Mapping Currents of Left-Wing Thought — Part 5
The Left, Authority and Trauma: The Psychological Roots of a Political Error
Aydin Areta

In the fifth part of the seminar on mapping currents of left-wing thought, Iran is analysed not merely as a historical example but as a “diagnostic test” for assessing the capacity—or incapacity—of some left-wing currents to confront the real suffering of people. In this section we explain that, in the campist perspective, priority is always given to positioning oneself against imperialism rather than seeing the repression, imprisonment, fear and everyday life of people living under pressure from an ideological state. From this perspective, any movement for freedom that is not necessarily defined through direct opposition to the West or to imperialism becomes suspect and may even be labelled a cover for domination or foreign intervention.

The discussion then focuses on how anti-imperialism, when it becomes the “master framework” of analysis, flattens truth into a single dimension. In such a situation, the central question is no longer what has happened to bodies, freedoms, civil rights and the lives of people. The first question becomes: which geopolitical camp benefits from the narrative of protest, repression or killing?

We next introduce Iran as a serious paradox for these currents: a government that defines itself against the West while simultaneously standing against its own people; a system that uses the language of independence and resistance while depriving its citizens of the most basic civil rights; a structure that calls itself the “Axis of Resistance” yet treats its own women, students, journalists and protesters as enemies. From this perspective, Iran is not only an arena of conflict over political freedom but the site of a deeper crisis between meaning and power, truth and legitimacy, and nation and state.

In the final part, we focus on the argument that this error is not merely theoretical or conceptual but has deep psychological roots in the relationship of individuals and groups to authority, patriarchy and the father archetype. We distinguish legitimate authority from authoritarianism and explain that healthy authority can be connected to law, responsibility, boundaries, accountability and the maturation of freedom, whereas despotic authority separates law from truth and justice and substitutes itself for them. From this perspective, societies and political currents that have undergone profound experiences of repression, colonialism, humiliating patriarchy or the police state may develop a traumatic sensitivity toward every form of vertical structure, law, tradition or boundary, interpreting it not as a possible source of order but as a sign of the oppressor’s return.

Link to the seminar:
https://youtu.be/ZGvYcf1hrFw