World · Lower Class Magazine · · 2h
War and Repression in Iran – Two Edges of the Same Class Politics
Deutsch (original) · Auto-translated to English
By Sia Sareer
On August 20, 2026, a group of writers, academics and intellectuals (including Angela Davis, Judith Butler and Mumia Abu Jamal) published a statement in The Guardian in support of political prisoners in Iran entitled “To Iran’s Political Prisoners, Trapped Between Two Blades of a Scissors” [1]. The statement condemned the US and Israeli military aggression against Iran, while emphasizing that rejecting war and foreign intervention should not mean turning a blind eye to the Islamic Republic's internal repression. Referring to the situation of political prisoners, workers, students and other social groups under pressure, the authors underlined that solidarity with the Iranian people cannot be limited to defending the Iranian state against foreign attacks, but must also defend the political freedoms and rights of those facing repression at home.
For several weeks now, this statement has been the subject of considerable debate in European and American left circles, and to a lesser extent among Iranian leftists. These discussions quickly led to familiar dichotomies: independence versus freedom, anti-imperialist struggle versus struggle against despotism, but little was said or written about class struggle and the meaning of classes in this case.
From this perspective, the main question of this essay is not which state or “power” – the colonial or the authoritarian – is worse under current circumstances and which should be fought first; rather, it is about how to construct a politics that fights simultaneously against war and imperialism, despotism, class repression and the appropriation of people's lives by states and economic plunderers, without deferring one in favor of the other.
This question is of particular importance for the left. When politics is reduced, as practiced by some opponents of the Guardian Statement, to a choice between two types of struggle, the independent political subject (the worker, the teacher, the woman, the student, the pensioner, the political prisoner and other subalterns) is ultimately removed from the scene by one of the two powers, the authoritarian or the colonial-imperialist.
Prominent academic and intellectual figures who oppose the Solidarity Declaration largely define themselves within anti-imperialist traditions, including Hamid Dabashi, Ajamu Baraka and Vijay Prashad. The collection of texts that have been published or republished in various publications in connection with this question shows how quickly this debate has spread in left-wing and anti-imperialist circles.
At the heart of an important part of these reactions is a common question: Does the simultaneous condemnation of the repression of the Islamic Republic and the US-Israeli war create a false symmetry, or does it accurately express the real position of political prisoners and subalterns in Iran?
Dabashi, Prashad, and Baraka, despite different formulations of their arguments, generally believe that this juxtaposition creates a kind of false symmetry. They even go a few steps further and place the Islamic Republic in the position of an anti-imperialist force that enables the defense of the Iranian nation. However, in order to understand their criticism in more detail, attention must also be paid to the differences between their arguments.
Dabashi's objection focuses primarily on what he sees as the juxtaposition of an imperialist and an authoritarian power. In an article published in August 2026, Dabashi accuses the declaration of falling into a form of "bothsidesism" and argues that under wartime conditions, the US and Israeli military attack against Iran is the central issue [2]. Furthermore, Dabashi's argument relies on another claim: the Iranian nation has re-entered the anti-colonial phase of its historical struggle against colonialism. In Dabashi's narrative, the Islamic Republic is currently a government defending the lives, property and borders of Iran against imperialist attack [2].
Vijay Prashad, in his response to the letter published in The Guardian, also states that the US and Israel started the war and Iran is an attacked country. In his view, placing the Islamic Republic and the attacking powers in the same moral framework creates a “false symmetry.” Prashad further describes the Islamic Republic as the sole defender of Palestine in the region and even considers the political system prevailing in Iran as a kind of controlled democracy, similar to that of the United States. In response to the Guardian letter's authors' criticism of executions in Iran, he replied that executions also exist in the USA [3].
Like Dabashi, he believes there is no third space or neutrality in the midst of a “war of aggression” and questions why, at the very moment Iran is under attack, international political pressure on the Islamic Republic should be the focus. To explain this attitude, he refers to experiences such as Vietnam and Cuba and argues that solidarity at the moment of attack must be aimed primarily at the society that is the target of the attack [3].
Ajamu Baraka describes the letter published in The Guardian right at the beginning of his text as an “anti-Iranian letter”; nevertheless, his argument comes from a different perspective. He frames his criticism within what he calls “human-centered and anti-imperialist human rights.” In this framework, human rights should not be a set of predefined standards imposed on societies from above; rather, they should emerge from people's social and political struggles as well as from the actual processes of the struggle for dignity, social justice, democracy and the right to self-determination [4]. From this point, Baraka criticizes the Guardian authors' letter as an example of “liberal abstraction”. Although the letter names the internal repression of the Islamic Republic on the one hand and the external aggression of the USA and Israel on the other, the common framework blurs the fundamental difference between the internal power of a state and foreign imperial power [4].
The more important point in Baraka's argument is that he moves the question from the level of prisoners' rights to the level of a people's "right to self-determination." In his view, the Iranian people must determine the political future of Iran themselves, and in the current circumstances, resistance to the foreign attack must take precedence over other contradictions. Baraka claims that at this turning point, millions of Iranians decided to join and prioritize the anti-imperialist war [4]. His criticism of the letter is therefore not simply that the authors are wrong; rather, in his view, the signatories have effectively privileged the voice of the Iranian people against foreign aggression over the voice of what he describes as “the unnamed people they refer to as political prisoners”[4].
While the letter from the Guardian authors is aimed at political prisoners - i.e. has a specific audience - these three anti-imperialist authors also speak in their criticism on behalf of the “Iranian people”. For example, Prashad emphasizes that despite the elimination of left-wing groups after the revolution, the Iranian people have not forgotten the cause of Palestine. From a different perspective, Baraka believes that millions of Iranians have currently prioritized the fight against imperialism. Dabashi goes further, explicitly writing: “As I write this, Iranians – the rulers and the ruled, including political prisoners – are united in defending their homeland against a brutal combination of Israeli genocidal colonialism and American dysfunctional imperialism.” [2]
All of these arguments leave a fundamental question unanswered: When we speak of the “people of Iran,” what subject exactly are we talking about? Does “the people” possess a single, unified political will such that they can now be said to have collectively decided to place resistance to foreign aggression above any other demand? Or is “the people” themselves a heterogeneous collection of subjects in different social and class positions who reject imperialist war but at the same time have different demands regarding the government, repression, political freedom and the future of the country?
A look at the media, publications and statements of Iranian left-wing groups in recent years and months shows that the criticism and juxtaposition of domestic repressive forces and imperialist powers was by no means unusual; Rather, the creation of a third space - a space beyond these two edges of the scissors - is essentially one of the intellectual foundations of many independent and left-wing movements in Iran. And this debate is not from today; it goes back many years. One need only look at the statements made by Fariborz Rais-Dana, one of Iran's most prominent left-wing economists in the early 2010s, which were recently widely shared on social media. Rais-Dana explicitly defended the idea of a third way. He believed that, in contrast to the dualistic approach facing Iranian society and especially the Iranian working class, the creation of a third space was not only possible but had already happened: "We are that third way." [5]
The answer to this debate should therefore not only be sought at the level of theoretical abstraction. We need to see how those who live and struggle within these contradictions themselves formulate them. Do workers, teachers, pensioners, students, women and other social forces in Iran put the fight against imperialism against the fight against despotism? Are they compelled to defend the ruling government in order to defend the country's independence? And does rejecting war and foreign intervention necessarily mean suspending the fight against internal repression?
Using statements and positions of four prominent Iranian unions and organizations - the Iranian Writers' Association, the Union of Workers of the Vahed Bus Company of Tehran and Suburbs, the Union of Sugarcane Workers of Haft Tappeh and the Coordination Council of Iranian Teachers' Unions - this article attempts to show how social subjects in Iran themselves have articulated their relationship to war, imperialism, despotism, independence, class struggle and freedom and what differences and similarities this approach has with texts published outside Iran has.
The Iranian Writers' Association, one of the oldest free Iranian institutions and unions, founded in 1968 at the height of censorship and SAVAK1-Repression, founded by some of Iran's most prominent writers and which has continually fought against censorship and repression over the years since the revolution - with some of its most prominent left-wing members being imprisoned by the authorities in the 1990s and murdered in the infamous Chain Killings - issued the following statement twelve weeks before the statement of solidarity appeared in The Guardian:
“Now, in the balance between neither war nor peace, the marauding powers continue to beat the drum of their own interests; One dreams of a Greater Middle East after decades of occupation and genocide, while the other wants to open another gate to plunder with the order for 'help on the way'. The Islamic Republic, which previously massacred its opponents and freedom fighters in the shadow of war in the 1980s, once again sees the war as a blessing; while simultaneously carrying out executions and purges, it negotiates its economic interests and political survival...
Continuing its previous statements, the Iranian Writers' Association condemns the aggression of Israel and the United States against Iran, as well as the terrible state repression and censorship, and reiterates this truth: people are never forced to choose between plundering powers and repressive forces. [6]
This explanation explicitly goes against Prashad's reading of the “third space” and precisely attempts to formulate this third space as an emancipatory solution. The left-wing writers' reading of this statement attempts to create a political space in the darkest moments of contemporary Iranian history - a space that makes it possible to stand against multiple forms of power at the same time. Indeed, the Iranian Writers' Association's approach, unlike that of authors such as Prashad, grows out of a history of struggle against censorship, despotism and imperialism in Iran that has continued since at least the 1960s.
Lived experience and constant activism at the societal level have shaped the understanding that domestic despotism sees war as a blessing. Consequently, they see the Islamic Republic's attitude towards the US or the West not as an “anti-imperialist” practice, but as a means of regime survival that allows it to continue its plundering policies. This is something that remains invisible in the discourse of the anti-imperialist left or the conventionally so-called “campist” (campist) left.
From a Marxist perspective, however, war cannot be separated from class relations; Defending the Islamic Republic is not in itself a class position; State and ideology can represent the interests of a class as general national interests; Therefore, the task of the left is not to suspend internal repression in the face of external war, but to analyze both in their concrete relationship to classes and power relations.
An example: One of the most destructive policies heavily promoted under the leadership of Seyyed Ali Khamenei was the implementation of Article 44 of the Constitution through wholesale privatization of national resources. With his direct support, a significant portion of the public resources and wealth of the Iranian people were transferred into the hands of oligarchic groups, military and paramilitary institutions, and individuals close to power in the name of privatization and under policies supported by international financial and banking institutions. Interestingly, the Islamic Republic has implemented the World Bank's guidelines in Iran very precisely in the economic sector. This should raise a question among the anti-imperialist authors of these texts: Are the forces of the Islamic Republic defending Iran, the people, the Palestinians, or are they defending their own resources and interests? And what has priority? And at what level?
Indeed, the ruling class in the Islamic Republic has managed to present its own interests as public interests within its narrative. To paraphrase Lenin: A war must be judged by its class character, not by who fired the first shot [7]. There is no doubt that the US-Israeli attack is an imperialist war; however, the question is the “defense” of the Islamic Republic. Lenin provides us with a method of analysis: the defense of the fatherland must not be viewed in advance as a category above classes; we must ask: defense of which interests, by which state and for the benefit of which classes?
If a government's domestic policies are class-based and anti-worker, one cannot suddenly remove those policies from the analysis as soon as a war begins and rally behind the idea of an imperialist war [7].
Can a predatory economic system produce emancipatory solutions within an authoritarian political system? Is the social basis of this system in 2026 really comparable to the period of the Vietnam War or even the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s?
The Islamic Republic itself - and not its opponents - has always described war and sanctions as a "blessing", which has a clear economic reason. At the same time as the unfair sanctions imposed by imperialist powers, pro-government forces - from holding companies to trusts - have created rent-based redistribution systems and seized control of more than sixty percent of the country's assets without transparency or tax payments, leading Abbas Araghchi to officially describe the sanctions last year as a blessing for the Islamic Republic. Although the sanctions have impoverished Iran and the working class, they have also fattened those classes that claim to defend resistance and anti-imperialism within the government.
And here we return again to the metaphor of scissors: two blades that have plunged not only political prisoners but a large part of Iranian society, and especially the working class, into poverty and misery.
A topic ignored by anti-imperialist writers outside Iran is precisely the question of exploitation, class repression and their direct relationship to imperialist war. The current war is massively destroying wages, employment, raw material prices, job security, workers' organizations, freedom of association and the right to strike; At the same time, however, it offers sections of the ruling class opportunities for repression, plunder and capital accumulation. It must therefore be emphasized that the current war is being experienced in two completely different ways by the ruling class and the subaltern class in Iran. While war can be a tool for consolidating stability and securing financial interests for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the government, the army and the state broadcaster, for the subaltern class it means even greater repression and loss of life.
The Haft Tappeh Sugarcane Workers' Union, together with three other organizations - the Coordination Committee for Supporting the Formation of Workers' Organizations, the Retired Workers of Khuzestan and the Pensioners' Unity Group - demonstrated this duality in the clearest possible way on May 1 on the occasion of International Labor Day, showing the significant distance between the claims of Dabashi, Prashad and Baraka and the reality of the war for the Iranian working class:
“This year, in addition to the constant suffocation and despotism imposed on society, the workers and broad masses of Iran once again had to endure the deep and consuming grief of the bitter and tragic experience of Dey 1404 [January 2026], with the widespread killing of children, women, men, old and young who took to the streets in the struggle for bread and freedom. At the same time, the plundering and colonial policies of the United States, the expansionism and warmongering of Israel, as well as the regional rivalries and great power ambitions of the regimes of Iran and Israel, led these highly armed lunatics to turn their weapons on the masses in the service of the domestic and global capitalist system of exploitation and impose a devastating war on the working people of Iran and the countries of the region. The aggression of the US and Israel and the attempts of the leadership of the Islamic Republic to use this war to consolidate their position by beating the drum of 'war to victory', together with poisonous war propaganda 24/7 inflaming patriotic and nationalist sentiments, killing and displacement of people, and bombing of workplaces, industrial centers and infrastructure, were among the consequences of this war. Killings and slaughters, the destruction of jobs, mass unemployment and the consolidation of repression are other consequences that this war - which is not the war of the workers and toilers - has brought to the workers and toilers of Iran and to society.” [8]
As can be seen, these organizations, most of which explicitly advocate for workers' interests, point to the economic interests of the ruling powers at the heart of the story of war and repression. They stand against the propaganda machine that presents this war as an anti-imperialist struggle and show that this is a war between two class states with neoliberal, anti-worker, anti-women and anti-immigrant policies for economic interests in the region.
However, when Hamid Dabashi makes the very strange claim at the beginning of his text: "The long and winding history of Iran's anti-colonial struggle has come to life again for the entire nation and the world to see" [2], he suddenly puts the exploitative and repressive Islamic Republic in the position of an anti-colonial fighter and presents the Iranian people as its supporters. Aside from the fact that this claim is unsubstantiated, the problem is that Dabashi is thereby taking a position against the labor, union, freedom and egalitarian struggles of the Iranian people. With astonishing ignorance, he brushes aside the importance of capital and the question of which forces are capable of accessing and plundering Iran's national resources.
As stated in the statement above, some of the forces that profit from power and capital in Iran continue to beat the drum for the continuation of war and revenge, and it is precisely those people who have the greatest claim to “resistance.”
Meanwhile, the Iranian government remains silent about embezzlement, looting, and the sixty percent of capital in circulation controlled by government agencies. On the same day that Babak Zanjani - one of the most corrupt figures in the government and the Revolutionary Guards' circle, who was sentenced to death for several economic crimes - opens his chain of luxury cafes, the same government is executing the most vulnerable groups of the subaltern and marginalized classes for incomprehensible offenses such as setting a single trash can on fire.
The problem with Dabashi's formulation regarding "repression and war" lies precisely here: he sees repression and execution as a moral matter and war as a political matter. It should not be forgotten that the force that Dabashi calls the “Guardians of Iran” had erected a mountain of corpses in Iranian cities just two months before the war. For him, the Islamic Republic is repressive, but at the same time an anti-imperialist force that defends the lives of Iranians, while Marx explicitly shows in The Civil War in France how the economic ruling class consolidates its instruments of class rule through military, judicial and bureaucratic forces [9].
The following statement by the Union of Workers of the Vahed Bus Company of Tehran and Suburbs - one of the most important workers' unions in post-revolution Iran, which has continued its activities for years under harsh state repression - immediately after the restoration of Internet connection after its shutdown by the Islamic government shows how state repression and war work in the interests of preserving the interests of the ruling class and against the interests of various social classes:
“A devastating war has completely disrupted our lives and struggles as workers; from the round-the-clock US and Israeli bombings that made it clear to everyone that 'precision strikes', 'military support' and 'humanitarian intervention' were nothing but a shameful and destructive deception, to the presence of repressive military and Basij forces on every street corner with the widespread fear, anxiety and unrest caused by both bombings and severe security repression, to skyrocketing Prices and the government’s unacceptable shutdown of the Internet, which disrupted the work and lives of millions of people and deprived the overwhelming majority of the population and independent organizations, including our union, of the ability to communicate and express their opinions publicly.” [10]
By eliminating the means of communication available to the people and subaltern classes, the government seeks to establish its grand narrative of fighting America as a narrative of truth. The government in Iran has for years cited the “delicate current situation” as a reason for its inability to provide services to society and has harshly suppressed any protest. The war gave the government the opportunity to hide its systematic plunder behind anti-imperialist slogans.
This question is undeniably close to the way American-Israeli and monarchist-oriented media defend the US-Israel attack: the complete elimination of small narratives in order to establish a grand narrative of the "nation" or the "people" - people portrayed in these grand narratives as millions defending the state, be it the Islamic Republic or the US and Israel.
From a Marxist perspective, the rejection of foreign imperialism does not necessarily require the political support of the domestic state; just as rejection of domestic despotism does not require support for foreign imperialist intervention. And contrary to Dabashi's view, it should be precisely stated that in the current "sensitive circumstances," Iranian society is no longer willing to postpone its demands for the interests of the upper class and the powerful - be it the Khatam al-Anbiya camp or American companies - and is not necessarily willing to take either side of the conflict.
“There is no bothsidesism here. Either you stand with the genocidal and mass-murdering bombers or with those who are being bombed.” [2]
Against Dabashi's claim, it may be useful to take a look at the text published at the beginning of the war by the Coordination Council of Iranian Teachers' Unions:
“In addition to the war crisis, unemployment and the slide of Iranian society into absolute poverty, the increase in security repression and the arrest of political and civilian activists, as well as the expansion of executions, especially among political prisoners, have contributed to the grief of this crisis-ridden society. We have repeatedly stated loudly that we believe in fundamental and democratic changes in Iran from the bottom up, with an emphasis on independent organization, the recognition of pluralism in society and the elimination of all forms of discrimination. Therefore, we once again strongly condemn any kind of foreign intervention, call for an end to the conflict and oppose any adventurism and warmongering from any side that would disrupt the ceasefire and peace in the region. Just as the Council honored the memory of the students and teachers who lost their lives during the bloody Dey [January 2026], it honors the memory of the teachers and children who lost their lives, including the students of Minab.” [11]
This explanation objects to a kind of historical determinism in the writings of Dabashi and Prashad. The class question, together with the painful experience of children being killed by two systems in less than two months, leads the authors of the above statement to take an explicit stance against any kind of adventurism and warmongering from any side. Here, history is understood in contrast to Dabashi's fatalistic trajectory.
“But if I still have a homeland in which I was born and raised, in which my parents and brothers are buried, and if I can claim to teach something called 'Iran Studies,' it is precisely because this same wayward Islamic Republic has protected the territorial integrity of my country and the life and dignity of the more than 90 million souls who inhabit it." [2]
From a Marxist perspective, nation and state cannot always be equated. Although people belonging to different classes live in the same political and geographical space, they do not necessarily enjoy the same material conditions and do not necessarily have the same interests. For this reason, the phrase “defend Iran” does not resolve any issue; rather, it raises another question: defending which Iran and whose interests?
It seems that the Islamic Republic, as the Iranian Writers' Association writes from the interior, is defending its own survival and not the “dignity of 90 million Iranians,” in Dabashi's words. For this survival, it sometimes practices “heroic flexibility,” sometimes fights, secretly buys weapons from Israel, sometimes fires rockets, but never stops executing, repressing and imprisoning its citizens. And the story does not necessarily arrive at a single truth, as in the simple dualism of Dabashi's text; rather, it arrives at thousands of fragmented truths at the level of society.
In “Nietzsche, the Genealogy, the History,” Foucault emphasizes ruptures, contingencies, the clash of forces and dispersed formations, in contrast to the view of history as a linear chain that ultimately leads to a single truth or principle [12]. A Foucauldian genealogy helps us, instead of asking “What is the historical truth of the nation?”, to ask which forces constructed which narrative of the nation at what point in time and which voices were excluded or marginalized in this process. The question is not merely whether Dabashi sees or does not see Iran's anti-colonial history; the question is that a moment in history is transformed into a narrative so dominant that it obscures other contradictions and subjects.
The reality, however, is that anti-colonial history cannot be viewed as a fixed and unified entity that suddenly unites the entire society at the moment of a foreign attack. The history of Iran has been simultaneously a history of struggle against foreign rule, class struggle, struggle against despotism, women's movements, ethnic and national struggles, and diverse conflicts over the meaning of freedom and sovereignty.
The solidarity statement published in The Guardian emphasizes precisely this point: foreign war and internal repression are not necessarily two separate realities; under specific circumstances each can contribute to reproducing or intensifying the other.
This does not mean treating them as equals; it means that we must look to the point at which these power relations intersect to understand the actual experience of a prisoner, worker or citizen. In such a reading, the prison is not just a building, a bombing is not just a military event, and shutting down the Internet is not just a technical decision; all three can limit the ability to speak, organize, and act collectively. It is precisely here that the question of the two edges of the scissors can turn from a political metaphor into a theoretical question about the simultaneity and interconnection of forms of power.
For the workers of Haft Tappeh, the bus drivers of the Vahed union, the Iranian Writers' Union and the teachers' union, war and repression are two edges of the same pair of scissors. Consequently, the position of the authors of the Guardian letter is not only correct; one could say that it is largely belated and more backward and neutral than the positions taken by Iranian workers.
In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord considers the spectacle not merely as a collection of advertising images; the spectacle is a social relationship mediated through images [13]. When politicians say that “all Iranians” are on one side of the war or that “the entire people” are waiting to be saved by the USA, Israel or the monarchy, society is transformed into a single image. This image can hide highly diverse realities, eliminate some groups and emphasize others, and transform plurality into a homogeneous image at the expense of individual ideals.
From this perspective, the low-quality cell phone images that Iranians post of their everyday lives are perhaps closer to Iran's complex reality. For example, the video of pensioners demonstrating for their pensions and for the dignity of their lives in the fifty-degree heat of the city of Ahvaz on August 31st - in simultaneous opposition to war and repression - represents the dialectical historical point: the moment when the working class takes to the streets for their rights, continuously, persistently and, above all, indifferent to the spectacles of both sides.
[1] “To Iran’s Political Prisoners, Trapped ‘Between Two Blades of a Scissors’: Open Letter,” The Guardian, August 20, 2026.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2026/aug/20/iran-political-prisoners
[2] Middle East Eye, “War on Iran: Guardian Letter and Left Luminaries Have Lost the Plot,” 2026.https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-iran-guardian-letter-left-luminaries-lost-plot
[3] Vijay Prashad, “Against the False Symmetry of the Scissors: An Open Letter While Iran Resists an Illegal War of Aggression,” Institute for Public Analysis (IPA), August 22, 2026.https://ipa-aip.org/2026/08/22/against-the-false-symmetry-of-the-scissors-an-open-letter-while-iran-resists-an-illegal-war-of-aggression/
[4] Ajamu Baraka, “A People’s-Centered Human Rights Critique of an Open Letter to Iran’s Political Prisoners,” Monthly Review Online, August 28, 2026.https://mronline.org/2026/08/28/a-peoples-centered-human-rights-critique-of-an-open-letter-to-irans-political-prisoners
[5] Conversation with Fariborz Rais-Dana, YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJlZXWnmoI&utm_source=chatgpt.com(Persian)
[6] Iranian Writers’ Association, statement/notice on the official Instagram page of the Iranian Writers’ Association, June 2, 2026.https://www.instagram.com/kanoone.nevisandegane.iran(Persian)
[7] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Socialism and War: The Attitude of the R.S.D.A.P. on war, in Lenin Works, Volume 21, Beijing, Foreign Languages Press, 1970, pp. 295–338.
[8] Haft Tappeh Sugarcane Workers Union, statement/notice on the union's Telegram channel, May 1, 2026.https://t.me/s/syndica_7tape?before(Persian)
[9] Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, 1871.
[10] Union of Workers of Vahed Bus Company of Tehran and Suburbs, statement/notification on the union's Instagram page, May 20, 2026.https://www.instagram.com/vahedsyndica/(Persian)
[11] Coordination Council of Iranian Teachers' Unions, "No to War, No to Repression; Defense of Peace, Freedom and Independent Organization," statement on the official website, 23 Chordad 1405 [13. June 2026].https://hamahangi.org/kashora-not-to-war(Persian)
[12] Michel Foucault, “Nietzsche, the genealogy, the history,” in Donald F. Bouchard (ed.), Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, Cornell University Press, 1977.
[13] Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1967.
Photo:https://commons.wikimedia.org
The postWar and Repression in Iran – Two Edges of the Same Class Politicsappeared firstLower Class Magazines.
Read the full story at the source →
Source: Lower Class Magazine