Introduction: The main issue of this paper is the relation between State and Capital in 1960s decade in Tehran through the “Tehran”. To analyze this issue, we used the theory of “production of space” and liberal Governance technique. According to the main question of the paper, among three aspects of production of space, representation of space is emphasized.
Method: We have used regressive–progressive method of Lefebvre, and the technical method is document review. The comprehensive plan for Tehran was written in 1969.
Finding: This paper is to study the space and time of development that is hidden in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate the relationship between State and capital. As conclusion: Space and time of project crystallized capital space and space. Its implications was definition of happiness based on future that constitute its principles the accumulation of capital, population, and duality of leisure and labor. Its strategies is proficiency, sufficiency, and ultimately, also it’s linear designation of bases, consumption- led and imitation of project from mode- orientation of grand cities was as mediation of capital territoriality. Historical condition of relationship between state and capital in Iran meditating the legitimation crisis of Pahlavi government, for failure of development programs and ‘Tarhe Jame’ that it’s consequences was appeared at 1357 (1979) revolution. State has bounden necessarily to constituting of capital market and support of bureaucratic bourgeoisie in Iran. So can says of Liberality’s Government Art in authoritarian government and capital space and time in which would provoke to legitimation crisis every crisis in relationship between state and capital.
Conclusion: The legitimacy crisis of Pahlavi regime got deeper by determination of the development plan and its failure. This defeat is lead up to disorder in capital cycling and created crisis. The crisis added to all gaps between people and state, and then resulted in 1979 waves of dissatisfactions. However, in a country like Iran where the government supported the expansion of capital, any failure would immediately undermine the legitimacy of the government. This is because in Iran, an authoritarian government was formed first, and it was necessary to expose it to the vast territory of capital which was also accompanied by colonialism. This authoritarian and nationalist government, which began after the constitution and specifically under the rule of Reza Shah, had to provide the conditions for the expansion of capital. Reza Shah provided the infrastructure, but the Iranian bourgeoisie was supported during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah; hence, in Iran, in the 1960s, a kind of bureaucratic bourgeoisie was formed, which depended on the support of the government and basically pledged its legitimacy to maintain it. At the same time, the government itself was responsible for the production of capital spaces and saw the longing of a millennial civilization in the construction of the ideal capital of the future.