place of gathering

and thats not even to mention that China put out an open invitation to come tour the alleged concentration camps, which the US refused, many other nations accepted, with many muslim nations noting support for their policies publicly. Or the declining birth rates chalked up to forced sterilization, which was really a result of free birth control, with Uygher muslim population still on the rise at double the national average, or the fact that religious freedoms are explicitly protected in xinjiang, muslims have legal protections against hate speech, something which can hardly even be said for half of the west.

it really starts to make you feel dizzy

watch this video

its only 2 minutes, straight from the horses mouth.

Turkey’s Circassians: We also suffered from assimilation policies

Turkey’s Circassians took to the streets of Ankara on March 12, 2011 to voice their rights and demands for the first time in an event organized by the Circassian Rights Initiative.

 The initiative’s spokesperson, Kenan Kaplan, said they did not speak Turkish when the Turkish Republic was founded in 1923, but their mother tongue is now fading away.

“We got our share of the assimilation policies that have been applied over the years. We forgot our language and culture. Now, we face the danger of not being able to pass these on to future generations,” he said.

i've been wanting to learn more about communism and socialism, i recognize that what i was taught in my grade school courses is mostly pro-capitalist propaganda. does anyone have any book/documentary/video essay recommendations?

History of pro-capitalist anti-communism:

I would also recommend watching the following documentaries to learn more about the history of capitalist brutality:

COINTELPRO 101 created by the Freedom Archives, which includes firsthand accounts and interviews from people who the U.S. government targeted for organizing in the Civil Rights movement, opposing the Vietnam War, and fighting for liberation from capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy.

The War You Don’t See directed by John Pilger, which covers the way that corporate media and governments deceive us about the actual nature of 21st century imperialist wars in Africa and Asia by misrepresenting them as fights to “make the world safe for democracy” and eliminate dictatorships.

Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War directed by Daniel Miller, which goes into the history of U.S. overseas imperialism and how it has always been misrepresented to the public as a crusade for democracy and freedom.

The Corporation directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, which goes into the history of modern corporations, how they achieved legal personhood, and how they’ve established a monopoly of control over all aspects of life under 21st century capitalism.

Capitalism: A Love Story directed by Michael Moore, which dives into the ways that 21st century capitalism directs society’s wealth towards anti-social and destructive ends. It also points out the contradictions in a lot of pro-capitalist anti-communist ideology.

What communism is:

For a basic overview of what communism is trying to accomplish, I would recommend reading these two short essays written during the biggest working class revolutionary wave in Western history in the aftermath of World War I: Rosa Luxemburg’s The Socialization of Society and Sylvia Pankhurst’s Socialism.

For a more detailed sense of what communist society would mean, I like Cornelius Castoriadis’s Workers’ Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society (for some idea of post-revolution measures) and Peter Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread (for a stronger sense of a well-rounded communist society).

To learn about the history of communism in the U.S., some good books to read are Pioneers of Liberty by Rudolf Rocker, The Haymarket Tragedy by Paul Avrich, Hammer and Hoe by Robin D.G. Kelley, The American Revolution by James Boggs, and Black Against Empire by Joshua Bloom and Waldo Martin.

History of capital-C Communism:

For the history of 20th century capital-C Communism, you’re going to have to rely on a pretty wide range of sources to get a good look at the big picture. I’ll just list some books, then some documentaries.

Books:

As intros that come at the topic from radical liberal and social democratic outlooks, many people start with Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds, written as a critique of 1990s anti-communist triumphalism, and Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism by Kristen Ghodsee, which points out that the personal freedom that feminists were fighting for in the 2010s had come closest to becoming a reality in 20th century socialist states.

For a fuller portrait of some 20th century socialist experiments, I would recommend reading John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, Ronald Grigor Suny’s The Soviet Experiment, William Hinton’s Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village, Maurice Meisner’s Mao’s China and After, and Aviva Chomsky’s A History of the Cuban Revolution. These all cover the three most influential socialist revolutions in the 20th century and will give you a better sense of why so many people supported them in their day before the neoliberal anti-communist propaganda that Parenti and Ghodsee critiqued placed them behind the pale of acceptable discourse in the 1990s and 2000s.

If you’re okay with a longer book, The Soviet Century: Archaeology of a Lost World by Karl Schlögel will give you a very comprehensive portrait of what everyday life in the Soviet Union was like. It really humanizes the experience compared to the cartoon caricatures we’re used to getting from family, school, and anti-communist media.

Documentaries:

To learn a bit about the U.S.’s own tradition of communist militancy, I would highly recommend watching The Wobblies directed by Stewart Bird and Deborah Shaffer. It includes archival footage and interviews with working class veterans of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and shows how they became communist revolutionaries as a result of struggling to improve the conditions of their own lives against the power of capitalists.

Red Storm Rising: The Struggle for the American Communist Party from PBS covers the basic history of the CPUSA and how it declined under the leadership of people who wanted to liquidate into New Deal Civil Rights reformism and focus on advocating for peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union. However, it does neglect to cover the militants like Harry Haywood and Mary Inman who wanted to keep fighting for total liberation and world revolution. These were the people who carried on into Black Power and the New Left in the 1960s.

The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution goes more into the history of American communism and shows just how recent and relevant it is for regular people struggling for liberation. This is what the repression and programs of programs like COINTELPRO are designed to destroy and prevent.

The Lost World of Communism from the BBC covers the Eastern Bloc from a liberal perspective but gives a pretty detailed sense of everyday life in the socialist states. It’s definitely a much more grounded source than a lot of what we’re taught in the U.S., which is that there effectively was no society in the Eastern Bloc and it was just a totalitarian police state all the way down.

October: Ten Days That Shook the World directed by Sergei Eisenstein is the first documentary about the 1917 Russian Revolution and includes reenactments of its events from the regular people who lived through it and participated in making it. If watching a silent movie is not so much your speed, surprisingly Lucasfilm made a pretty good documentary about the Revolution called The Russian Revolution: All Power to the Soviets, although it comes with all the one-sided pitfalls of a 21st century liberal perspective.

China: A Century of Revolution directed by Sue Williams covers the rise of the People’s Republic of China and demonstrates how it was very much an indigenous product of China’s revolutionary process. It goes into the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, the Republican period and wars of the 1920s-1940s, the rise of the PRC’s New Democracy in 1949, the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, and finally the Reform and Opening Up in the 1980s and 1990s.

Morning Sun directed by Carma Hinton, daughter of William Hinton, covers the Chinese Cultural Revolution from the perspective of everyday participants and victims. It gives a much more grounded sense of what the era was like than some of the cartoonish and racist caricatures that conventional U.S. narratives offer.

For the Cuban Revolution, you can get the most comprehensive coverage by watching Fidel: The Untold Story directed by Estela Bravo and Che Guevara: Beyond the Myth directed by Tancrede Ramonet. The pro-capitalist anti-communist lies that we’re told about this Revolution are the most straightforward for us to debunk because of how closely the participants were linked with the rest of the Americas, including the U.S.

The Death of Yugoslavia from the BBC is one of the better documentaries for seeing just how chaotic and horrific the collapse of 20th century Communism was for the people who lived it. Although it’s from a liberal perspective, it’s ultimately right that the collapse stemmed from inner rot as much as enemy encirclement. It avoids the pitfalls of the dumbest and most simplistic anti-communist narratives about corruption and inefficiency in the socialist states.

Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul from REDFIST Media covers DPRKorean citizens living in the Republic of Korea. It shows how difficult the conditions of their lives are once they go to the south, how these horrific conditions incentivize them into agreeing to produce propaganda for the capitalist dictatorship of the South against the North (as if the North were the only dictatorship in the peninsula), and how many of them seek to return to the North where they at least have families, jobs, and social assistance.

Conclusion:

The big picture problem with the pro-capitalist anti-communist perspective is that they a priori rule out thinking about anything from a global perspective. They ask you to ignore the overwhelming violence and sabotage that it took to destroy 20th century communism in spite of its massive appeal for regular people. At the same time, they expect you to believe that the brutality and misery of capitalism is justified by its successes, and by the “greater” threat of communism. Then they point to the agonies of overwork, industrialization, and state-directed capital accumulation in socialist countries, as if these can be objected to without implying our very own objections against capitalist exploitation and corporate tyranny.

At the time of Stalin's death, yes there were many who hated him or had trauma associated with his leadership, but he was also widely understood as a national hero throughout the Soviet Union. That's why there were mass protests against de-Stalinisation, such as in Georgia where the protests caused massive unrest and anti-Soviet sentiment

In attributing all crimes to Stalin as an individual, in denouncing Stalin in his entirety, Khrushchev and his government were essentially forcing the Soviet people to abandon pride in all that they had achieved throughout Stalin's leadership. Writings about the experiences of the Soviet people in the 20s and 30s, with the exception of the Great Purge years, have demonstrated such an astronomical degree of hope and passion for socialist development

They defeated the Nazis under Stalin's leadership. They modernised their country, turning it from a feudal empire to a world superpower with powerful industry and welfare services hitherto inconceivable

To then suddenly denounce that entire period of leadership is to destabilise the people's connection to those achievements and create widespread disillusionment in communism. It's also just reductive, feeding great man theory which is anti-Marxist anyway

Soviet leadership should have done what China did, and assessed Stalin's leadership more fairly. They should have admitted to the mistakes and abuses of power yes, but not abandon Stalin's legacy completely, and they should have analysed it within context in order to understand how better to improve

Further, the work is critical of attributing these critiques to Stalin alone. That is Great Man theory, not materialism.

I do also like what Carlos Martinez had to say about this topic in his book The End Of The Beginning: Lessons Of The Soviet Collapse. Sorry if what he says is redundant but I like the quotes he adds.

[Khrushchev’s] methods, however, were disastrous. It should have been possible to make political changes without launching a severe frontal attack on Stalin and all that he represented. Stalin was the most prominent Soviet leader from 1924 until his death in 1953. In other words, Stalin led the USSR for twenty-nine of the thirty-six years of the USSR’s existence. To criticize him so harshly, to tear down a personality cult so suddenly, meant to cast doubt on the entire Soviet experience to that point it meant to delegitimize the extraordinary achievements of the CPSU and the Soviet people during the Stalin era. Even Vladislav Zubok – an anti-Stalinist by any measure – observes that ‘the destruction of Stalin’s cult wounded the Soviet ideological consensus’.

The situation demanded a more balanced, nuanced assessment of the Stalin period (although we should note in passing that, even now, such a thing is rare). The post-Mao leadership in China had criticisms of Mao that were not entirely dissimilar to the Khrushchev leadership’s criticisms of Stalin. Some of the changes they introduced had parallels with those envisaged by Khrushchev. And yet it did not occur to the Chinese leadership to try to destroy Mao’s legacy. Deng Xiaoping made an insightful comment on this subject in an interview given to the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci in 1980,

We will make an objective assessment of Chairman Mao’s contributions and his mistakes. We will reaffirm that his contributions are primary and his mistakes secondary. We will adopt a realistic approach towards the mistakes he made late in life. We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought, which represents the correct part of Chairman Mao’s life. Not only did Mao Zedong Thought lead us to victory in the revolution in the past it is – and will continue to be – a treasured possession of the Chinese Communist Party and of our country. That is why we will forever keep Chairman Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen Gate as a symbol of our country, and we will always remember him as a founder of our Party and state. . . . We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin.

Nearly four decades later, Mao’s portrait still occupies pride of place on Tiananmen Gate.

Khrushchev’s speech created widespread confusion and doubt anger, in some places. A report from 2015 on a recently rebuilt statue of Stalin in the village of Eski Ikan, Kazakhstan, contains a thought-provoking quote from a Second World War veteran who, along with his fellow villagers, had resisted attempts by the local authorities to dismantle Stalin’s statue in the late 1950s in the wake of Khrushchev’s speech,

More below the cut

Per popular demand, my BA thesis on Libya's hegemonic reintegration and how market reforms contributed to the civil war, using a neo-Gramscian analysis. I got an A (80) on it, which is the highest mark awarded at my institution short of the examiner having to make a really strong case to the board, so I guess there's some value there if even liberal academics agree. The link will upload a PDF copy on your gdocs account.

We know working class militancy in China must be high because of the fast growing wages over time—an organized working class is a prerequisite for the state to reinvest in the reproduction of labor. But l've yet to read an exploration about the detailed dynamics of it and how the CPC and government plays a role. So l appreciate Ness' promise to get into that.

As for my current progress in the book I finished chapter 3 just now where he went through global trade union decline during Neoliberal Globalization.

Up to now he's mostly been stating his thesis, establishing concepts, and rebelling against western frameworks. Chapter 4 promises to get into internal migration in China and urbanization so it's gonna get into the proper weeds of things.

That is a criticism I have of Ness' writing though. His writing style is easy and satisfying to read, but I think he could stand to be less redundant. I'm not sure how much he could conceivably cut without his points being hurt, but idk. It feels like the previous parts of the book should have been a little shorter.

Also. Unrelated. The book design is gorgeous. I love the Venn diagram design incorporating the PRC flag, the ACFTU logo, and the RMB. Plus the colors are nice. 🥰

the other option for these countries, barring any supposed legal route, will be to find other export markets in US dollars. this will be a political and economic test of the BRICS financial system (particularly its capacity for trade denominated in USD), and of consumer markets in global south nations—both developed in a planned way with an eye towards the eventual need for this kind of quasi-de-dollarization. economic because how much of this trade surplus can really be absorbed? how much of a recession will there be? and political because will the US even let this happen? there is still the military realm. and because the creation or acceleration of any trade deals between these nations and the BRICS countries will merely be competitive with the US's degree of exploitation to the degree that this process is controlled by the interests of capitalists in any nation.

The main argument used by the critics of the reform is that it represents the dismantling of Hugo Chavez’s oil sovereignty model. This is a superficial and decontextualized reading, already flawed with origin at the time of the passage of the Anti-Blockade Law, promulgated to leave the mephytic corner in which the Venezuelan economy had been locked up with the “sanctions”.

Here they point out that it's wrong to call this new reform a dismantling because it's in line with what they've been doing when Maduro was around, i.e. they've already been dismantling.

The inclusion of independent arbitration mechanisms is not a weakening of legal sovereignty, but a technical necessity in the new multipolar order. To work with Brics+ partners and other non-Western powers, it is necessary to offer a security framework that does not depend on Washington’s political humors.

This paragraph just doesn't make much sense. The origin country of most investments into Venezuela's oil sector is going to be USA (that's the whole point of the reform), so the majority of arbitration is going to take place in USA, not in any BRICS country (though I can see Russia and China being second and third). And even if arbitration rights are shared between all the different imperialists, they won't belong to Venezuela itself, which is the important point.

It is also worth asking how “critical” critics will now react, always ready to talk about authoritarianism, before the announcement of amnesty made by Delcy Rodríguez before the Supreme Court of Justice

"We aren't yielding to imperialists, and we are not authoritarian — we released political prisoners, just like the imperialists asked us to!"

if you oppose maduro why do you care if there is a supposed betrayal of him

brics countries have already explicitly reached out to venezuela and recieved positive responses about oil investments, particularly indonesia and india

international arbitration is a completely normal standard for international commerce, if you disagree with international arbitration on principle you are to be kind an insane protectionist

releasing nonviolent political prisoners is a good thing actually, to quote the article itself which you have so kindly cherrypicked and translated, the prisoners are just as much victims of machados fascism as anyone else, they were used as cannon fodder for a terrorist movement and that should not be allowed to ruin their lives

"The conditions of trans people in egyptian prisons due to the "stretchy-ness" of the law"

"Testimonies of transgender girls about egyptian prisons"

Queen's boat/Cairo 52

"What did you exactly mean, uncle Hisham?" An article about the controversial Hisham Selim interview

The details of the abduction and murder of Eden Knight by her family

Hanaan El Tawil

""The marital cage": the marrying of lgbtq community members to people they do not want or are not attracted to"

"The difficulty of reaching hormone treatment in Lebanon"

"Transitioning in Morocco.. a journey through a minefield"

"Paper-only marriage.. the lgbtq community and the price of belonging to an oppressive reality"

"Who will compensate Malak El Kashif and her preceders for the days spent unjustly in jail?"

Articles by Malak El Kashif about her experiences 1 2

"Accused and threatened.. lawyers speak of their experiences defending lgbt people in egypt"

Nad Salaam on growing up nonbinary

Interview with Oscar El Halebi

Article about Iman Le Caire

Mashrou' Leila and Sarah Hegazi's suicide 1 2 3

Maha's campaign this girl is trans and Iraqi and was outed to her abusive family, she has been urgently trying to leave Iraq for years, her friend who organised the campaign betrayed her and disappeared and all the funds were returned and the dono's are going excruciatingly slowly so I'm putting it here in case this post gains traction

[Most of these are in Arabic and you are going to read them with google translate.]

In reading about the Iranian revolution, something I’ve seen mentioned in texts I’ve read is how the revolution was spearheaded by socialists and Marxists but who were then pushed to the side in favour of religious figures. I have yet to be able to find a text that focuses on this aspect of the revolution, if that makes sense. I apologise if I did not explain well I struggle with English. Would you have any recommendations for texts that go into detail about this aspect? And I apologise as well if the information I have is wrong, and if it is if you have any texts that present a more correct version of events. Thank you once again!

hi! thank you for your question. im gonna take a stab at answering it myself, drawing on some texts that i will cite that you can use as further reading.

there are two components to this question:

what forces made the revolution? i.e. what forces caused the monarchy to lose legitimacy, the shah to abdicate, and the army to declare neutrality

what forces consolidated the islamic republic as the hegemonic political and military power?

i'll address each in turn

what forces made the revolution?

we can begin by addressing the first part of your ask

"did the Marxists/leftists spearhead the revolution?"

plainly, no. while some of these forces played important roles at key moments, the revolution as a whole is best characterized as a populist movement led by a multi class coalition spanning a range of ideologies (Foran categorizes it into "at least five distinct value orientations [...] Khomeini's militant Islam, Shari'ati's radical liberation theology, Bazargan's liberal-democratic Islam, the guerilla groups' socialism (with Islamic and secular variants), and secular nationalism (both socialist and democratic in form.)"[1])

in fact, not only did a single group not "spearhead" the revolution, the ideological actors themselves mainly reacted to and shaped the outcome of a dual-crisis resulting from decades of dependent development (specifically import substitution industrialization driven by and increasingly dependent on oil revenues) and political underdevelopment (the weakening of legitimacy that began with the coup/consolidation of the monarchy in 53 and continued through the next two decades as the shah relied mainly on the military/security state and oil revenues for political authority.) these factors culminated in the aforementioned dual-crisis: "an economic crisis in the form of acute inflation; and an institutional crisis produced by foreign pressures on the shah to relax police controls and observe the human rights of political dissenters" [2]

~

now, some (notably Khomeini himself) have downplayed or dismissed the role that leftists played altogether, insisting that the revolution must be viewed exclusively as an Islamic movement. this isn't quite right. ignoring secular nationalists, there are three key roles the explicitly Marxist/communist groups played:

(1) participation in the earliest phase of protests and symbolic actions (letter writing, etc.), particularly among the students and intellegentsia (2) participation in the general strike waves, though not as a hegemonic force and by no means the driving force. as Bayat notes, "one of the main features of the strike movement was that its grassroots organizational leadership was within the workplace, and not from outside organizations such as political parties, unions or religious institutions […] whatever forms of struggle were waged, and whatever forms of consciousness were developed, almost all originated on the factory floors. Outside influences were felt in the later stages of the revolutionary process" [3] (3) arguably the most "decisive" contribution of the left, the guerilla groups' participation in delivering the final death knell* to the regime during the February 9-11 takeover at Doshan Tappeh Air Base, specifically "the Marxist-Leninist People’s Fadai and the Islamist-Marxist Mojahedin-e Khalq"[4] hang on, does that say "Islamist-Marxist"? that's right, all sources i can find on this indicate this was the remaining members of the original MEK, not the Marxist-Leninist split that became Peykar. that means the only prominent secular leftist group involved here was the Fadaian! the secular left*** cant even solely claim this one! so much for "spearheading". this leads us to the second part of the question

"[leftists] were then pushed to the side in favour of religious figures."

there is a hint of truth here that has been badly distorted, namely that Khomeini initially downplayed the role he would play in the revolutionary government**. but the process in which Khomeini's Revolutionary Council and the corresponding Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) consolidated power was a gradual one involving not just suppression of the left, but a struggle with many of the remaining Islamist factions as well as with the Provisional Government, struggles that were not decisively finished by the time Saddam launched his invasion into Khoramshahr- but im getting ahead of myself. first, i want to note: Islam was a significant part of the revolution from the beginning. im going to attempt to spell out some of the key roles it played, but this list is by no means exhaustive:

(1) providing a common language for much of the popular movement. again, not hegemonically, but in a way that cut across classes and unified a broad social base. while many looked to Khomeini as a leader, Islam was mobilized in support of many different and overlapping ideological currents (clericalism, populism, socialism, liberalism, etc.) (2) the 40 day cycle of mourning providing the structural and symbolic framework for the street protests (3) the ulama/bazaari coalition and its mobilization of the urban poor/lower strata (4) the organizing role of the mosque networks (5) organized Islamist groups like the MEK (who as i just mentioned, co-delivered the coup de grace to the shah's military, arguably the most decisive contribution from the left!) and many of the neighborhood revolutionary committees (komitehs), as well as the mosque-oriented militias (hezbollahis)

what forces consolidated the islamic republic as the hegemonic political and military power?

this question is really multiple questions. what factors led to the formation of the IRGC? which existing groups comprised it and which did it absorb? how did it relate to the Revolutionary Council and the Provisional Government? how did it crystallize into the effective military-security apparatus of the nascent republic? why wasnt power seized by any other group? (not just internally but also external actors, i.e. why no foreign intervention?) now this is a topic thats so dense it deserves its own response and its also a topic im less read on. ill work on a more full fledged post on this some other time (when i have more energy), but for now ill just try to outline some of the main factors that need to be taken into consideration:

1) the weakness of the police and military, which were "near-paralyzed by the damage they incurred during the revolution" [5] 2) the state of the organized left in the late 70s: weak from decades of repression, internally fragmented, and relatively shallow social penetration. 3) corresponding to this, the failure of the working class to unify and coordinate the strike committees, including a lack of integration between the factory shoras and the neighborhood komitehs. 4) support for the Khomeini government among segments of the left, most notably the Tudeh which "despite criticism from other leftist and nationalist groups […] adopted a policy of almost unconditional support for the Islamic Republic, which it defined as revolutionary and anti-imperialist, [including] cooperation with the government on all kinds of political and security issues." this included a leaflet issued by the party central committee "in which it even encouraged members to report to the security authorities all information about groups and individuals opposing the regime" [6] culminating in the purging of said groups including the Tudeh 4) the aforementioned internal struggle between the Khomeinist RC and other Islamist factions as well as the Provisional Government, interrupted by 5) the Iran-Iraq war. this subject could span a volume in itself. ill leave this for another post, but let me finish by saying that whatever the balance of power before, the war definitively shaped not just the structure of the Iranian state but Iranian politics for decades to come

*various sources describe it as a death knell or a coup de grace, but it should be noted that this was after the shah had already fled the country and much of the military had already defected. still, given feb 11 is when the army officially declared neutrality, its fair to call this decisive ** at the same time, Khomeini's leadership was broadly popular and notably "approved by acclimation" during the mass rallies upon his return from exile. hardly a formal election, but not a coup either *** to be fair, you said left, not secular left, but this is exactly the problem with the way the question is framed, the assumption of a neat separation between "leftism" and Islam

citations:

[1] Foran, John. “The Iranian Revolution of 1977–79: A Challenge for Social Theory.” in A Century of Revolution: Social Movements in Iran (1994) p. 173. [2] Abrahamian, Ervand. "Iran Between Two Revolutions." (1982) p. 497. [3] Bayat, Asef. "Workers and Revolution in Iran: A Third World Experience of Workers’ Control" (1987) p. 92 [4] Ostovar, Afshon. Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards" (2016) p. 41. [5] Ibid, p. 42 [6] Haqshenas, Torab. “COMMUNISM iii. In Persia after 1953.” Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. VI, fasc. 1 (1992)

additional reading: