Iranian Uprising [Archive]

rednordman

10th June 2009, 22:37

The election is on Friday. The main contenders are Ahmedinejad, the incumbent "conservative", and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the "reformist" candidate backed by former president Mohammad Khatami. Ahmedinejad is probably ahead. But it would probably be a good thing if the Mousavi won.

ed: As far as I know it's nothing like 1979. A lot of people are upset about the government, sure, but as you mentioned yourself it's being channelled into the election, and even so Ahmedinejad still has a lot of support. Also, as rednordman mentioned there is certainly a possibility that any sort of second revolution (or for that matter, a Reformist electoral victory) would fight against the scant successes (independence) rather than the myriad failures of the Revolution.That Ahmedinejad!!, I wish there was another serious contender (i have only heard very bad things about him). I put it like that (while recognising khatami) because In these sort of senarios, the people tend to go with the people in power, due to the control of the media.

Weird thing is, from my view, that the way people are heading towards reformism, you would think that ahmendinejad would be all for that because he is all for that as a conservative. I guess that conservative mean more towards traditional values rather than laiser faire economics.

Yehuda Stern

12th June 2009, 09:03

It's always dandy to see leftists support the western-backed reactionaries against the reactionaries who are in conflict with the west. Such anti-imperialism!

Of course we would not call for a vote to Ahmadinejad. But voting for the reformists is just as bad. Both are bourgeois factions of the Islamist regime.

As a side note, as if to just show once more the predatory nature of Zionism, Israeli commentators have recently indicated that it would actually prefer if Ahmadinejad remained President, lest pressure on the regime would be let down. In other words: Israel's problem with Iran, as we could already guess, is not that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, a holocaust denier or a fundamentalist. The conflict is fed slowly by Israel's need for constant conflict and war.

jake williams

12th June 2009, 09:46

It's always dandy to see leftists support the western-backed reactionaries against the reactionaries who are in conflict with the west. Such anti-imperialism!

Of course we would not call for a vote to Ahmadinejad. But voting for the reformists is just as bad. Both are bourgeois factions of the Islamist regime.
I understand where you're coming from, but I have a close personal friend in Iran at present and I have a strong personal bias in favour of even slight reforms that would make her life easier. I'm not saying that's a reasonable argument, I'm just saying that colours my responses.

hardlinecommunist

12th June 2009, 10:07

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of the greatest Anti-Imperialist Leaders of our time I hope and Pray that he wins the Election Today

bricolage

12th June 2009, 10:16

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of the greatest Anti-Imperialist Leaders of our time I hope and Pray that he wins the Election Today

:huh:

Is this a joke?

Revy

12th June 2009, 10:22

While Mousavi would not be much of a change, Iranians don't really have much of a choice. You can only vote for the Conservatives or Reformists and a lot of reformists get banned from running as a candidate for not being "Islamic" enough.

Where is the socialist option? Socialists can not run, socialist parties are banned. Even Mousavi is being called a socialist as a smear. Mousavi is not socialist - but with no choices to his left - there is no other choice.

hardlinecommunist

12th June 2009, 10:23

:huh:

Is this a joke? no it is my prayer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of the great men of our time

Devrim

12th June 2009, 10:52

I understand where you're coming from, but I have a close personal friend in Iran at present and I have a strong personal bias in favour of even slight reforms that would make her life easier. I'm not saying that's a reasonable argument, I'm just saying that colours my responses.

Lots of people have friends in Iran. I personally have quite a few. Does it really make any difference though. I don't want my friends to suffer, but neither do I want strangers to suffer.

The questions are political. Do we believe that a different bourgeoisie faction can bring real fundamental change? To look more closely at the situation do we think that there is anything up for grabs in this election even in the terms of the ruling class? I don't think that a victory for the 'reformists' would bring much at all in the way of 'reform'.

While Mousavi would not be much of a change, Iranians don't really have much of a choice. You can only vote for the Conservatives or Reformists and a lot of reformists get banned from running as a candidate for not being "Islamic" enough.

Where is the socialist option? Socialists can not run, socialist parties are banned. Even Mousavi is being called a socialist as a smear. Mousavi is not socialist - but with no choices to his left - there is no other choice.

Iranian workers have exactly the same choice as that offered to western workers, the choice between two different factions of the ruling class. For revolutionaries this is no choice. It is no choice because ultimately there is no real difference between the candidates.

Also for revolutionaries is not about the working class being 'offered' a choice. It is about the working class creating an alternative through struggle. This alternative for us is the only opposition to the 'choices' that this barbaric system has to offer. It is the only thing that can oppose this system of war, massacres, poverty, ethnic and national hatred...

It's always dandy to see leftists support the western-backed reactionaries against the reactionaries who are in conflict with the west. Such anti-imperialism!

Yes, and it happens so often.

Devrim

Revy

12th June 2009, 11:17

I agree with your points, Devrim. I wasn't suggesting that I supported Mousavi.

Led Zeppelin

12th June 2009, 11:17

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of the greatest Anti-Imperialist Leaders of our time I hope and Pray that he wins the Election Today

I'm going to a demonstration in one hour at the Iranian Embassy, to call for the release of all the union organizers and activists they have arrested and are most likely torturing.

Have fun being a political stooge supporting that reactionary regime in the meantime.

Yehuda Stern

12th June 2009, 15:03

I understand where you're coming from, but I have a close personal friend in Iran at present and I have a strong personal bias in favour of even slight reforms that would make her life easier.I would say you are doing a disservice to your friend. If you really want to make her life easier, you should advise her to build a revolutionary party in opposition to the regime instead of supporting one of its parts against another. If a friend of mine from outside the country would say that he supports Meretz because they could make some minor reforms and would threaten left-wingers less, I would say no thank you and wake the fuck up. (of course, Israel is an imperialist state and Iran is not, which creates some difference, but I was just making an analogy)

jake williams

12th June 2009, 15:52

I would say you are doing a disservice to your friend. If you really want to make her life easier, you should advise her to build a revolutionary party in opposition to the regime instead of supporting one of its parts against another.
She supports Tudeh, but she doesn't want anyone to know because she's terrified of the Iranian government, and because she really wants to move here and she doesn't trust Canadian Immigration to be friendly to Communists either (she doesn't have any illusions about Canadian society, of course, but she prefers it here). I haven't been able to talk to her much though, so I don't know her opinions about the election, partly because she's not comfortable using the Internet... which again I really think the Reformists would be less inclined to censor. And I certainly don't support them - I just think that there are reasons in a tight race to pick one of the two, I'm not making a plan for what Iranian revolutionaries should do with their own time.

If a friend of mine from outside the country would say that he supports Meretz because they could make some minor reforms and would threaten left-wingers less, I would say no thank you and wake the fuck up. (of course, Israel is an imperialist state and Iran is not, which creates some difference, but I was just making an analogy)
I'm not in a state at all to give a very articulate political analysis, but I really think the difference is significant - there's an anti-imperialist argument in preferring Ahmedinejad, even if it's ugly. In imperialist countries though, liberal parties tend to be ever so slightly better to their domestic populations. I'm definitely not an expert in Israeli politics, but in Canada it is certainly better when the Liberal Party is in power than when the Conservative Party is in power (yes, the names are actually that). I despise the Liberal Party and its leaders, and I certainly don't spend any of my time supporting it. But it's a noticeable difference. If I had to pick one, it would be insane to pick the Conservatives.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

12th June 2009, 16:00

no it is my prayer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of the great men of our time
He hangs gays, lets "unfaithful" women stone to death...
Great man:confused:?

New Tet

12th June 2009, 16:28

Seems theres alot of action going on there around the elections coming up soon, some saying they think the situation is similar to that around the revolution of 79 in Iran.

What's happening now in Tehran doesn't come close to my memories of the events in 1979; there was shooting in the streets back then, open rebellion and armed confrontation. The was a general insurrection that led, lamentably, to an Islamic republic. The spark that lit the tinderbox.

Thought I'd made a thread for discussion, apparently alot of people are out on the streets, but the feeling is being channelled down electoral reformist paths.

Which, in and of itself, is not an entirely bad thing, though I think I know what you are hinting at.

Working class participation in any election can be a positive thing if sufficient workers who are participating possess working-class consciousness and are actively and peacefully intervening to effect the outcome of the vote.

For example, workers can help bring about a situation in which it is incumbent upon them to decide whether or not they should take, hold and operate their workplace in the interest of all and not just a handful of absentee owners. Who shall convince them for socialism?

Led Zeppelin

12th June 2009, 19:49

Just got back from the demonstration.

7 comrades were arrested and the police hounded us throughout the day. They kept making up bullshit rules and regulations to harass us and keep us in line. They made a cage-like structure with fences and forced us to go inside it, as if we were animals. We weren't allowed to get within 100 or so meters of the embassy.

Total farce of course. I'll post more about this later in a separate thread.

Oh yeah, by the way, Moussavi has the blood of 4000 people on his hands, whose executions he signed when he was in power after the revolution. As for Ahmadinejad, nothing more needs to be said about him.

Pawn Power

12th June 2009, 20:08

Robert Fisk: Iran's old guard are poised to crush any hope of revolution (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-irans-old-guard-are-poised-to-crush-any-hope-of-revolution-1703225.html)

Devrim

12th June 2009, 21:10

(of course, Israel is an imperialist state and Iran is not, which creates some difference, but I was just making an analogy)

Of course not. Iran never had imperialist ambitions on the territory of neighbouring states and never funded militias in foreign countries.

Devrim

Andrei Kuznetsov

12th June 2009, 21:14

never funded militias in foreign countries

Devrim yoldaş:

While I agree Iran is certainly NOT an imperialist country... umm.. what about Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Shiite militias that fought against Saddam in the 80's and 90's?

Wanted Man

12th June 2009, 21:18

Devrim yoldaş:

While I agree Iran is certainly NOT an imperialist country... umm.. what about Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Shiite militias that fought against Saddam in the 80's and 90's?
He was being sarcastic.

LZ: sad news about the demo, the way the pigs intervened. I guess diplomatic statements about the regime in Iran are fine and dandy, as is calling for imperialist intervention, but demonstrations proposing a working class alternative need to be crushed. :(

Devrim

12th June 2009, 21:28

Yehuda Stern

12th June 2009, 22:37

Of course not. Iran never had imperialist ambitions on the territory of neighbouring states and never funded militias in foreign countries.

Of course, having imperialist ambitions and funding foreign political organizations is a trademark of an imperialist state. (See? we can all be sarcastic. It doesn't really make you that sophisticated)

In imperialist countries though, liberal parties tend to be ever so slightly better to their domestic populations. I'm definitely not an expert in Israeli politics, but in Canada it is certainly better when the Liberal Party is in power than when the Conservative Party is in power (yes, the names are actually that).

I think that assumption is false. Can you show in any way that Canada under the liberals is better than under the conservatives?

Led Zeppelin

12th June 2009, 23:45

LZ: sad news about the demo, the way the pigs intervened. I guess diplomatic statements about the regime in Iran are fine and dandy, as is calling for imperialist intervention, but demonstrations proposing a working class alternative need to be crushed. :(

I actually thought that was very ironic. Here the government is saying that Iran is a dictatorship and there's no democracy, freedom of speech, of assembly or any other democratic right in place there, and then they pretty much deny us those same rights...

I also find it ironic how much they went out of their way to defend the embassy and the precious "election process" from us evil and scary demonstrators who are protesting the existence of the very same regime they they claim to be opposed to.

This proves that the ruling class doesn't give a shit about true equality, freedom and democracy in Iran. If you are calling for those things while tying them to reality, i.e., to social revolution, then you're proposing something even worse.

However, if you are calling for those things while tying them to pro-business, pro-European or pro-American garbage, i.e., wishing the current "bad exploiters" to be replaced by "good exploiters", there's no problem and you're a "freedum fighter".

As I said, the whole thing's a farce.

Black Sheep

13th June 2009, 00:39

no it is my prayer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of the great men of our time
You are either extremely ignorant or you'll enjoy your restriction/ban.

el_chavista

13th June 2009, 04:48

You are either extremely ignorant or you'll enjoy your restriction/ban.Why? Just for cheering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Perhaps he is an Iranian, and besides M. A. seems to be the winner in the Iranian elections.

Saorsa

13th June 2009, 05:47

Why? Just for cheering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Perhaps he is an Iranian, and besides M. A. seems to be the winner in the Iranian elections.

For cheering for a murderous, anti-worker scumbag who is counter-revolutionary and reactionary to his very core.

Revy

13th June 2009, 06:28

Looks like Ahmadinejad won anyway.

How many people boycotted the election? That is what I'd like to know. Perhaps they did the right thing. These kind of undemocratic elections won't change the Islamic system. Mousavi might not have changed much anyway....not much changed under Khatami, in fact.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

13th June 2009, 09:14

It's a shame the Communists didn't win in 1979.
The Revolution actually started with rebellion from the Communists.

h0m0revolutionary

13th June 2009, 09:28

It's a shame the Communists didn't win in 1979.
The Revolution actually started with rebellion from the Communists.

Not true comrade

It was the islamists (via the ulama) and the Bazarri (artisans, money-lenders, retailers etc.) that initiated the revolution, having fallen out of favour with the Shah. The left was late to the struggle, and once there they were almost exclusively useless. The two largest left groups, the Tudeh and the Fedaiyan (it later split into the Minority who opposed such collusion and thew Majority) for example collaberated with Komeini and as a consequence saw strikes banned in 1980 and by 1981 saw the Pasdaran routing out all workers councils and crushing leftist groups. By this time the only leftist opposition to the Islamic Republic was Fed minority and Kurdish guerrillas.

As for the Iranian elections, BBC says that "With 80% of the vote counted, the commission said Mr Ahmadinejad had 65% support." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm)

Early into the voting (with about 20% of cast votes counted) Ahmadinejad had about 70%, so right away this was a fraud. The three other Presidential contestants are united in their belief that this election is a fraud!

There are reports right accross the country of people being coerced to vote for Ahmadinejad, spoilt ballots being considered valid votes for the President and there is even a report that Karoubi's (a candidate form the Conservative faction of the Islamic theocracy) supporters checked the box where Karoubi voted and found not a single vote for Karoubi, surely he would of voted for himself!!

Sad day for Iranians the world over :(.

Revy

13th June 2009, 09:34

So there could have been election fraud?

I'd imagine that there will be a lot of struggle now.

Maybe it's time for a "new 1979" 30 years on? In 1979 they went from a monarchy to a republic, but now they can go from an Islamic republic to a more democratic republic, and socialism of course, preferably.

Guerrilla22

13th June 2009, 11:25

Looks like Ahmadinejad actually ran away with the election. Either way the US media won't be disapointed. Now they can run stories about how undemocratic Iran is, as opposed to stories about how democracy in Iran is increasing if Mousavi had won.

Asoka89

13th June 2009, 13:59

Commentary on the election results: http://theactivist.org/blog/ahmadinejad-triumphs

Here's the money passages:

Ahmadinejad was supported by the rural poor, the urban working class and conservative elements within Iran’s clerical elite. His opponents not only criticized his defiant foreign policy, but also his government’s state-interventionist spending of oil wealth. During the election campaign Mousavi proposed an austerity program to try to curtail inflation and reinvigorate economic growth, obviously at the expense, short-term at least, of the most economically depressed members of Iranian society.

...

I’m not going to applaud the election results, which were undoubtedly a blow against the Obama-brand of hegemony and a display of elementary class consciousness by Iranian workers, due to my natural sympathies for the progressive forces within the Iranian youth that threw their hope and energy behind Moussavi’s campaign.

It’s my humble (and ultimately irrelevant) hope that the feminist and secularist Iranian students don’t get discouraged and become depoliticized by this result. Instead they need to renew agitation and organization independently of the Iranian political system. In a “democratic” system as illiberal as Iran’s it’s clear that any real change will have to happen in civil society and not in the electoral sphere. This change only has the chance of gaining the support of working-class Iranians if it doesn’t wed itself to neoliberal economic dogma. Certainly progressive forces in Iran have a rich revolutionary legacy to look back upon for inspiration.

Led Zeppelin

13th June 2009, 14:46

Not true comrade

It was the islamists (via the ulama) and the Bazarri (artisans, money-lenders, retailers etc.) that initiated the revolution, having fallen out of favour with the Shah. The left was late to the struggle, and once there they were almost exclusively useless. The two largest left groups, the Tudeh and the Fedaiyan (it later split into the Minority who opposed such collusion and thew Majority) for example collaberated with Komeini and as a consequence saw strikes banned in 1980 and by 1981 saw the Pasdaran routing out all workers councils and crushing leftist groups. By this time the only leftist opposition to the Islamic Republic was Fed minority and Kurdish guerrillas.

What are you talking about?

Various communist movements were fighting against the Shah's dictatorial regime for decades before the Islamist movement gained steam and eventually hijacked the revolution by means of distortion, falsification and lies. For example, during and right after the revolution Khomeini did not hold absolute power and claimed that he was in favor of a multi-party system wherein communist parties would be allowed to have freedom of assembly, speech, press etc. This resulted in the communist movement growing immensely during and after the revolution (the streets were filled with passionate discussions about the nature of the revolution, socialism, what to do next etc.). The Fedaian (before the split) held a major rally in Teheran in which hundreds of thousands of people participated.

Khomeini made empty promises like "every penny from oil-sales will go straight in your pockets!", a populist windbag, which sadly a lot of people fell for (including a lot of communists, for they thought he was good for the time being given his "stance on anti-imperialism").

And I have no idea why you are talking about "Bazarri", which means in Farsi "store-owners". They did not "lead the revolution" or even play a decisive role in it. The industrial workers and especially the oil-workers did.

The left was not "late to the struggle" at all, they were fighting that struggle since the 20's and even before. They were the ones who started that struggle to begin with.

Guerrilla22

13th June 2009, 15:38

LZ is correct, the revolution was a collobration of many different groups, and ended up being hijacked by the Islamist.

Asoka89

13th June 2009, 17:03

If it was hijacked it was the Stalinist's fault for working with them to brutally destroy all political opposition as the junior partner in the making of a theocratic state. Then of course the left forces themselves were destroyed.

The real losers were the youth and working class forces that occupied their factories and created organs of worker's powers that the official CP did not embrace. Instead they made opportunist alliances with radical-right forces.

Killfacer

13th June 2009, 17:46

So, back on track. Did he fix the results? There's rioting going on and the moment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098896.stm

Asoka89

13th June 2009, 17:49

it's hard to say there were LOTS of irregularities, it wasn't a transparent election. That being said some pre-polling had him ahead, so a victory by him wouldn't have been that out of the question.

Definately some tampering happened, but how much? Was it 30 percent worth? I tend to think not. Hopefully these protests become a widespread movement against the whole Iranian state, but I doubt it.

Devrim

13th June 2009, 19:55

And I have no idea why you are talking about "Bazarri", which means in Farsi "store-owners". They did not "lead the revolution" or even play a decisive role in it. The industrial workers and especially the oil-workers did.

Oil workers did play a massivly important role in the Iranian revolution, but that does not mean that the 'Bazar' was powerless.

The 'Bazar' alongside the urban poor, as opposed to the working class, was the main basis of support of the Islamicists.

It did have a very important role.

Devrim

Led Zeppelin

13th June 2009, 20:51

Oil workers did play a massivly important role in the Iranian revolution, but that does not mean that the 'Bazar' was powerless.

The 'Bazar' alongside the urban poor, as opposed to the working class, was the main basis of support of the Islamicists.

It did have a very important role.

First of all can we please stop calling capitalists "Bazar" or "Bazari", it just comes over as oriental and mystical when it's really not. I know you weren't the first person to bring this up so I'm not criticizing you for it.

Anyway, the capitalists and petty-bourgeois were actually the most reactionary elements of society and very anti-revolutionary. They were pro-Shah given his white revolution, which was basically an impetus to capitalist growth. Obviously when balance of power was shifting to the workers they chose the side of the liberals and to a far lesser degree the Islamists (mostly the liberals though, so you're wrong when you say that they were the main backers of the Islamists). The liberals and Islamists formed the first government based on this "unholy alliance". The urban poor and especially the peasantry were the main backers of the Islamists.

The rest is history of course. The liberals were ousted from government, most of them were exiled or killed, and a lot of companies that refused to co-operate were taken over by the state.

Devrim

13th June 2009, 21:08

First of all can we please stop calling capitalists "Bazar" or "Bazari", it just comes over as oriental and mystical when it's really not. I know you weren't the first person to bring this up so I'm not criticizing you for it.

It doesn't come across like that to me. We have the same word in Turkish 'pazar'. It is where I go to buy my vegetables. It doesn't come across as mystical at all.

I think though that it does represent a particular part of the bourgeoisie. When we talk about the 'bazar' we do not mean the big industrial bourgeoisie, but rather a specific section more based on trade or commerce.

Devrim

Devrim

13th June 2009, 21:09

Oh someone just called me from Tehran. There is mass rioting going on.

Devrim

Led Zeppelin

13th June 2009, 21:16

It doesn't come across like that to me. We have the same word in Turkish 'pazar'. It is where I go to buy my vegetables. It doesn't come across as mystical at all.

Devrim, I know it doesn't to you, to me it doesn't either because I know what it means. But when someone from "the west" says "Bazar" or "Bazari" and then doesn't really seem to know what it means or what they are talking about it gives off that impression.

Oh someone just called me from Tehran. There is mass rioting going on.

What else did they say? Any extra information on attacks against the riot police or revolutionary guards?

I remember when I was there some years back, people were scared to do anything in public, especially at night. Those disgusting Basiji (some religious group funded by the government to terrorize the populace) rode around on their motorcycles and everyone was in fear of them, scared that they might stop you because your headscarf was worn in a "too revealing fashion" or because you were holding hands with your girlfriend or boyfriend.

Now they are burning their motorcycles! It is beautiful. People's justice.

Nakidana

13th June 2009, 23:53

So far I've seen no evidence of fraud put forward. All we've got is the opposition and Western media screaming "stolen election!". According to this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/iranian-election) article:

there were two separate governmental election monitors in addition to observers from each camp to prevent mass voter fraud.
And, it goes on:

The sentimental implausibility of Ahmedinejad's victory that Mousavi's supporters set forth as the evidence of state corruption must be met by the equal implausibility that such widespread corruption could take place under clear daylight. So, until hard evidence emerges that can substantiate the claims of the opposition camp we need to look to other reasons to explain why so many are stunned by the day's events
Until real evidence is put forward I'm not going to jump on the Western media "omgz Iran nuclear conservative amejinejad fraud...poor Iranians so oppressed OH THE HUMANITY!" bandwagon. Fact of the matter is mass rallies have taken place in Iran for both sides. Young and old, male and female have take to the streets to cheer for their respective candidates much in the same way as in Western liberal democracies.

It is true, there has been fraud, and it has been going on for years: the exaggerated lies of Iran as "hell on earth" by Western mainstream media. Nobody is saying Iran is as liberal as Western democracies, but when you see scores of women in Iran outside on the street campaigning with their hijabs halfway off it kind of leaves you wondering.

Ahmadinejad has according to many reports held HUGE rallies with so many people showing up he couldn't even get in to speak. As has been pointed out by posts in this thread he apparently gets his support from the poor and working class. He also has a fairly humble background, stance against corruption and supports a health system for the poor.

With such information in hand is it really that hard to accept that he won? That most opposition to Ahmadinejad was found among the upper middle class students in Tehran, and that the rest of the country was actually fairly supportive of him?

I think a lot of people in Iran are appreciative of his rhetoric and his firm stance on the right of Iran to nuclear power. I don't find the result that surprising. But we'll see how the aftermath works out.

Oh, and the Western media whining about riot police can go fuck themselves. Western governments wouldn't hesitate a single second before sending in the pigs if people were burning off tires in the streets in their country. Hypocritical fuckers.

Led Zeppelin

13th June 2009, 23:56

gorillafuck

13th June 2009, 23:57

Is there evidence it was a stolen election or just speculation?

Nakidana

14th June 2009, 00:20

What is the point in calling yourself a socialist or communist if you support bourgeois candidates in bourgeois elections?

Right, there is none.

But I'm sorry to interrupt your tirade against evil "Western media" while supporting the hero of the free people of Iran Ahmadinejad.

Please continue.

Everyone HOLDING your horses it's mr. r-r-r-r-revolutionary! Here's a radical suggestion: take your mainstream media and stick it where the sun don't shine!

They don't give a shit about you or the people of Iran. All they care about is the bomb. Oh, and the hijab of course, for God's sake don't forget that evil symbol of oppression. Fuck economics and healthcare, they're forced to wear the fucking hijab!

I didn't express any support for Ahmadinejad in my post. I hope he improves the conditions for the poor and working class people of the country. If he doesn't then the people will take it upon themselves.

Led Zeppelin

14th June 2009, 00:32

Is there evidence it was a stolen election or just speculation?

Mousavi claims there's evidence but none has been presented as of yet.

It doesn't matter at all though. It's like wondering whether there were irregularities with voting in the last US presidential elections or something. The point of it is to draw people in the spectacle of the bourgeois election process.

What's interesting is what the Mousavi supporters, who aren't "upper middle-class students" like the above stooge said, but who are the people who voted for change, however limited they knew it would be (even though there would be no positive change at all to begin with), will do when they go beyond Mousavi and his reactionary and conservative platform.

We should be supporting that movement as much as we can and work with them as much as we can, because it can be the beginning of a general workers' movement that can sweep the reactionary system away and put something revolutionary in its place.

Attacking that movement is the most idiotic thing one can do. It's like if the Bolsheviks attacked the workers of Petrograd when they were striking and rioting because they were "upper middle class students acting in the pay of Western governments!"

I didn't express any support for Ahmadinejad in my post.

Yes you did:

Ahmadinejad has according to many reports held HUGE rallies with so many people showing up he couldn't even get in to speak.

[...]

As has been pointed out by posts in this thread he apparently gets his support from the poor and working class. He also has a fairly humble background, stance against corruption and supports a health system for the poor.

With such information in hand is it really that hard to accept that he won? That most opposition to Ahmadinejad was found among the upper middle class students in Tehran, and that the rest of the country was actually fairly supportive of him?

I think a lot of people in Iran are appreciative of his rhetoric and his firm stance on the right of Iran to nuclear power. I don't find the result that surprising.

Now, I could say that you're one of those people who is himself a white upper-middle class student in some Western "imperialist" country and therefore feels the need to boost his revolutionary credentials by posing as a defender of the poor brown folk in the "third world". It's pretty easy to analyze the social background of people from behind your computer, but it doesn't really mean anything if you don't know the facts.

Anything the media says about those places is considered a lie. You can see right through that propaganda. Just tune in on the Iranian media for the truth because there's no propaganda there. Sorry but that is not the case. Both sides have propaganda and both sides are not to be believed.

Only the side of the workers' movement is to be believed because they have no incentive or reason to lie about their real situation.

Random Precision

14th June 2009, 01:58

Trashed the flamefest/oneliner posts by LZ and Malangyar. You can both consider yourselves warned for flaming.

Led Zeppelin

14th June 2009, 02:47

The slogan "Death to the Shah!" has now turned into "Death to the dictator!". I don't want to come over as overtly optimistic but these are wonderful signs. It's stunning, truly stunning to see the power of the people in practice. Just days ago they were afraid to even chant moderate slogans or even demonstrate at all, and now....DEATH TO THE DICTATOR!!

This is why I am a Marxist. Because I know what power the working-class truly possesses when it awakens from its slumber.

benhur

14th June 2009, 06:49

OMG, there's no pleasing the leftists here! If there are no elections in Iran (or any Islamic country, for that matter), we accuse them of being undemocratic. If they do have elections, we brush them aside as 'bourgeois.'

If a fearless anti-imperialist leader wins, we ignore this vital fact (that he's an anti-imperialist) and focus exclusively on 'other' matters. If a western stooge wins, Iran could well become a playground for imperialists...but these facts aren't important for 'leftists' here.

zimmerwald1915

14th June 2009, 07:56

OMG, there's no pleasing the leftists here! If there are no elections in Iran (or any Islamic country, for that matter), we accuse them of being undemocratic. If they do have elections, we brush them aside as 'bourgeois.'
Oh, so we have to ignore the facts to make you feel better? The fact is that Iran is a capitalist country, where the bourgeoisie is the dominant class, that the Islamic Republic is thus a capitalist state, and that the elections held to determine which bourgeois faction holds what position in it are a contemptable fraud upon the working class. I see nothing whatsoever wrong - or specifically anti-Islam, which you seem to be implying - with pointing these things out. Communists point such things out in western bourgeois states; to refrain from doing so vis a vis a non-western bourgeois state smacks of pandering and ultimately of lack of character.

[/rant]

Leo

14th June 2009, 09:42

From things that I've read about the events in Iran, such as the fact that the demonstrators called for the overthrow of the entire clerical regime with all its factions and following Mousavi's call for calm them shouting slogans like "Mousavi, give us our votes back", I would say that it would be wrong to see the demonstrators as Mousavists despite possibly many of them voted for Mousavi. Here's two articles on the events with lots of pictures:

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_13.html
http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranriot-in-tehran-streets-after.html

It doesn't come across like that to me. We have the same word in Turkish 'pazar'. It is where I go to buy my vegetables. An interesting piece of information: it also means Sunday... yeah...

ComradeR

14th June 2009, 13:02

Pogue

14th June 2009, 13:05

Ahmadinejad has according to many reports held HUGE rallies with so many people showing up he couldn't even get in to speak. As has been pointed out by posts in this thread he apparently gets his support from the poor and working class. He also has a fairly humble background, stance against corruption and supports a health system for the poor.

He also hates Jews, but I'm sure we can ignore that based on principles of 'anti-Imperialism'. He's a capitalist politician, he is by nature corrupt.

Asoka89

14th June 2009, 13:22

He also hates Jews, but I'm sure we can ignore that based on principles of 'anti-Imperialism'. He's a capitalist politician, he is by nature corrupt.

He hates Jews? Where do you get that information from? I certainly don't know what for sure. The jewish-iranian community has a few MPs in Iran and certainly don't claim any repression?

Please elucidate!

Led Zeppelin

14th June 2009, 13:56

It surprises me to see leftists supporting one bourgeois group over another be it Ahmadinejad or the reformists. And I fear that what is happening now in Iran is an attempt to overthrow an anti-western bourgeois regime in order to install a pro-western one i.e. a so called "color revolution", which is why I don't understand the support for the riots.

So let's not support the demonstrators who are fighting for progressive demands and rights, and let's also not support the bourgeois factions, but let's....do nothing. I know that's the easy way out an it probably eases the conscious of a lot of people who believe that no movement can ever be "right" if it isn't purely socialist, because they see these movements as something static, something fixed in time.

Actually that's not the case at all. There is a big difference between the "color revolutions" and what is happening in Iran right now. The "color revolutions" called for changes in rulers, while a section of the demonstrators now are calling for overthrowing the rulers and the entire system that currently exists (and the demands are becoming more and more radical by the day).

The difference is key. Color revolutions end up staying within the limits of capitalism and the system that is in place. Was the state-system changed in any of the nations which went through a so-called "color revolution" (which was basically a late reaction to the old rulers that still hung around from Soviet days)? No, the system stayed exactly the same. Not only that, the parties and leaders that were ousted by it before are now making great political gains, and it wouldn't be a surprise if they ended up back in power soon (in Georgia for example). What happened there was that the old bourgeois leaders didn't feel like adhering to the bourgeois democracy they themselves set up, so a couple people needed to be put on the streets by opposing bourgeois factions to force them to abide by it, and when they did the ordeal was over. There wasn't any threat that the movement would turn into an anti-capitalist movement.

That's not a revolution, nor is it any "big deal". That's the bourgeoisie wanting bourgeois democracy to be bourgeois democracy, and that movement never broke out of that rut nor were there any signs that it would.

This time it's different, as I said. This time we have signs that say the movement is developing rapidly from a "my bourgeois leader was better than yours" type of football match, a term Ahmadinejad used, to a movement that is against the rotten system itself. It is idealist to imagine that the system that is in place now can simply reform itself, and that is why calls for its destruction are made and why the movement has a great chance of becoming radicalized (indeed from the signs we are seeing that is already happening).

For these reasons I believe that writing the movement off as "just another pro-western color revolution" is shortsighted, sorry.

As for benhur, his anti-worker idiocy has been known for a long time, there's no point in replying to him. Find me a reactionary position and I'll find you a benhur post that advocates it.

Nakidana

14th June 2009, 14:10

Yes you did:

No, I didn't. Those statements are fact. It is an explanation of why he won such a landslide victory in the elections.

I mean what am I supposed to do, lie? He did hold huge rallies and he is from a working class background.

I said I think a lot of people in Iran are supportive of him. I stand by that statement and believe the elections showed it.

Anything the media says about those places is considered a lie.

I did not try to insinuate that all and everything that Western mainstream media writes about Iran is false. I wrote that they exaggerated lies about Iran, and I stand by that statement. They lie about Iran not because they care about its people, but because they care about the contry's nuclear program and the safety of Israel (an absurd notion really, i.e. that Israel is threatened by Iran).

I'm frankly surprised you label my post a "tirade" against the media. Do you disagree that it lies? Do you disagree that it almost always spouts out the propaganda of the ruling classes, except, of course, when the dissent takes place in the enemy camp?

As I said, hypocritical fuckers.

Just tune in on the Iranian media for the truth because there's no propaganda there.

Come off it. :closedeyes:

He also hates Jews, but I'm sure we can ignore that based on principles of 'anti-Imperialism'. He's a capitalist politician, he is by nature corrupt.

Evidence please.

No reactionary traits should be ignored, but if Iran is bombed and invaded by the US or Israel then I hope Iran defeats the imperialist aggression. Such a defeat will weaken the ruling classes in the imperialist countries and thus make our job easier.

Until such an attack occurs, I feel no obligation to support the regime and its reactionary traits, just as I see no obligation to support the bourgeois system in the Western countries. That said, it's better than under the Shah. Hopefully genuine progressive revolt carried out by Iranians can change the system further.

Oh, and I have no qualms going on about the hypocrisy of Western mainstream media. It's anti-working class to the core, Islamophobic and utterly despicable.

Led Zeppelin

14th June 2009, 14:20

No, I didn't. Those statements are fact. It is an explanation of why he won such a landslide victory in the elections.

I mean what am I supposed to do, lie? He did hold huge rallies and he is from a working class background.

It is not an explanation for why he won the bourgeois elections. If I said that the poor and working-classes supported Obama and that's why he won the elections I'd be wrong as well.

The reason I would be wrong is because the entire system of bourgeois democracy is a sham. The system perverts and distorts the will of the masses in a large variety of ways, such as the media, the education system, propaganda, etc.

Is it really in the interests of the workers and poor in the United States to have Obama as their leader, or take-over power themselves? Is it really in the interests of the workers and poor in Iran to have Ahmadinejad as their leader, or take-over power themselves?

The latter is the case in both instances because in both instances we are dealing with bourgeois leaders in bourgeois democratic systems.

Oh and yes he may have a working-class background, but so does Obama, and so do many current bourgeois presidents and prime-ministers who are in office. His background doesn't say anything about his current class position, which is indicated by his position as president of a capitalist nation. Same applies to Obama. I wouldn't say that his working-class background was or is a positive trait given his current actions, I don't know why you do want to say the same for Ahmadinejad (who is responsible for the execution and arrests of many unionists, activists and other working-class people who stood up against him).

I did not try to insinuate that all and everything that Western mainstream media writes about Iran is false. I wrote that they exaggerated lies about Iran, and I stand by that statement. They lie about Iran not because they care about its people, but because they care about the contry's nuclear program and the safety of Israel (an absurd notion really, i.e. that Israel is threatened by Iran).

I know there are exaggerations and lies, but that doesn't mean that everything the media says must be dismissed as an exaggeration or lie, nor does it mean that we must have false illusions about their motives. I'm not saying that the west cares about the Iran and its people or that the western media does, obviously it doesn't.

One example of me not buying into western media nonsense; the nuclear weapons development program issue. Iran is not doing any such thing as the IAEA has repeatedly said. Yet still the media in the US and the US government claim they have such a program. It's a lie.

However, the people of Iran care about themselves and socialists care about the people of Iran as well. So when there's a movement that is putting forth radical demands for changing the rotten system, the media may report on it and perhaps lie about it for their own reasons, but we mustn't follow their lead and believe whatever they say. We must draw our own conclusions based on the facts.

Devrim and Leo live in Turkey and Devrim knows people in Tehran, as do I. These people who live there have told us that some of the demands that are being put forth by the demonstrators are progressive and are for a change in the system. I do not base myself on what the media and their journalists say, I base myself on raw footage that's posted on the internet of the demonstrators and knowing what they are chanting and calling for. I also base myself on what the people I know who live there are telling me.

The Ungovernable Farce

14th June 2009, 16:52

I mean what am I supposed to do, lie? He did hold huge rallies and he is from a working class background.
His background is irrelevant. His class position now is what matters. And he is clearly a vicious representative of the Iranian ruling class.

I said I think a lot of people in Iran are supportive of him.
And a lot of people in the US are supportive of Obama. A lot of people in the UK are supportive of Cameron. Should we oppose them any less?

Do you disagree that it almost always spouts out the propaganda of the ruling classes, except, of course, when the dissent takes place in the enemy camp?
I don't disagree with that. I just don't think that always opposing the ruling classes, except, of course, when the dissent takes place in the enemy camp, is much more helpful.

Oh, and I have no qualms going on about the hypocrisy of Western mainstream media. It's anti-working class to the core, Islamophobic and utterly despicable.
True. But it's hypocritical to go on about it without acknowledging that Iranian media is every bit as anti-working class and despicable (if a bit less Islamophobic, for obvious reasons).

Nakidana

14th June 2009, 19:46

It is not an explanation for why he won the bourgeois elections. If I said that the poor and working-classes supported Obama and that's why he won the elections I'd be wrong as well.

The reason I would be wrong is because the entire system of bourgeois democracy is a sham. The system perverts and distorts the will of the masses in a large variety of ways, such as the media, the education system, propaganda, etc.

Of course it's an explanation. The reason he won was because many working class and poor people supported him, i.e. they voted for him. They saw him as an incorruptible man of the poor who didn't bow down to US imperialism. No doubt his working class background helped him.

Why did they view him as a man of such stature? Well that's another discussion.

Why did Hamas win the elections in Palestine? Because people wanted an end to the corruption of Fatah. Why did Chavez win in Venezuela? Because people appreciated his anti-American rhetoric and support for the poor. Why did Obama win in the US? Because people wanted change and he was a change (he was also spouting out the word every other second while campaigning).

Elections are a sham, can't be denied. The candidates say one thing while campaigning but don't follow up on it when in office, but people still vote for them based on their rhetoric and background and that's why they win.

The media plays a huge role in the election process as well, but you should talk to Chomsky about that.

Is it really in the interests of the workers and poor in the United States to have Obama as their leader, or take-over power themselves? Is it really in the interests of the workers and poor in Iran to have Ahmadinejad as their leader, or take-over power themselves?

The latter is the case in both instances because in both instances we are dealing with bourgeois leaders in bourgeois democratic systems.

It's more in the interests of the workers in, for example, the US to have Obama as president compared to McCain. Compared to revolution and overthrow of the capitalist system, of course not. But I never claimed that anyway.

Oh and yes he may have a working-class background, but so does Obama, and so do many current bourgeois presidents and prime-ministers who are in office. His background doesn't say anything about his current class position, which is indicated by his position as president of a capitalist nation. Same applies to Obama. I wouldn't say that his working-class background was or is a positive trait given his current actions, I don't know why you do want to say the same for Ahmadinejad (who is responsible for the execution and arrests of many unionists, activists and other working-class people who stood up against him).

I consider having a working class background to be a good thing compared to, for example, having a bourgeois background. If I had to choose between two guys, and I didn't know anything about their politics but I knew one of them had a working class background I'd choose him. Simply based on the fact that, having a working class upbringing, he might be more sympathetic to working class politics.

The point I was trying to make in my post though was that because Ahmadinejad was of working class upbringing poor and working class people were more supportive of him.

His background is irrelevant. His class position now is what matters. And he is clearly a vicious representative of the Iranian ruling class.

See above.

And a lot of people in the US are supportive of Obama. A lot of people in the UK are supportive of Cameron. Should we oppose them any less?

We should acknowledge why they are supportive of said candidates and try to convince them otherwise. If they campaign for reactionary causes, yes, we should oppose them. :closedeyes:

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think that always opposing the ruling classes, except, of course, when the dissent takes place in the enemy camp, is much more helpful.

I oppose the regime in Iran and hope they create a communist revolution with red flags. And cake. :closedeyes:

But the regime is still better than the regime under the Shah. ;)

True. But it's hypocritical to go on about it without acknowledging that Iranian media is every bit as anti-working class and despicable (if a bit less Islamophobic, for obvious reasons).

No it's not. I can complain about Western bourgeois media all I want. Why would I need to denounce all the other bourgeois media on the planet to justify that? How does it make me a hypocrite? I can understand how I would be hypocritical if I was praising bourgeois Iranian media for publishing lies while denouncing the same lies in Western media...but I'm not.

I don't even read or watch Iranian bourgeois media so what do you want me to base my acknowledgement on? If you read and watch Iranian news, go ahead and denounce any lies I'm not holding you back.

My rant on the Western mainstream media still stands. They're hypocritical fuckers that will take any and all opportunities to denounce working class movements in their respective countries.

Al Jazeera has pretty good coverage though.

Pogue

14th June 2009, 20:13

Of course he is anti-semetic, he's a fucking holocaust denier.

Asoka89

14th June 2009, 23:08

CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING I SAID IN MY ARTICLE:

This election was a fraud, an utter and complete fraud regardless of what you think of the man read this http://www.juancole.com/ it makes sense considering the things i've heard from the ground in Iran.

It wouldnt matter whether he was elected or not, leftists would support the politicization of the Iranian people (protests)

Kukulofori

15th June 2009, 00:44

http://twitter.com/Change_for_Iran http://twitter.com/persiankiwi http://twitter.com/fstop23

Revy

15th June 2009, 02:56

Led Zeppelin

15th June 2009, 03:55

by "dictator" do they mean Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollah?

I believe that for the time being they are aiming it mainly at Ahmadinejad, at least some sections of the demonstrators are. But in essence they are aiming it at Khamenei as well because he's the one who supported Ahamadinejad's "re-election" and thereby legitimized it.

I have set up a Facebook group, everyone join and invited all your friends to join as well: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=226150525472

Pawn Power

15th June 2009, 19:01

Hitchens: Don't call what happened in Iran last week an election. (http://www.slate.com/id/2220520/)

( R )evolution

15th June 2009, 19:14

I believe that for the time being they are aiming it mainly at Ahmadinejad, at least some sections of the demonstrators are. But in essence they are aiming it at Khamenei as well because he's the one who supported Ahamadinejad's "re-election" and thereby legitimized it.

Do you really believe that they are aiming for Khamenei, as well?

My impression is that Khamenei still holds an immense amount of support and respect from the people even though he supports Ahamadinejad. That doesn’t mean that the movement cant progress to that point, but at this time I believe it is solely confronting the fraud charges of the election and Ahamadinejad.

I feel the same excitement as you LZ but I hope the movement can get more worker focused than just opposition to charges of election fraud.

( R )evolution

15th June 2009, 19:36

Further, I am not sure if you guys are aware of how the electoral process works in Iran but it is a complete and utter joke.

In western countries the illusion of fair, free, and truly democratic elections is maintained through a program of propaganda and lies which starts in elementary school. To the majority of people the democratic system is seen as the fair way to get their needs and objections with government handled but in reality the state is an arm of the bourgeois and arose because of the antagonisms between classes. So thus little if anything is every created through the government which actually help the worker. But nonetheless there still exists this illusion that the democratic process can create fundamental change. One of the things we need before revolution is the majority of people recognizing that true change cannot come through the parameters of the current system.

In Iran however, the corruption of the democratic process is much more apparent. Khamenei basically chooses who is allowed to run, thus any candidate who is elected does not represent change of the status quo but rather another face of those in power.

In February 2004 Parliament elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Majlis_election,_2004), the Council of Guardians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Guardians), a council of twelve members, half of whom are appointed by Khamenei, disqualified thousands of candidates, including many of the reformist members of the parliament and all the candidates of the Islamic Iran Participation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Iran_Participation_Front) party from running. It did not allow 80 members of the 6th Iranian parliament (including the deputy speaker) to run in the election. The conservatives won about 70% of the seats.

Hopefully those in resistance right now can make this movement not only about the obvious election fraud but also the entire system of fraud!

Stranger Than Paradise

15th June 2009, 20:42

Even if the other guy gets in the election is still a fraud. There is nothing democratic about bourgeois elections. Either way the working class of Iran are fucked.

Led Zeppelin

16th June 2009, 02:29

Do you really believe that they are aiming for Khamenei, as well?

The Iranian people are aware that the system is dictatorial. When they say "death to the dictator", and they are just referring to Ahmadinejad, that wouldn't make any sense.

A recent poll conducted indicated that one of the top concerns of Iranians was the undemocratic nature of the political process, that is, the fact that the "supreme leader" is not subject to democratic elections.

Though there is a tendency in the Mousavi crowd which believes that Ahmadinejad has "fooled" the supreme leader into supporting him and is planning to overthrow him or some other such nonsense. It's not surprising that this tendency only arose as a serious one after the elections and those "death to the dictator!" chants were widely heard. It is merely part of the process of co-opting which that crowd is now trying to do as hard as they can.

My impression is that Khamenei still holds an immense amount of support and respect from the people even though he supports Ahamadinejad. That doesn’t mean that the movement cant progress to that point, but at this time I believe it is solely confronting the fraud charges of the election and Ahamadinejad.

I feel the same excitement as you LZ but I hope the movement can get more worker focused than just opposition to charges of election fraud.

My excitement doesn't create any illusions.

I have stated the same sentiments as you before:

Time will tell though, time will tell. Don't get your hopes up, but don't lose hope either.

[...]

I don't want to come over as overtly optimistic but these are wonderful signs.

Etc. so I agree with you entirely about the movement needing to focus more on workers' issues, and hope it will as well. :)

Labor Shall Rule

16th June 2009, 03:46

I'd like to see some accessible evidence to the claims that you are making, LZ. The official voices in the established media are quick to point a thousand fingers at the alleged fraudulence of their elections, even if they never say anything about the false pro-western "democracies" that are installed by the orders of the United States. Earlier this spring, Obama and senior European diplomats discussed how they hoped a "moderate" (i.e. a neoliberal) would win the June 12 presidential elections. Mousavi is their guy: in clear opposition to the populist policies of his opponent, he favors 'cost-cutting' of beneficial subsidies and other forms of aid, as well as ending price ceilings on certain commodities (such as fuel) that many poor and working people depend on. His strong focus on fighting inflation would deter economic growth and take a bite out of employment, at the expense of the working-class.

Even prior to any announcement of the results, public opinion polls conducted by TFT and KA in March and earlier this week put Admadinejad at a 34% lead to Mousavi. The high voter turnout, likewise, was concentrated in districts that are variably poor. Even 31% of Azeri voters, an historically oppressed nationality that Mousavi himself comes from, had said that they'd plan to vote for Admadinejad. It has long been ignored, but rallies that were supportive of the President have erupted throughout the weekend in full force.

Once again, I'd like to see how the Iranian left is responding to these elections. It's important to not cast judgment on these events prior to acquiring information on how revolutionaries that are there now are handling the situation as it unfolds. I'd assume that, since the president's program is undeniably popular among the poor, it would make sense to strive for greater unity around projects that he supports, so as to unite and create a wider progressive, multi-class alliance to oppose imperialism and enact wider structural reforms. The political realities of the time show that there are no militant strikes or occupations that are leading to a situation of dual power, but that pro-imperialist "reformists" are contending to grab onto the presidency.

Revy

16th June 2009, 03:57

Iranians benefiting from 10 cents for a loaf of bread and 25 cent gasoline given to them by President Ahmadinejad's government would beg to differ.

Yeah, that reminds me of high school elections, you know when someone gives out free candy for votes to be elected class president. :rolleyes: A loaf of bread (I think it was actually potatoes) ! How long is that going to last? Are they self-replicating potatoes?

These protests are not about Mousavi anymore and have become a honorable uprising against a theocratic and anti-working class regime that both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi represent.

Led Zeppelin

16th June 2009, 04:11

I'd like to see some accessible evidence to the claims that you are making, LZ. The official voices in the established media are quick to point a thousand fingers at the alleged fraudulence of their elections

You want "accessible evidence" from me but then you go right ahead and accept whatever you see on your daily news program as evidence of an imperialist plot, or whatever you see coming out of official Islamic Republic press releases as evidence of Ahamdinejhad's massive support amongst workers. Tell me, given the "who's better for poor people due to economic programmes of bourgeois leaders" analysis you just gave, did you vote for Obama? Undoubtedly his economic policies would be better for the American people than McCain's. So since you support Ahmadinejad on the same basis (which is flawed, I might add, since you know nothing of either Mousavi's or Ahmadinejad's economic programmes besides what you have probably skimmed over in official Iranian press releases, because if you had really delved into it you would have known that Mousavi has always had a more progressive economic policy which you praised earlier as a great feat for the Islamic revolution, like his policies of nationalizations and increase in social securities) did you vote for Obama as well?

Or do you draw the line with that line of reasoning at the people in whatever country you happen to not be in at the time?

I oppose both of them (and any bourgeois leader) because, surprisingly, I oppose the capitalist system internationally, not just where it looks convenient for me to oppose for the time being. That is something reactionaries do, not revolutionary internationalists.

Also, if you think that any leftist in Iran is in opposition to this movement and supports Ahmadinejad then there is no point in discussing this issue any further with you, since you have entered fantasy land.

I was hoping that given your recent posts you'd lay off the "Islamic Republic is anti-imperialist and Ahmadinejad is a hero of the poor" stuff, it's dissappointing to see that the power of official Iranian press releases, CNN and BBC has more of an influence on you than the actual movement. To be honest though I'm not really surprised at your stance given your defense of the regime earlier. The initial shock of the events must've confused you a little, and in the confusion a bit of revolutionary though entered your mind. It is too bad that after watching the hysterics on bourgeois media you were shocked out of that revolutionary way of thinking and have continued on your old path of reactionary thinking.

Seriously, calling for an alliance with Ahmadinejad? Against whom? Against Ahmadinejad? Political suicide.

We do not base our opinions of peoples' movements on what bourgeois media and leaders are telling us about them. Hell, even the Washington Post just repeated your line about the polling indicating that Ahmadinejad was strongly in the lead, does that mean that the Washington Post has now become an anti-imperialist media outlet? I personally never said that there was any evidence for voter fraud, frankly I don't care because the electoral process in Iran is a fraud to begin with. Only people who took this joke of a "democratic" process seriously to begin with care about these petty political games the bourgeois politicians in Iran are playing now.

It must be important to remember that the German media and leaders supported the Russian revolution, even helped it by allowing Lenin and other top Bolshevik leaders to pass through their territory. They did so for their own reasons, not because they had any ambitions for socialism. This lead many to condemn the Bolsheviks as "German spies" and the revolution to be a German plot.

Kinda like how now this movement is being called an imperialist CIA plot concocted by the US by some people.

I am not comparing this movement to the Russian revolution of October 1917, but did the Bolsheviks oppose the bourgeois-democratic revolution of February even though it was a movement for bourgeois-democracy and still pro-imperialist in nature? No, because if they did it would be political suicide. Also, they knew a little bit about Marxism.

redSHARP

16th June 2009, 04:20

Even if the other guy gets in the election is still a fraud. There is nothing democratic about bourgeois elections. Either way the working class of Iran are fucked.

an election that is more bullshit than the US election!

the Iranian people need to boot these reactionary leaders ASAP. many union members were hassled and arrested by the state when they asked for reforms.

Labor Shall Rule

16th June 2009, 05:47

I am not repeating lies that we are told about them, I'm repeating the truths that have been covered up: the reality is that the social base of Anmadinejad's voters is overwhelmingly working class, and they mobilized to keep him in his spot because it was in their self-perceived class interest to barricade in and not allow Mousavi to successfully "reform" (carry out a neoliberal attack on jobs, price caps, social programs) the entire country.

The Bolsheviks backed the February Revolution because they had to make temporary tactical alliances with the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. Your methodology ignores a close examination of the forces involved here, and it cries that a party or mass organization isn't "radical enough" when they don't call for socialism right away, or when they are taking a road of (what you perceive to be) class collaboration. To develop campaigns that serve to increase consciousness, as well as change the conditions of the people, you need to find allies that would create a bloc large enough to exert such political and social change in the first place. Pragmatic considerations need to come before revolutionary masturbation.

I don't see what is so bad with opposing the hypocrisy of the coverage of these elections. And I don't see how it'd hurt Iranian revolutionaries to engage those that are in daily struggles for food, jobs, cheaper utility costs that were brought it in the streets (some for the first time in their lives') to vote, in one of the highest turnouts in an election ever seen.

Revy

16th June 2009, 06:40

Probably the dumbest thing I've heard about politics. The development and consolidation of a strong state sector, more equal distribution of wealth, and expansion of social services from President Ahmadinejad's government is not a joke reminiscient of "free candy for votes". This is especially the type of bullshit peddled by the BBC and its characterization of such policies as bribes for the "naive masses".

First, it's bizarre to talk about an "anti-working class regime" when this is the same regime which nationalized private banks and insurance banks and expropriated the property of the comprador bourgeoisie. The Iranian Republic, especially under President Ahmadinejad's government, is a popular-democratic regime. By contrast, the right-opportunists in Iran strive to privatize the economy and slash subsidies.

Second, its' noteworthy that basically the only ones participating in these counter-revolutionary disturbances are the liberal bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisified, affluent young morons from northern Tehran and the universities who act as their shock troops. What you don't see are massive strikes and factory takeovers by workers in Tehrans' suburbs or actions from the peasantry. What began as a series of disturbances instigated by the right-opportunist Mousavites has seemingly been hijacked by counter-revolutionary elements with the support of foreign intelligence services. But the Iranian workers and peasants will not stand by and watch the enemies of the people overturn their hard-won gains. They endured immense difficulties in the 1980s safeguarding their revolution from counter-revolutionary forces and imperialist aggression. They will not be intimidated by a band young morons who resemble football hooligans.

In Iran socialist and communist parties are banned.
But I guess you don't care about that. Or the fact it's a theocracy.
Ahmadinejad is a CAPITALIST politician.

Labor Shall Rule

16th June 2009, 06:46

He's a capitalist politician, sure. But how is there not a difference? It seems like you are acting like Iranian workers are politically unsavvy and gullible.

If you were a rural farm worker, would you rather be paid $3 per hour or $15 per hour? The subsidies on agricultural supplies and fuel frees many capitalists of the costs of many of their inputs, and laws on a minimum wage push up the amount of surplus value that goes back into the pockets of labor. There's a difference between not having a minimum wage, subsidies, and additional social spending, and being locked out of the labor market, and having seasonal, part-time work that doesn't pay enough to support one's family.

I can see why they chose to vote the way they did.

bcbm

16th June 2009, 06:46

http://worker-communistpartyofiran.blogspot.com/2009/06/long-live-revolution-against-islamic_15.html

R_P_A_S

16th June 2009, 08:01

Agathon

16th June 2009, 10:58

If you can't see that, for better or worse, that Ahmadinejad's support comes mainly from poor and working people, then you need your head examined.

Sure, it would be nice if they had someone better, but they don't. Right now, it's a choice between a regime that suppresses socialist parties and offers limited help to the poor and one that will suppress socialist parties and screw the poor. Only the bourgeois will benefit from this revolt, because it is not a genuine people's revolt.

Asoka89

16th June 2009, 15:45

Right now, it's a choice between a regime that suppresses socialist parties and offers limited help to the poor and one that will suppress socialist parties and screw the poor. Only the bourgeois will benefit from this revolt, because it is not a genuine people's revolt.

read more on the subject before you comment. thanks.

( R )evolution

16th June 2009, 19:37

What is happening now is Khamenei is ordering a review of some of the votes that have come from places that have been said to have voting irregularities. I believe this will sadly calm down the anger and force of the mass movement. Unless the people are not satisfied with the measures that Khamenei takes to check out the charges of voting fraud, I believe the movement will slowly subside. There isn’t enough raw anger, the main issue here isn’t the oppression of the people but charges of voting fraud and having another face of the Iranian bourgeois, Mousavi, in power.

We would need to see a radicalization of events to prompt the people to change the direction from simply charges of voting fraud to targeting the entire system as a whole. For example, if the Guard shot and killed non-violent protesters, this would lead the people into further depths of resistance. I am hard pressed to see a workers movement come out of this. But we can hope :)

What this shows though is that mass movements can come about suddenly and progress rapidly. In Iran of all places, where the people are kept at bay with threats of lashings and killings by the police, have suddenly risen up and are resisting and protesting against the government. It is a great sight for any radical leftist.

Led Zeppelin

16th June 2009, 19:42

What is happening now is Khamenei is ordering a review of some of the votes that have come from places that have been said to have voting irregularities. I believe this will sadly calm down the anger and force of the mass movement. Unless the people are not satisfied with the measures that Khamenei takes to check out the charges of voting fraud, I believe the movement will slowly subside. There isn’t enough raw anger, the main issue here isn’t the oppression of the people but charges of voting fraud and having another face of the Iranian bourgeois, Mousavi, in power.

You are a bit behind. Mousavi has rejected a partial vote-recount and sticks with his demands of re-election.

Khamenei has refused it:

summarize of khamenyi's speech: as your God we say the election was good and for your own sake you should accept it.
32 minutes ago
Khamenyi speaks of unity & the threat of the enemy motivating our young people to do nasty things in streets
35 minutes ago

Check out http://riseoftheiranianpeople.wordpress.com/ for regular updates and comprehensive analysis of events (from various revolutionary leftist political ideologies).

( R )evolution

16th June 2009, 20:13

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Monday the government would conduct an investigation into the election. The move seemed intended to calm protester anger but was followed by a rally of hundreds of thousands of people that presented one of the greatest challenges to Iran's government since it took power in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. I am pretty sure this is still valid. It is from an AP article. And even if it isnt valid, nonetheless the message is out there that Khamenei will possible look into the accusations of the election. This will undoubtely stall some of the movements vigor.

Further from the link you gave me, LZ

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSEVA14340720090616) – Iran’s top legislative body on Tuesday ruled out annulling a disputed presidential poll that has prompted the biggest street protests since the 1979 Islamic revolution, but said it was prepared for a partial recount.
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/iran.elections.protests/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) – Iran’s election authority has agreed to recount some votes in the disputed presidential election, but opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi rejected the idea, asking instead for fresh elections.

Led Zeppelin

16th June 2009, 20:45

I am pretty sure this is still valid.

It isn't, did you not see the updates from minutes ago?

He had a speech on TV this evening just an hour or so ago saying the election was fine.

Further from the link you gave me, LZ

Sorry but do you understand what "NEW!" means? It means that the stories with that in front of them are more recent, and this one says:

NEW! Daily Koz – Mousavi has been placed under house arrest. He was arrested on his way to Khamenei’s house. All communication has been shut off. Khamenei has issued a statement claiming that HE that he is leading this coup to SAVE the Islamic Government (Nezam)

The others you mentioned were posted over 10 hours ago.

Leo

16th June 2009, 21:07

Some interviews with participants, other info, pictures etc. :

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/interview-with-domagoj-margetic-fromweb.html

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/specter-is-haunting-iran-specter-of.html

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/specter-is-haunting-iran-specter-of_16.html

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/interview-with-keren-betzalel-from.html

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/will-be-continued.html

I can't view the pictures but apparently there were red barricades in Isfahan today. There seems to have been lots of clashes today, but I saw in the news that the foreign correspondent of a TV channel on CNN claiming that there were only "peaceful demonstrations" in support of Mousavi, and then I saw a speech of Obama saying that "he can't accept use of force against peaceful demonstrators" or something. Isn't it interesting that all this came exactly on the day in which the footage of demonstrations was banned? There seems to be something all bourgeois factions, from Mousavi and Ahmedinejad to even freaking Obama want to blackout. I wonder how big that is...

( R )evolution

16th June 2009, 21:33

It isn't, did you not see the updates from minutes ago?

He had a speech on TV this evening just an hour or so ago saying the election was fine.

Sorry but do you understand what "NEW!" means? It means that the stories with that in front of them are more recent, and this one says:

NEW! Daily Koz – Mousavi has been placed under house arrest. He was arrested on his way to Khamenei’s house. All communication has been shut off. Khamenei has issued a statement claiming that HE that he is leading this coup to SAVE the Islamic Government (Nezam)

The others you mentioned were posted over 10 hours ago.

That statement which was on TV doesn't directly counter the claims of looking into the election.

Have you read that statement? Is Khamenei really leading a 'coup' against his own state? And that is a unconfirmed report not a fact. But if it is true than it is a great step in revitalizing the people and the movement. This is surely going to upset the protesters and cause further resistance. Hopefully it doesn’t get taken over by bourgeois factions.

Led Zeppelin

16th June 2009, 21:46

That statement which was on TV doesn't directly counter the claims of looking into the election.

When you say that you believe the elections were not rigged and are not going to hold a re-election, and the opposition has as its demand a re-election, then yes, it is a contradiction to believe that they are actually agreeing.

This is just a fact, the BBC Persian site has Khamenei's speech up right now where he says this. Check your mainstream media tomorrow, they'll have picked up on it by then most likely.

Have you read that statement? Is Khamenei really leading a 'coup' against his own state? And that is a unconfirmed report not a fact.

Leading a coup against his own state? What? No, he is defending his own state. No one is "leading a coup", that's mythology spread around by one side of the bourgeois that wants state power over the other side.

That is not the real issue we should be dealing with right now because it's part of the political games that are being played by the bourgeois over the heads of the people.

But if it is true than it is a great step in revitalizing the people and the movement. This is surely going to upset the protesters and cause further resistance. Hopefully it doesn’t get taken over by bourgeois factions.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as being true or not, but I agree with your last statement; this is going to upset the people more and it is going to cause further resistance. Also, I share your hope of this movement not being taken over by bourgeois factions.

( R )evolution

16th June 2009, 22:00

When you say that you believe the elections were not rigged and are not going to hold a re-election, and the opposition has as its demand a re-election, then yes, it is a contradiction to believe that they are actually agreeing.

This is just a fact, the BBC Persian site has Khamenei's speech up right now where he says this. Check your mainstream media tomorrow, they'll have picked up on it by then most likely.

Once again, I never said that there was going to be a re-election because Khamenei has never said this. But what he did say was that the electoral committee will look into the charges of electoral fraud. We all know the system is corrupt and filled with fraud already but if the people on the streets believe in Khamenei to take the measures to actual look into the charges of fraud than some people may be content and thus the movement stalls in there regard.

Leading a coup against his own state? What? No, he is defending his own state. No one is "leading a coup", that's mythology spread around by one side of the bourgeois that wants state power over the other side.

That is not the real issue we should be dealing with right now because it's part of the political games that are being played by the bourgeois over the heads of the people. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I was just saying that the validity of that statement comes into question when Khamenei is talking about leading a coup against his own government.

"Khamenei has issued a statement claiming that HE that he is leading this coup to SAVE the Islamic Government"

I have the feeling that this 'statement' had been mistranslated or taken out of context.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as being true or not, but I agree with your last statement; this is going to upset the people more and it is going to cause further resistance. Also, I share your hope of this movement not being taken over by bourgeois factions.By true I mean that if Mousavi is under house arrest. This, if true, will surely spark up the movement to even further reaches. We can only hope. I havent been this excited for a movement in a while.

Class struggle is everywhere!

Led Zeppelin

16th June 2009, 22:23

Once again, I never said that there was going to be a re-election because Khamenei has never said this. But what he did say was that the electoral committee will look into the charges of electoral fraud. We all know the system is corrupt and filled with fraud already but if the people on the streets believe in Khamenei to take the measures to actual look into the charges of fraud than some people may be content and thus the movement stalls in there regard.

I have told you three times now that Khamenei has in a nationwide speech said that there was nothing wrong with the elections and that no investigation is going to be held, something he did say earlier. Now maybe he'll change his mind on this again but the latest up to date news from Iran is that he's opposed to that now too.

Or do you somehow believe that people in Iran do not know what Television is and have miraculously heard of Khamenei's earlier decision of partial investigation without it, but haven't heard of his later recantation of that decision in a nationwide speech on Television held only a few hours ago?

If not, then stop saying that people "will be content" with something that they already know isn't true. There us currently not going to be a partial investigation, Khamenei has said that the election process was fair and just. That is the latest news.

I am not going to repeat this again, if you don't want to accept this fact then don't.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I was just saying that the validity of that statement comes into question when Khamenei is talking about leading a coup against his own government.

"Khamenei has issued a statement claiming that HE that he is leading this coup to SAVE the Islamic Government"

I have the feeling that this 'statement' had been mistranslated or taken out of context.

Your feeling is wrong.

You do not understand what is happening on the ground in Iran so you believe everything happens calmly, reasonably and logically. There is mass confusion and panic in Iran right now, not just from the side of the people but also from the side of the bourgeois leaders. Khamenei's office releases dozens of press releases per day that are widely spread around. When people started talking of an Ahmadinejad coup, a myth started by Mousavi a I said earlier, he set off a press release saying that he in fact was leading a coup to save the Islamic Republic.

These are messages the people of Iran are receiving, they are taken directly from official press releases and eye-witness reports.

If you think something doesn't make sense, instead of believing that it's a lie, falsification, mistranslation or some kind of oddity, please keep in mind that Iranian society right now is not in the same state as yours is, it is a pre-revolutionary situation, and things do not proceed calmly, reasonably and logically in such situations.

By true I mean that if Mousavi is under house arrest. This, if true, will surely spark up the movement to even further reaches. We can only hope. I havent been this excited for a movement in a while.

Class struggle is everywhere!

I hate to have to agree with you at the end of your messages while opposing what you say in the rest of your message, but again I agree with this last statement.

As I said though, the news that is coming out of Iran is from a society in revolt. You can't expect news coming from the multitude of sources, political cliques, bourgeois leaders, capitalist organizations, state institutions etc. etc. etc. to be calm, rational and logical.

They're not, they are panicking because their power is at stake, and when their power is at stake, they increase their machinery of propaganda to its fullest extent.

Blame the irrationality of some of the news on the irrationality of the facts themselves, not on the sources reporting them.

Anyway, this discussion is pointless. We are arguing what you perceive to be facts based on the news source that you've seen, and what I perceive to be facts based on the news sources I've seen. I think the difference between the two is key though. My sources are coming straight out of Iran itself, written by Iranians and reported by Iranians who are seeing it as they write it. Your news sources base themselves on generalities and general official proclamations. They haven't even covered Khamenei's nationwide speech yet. I'm sorry but mainstream media has proven itself to be mostly useless except for the most general facts (especially now that they're under a government imposed ban).

( R )evolution

16th June 2009, 23:40

I have told you three times now that Khamenei has in a nationwide speech said that there was nothing wrong with the elections and that no investigation is going to be held, something he did say earlier. Now maybe he'll change his mind on this again but the latest up to date news from Iran is that he's opposed to that now too.

Or do you somehow believe that people in Iran do not know what Television is and have miraculously heard of Khamenei's earlier decision of partial investigation without it, but haven't heard of his later recantation of that decision in a nationwide speech on Television held only a few hours ago?

Reports of an investigation have been surfacing since yesterday and was confirmed today by various government agency's and news stations. In this state of confusion and mass mobilization of people, you can bet that people have heard about this. Its been on the surface since yesterday.

Do you have a transcript of Khamenei's speech?

I never said that things were happening in a calm, reasonably, or logically manner. But messages spread, even more so in the current state of affairs in Iran and if one them says that the state will be looking into the charges of fraud, which is the main point of the current movement, than you can reasonably expect people to take that into account and adjust there role in the movement. Now if Khamenei's speech holds true, which by all means may be the case, than the situation will of course be different. But what other move do you think he has except to have a review? That seems like the only logically move he can make at this point, this is why I am hard pressed to believe that he WOULDNT order some kind of review or investigation.

I hate to have to agree with you at the end of your messages while opposing what you say in the rest of your message, but again I agree with this last statement.

As I said though, the news that is coming out of Iran is from a society in revolt. You can't expect news coming from the multitude of sources, political cliques, bourgeois leaders, capitalist organizations, state institutions etc. etc. etc. to be calm, rational and logical.

They're not, they are panicking because their power is at stake, and when their power is at stake, they increase their machinery of propaganda to its fullest extent.

Blame the irrationality of some of the news on the irrationality of the facts themselves, not on the sources reporting them.

Anyway, this discussion is pointless. We are arguing what you perceive to be facts based on the news source that you've seen, and what I perceive to be facts based on the news sources I've seen. I think the difference between the two is key though. My sources are coming straight out of Iran itself, written by Iranians and reported by Iranians who are seeing it as they write it. Your news sources base themselves on generalities and general official proclamations. They haven't even covered Khamenei's nationwide speech yet. I'm sorry but mainstream media has proven itself to be mostly useless except for the most general facts (especially now that they're under a government imposed ban).I agree this discussion is pointless. But where are you getting your news? I searched through the website you linked a few posts above but they have had the same breaking news for the entire day. I also saw the Twitter posts but they seem far from reliable.

GX.

16th June 2009, 23:41

More Fire for the People

16th June 2009, 23:44

At the behest of Mousavi? No. These people were on the streets long before Mousavi personally got involved.

( R )evolution

16th June 2009, 23:51

People are claiming Iran is in the midst of some kind of a democratic revolution at the behest of Mousavi, of all people, who got a lot of support from Rafsanjani (and lets not forget his history as pm)? That seems a little far fetched. Not impossible but let's not jump to any hasty conclusions

The force is there, the people are pissed but Mousavi isnt the answer because he is apart of the system. Just another face of the bourgeois in Iran, as shown by his request to have his 'supporters' not march today. The people still marched in force though, but what his request represents is that he doesnt want to see the state overthrown but rather him in power. This is because his agenda is still in favor of the current state. He doesnt want to see the movement become to radical because he doesnt want to see a revolution or the destruction of the state because he is just as much a part of the state as Ahmadinejad is.

Saorsa

17th June 2009, 00:54

The simple fact of the matter here is that regardless of the fact that this movement was triggered by the elections and to an extent still rallies around Mousavi, it is moving beyond him and his program and represents a genuine popular outburst of rage against the theocratic regime. The masses are chanting "death to the dictator", a slogan Mousavi himself would never put forward, and it is perfectly possible that the movement will open up space for genuinely revolutionary ideas to be put forward, and that sections of this movement will adopt them. When an oppressed people are facing off against their oppressors, real communists do not condemn them because they haven't yet adopted a 99 Point Program that explicitly traces their ideology back to 1917. Real communists stand behind the rebels, and while urging them to adopt a revolutionary outlook and take up the struggle for much more than just the ouster of Khamenei and Ahgmadinejad, we still have to defend them against the tanks and guns of a brutal theocracy.

From Venezuela to Greece, France to Nepal, and now Iran, the past year or two has seen a significant upturn in popular mass struggle and the workers movement, and we should be rejoicing that, not treating it with suspicion and even condemnation. I know I'm fucking inspired by it all, and I feel really hopeful about the months and years ahead.

Led Zeppelin

17th June 2009, 07:36

Reports of an investigation have been surfacing since yesterday and was confirmed today by various government agency's and news stations. In this state of confusion and mass mobilization of people, you can bet that people have heard about this. Its been on the surface since yesterday.

Yeah, then came the speech last night.

Fourth time I've said this now.

Do you have a transcript of Khamenei's speech?

Yes, but it's in Farsi.

It's probably not "reliable" though, because it's from an Iranian source and they're less "reliable" than western journalists, right?

this is why I am hard pressed to believe that he WOULDNT order some kind of review or investigation.

It is entirely irrelevant what you or I "believe". This isn't about what we "believe" to be logical or rational. Again, this is about the facts, not about what we "believe".

Do you "believe" he will change his mind on this again and call for a re-election or partial recount? Great, "believe" that if you must, but don't claim that it's actually a fact right now, because it isn't anymore. Say it when it's a fact again, i.e., when they actually confirm it again after its cancellation last night.

But where are you getting your news? I searched through the website you linked a few posts above but they have had the same breaking news for the entire day. I also saw the Twitter posts but they seem far from reliable.

You're entirely right here of course. Western journalists sitting in CNN, Fox, and Washington News offices in the United States or some hotel room in a Middle-Eastern country (or at best in a luxury hotel in Iran, without being allowed to go out), are a far more "reliable" news source than Iranian people who are involved in the movement and are giving us direct updates when they can (and have so far to be proven right in everything they have said and have also reported on the mass arrests and killings where the western Media has decided to turn a blind eye towards it).

Iranian people and Iranian news sources have been at the forefront of providing the latest news while the western Media has at best been lagging behind hours at reporting the latest most important news, while at worst they haven't even bothered reporting on most things that have been going on. If it weren't for the messages, videos and pictures the Iranian people on the ground are sending us, yes, the same people you call "unreliable" (see their twitter pages, they've posted pictures proving what they say, and the videos they post on youtube also prove it beyond any doubt) then we'd have been left in the dark.

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps those pictures of people getting shot and beaten are staged, and perhaps those videos of people demonstrating by the hundreds of thousands and of people getting beaten and killed are also staged.

Those people are "unreliable" after all, right?

Yup, I'll just log on my CNN and ABC news for now and ignore the messages Iranian people living through this are sending because obviously they're not "professional journalists" (the last source a revolutionary leftist would go to for real news, by the way) and therefore "unreliable".

Get real and stop saying crap like this, seriously.

Leo

17th June 2009, 09:56

More updates:

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/viva-revolution.html

Students stage sit-ins, chant death to collaborator in protest to Moussavi's statement:On the third day of a sit-in by students in Sharif University of Technology, the State Security Force prevented over 1,000 students from entering the campus. At noon, students broke the main gate and entered the university.
Meanwhile, in the University of Tehran students reacted strongly to a statement on Tuesday by Mir-Hossein Moussavi calling on people not to take part in a rally later in the day. Angry students chanted “death to collaborator,” “No compromise, No surrender, Fight the dictator,” “They are shedding blood.”

Agathon

17th June 2009, 11:42

read more on the subject before you comment. thanks.

Why don't you?

See, two can play at that game.

EnragÃ©

17th June 2009, 11:51

btw, for those claiming ahmadinejad to be a man of the people or the protests to be mainly rich kids: unemployment is at 30%, inflation at 25%, and the politics of redistribution he championed he did not really put into action since they were mostly confined to individual hand-outs and ad-hoc projects - nothing structural. Now, if i were poor in Iran today i'd be out there on the streets fucking shit up too, not supporting ahmadinejad cuz wtf did he ever do for me?

No, we shouldnt support mousavi, but we should support the people who are risking their lives out on the streets of Teheran and other cities fighting for a better, freer tomorrow. I hope/assume the left, underground and scattered most but still in existance most likely, is doing the same and are not being sectarian *****es cuz that'll seriously hamper any development of the masses towards more radical positions (looking at the slogans, people are in fact radicalising).

btw: for those in the netherlands, there will be a solidarity demonstration on june 18th (tomorrow) at 16.30 on Het Plein in The Hague (dont know if i can be there tho).

GX.

18th June 2009, 07:48

At the behest of Mousavi? No. These people were on the streets long before Mousavi personally got involved.
Yes, of course, but if you actually read my post, what I was saying was that the idea that mousavi is at the head of some kind of color revolution is a misreading of the situation. Of course I don't actually believe that he's the sole political force driving these protests. And more generally, I don't think we can assume that the protestors want full-scale revolution. there's this tendency among a lot of people to transcribe their views on these protestors as if that's what they actually believe or desire when the reality may in fact be very different, and is hard to determine at present.

Led Zeppelin

18th June 2009, 09:38

there's this tendency among a lot of people to transcribe their views on these protestors as if that's what they actually believe or desire when the reality may in fact be very different, and is hard to determine at present.

I'm not sure who you are referring to here but most of us (on the revolutionary left) do not wish to do this. If we wanted to do that there'd be no hope for any real change and we might as well give up now.

No, our position is that the movement is not a class-conscious one at present, but that we should strive towards it becoming one, that we should fight for it and support it to that effect.

That is not the same as transcribing our views on them. If we did that we would consider them a mass workers' revolutionary socialist movement already, instead of what it really is at present.

Pawn Power

18th June 2009, 15:09

US urges Twitter to delay service break (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f317a12e-5acc-11de-8c14-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ff317a12e-5acc-11de-8c14-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fworld%2Fus%2F society)

An apparent request by the US state department for the Twitter networking website to delay a planned break in service has highlighted the vital role social media are playing in protests against Iran’s election result.

Twitter has become a key information conduit as the authorities in Tehran have cracked down on reporting by traditional media.

Led Zeppelin

18th June 2009, 15:15

US sees both Iran rivals as hostile (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009616235841279404.html)

The US president has played down differences between Iran's two main presidential election rivals, saying both were hostile towards the US.

"It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," Obama told CNBC news.

"Either way we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighbourhood and has been pursuing nuclear weapons," Obama said.

Led Zeppelin

18th June 2009, 15:26

By the way here is a part of one of the latest reports from Iran:

These rallies are created by people and not mousavi or other objecting candidates. At the moment these objections have reached the highest pitch, and these candidates have no choice but to participate in these rallies and objections so that they won’t lose control. If mousavi at any stage announce to people that he agrees he has lost the elections, then not long after people will make a battle against mousavi himself, it might even get worse than the situation now. If that happens, the miscellany of the Islamic Republic will badly be in danger. The Islamic Republic is trying to stop people about having massive objections, by using these candidates as a tool and by making Islamic battle is doing its best to keep everyone quite. I am sure even if that is the case, millions of peoples will still participate in the rallies and show their objections and these people will increase day by day.

http://riseoftheiranianpeople.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/rallies-created-by-people-not-mousavi/

( R )evolution

18th June 2009, 20:33

These rallies are created by people and not mousavi or other objecting candidates. At the moment these objections have reached the highest pitch, and these candidates have no choice but to participate in these rallies and objections so that they won’t lose control. If mousavi at any stage announce to people that he agrees he has lost the elections, then not long after people will make a battle against mousavi himself, it might even get worse than the situation now. If that happens, the miscellany of the Islamic Republic will badly be in danger. The Islamic Republic is trying to stop people about having massive objections, by using these candidates as a tool and by making Islamic battle is doing its best to keep everyone quite. I am sure even if that is the case, millions of peoples will still participate in the rallies and show their objections and these people will increase day by day.

How long before this happens? Khamenei is going to have to make a move on this situation.

Today Mousavi was present at the rally to mourn those killed earlier in the protest, what this reflects is exactly what is said above, if he didn't attend then he and the state would begin to lose control of the movement. But how long can this game last? How long before Khamenei official puts an end to any chance of Mousavi getting the presidency? Because when this happens, it will radicalize the movement. Mousavi being present at the rallies and still being represented as the head of the movement is only pacifying the struggle. But he cant last in this position forever, there will be a breaking point soon. And when this occurs you can bet shit is gonna start getting revolutionary.

Suprisingly, Ahmadinejad has been in the shadow this whole time. At first he said this was like the aftermath of football match, haha how foolish. Hopefully his head will be on a stick by the end of this.