Iran: What Fraud?

[Communist]

original story found at: http://www.workers.org/2009/editorials/iran_0625/

===================================
Iran: What fraud?

Published Jun 17, 2009 4:27 PM
The first thing to make clear about the Iranian election is that the U.S. and other imperialist states have no right to intervene. The media here are now filled with moralizing, even racist scolding of Iran over the election results. Who are they to act so hoity-toity?
And then there are the self-righteous European imperialists. Only 43 percent of the people voted in the recent EU elections. Compared to that, Iran’s 82 percent vote makes it a vibrant capitalist democracy.
The second thing is that absolutely no evidence has been dredged up of significant electoral fraud. Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent total is completely consistent with his 2005 vote total of 61.7 percent. It is also consistent with the only election poll taken. Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty polled a thousand Iranians and predicted a two-to-one win for Ahmadinejad. (Washington Post, June 15)
Given that the Iranian economy is continuing to grow, despite the world capitalist contraction, it’s reasonable that a majority would vote for the incumbent.
The vote breakdown by neighborhood, as provided by the official election authorities, is also consistent with political reality. Ahmadinejad lost in Teheran City, a bourgeois stronghold. He was weakest in the wealthier northern part of the capital. But he swept the rural areas and did well among the urban poor.
All the Iranian candidates—and here we will discuss just the president and his nearest rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi—are part of the Islamic Republic’s ruling circle of politicians. It would be surprising if any deviated far from generally acceptable politics in Iran. That means capitalist economic development and projecting Iranian power in the region. And maintaining some independence from the imperialists—not easy if your economy is integrated with the world capitalist market.
Ahmadinejad is closely identified with militant support for the mass-based resistance movements in Palestine and Lebanon, and also with the determined public defense of Iran’s nuclear power program. With a high vote for him, the Iranians thumb their noses at the imperialists. This also explains the strong hostility from the U.S. ruling class.
In Iran, the reelected president is also considered a populist who will fight for economic concessions to Iran’s poor—which explains his strong popularity outside the middle-class and wealthy districts.
Mousavi was first seen as a reformer who might relax cultural and social restrictions and give more leeway to organize for rights. He got some support from women’s organizations, labor and even some progressive circles. By the end of the campaign, however, Mousavi was obviously allied with the power broker and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, whom Ahmadinejad defeated handily in the 2005 election.
All reports—even from anti-Ahmadinejad sources here—describe the Mousavi-Rafsanjani followers as the wealthier, college-educated Iranians who dwell in the cities.
Rafsanjani, who still holds a position of power in the regime, is identified with the wealthiest sector of Iranian society, with privatizing industries, with a more conciliatory approach to imperialism. Mousavi is now linked to him, and it’s their grouping that the imperialists either want to win or want to cause enough internal trouble to weaken the government. In the end, what the imperialists want is to reverse the Iranian revolution and get back control over its rich resources.
But 2009 is not 1953, when the CIA overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh and installed the Shah. The Iranian people have benefitted enormously from their revolution and cannot easily be turned back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

[BobKKKindle$]

Why does it matter if the recent protests have been sparked by accusations of electoral fraud? This article seems to imply that because there was apparently no fraud, communists should not support the ongoing protest movement, and we should instead apologize for the Iranian regime by trying to cover up its human rights abuses (not to mention the fact that Iran is a class society) and placing undue emphasis on the small concessions that Amadinejad has made to his supporters. I don't think that communists have an obligation to accept the assumptions of bourgeois democracy - just because a government happens to receive the support of a majority of the electorate doesn't give it any special legitimacy. It's possible for a political movement to be sparked by some issue, only for that issue to become less relevant once the movement has had time to develop, and for the movement to expand beyond its initial base to include a broader section of the population, including the working class - the events of May 1968, for example, were motivated partly by the decision of the university to prohibit men from entering female dormitories, but that was hardly the focus of the movement that emerged. The question we should really be asking is: what is the class character of the protest movement?

If it's comprised mainly of elites then it would not be worthy of our support - although that wouldn't mean that we would advocate government repression. This doesn't seem to be the case though. It seems that the movement is actually comprised of a wide range of social groups and has received support from workers as well as significant numbers of students. This means that communists in Iran actually have an obligation to intervene so that the working class can eliminate its ties with Mousavi and guide the movement in a more radical direction, so that it is focused not just on combating government repression, which is an issue that is compatible with class collaboration, but also on the exploitation of workers at the hands of the state and national bourgeoisie. It also means that communists elsewhere have an obligation to give the movement our full support whilst also being sensitive to its internal contradictions and tensions.

[Sentinel]

Thread moved to The Iranian Uprising -forum

[BobKKKindle$]

It's worth drawing a comparison between events in Iran and recent events in Thailand, because both cases demonstrate that class struggle can assume a range of forms, including support for bourgeois politicians, as well as the need for communists to intervene in order to shape the consciousness of the participants. There have recently been a series of militant demonstrations in Thailand as well as conflicts between the "yellow shirts", who are primarily middle-class in their social composition and want to increase the power of the monarchy and further undermine Thailand's democratic institutions, after the military coup in 2006, and the "red shirts", who draw most of their support from the working class and the peasantry, and, at least at the beginning of this wave of protests, focused their demands around the restoration of the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who, despite being a notoriously corrupt bourgeois politician, gained the support of poor communities by offering a limited form of universal healthcare and taking a hard line on drug trafficking. As it stands, the "red shirts" are not yet an anti-capitalist movement. However, the lesson that can be extracted from the events in Thailand and Iran is that communists should not expect the working class to instantly become revolutionary and ready to overthrow capitalism as soon as it becomes part of a struggle from below - despite the incredible changes in consciousness and the willingness of people to defy the regime that have taken place over the past few days. The only way this movement will be able to become anti-capitalist is if communists take the lead. That's why the IST section in Thailand was operating inside the "red shirts" earlier this year, until our leaders were thrown in jail or forced to go into exile. In the case of Iran, this means exposing the regime for what it is - not just anti-democratic, and misogynistic, but also a regime that supports the rule of the Iranian bourgeoisie, and has nothing to offer the working class.

[KC]

This article is a joke. It's interesting to note that not one single revolutionary organization within Iran is defending Ahmedinejad or proclaiming the election results as legitimate. Only those who are stupid enough to support the reactionary regime in the name of "anti-imperialism" fall into that ridiculous trap.

[KC]

A Reply to our Critics

We have received some criticisms that our position of support for those demonstrating in support of Mousavi and against the election results is not only interventionist, but also serves the interests of those in Washington D.C. and Israel, and that because of this our position is not a progressive one, but one that would rather lead to the furthering of American and Israeli interests in Iran and is thus ultimately a reactionary one. At this time we would like to address not only these criticisms, but also the idea that one should be supporting Ahmedinejad and/or the Iranian regime in general on the basis of anti-imperialism.

The Washington Post has reported that according to a nationwide opinion survey that they conducted three weeks before the elections, Ahmedinejad had received a 2 to 1 margin of victory over Mousavi. Moreover, the survey also says that the only demographics where Mousavi received a majority or remained competitive were “university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians.” It is undeniable that Mousavi represents the interests of one section of the middle and upper classes, and his willingness to promote warm relations with the west is the primary reason behind this; it would open up a wealth of business and investment opportunity for both domestic and foreign capital.

However, it should be noted that any position that is taken would promote the interests of other nations, as well as competing views from the upper classes within the country. Ahmedinejad’s position throughout his presidency has led to warm relations with Russia, for example, as a prominent political and economic ally. The cry that this promotes the interests of foreign capital, then, is one-sided; these cries are merely against US interests, and prioritize those over the interests of other nations, implying that US interests have some kind of uniqueness that gives them a more sinister quality and thus are prioritized against the interests of other nations and other foreign capital. This position simply boils down to mere anti-US hysteria and either ignores or dismisses the role that foreign capital in general plays in terms of international politics and imperialist intervention.

Moreover, the Washington Post article does not discuss the manipulation conducted by Ahmedinejad and his supporters in gaining votes. These issues have not even been brought up by those that claim that the election results are valid and that Ahmedinejad has won, aside from rhetorical claims such as one in the Washington Post article that “allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world.”

It was widely publicized that prior to the election Ahmedinejad was attempting to bribe citizens for their vote, from handing out free vegetables to the poor to handing out checks for as much as $100 to poor and rural citizens as well as students and teachers.

The Nation has also reported on the various issues regarding electoral fraud, as well as the use and risks of mobile polling stations:

In previous elections, they announced the results in each district, so people could follow up and make a judgment about the validity of the figures. In 2005, there were problems: in one district there were about 100,000 eligible voters, and they announced a total vote of 150,000. This time they didn’t even release information about each particular district.

In all, there were about 45,000 polling places. There were 14,000 mobile ones, that can move from place to place. Many of us protested that. Originally, these mobile polling places were supposed to be used in hospitals and so on. This time, they were used in police stations, army bases, and various military compounds. When it comes to the military compounds and so on, if even 500 extra votes were put into each of the 14,000 boxes, that is seven million votes.
These allegations are obviously not confirmed; however, they should be taken seriously, and should certainly not be dismissed outright. To simply dismiss the claim that fraud could have taken place and to proclaim the election results is equally as unrealistic as proclaiming the election results to be fraud without any form of investigation into the matters being raised.

However, our position on the matter is that the accusations of fraud are secondary to the reality of the situation; the Iranian electoral system is by its nature fraudulent. The fundamental issue that makes the Iranian electoral system illegitimate is not the possible manipulation of votes, but rather the requirement that all presidential candidates must be approved by the Supreme Leader. In this way the presidential candidates are all representative of the interests of not only the Supreme Leader and the clerical regime in general, but also implicitly that of some section of domestic and foreign capital.

All presidential candidates – Ahmedinejad and Mousavi included – thus represent some section of the ruling classes in Iran. For this reason alone the issue of whether or not ballot manipulation took place is secondary and not of fundamental importance. Both ourselves and the Iranian people are fully aware of the fact that their electoral system is illegitimate; the Washington Post article linked to earlier ironically also states that “nearly four in five Iranians — including most Ahmadinejad [sic] supporters — said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran’s supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy.” Thus we see the Washington Post article proclaiming the election results legitimate while at the same time recognizing that the electoral system itself is illegitimate!

Our position, then, is not based on whether or not the elections were legitimate, but rather the fact that the electoral system itself is illegitimate. It is also based on the fact that both Mousavi and Ahmedinejad represent different sections of the ruling classes in Iranian society, and thus to support either candidate is a mistake. The Nation, for example, has come out to support Mousavi, and was rightfully criticized by World Socialist Web Site for these reasons.

The people of Iran have come out to demonstrate by the millions, defying a government ban on demonstrations and risking their lives in the process. They have come out to contest not only the election results, but also the electoral system in general, and are quickly being further radicalized in the process. As they gain experience and confidence, and as they become increasingly more conscious of the situation unfolding, they have become bolder and more radical. There is a genuine possibility for this movement to radicalize even further, and to perhaps even become revolutionary.

We recognize the fact that many demonstrating are currently in support of Mousavi, and that Mousavi is attempting to capitalize on this dissent by co-opting the movement for his own political gain and for the purpose of containing it. However, consciousness is developed through struggle, and we will continue to support the Iranian demonstrators in their struggle with the genuine hope that they are able to move beyond Mousavi’s trap to emancipate themselves from the autocratic regime and put forward not only an anti-dictatorial, but also a revolutionary solution.

Sources:
Washington Post – The Iranian People Speak (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html)
The Nation – Iran’s Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It’s a Coup (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/443348)
WSWS – The Nation magazine and the Iranian election (http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/nati-j16.shtml)
Breitbart – Ahmadinejad accused of trying to buy votes in Iran (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D989FS480&show_article=1)


From here (http://riseoftheiranianpeople.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/a-reply-to-our-critics/).
(http://riseoftheiranianpeople.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/a-reply-to-our-critics/)

[Led Zeppelin]

The WWP has been known to be a useless piece of shit of a party for a long time now, so this is not a surprise at all coming from them.

Everyone take a good look at which parties and organizations are supporting this movement's development into a socialist force and which ones are supporting Ahmadinejad instead.

The former are revolutionary and their ideologies are, even though I do not agree with them all, on the side of progress and socialism.

The latter are useless, and the ideologies they ascribe to are bankrupt.

[Kassad]

If you watch even one second of the corporate news, you've seen that the Iranian elections are the most heavily covered thing on the air right now. Honestly, it's on almost as much as the World Trade Center was on September 11th, 2001. We should note that each mainstream media outlet is a corporate media outlet; owned and funded by American corporations that spread corporatism across the globe and exploit citizens of dozens of nations across the globe. We should, however, observe what the ruling class view is on Iran. The ruling class, as propagated through their media mouthpieces, are constantly attacking Ahmadinejad; consistently demonizing what he does, how he acts, what he says and all of that. This should be taken into account for many reasons.

This scene is frightenly reminiscent of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was known for being an Islamic reactionary and it is known that he rigged elections to maintain power. Sounds a lot like Ahmadinejad, right? We also know that he's known for having a negative human rights record. Sounds like Ahmadinejad, right? He's also known for maintaining an oppressive state. Sounds like Ahmadinejad, right? But are these the reasons the United States invaded Iraq? No. The United States invaded to create a military hegemony in the Middle East. The media was a critical tool in demonizing Iraq and Saddam Hussein, making it seem like military intervention was necessary to preserve social order and morality. The media is now promoting the exact same demonization tactics that manipulated the American people to support the occupation of Iraq.

This is the prime thing I'm afraid of. Republicans are calling for a 'stronger position' on Iran. Let's not be ignorant. We know what a 'strong position' means to Republicans. It means military threats, military intervention, sanctions and other things that totally disrespect Iran's right to self-determination and would be detrimental for human life in Iran. Thus, as much as I support progressive struggle against a reactionary regime, there's a very fine line that needs to be drawn. The ruling class in America and their puppet state of Israel would love to see intervention in Iran so that they could topple an anti-imperialist force and gain control of Iran's resources for corporate profit and exploitation. Don't think that isn't on their mind.

Now, onto the more specific issue, I think the material state of Iran has to really be observed. Iran was manipulated by the United States and oppression was widespread under the puppet regime. The Iranian Revolution comes along. The revolution was incredibly Islamist and nationalistic. To understand this, you have to understand nationalistic liberation by reactionary forces. The reactionary force that took power post-revolution was and is very anti-American and very anti-imperialist. As shown by Ahmadinejad's consistent attacks on the United States and his opposition to Israeli occupation, the United States is not going to look on him favorably. When a nationalistic reactionary force takes power and removes imperialist exploitation, they harness the resources of their country for the country itself. Now, because the force is reactionary, it stays in the hands of elitists, but it is a step away from imperialism and more resources are being harnessed for the people than would under imperialist exploitation. This is a progressive step, however tiny, in moving away from imperialism. It would be ideal for a workers movement and a people's movement to stand up to this reactionary force and command workers rule. Right now, I believe we're seeing the seeds of this.

At the current time, Ahmadinejad is an enemy of the imperialist class, and for that, I stand in solidarity with his struggles against American imperialism and his struggle to maintain Iranian self-determination. However, I fear that with the wrong kind of leadership, the potential progressive movement that is in its infant stages today could make potentially fatal mistakes that would open the country up to imperialist, notably American, exploitation. If Ahmadinejad's regime is all that prevents imperialist domination in Iran, I will defend it militantly. Right now, I believe Mousavi is very pro-West and from what I've read, it seems like that was one of his main criticisms of Ahmadinejad; claiming that he isolated Iran from other nations. Of course, Ahmadinejad isolated Iran from imperialism, which is respectable.

At the current time, all we can do is defend Iran vigorously from imperialist intervention, express solidarity with a new growing movement and hope that it promotes a progressive line and not one in support of imperialism and demand self-determination for the nation of Iran from all outside interference.

[KC]

Now, onto the more specific issue, I think the material state of Iran has to really be observed. Iran was manipulated by the United States and oppression was widespread under the puppet regime. The Iranian Revolution comes along. The revolution was incredibly Islamist and nationalistic. To understand this, you have to understand nationalistic liberation by reactionary forces. The reactionary force that took power post-revolution was and is very anti-American and very anti-imperialist. As shown by Ahmadinejad's consistent attacks on the United States and his opposition to Israeli occupation, the United States is not going to look on him favorably. When a nationalistic reactionary force takes power and removes imperialist exploitation, they harness the resources of their country for the country itself. Now, because the force is reactionary, it stays in the hands of elitists, but it is a step away from imperialism and more resources are being harnessed for the people than would under imperialist exploitation. This is a progressive step, however tiny, in moving away from imperialism. It would be ideal for a workers movement and a people's movement to stand up to this reactionary force and command workers rule. Right now, I believe we're seeing the seeds of this.

At the current time, Ahmadinejad is an enemy of the imperialist class, and for that, I stand in solidarity with his struggles against American imperialism and his struggle to maintain Iranian self-determination. However, I fear that with the wrong kind of leadership, the potential progressive movement that is in its infant stages today could make potentially fatal mistakes that would open the country up to imperialist, notably American, exploitation. If Ahmadinejad's regime is all that prevents imperialist domination in Iran, I will defend it militantly. Right now, I believe Mousavi is very pro-West and from what I've read, it seems like that was one of his main criticisms of Ahmadinejad; claiming that he isolated Iran from other nations. Of course, Ahmadinejad isolated Iran from imperialism, which is respectable.

At the current time, all we can do is defend Iran vigorously from imperialist intervention, express solidarity with a new growing movement and hope that it promotes a progressive line and not one in support of imperialism and demand self-determination for the nation of Iran from all outside interference.


This article is a joke. It's interesting to note that not one single revolutionary organization within Iran is defending Ahmedinejad or proclaiming the election results as legitimate. Only those who are stupid enough to support the reactionary regime in the name of "anti-imperialism" fall into that ridiculous trap.

Thanks for basically confirming exactly what I said.

[Led Zeppelin]

Kassad, I'm not going to bother to reply to your post because it's, well, I'd say bullshit but I've used that word so much these days replying to people like you, so I'll just say horseshit instead to stay somewhat original.

I do want to know this though, does your party support what you just said? If so I can add you to the list of organizations imbued with liberal guilt.

[Pogue]

At the current time, Ahmadinejad is an enemy of the imperialist class, and for that, I stand in solidarity with his struggles against American imperialism and his struggle to maintain Iranian self-determination. However, I fear that with the wrong kind of leadership, the potential progressive movement that is in its infant stages today could make potentially fatal mistakes that would open the country up to imperialist, notably American, exploitation. If Ahmadinejad's regime is all that prevents imperialist domination in Iran, I will defend it militantly. Right now, I believe Mousavi is very pro-West and from what I've read, it seems like that was one of his main criticisms of Ahmadinejad; claiming that he isolated Iran from other nations. Of course, Ahmadinejad isolated Iran from imperialism, which is respectable.



(Emphasis mine)

Oh my god, why is it so fucking hard for you to just say you stand in solidarity with the working class!

[KC]

At the current time, Ahmadinejad is an enemy of the imperialist class, and for that, I stand in solidarity with his struggles against American imperialism and his struggle to maintain Iranian self-determination.

Ahmedinejad is not an "enemy of the imperialist class". What a bullshit statement.

[black magick hustla]

Its funny how the only "communists" supporting the goddamn mullahs are first world tankies. Every communist in Iran worth their salt is against the mullahs and the whole argument of imperialism or anti-imperialism is so bankrupt and borderline chauvinistic. The Iranian communists still remember well what the islamist murderers did to them and only the stupid, useless pieces of shits like the marcytes would just make a lot of sound and fury about "anti-imperialism" because they were not the ones put up against the wall.

Put the goddamn argument of "imperialism" and instead realize that islamist backwardness was the equivalent of the russian white reaction.

Imperialism is a world system. Battling against the US in the context of the stalinists would do absolutely fuck nothing.

[BobKKKindle$]

However, I fear that with the wrong kind of leadership, the potential progressive movement that is in its infant stages today could make potentially fatal mistakes that would open the country up to imperialist, notably American, exploitationThis is the same as your line on Tiananmen. You don't seem to realize that whenever workers take militant action and challenge the most powerful section of their society they always run the risk of being defeated, and their struggles always involve the possibility of imperialist countries taking advantage of political instability and launching military interventions to further their own interests. You will never find a situation where there is an absolute guarantee that workers will be able to break away from reformist leaders, carry out an anti-capitalist revolution, defend themselves against military intervention, and spread the revolution to surrounding countries and throughout the world - at every stage of the revolutionary process there will always be the risk of a defeat, and if workers are defeated then it is likely that they will endure enhanced capitalist exploitation and political repression as a result, which is obviously not something we want to happen. This is true not only of big struggles like workers taking to the streets in Iran, it also applies to small struggles as well - if workers go on strike then they might eventually be forced to go back to work with lower pay and worse conditions if they can't put enough pressure on their employers. The possibility of defeat is not a reason to back reactionary forces like the Iranian government, or not to lend support to workers when they struggle, because whatever the risk, any struggle carries the potential to grow into something bigger and more radical, as we can see from the way radical movements have developed historically, and we always have a world to win. Likewise, the fact that the media in imperialist countries is covering the events in Iran is not a reason to assume that these events are inherently reactionary and represent the interests of imperialism, because once again we find that whenever the people of a country that does not share the interests of the imperialists challenge the rule of domestic elites, political actors who have an interest in Iran being opened up to neo-liberalism will always try and portray the events in a way that makes it seem as if the participants want to introduce a neo-liberal economic model, even when this is not an accurate characterization of the ideological balance - we saw the same thing in the case of Tiananmen, where the media (and Stalinist organizations) glossed over the role of the working class. It is this mis-characterization that gives communists an obligation to bring the real issues to light, such as government repression of Iranian activists and trade unionists, as well as the rising cost of living, so that people who are not already aware of the real situation in Iran do not simply accept the version of events that is being promoted by the media.

I actually found it odd when we were discussing Tiananmen then you said you didn't support the protests because you thought that the workers would never be able to assert themselves as an independent political force, and so the students would have been able to implement market reforms if they had overcome the CPC bureaucracy. It seems to go against everything that Mao thought. Didn't he say something like "dare to struggle, dare to win"?

Another issue that's worth pointing out is the issue of imperialism. If Iran were invaded then it would obviously be right to hope that Iran would be able to defend itself, and inflict a military defeat on the imperialists, even if the resistance to the invasion was carried out by the army (i.e. by part of the state apparatus) or another reactionary force. However, it is wrong to characterize Ahmadinejad as "anti-imperialist" on these grounds. A country being independent in the sense of having its own flag and not being under the formal control of another state does not mean that the country in question is free from the imperialist world-system, because imperialism operates primarily through economic forces such as countries not being able to develop their industries as a result of being exposed to cheap goods imported from other countries, and profit flowing from underdeveloped countries to the core, after an initial investment. This is why Lenin devoted so much of his time to discussing Argentina as a country that was subject to British imperialism, despite Argentina being politically independent, and never faced with the threat of military intervention. If we acknowledge that the imperialist powers only resort to military intervention as a last resort or as a way of creating a strategic base within an important region like the Middle East, then it becomes clear that Ahmadinejad is not protecting Iran from imperialism, and is not "anti-imperialist", despite his rhetoric against the US - his government has pushed for privatization, including 80% of the state bank, Mellat (link (http://www.dawn.com/2009/02/18/ebr5.htm)), and is still heavily dependent on oil exports. He has exposed Iran to greater imperialist penetration. This indicates that the only way imperialism can be abolished is through international socialist revolution - nothing less.

[( R )evolution]

At the current time, Ahmadinejad is an enemy of the imperialist class, and for that, I stand in solidarity with his struggles against American imperialism and his struggle to maintain Iranian self-determination.

I wasnt aware that maintaining Iranian self-determination included torturing, murdering, beating, and oppressing the Iranian people.

[redguard2009]

Stupidity. If there's anything we leftists do collectively well it is have opinions about anything and everything. Without that.. well, we wouldn't be leftists.

[black magick hustla]

Stupidity. If there's anything we leftists do collectively well it is have opinions about anything and everything. Without that.. well, we wouldn't be leftists.

And you are a fucking idiot that probably has only white friends and thus you patronize struggles abroad.

[Led Zeppelin]

Every communist in Iran worth their salt is against the mullahs

You don't even have to add "worth their salt" to it, they all are.

Name one party or organization or even a single individual communist from Iran who opposes this movement. Just one.

It can't be done for there are none.

As you said, only the first world tankies. And yes they are chauvinist in the extreme. Lenin called this petty-bourgeois nationalism. They believe their own countries are good and worthy enough for the people to rise up in, but when it happens in a capitalist country in which they do not like it to take place in (never their own, of course, because when they rise up it's always for something good) they oppose it want to defend those people from themselves.

[Sentinel]

I know that this is a very heated subject and have full understanding for the anger of some of the discussion's participants, but I would like to ask everyone to cool down with the flames.

[REDSOX]

I have monitored what has been going in Iran for a few days now and the situation in Iran is more complex than both sides of the respective arguments have outlined on these boards. What we seem to have at the moment in Iran is a power struggle between essentially two factions of the clerical bourgeoisie, one side lead by Moussavi and the other by ahmadinejad both who claim have won an election, ahmadinejad is supported to some extent by the Grand ayatollah. Both these factions are leaning on the masses for support in this struggle for power in Iran. Mouusavi supporters are the middle class, petit bourgeois artisans, students, some urban poor. Ahmadinejad supporters on the other hand are mainly the rural poor, farmers, civil servants, some petit bourgeois, militias etc. The industrial proletariat in this has taken no side in this struggle which is why as yet there is no general strike, no oil strike, no strike in the factories because the working proletariat has at the moment seen no interest in backing either one of these bourgeois politicians in their power struggle despite their grevancies and hatred with the regime. The danger for Mouusavi however is that he has unleashed forces that he may not be able to control which may have the effect of changing the nature of this protest movement from one about ballot rigging to a movement which challenges the clerical regime. This would however require the intervention of the Proletariat which at the moment has not intervened on either side of the argument. This would terrify the clerics moussavi included which is why he is backtracking and calling for calm. The danger of this is one reason why i think a deal will be stitched up by the bourgeois rivals before forces are unleashed which the clerics cannot control. Personally therefore i cannot support a bourgeois fist fight like we are seeing on the streets which to me is about who won the elections. However should the movement develop with the intervention of the Proletariat the all bets are off as this could lead to a significant change in the dynamics of the struggle. We wait and see.

Down with the clerics
Down with Imperialism
No to moussavi or ahmadinejad or their fellow bourgeois
For a workers and peasents revolution.

[BobKKKindle$]

They believe their own countries are good and worthy enough for the people to rise up in, but when it happens in a capitalist country in which they do not like it to take place in (never their own, of course, because when they rise up it's always for something good) they oppose it want to defend those people from themselves. This is exactly it. Another argument that these people seem to be using ("argument" probably isn't the right term - they're basically trying to rationalize a reactionary position with excuses) is that the movement shouldn't be supported because the workers who are part of it aren't already calling for the overthrow of socialism and still have some ideological links with Mousavi and other bourgeois leaders, who want to limit the movement to getting Amadinejad removed from power as president whilst maintaining capitalism, including the ongoing privatization process, and Iran's repressive political system. Lenin was also aware of this excuse in his own day and didn't have much time for the fools that used it so that they wouldn't have to support workers when they engage in struggle. He recognized that class struggle does not begin in a "clean" form - it will always involve ideological debates, and questions about strategy, that can only be answered in a progressive way if communists are willing to get involved. His quote sums this up perfectly, and is addressed to communists who were unwilling to support the Easter Rising in 1916 because it was led by the petty-bourgeoisie:


To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. – to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism,” and another, somewhere else, says, “We are for imperialism,” and that will be a social revolution! ... Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it.Emphasis added. From Lenin's Collected Works, vol.XXII, pp.355-356 (1964)

[REDSOX]

Bobkindles it's just a faction fight and people are being used as pawns in the clerics games. The moussavi supporters are never going to get their way anyway regarding the ballot fiddling the movement is too small and in any case is not calling for the overthrow of the clerics. If the Proletariat enter the fray which it could because it hates the clerics and their reactionary policies then the dynamic changes because it wont be just then a movement of middle class students and middle class people in general but it would be a threat to the regime a genuine threat. Until the dynamic changes i wont touch this movement with a bargepole nor will i support ahmadinejad either. I repeat the bourgeois will compromise before this happens,mind you, but personally i hope the proletariat enters the arena and changes the dynamic

[( R )evolution]

Bobkindles it's just a faction fight and people are being used as pawns in the clerics games. The moussavi supporters are never going to get their way anyway regarding the ballot fiddling

I dont expect nor want them to get anything regarding the ballot fiddling because when IT becomes clear to the people that Mousavi is just another face of the system they arent gonna be chanting for Mousavi anymore but chanting for the destruction of the system. As Bobkindles said wonderfully in previous post, if you expect revolutions to come about clean as a directly proletariat movement then you are gonna be hard pressed to find one. But a mass struggle against the current state of affairs has the potential to lead towards a revolution and this potential is what we should be supporting and pushing towards not simply brushing aside the movement because it isnt "proletariat" enough for you.

[BobKKKindle$]

Bobkindles it's just a faction fight and people are being used as pawns in the clerics games.

I don't think you can explain away thousands of people risking their lives by holding demonstrations and memorial marches in Tehran by saying that all of the participants are just being manipulated by people at the top of the political system. That kind of analysis has nothing to do with Marxism, which acknowledges that political conflicts ultimately express divergent class interests, and that individuals are capable of recognizing where their class interests lie. The only way to understand these events is to see the concerns over the fairness of the elections as a lightning rod that led to people expressing over grievances that are not directly related to the election, such as the rising standard of living, unfair pay (witness the teachers strike in 2007, which was intended to bring teaching pay in line with other government employees, and involved 100,000 teachers, as well as significant numbers of factory workers who came out on strike independently of their trade unions to support the teachers and make their own demands), political repression, and a lack of social freedoms. This does not mean that the movement has been able to separate itself entirely from Mousavi. However, I think that the working class is beginning to take on an important role, and the planned national strike on Tuesday should serve as an effective measure of just how many workers are supporting these demonstrations. Even if the movement "only" leads to Mousavi being allowed to become president this would still be an important gain because it would demonstrate to all of the participants that taking action against an oppressive state can yield positive results, thereby giving workers and students greater confidence, as well as an awareness of what they need to do in future struggles to break with limited demands and push the movement in a more radical direction.

[redguard2009]

There's one principle question here, I think: Can revolutionaries afford to sit on the sidelines in any struggle?

Some do think only the openly "socialist" movements ought to be supported, who see the world in clear black and white terms. Others (including me) see it more as grey, with each situation involving analysis and critique before one supports or condemns it. Overall the primary emphasis should be on whether or not these protests are good for the people of Iran and their future. Obviously, yes, they are -- whether these protests result in the institution of a slightly softer religious zealout of an American puppet, the will of the people to protest their government and the action of doing just that should always be supported.

[KC]

I don't think you can explain away thousands of people risking their lives by holding demonstrations and memorial marches in Tehran by saying that all of the participants are just being manipulated by people at the top of the political system.

Actually, the number of people in the streets is between 2 and 3 million.:)

[REDSOX]

The people i am afraid are being manipulated by the clerics and their respective factions and it is at the moment focussed on ballot fiddling alleged ballot fiddling that is. That analysis may or may not have anything to do with marxism i dont know but i am not a marxist i am a socialist who is influenced by marx and gramsci for that matter. Listen all i see at the moment are two individuals shouting and screaming at their respective supporters about ballot fiddling. There is nothing else progressive in these demos. I am appalled at the rioting and the deaths in this bourgeois fight because it does not serve the proletarian interest. Now if the forces that have been unleashed by moussavi encourage the proletarian forces to enter the arena then that will change the class nature of the movement which will because of their hatred of the clerics regime unleash proletarian demands which will go beyond ballot fiddling no doubt. Until then i am neutral on this and i fear their will be a deal on this ballott fiddling which will make a lot of leftists like alan woods look stupid.

[Led Zeppelin]

Until then i am neutral on this and i fear their will be a deal on this ballott fiddling which will make a lot of leftists like alan woods look stupid.

Not that I agree with Alan Woods, but why would it make him look stupid?

He didn't say this was a socialist revolution that would be done with in a few days, weeks or months. He said it would probably take years.

And he said it was also likely that this movement would go through ebbs and flows in that period, so a deal with the ballot fiddling wouldn't really make him look stupid if the rest goes well.

[REDSOX]

Mr KC there were not 2-3 million protesting against the ahmadinejad faction maybe 500-000 tops. A hmadinejad's faction pulled in 10-000- 100-000. Stop believing one of the factions hype

[REDSOX]

Alan woods has been saying there is a revolution in Iran for the last 20 years every time a movement develops. Judging by his posts on Marxism.com he is at it again. Listen no one on these boards would be happier than me for this vile reactionary clerical regime to be overthrown but i am not supporting one faction over the other. The dynamic must change which to me can only be done by the entry into the struggle of the proletariat

[Led Zeppelin]

I haven't read any of his other articles on this in the past, so what you say could be true.

Could you provide a source? It would be interesting to see. :)

[REDSOX]

No source i am afraid but i remember attending meetings of the then militant tendency in the 80's when he and others was always droning on about how the revolution in iran and elsewhere for that matter was just around the corner. Try the Ted grant archive on Marxism.com it might tell you there

[BobKKKindle$]

the people of Iran and their futureIncidentally, my main concern is not "the people of Iran" as such*. The main concern of every communist should be the status of the Iranian working class, because we recognize that only the intervention of the working class through strikes and more militant forms of action such as factory occupations will determine whether the movement will be limited to small changes, such as Mousavi becoming president, and the reforms that he would implement in that position, or develop into something more radical, with implications for workers throughout the region. In general terms, the working class is the only class that can succeed in overthrowing capitalism and constructing a more democratic and humane society, not only due to its numerical strength, but also due to its strategic position in relation to the means of production. It is evident that "the people" is of little validity as an analytical category because it lumps together groups which do not all have the same class interests - the working class, the peasantry, and the petty-bourgeoisie.

* This is not to rubbish the excellent blog of course, Rise of The Iranian People. In that case the title is appropriate because not all of the people who are reading it will be communists.


The people i am afraid are being manipulated by the clerics and their respective factions and it is at the moment focused on ballot fiddling alleged ballot fiddling that is.This is a broader issue, but if you see workers (and people in general) as being subject to manipulation from above, and if you analyze politics in those terms, then what is the potential for the self-emancipation of the working class? Do you think that workers are capable of acting independently on the basis of their class interests, or will they always have to be manipulated by leaders?

[( R )evolution]

The people i am afraid are being manipulated by the clerics and their respective factions and it is at the moment focussed on ballot fiddling alleged ballot fiddling that is.

The people who are protesting right now are in direct opposition to what Khamenei has stated. He stated on Sunday that the people should not protest but rather pursue their demands through legal channels. Whether or not you believe that this is only about charges of fraud, there are close to a million people in the street openly defying there supreme leader Khamenei. What this reflects is that the movement is powered by anger, and has the potential to turn against the state. No one is going to tell you that this movement is a revolution right now, because it clearly isnt but that doesnt deny the possibility of it. All revolutionary leftist should be supporting and working towards that possibiltiy.