters were so huge and mixed that workers were political parties and political parties were workers. This meant that the labor movement of that time, in all the examples I have given above, was a follower and dependent on the organizations and political parties I have listed above, and was loaded with the ideas and principles of socialism and to some extent anarchism as well.

What about right now? If we are a little conscious or being workers, we know that the workers and their movement are so weak that they cannot even defend what has been achieved since the middle of the previous century. How can they talk about the overthrowing the system and the abolition of wage labor? It was not easy to obtain reliable statistics on the number of socialist, communist and anarchist workers in the ranks of the workers in the countries I have mentioned above, but what we see among current workers is hardily many socialist or anarchist.

We can say that the building of a socialist society is a dream for the workers themselves, and an imagination for those of us who think that it is the duty of the workers.