In the 1950s, the economy and politics revolved around the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), through which the nascent Iranian bourgeoisie, in a still semi-feudal and predominantly agricultural society, sought autonomy from British and US capitalism, with the support or approval of the other imperialist power that emerged victorious from the Second World War: the USSR.

Even in those years and in those backward economic conditions, although the development of autonomous capitalism could have been a progressive factor and a source of development for the working class, the local bourgeoisie and its political parties were subordinate to the support and decisions of one power or another.

On the one hand, the monarchy feared a British reaction and the economic consequences of the nationalization of the AIOC, while on the other, a large part of Iranian society, the small landowning, industrial, and commercial bourgeoisie, hoped to receive a share of the oil revenues.

Nationalism also spread among the poor classes, who identified the enemy as the ‘foreigner’. They protested against the monarchy in support of Mohammad Mossadeq’s nationalist party, which, together with the Shiite clergy of Ayatollah Kashani, was in favor of nationalization and closer to the interests of the nascent local bourgeoisie.

Mossadeq, with the support of Kashani’s clergy and also strengthened by the support of the Tudeh, the Iranian Stalinist party, was elected Prime Minister in 1951, the year in which the nationalization of the company was approved by parliament almost unanimously.

The enthusiasm was soon dampened, both because Iranian capitalism lacked adequate capital, means of transport, and technical knowledge, and because of the harsh reaction not only of the United Kingdom but also of the United States, which feared the expansion of the USSR in the Middle East.

This led to the ‘Abadan crisis (1951-1954)’, an economic war of attrition in which the British halted Iranian oil production, which was moved to countries such as Saudi Arabia, lowered prices, banned the export of essential consumer goods (including sugar and iron) to Iran, and froze Iran’s current accounts in British banks.

Ayatollah Kashani turned his back on Mossadeq, under the pretext of the government’s reluctance to transform Iran into an Islamic state. The US intervened alongside Britain, at the price that the AIOC would be joined by the major US oil companies.

In 1953, a bloody coup d’état, organized by the US and supported by monarchist forces and the clergy, brought the Shah back to his homeland, a puppet of Western capitalist interests.

Despite Mossadeq’s fall, Iran nevertheless maintained nationalization, and in 1954 exports resumed but by the so-called “Iran Consortium” led by British Petroleum, Gulf Oil, Shell, Esso, Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron. In the following years, Enrico Mattei also tried with AGIP to participate in the banquet, but was excluded.

In fact, American imperialism won, obtaining 40% of the product.

Some data on society at the time are provided by a short article taken from Programma Comunista in 1958: "Of the 300,000 workers in industry, the highest-paid Iranian worker (3,000 rials per month, 24,000 Italian lire) spends up to 75% on food, 20% on housing, and the rest on clothing, hygiene, education, and miscellaneous items... An elite group of landowners, who supported the return of the Shah to the throne, represent 0.1% of the population and own 56% of arable land. 2% of the rural population owns between 6 and 20 hectares of land, 13.6% between 1 and 6 hectares, and 22% less than one hectare. Then there are the agricultural laborers, who make up 60% of the rural population, a mass of dispossessed people who earn enough to feed themselves with a cup of tea, a flatbread, and a glass of curdled milk. And, last but not least: 100,000 civil servants and employees, out of a population of about 18 million, spread over a territory as vast as five and a half Italies.

An article we wrote in September 1953, a few weeks after the coup d’état, describes the situation.

“Out of a population of just over 19 million people, almost 15 million are engaged in agriculture, still mummified in feudal molds. The vast expanse of steppe land means that sheep farming is widespread, and much of the population is still nomadic. To find a historical phase of the same level in European history, we have to go back millennia... ”.

“All the ‘semi-colonial’ countries of the world are today troubled by the parallel and contradictory pressures of a confused movement of emancipation of the indigenous bourgeoisie and the impossibility for the latter to keep pace, on its own, with the technical level and economic demands of the industrial apparatus inherited from the colonizing bourgeoisie or violently wrested from it... ”

"It was the realization of the national bourgeoisie’s dream of eliminating all foreign interference and participation in the management and profits of Iran’s only, ultra-modern, and powerful industrial complex that united the disparate and contradictory forces of contemporary Persian society behind the old minister. The landowners expected the increased state revenues to lead to the abandonment of land reform projects; the commercial and industrial classes counted on enjoying the undivided fruits of the oil industry and those industries linked to it; the proletariat vented its unrest, discontent, and instinct for revolt as a cruelly exploited class in the struggle against ‘the foreigner’... ".

“The bloc around Mossadeq collapsed as soon as the immediate phase of nationalization was over... The antagonisms of interest between landowners and merchants-industrialists resurfaced... ”

“Political success was not followed by economic improvement, not only for the poor populations of Persia, but also for the privileged classes and the state bureaucracy... ”

"A bourgeois revolution that does not produce money has no reason to exist. Mossadeq’s revolution proved to be a bad deal from the outset. Sooner or later, the anti-British coalition, which at the time of the expulsion of the British from Abadan ranged from the Court to the Tudeh, centred on Mossadeq’s party, was bound to break up badly, as happens with unfortunate commercial companies... »

«Those who truly felt the defeat, in their flesh and in their illusions, were the local and international proletariat who, under the nefarious influence of Stalinism, truly believed, and still believes that the global power structure of imperialism can be undermined on the periphery, with actions that, even if they resemble revolutionary methods of struggle, take place in the absence of a concomitant battle against the European and American centers of imperialism…

"Undoubtedly, we are not at the final act of the drama: the West, and England in particular, may score a point in their favor in the Shah’s coup d’état, but the crisis in Persia is not resolved for this reason, just as the crisis in all semi-colonial and colonial countries is not resolved, but rather is in its early stages. Abrupt reversals, increasingly chaotic situations, antagonisms, and counter-reactions remain possible, leaving the door open to new crises, new twists, and new emergency solutions, dominated, however, by the same problem, by the same disproportion between the forces of the native bourgeoisie and the gigantic capital investments, the very high degree of technical specialization, and the ability to compete on the world market, which the large industrial complexes based on the exploitation of indigenous raw materials presuppose.

"The national bourgeoisie of these countries cannot, in the long run, avoid throwing itself back into the arms of foreign capital: it is not the bourgeoisie, but the indigenous working class that is the victim of the convulsions caused by the industrialization of semi-colonial countries. The task of the Marxist party is therefore a difficult one. We openly fight the humanitarian lies of the capitalist colonizers, but precisely because we aim to denounce the oppression and exploitation of people of color, we cannot sympathize with the emerging indigenous bourgeoisies who aim to inherit the role of the white oppressor.

“The national struggles and revolts in the colonies are of particular interest to us because, in conditions of instability in the world’s imperialist centers and revolutionary recovery, the national-popular uprisings in backward countries will converge, albeit with specific objectives, in the operation to strangle the white imperialist centers led by the metropolitan proletariat... ”

“But the oppressed masses of Persia still have a revolutionary task to perform. The moment will come”.