This is a caption

This is a caption
Shahin Nasiri

The idea of privatizing economic units in Iran can be understood in the context of a dualism between private and public. This duality represents several formal assumptions. In the realm of the economy, the private sector is completely separated from the public sector and is logically opposed to it. The private sector is represented by individuals, capitalists, and entrepreneurs, while the public sector is seen as government institutions and bureaucracy. Therefore, it is expected that strengthening the private sector and market mechanisms will lead to “competition” among individuals, increase productivity, and promote economic growth, while the government’s economy aims to distribute wealth “fairly”. From a historical perspective, this duality can be clearly seen in the dominant logic of policies in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Economic macro-policies in the post-revolution era in Iran, initially focused on nationalization to limit the role of private units and owners in the first decades of the revolution. In the following decades, this trend gradually reversed and privatization of properties and

One: A revolutionary lesson and transition from private ownership to state ownership.

The economic doctrine of the government of Iran in the early years after the revolution was based on the main mission of defending the oppressed and distributing wealth fairly. This approach, influenced by the Bolshevik discourse dominant in the Eastern bloc, which defined its political and economic identity and goals in opposition to the capitalist system, gained double strength. In the midst of this, the justice-oriented goals of the government were clearly manifested in the process of “nationalizing” economic institutions, which led to actions such as confiscating private institutions and properties and transferring factories to the government and military-religious institutions. The intensification of this process of nationalization, along with international sanctions and Iran’s dependence on oil sales, which had turned it into a single-product economy, prevented Iran from entering global markets. In the post-war period, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by entering many economic arenas, became the most important player in Iran’s economic affairs. These characteristics, as a whole, shaped the economic identity of “nationalized”

However, a brief review of this process raises an important question: what could have been the purpose of nationalization within the framework of the revolutionary doctrine and anti-capitalist government of Iran? The actions of the Iranian government in the early years after the war, such as the transfer of economic units to the government and military-religious institutions such as the Revolutionary Guards, the Relief Committee, the Foundation for the Oppressed, the Executive Headquarters of the Imam’s Command, and the Astan Quds Razavi, can be seen as a form of nationalization. In more precise terms, nationalization within this framework can be seen as a process of “governmentalizing” the economy with a monopolistic tendency, in which public properties and assets that should have belonged to the people – as the main subjects and decision-makers in the public sphere – came under the control of the government. This in itself reflects the erosion of the concept of the public sphere to the government and its affiliated institutions.

Two: The capital of neoliberalism and transition from state ownership to private institutions.

In recent decades, the trend of macroeconomic policies in Iran has taken a completely different path from what it had in the early years of the revolution and the post-war era. This period can be called the “privatization era”, which itself has been influenced by the widespread adoption of the political-economic doctrine of neoliberalism globally, and has also spread in Iran. Goals such as increasing productivity, reducing bureaucracy and corruption through “shrinking the government”, which the market economy system sees as its lofty goals, represent the identity of the neoliberal economy and its tendency towards privatization.

Privatization within the framework of a free market economy transfers ownership and subsequently the management of government agencies and institutions to capitalists and private entities. This is what is referred to in the literature of political economy as “replacing the government with owners of capital.” By entrusting ownership of factories and production institutions to the private sector, the key to these factories is handed over to the owners of capital and financial resources are deposited in their hands to ensure efficiency, productivity, and profitability in the face of inefficiencies in government management. In Iran, this process of transferring ownership took the form of changing the legal status of companies from “public joint-stock” to “private joint-stock.” As a result, owners of capital and private entities, now in the role of owners and managers of private joint-stock companies, gained a monopoly over the means of production, and the main labor force – the workers – became dependent on these individuals instead of the government for employment and survival. However, despite the initial goals of increasing

Three: Collective self-governance, the option of council management.

In macroeconomic discussions, the dominant strategies for dealing with labor and capital crises are either in the direction of reviving public ownership in the sense of government ownership, or towards strengthening free market mechanisms. However, a brief review of the dominant economic policies in Iran over the past forty years reveals the inefficiency of both approaches. The first approach, with its focus on ownership and government presence rather than public ownership (in the sense of what belongs to the people), has only led to the enrichment and corruption of the government and ultimately, inefficiency in responding to current needs and inability to envision improvements for the country as a whole. The second approach, with its clear focus on monopolizing capital and production tools among capitalists, has put the workforce in a vulnerable position and prioritizes increasing individual profits and monopolistic privileges over supporting workers and responding to their needs and demands. However, it is these very workers who are well aware of the flaws of this dualistic approach. For this reason, in the past few