Parties and organizations supporting and opposing this movement [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

18th June 2009, 18:49

I said this just now in another thread:

Everyone take a good look at which parties and organizations are supporting this movement and fight for its 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.I believe it's a good idea to make a list of which parties and organizations are supporting this and which oppose it, so that everyone can see clearly which side they are on; the side of reaction or the side of revolution.

Add any other parties in the posts below with a link to an article or proclamation and I'll add them to the list.

Parties/organizations supporting this movement:

Committee for a Workers' International (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/06/1601.html) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Party of Australia (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1959) (Trotskyist)
Left Socialist Party of Belgium (http://www.socialisme.be/lsp/) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Party of Ireland (http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/news/international/198-where-now-for-the-iranian-revolution.html) (Trotskyist)
Offensive (http://offensief.socialisten.net/index.php/20090701567/Internationaal/Solidariteitsbetoging-aan-de-Iraanse-ambassade-in-Brussel.-Fotoreportage.html) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Alternative (US) (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=1101) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Justice Party (http://offensiv.socialisterna.org/sv/856/internationellt/4468/) (Trotskyist)
International Marxist Tendency (http://www.marxist.com/iran-monster-demonstration-uprising-continues.htm) (Trotskyist)
Spark (http://www.vonk.org/200906292447/piket-voor-iraanse-ambassade.htm) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Appeal (http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/750/72/) (Trotskyist)
Fight Back (http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/463/1/) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Workers Party (UK) (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18229) (Trotskyist)
International Socialists (http://is-nieuws.blogspot.com/2009/06/vrijdagavond-wake-uit-solidariteit-met.html) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) (http://www.swp.ie/index.php?page=201&dept=News) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Alternative (Australia) (http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2040&Itemid=125) (Trotskyist)
International Socialist Organization (New Zealand) (http://www.iso.org.nz/news/23/447-between-revolt-and-repression-in-iran.html) (Trotskyist)
League for the Fifth International (http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/iran-protests-need-new-direction-–-general-strike-now) (Trotskyist)
International Socialist Organization (US) (http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/15/iran-boils-over) (Trotskyist)
Internationalist Socialist League (Israel) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1484427&postcount=94) (Trotskyist)
International Communist Current (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/6/iran) (Left-Communist)
International Bureau for the Revolutionary party (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2009-06-18/iran-at-the-crossroads) (Left-Communist)
Kasama Project (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/) (Multi-Tendency)
Hands Off the People of Iran (http://www.hopoi.org/articles/elections%20June%202009.html) (Multi-Tendency)
Rødt (http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://roedt.no/nyheter/2009/06/opprøret-i-iran-truer-både-et-ahmadinejad-og-et-mousavi-styre/) (Multi-Tendency)
Workers Party in America (http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/2009/06/21/wpa-election-result-provokes-popular-uprising-in-iran/) (Multi-Tendency)
Socialist Party USA (http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/iran0609.html) (Multi-Tendency)
Workers Party of New Zealand (http://workersparty.org.nz/2009/07/04/unrest-in-iran/) (Multi-Tendency)
Worker's Solidarity Movement (http://www.wsm.ie/story/5660) (Anarchist)
Anarchist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/international/99-the-situation-in-iran.html) (Anarchist)
Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-election-2009.html) (Marxist)
Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (http://kommunisten.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=461:tudeh-partei-staatsstreich-gegen-die-bevoelkerung-vereiteln&catid=44:internationales&Itemid=92) (Marxist-Leninist)
Workers Party of Belgium (http://www.pvda.be/weekblad/artikel/iran-overwinning-voor-uittredend-president-ahmadinejad.html) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Greece (http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/2009-06-iran) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Canada (http://www.communist-party.ca/news/Statements/2009/Iranflyer.pdf) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Sudan (http://links.org.au/node/1134) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Australia (http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2009/1417/19-message-of-solidarity.html) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Ireland (http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2009/1417/19-message-of-solidarity.html) (Marxist-Leninist)
News and Letters Committees (http://newsandletters.org/issues/2009/Jun-Jul/leadJunJul_09.asp) (Marxist-Humanist)
International Trade Union Confederation (http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article3951) (Union)
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Association (http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=6015&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1) (Union)
International Transport Workers' Federation (http://www.itfglobal.org/news-online/index.cfm/newsdetail/3445) (Union)

Parties/organizations opposing this movement:

Workers World Party (http://www.workers.org/2009/editorials/iran_0625/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12365&news_iv_ctrl=1261) (Marxist-Leninist)
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2009/06/imperialism-and-irans-elections.htm) (Marxist-Leninist)

And just for a bit of fun, the Iranian parties for and against:

Iranian parties/organizations supporting this movement:

Worker-Communist Party of Iran - Hekmatist (http://www.hekmatist.com/) (Marxist/Hekmatist)
Worker-Communist Party of Iran (http://worker-communistpartyofiran.blogspot.com/2009/06/long-live-revolution-against-islamic_15.html) (Marxist/Hekmatist)
Fedaian Majority (Aksaryat (http://www.fadai.org/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Fedaian Minority (Aghaliat) (http://www.fadaian-minority.org/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrilla's (http://www.siahkal.com/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Tudeh (http://www.tudehpartyiran.org/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Toufan (http://www.toufan.org/) (Hoxhaist)
Komala (http://www.komala.org/) (Marxist)
Azady-Baraby (Freedom - Equality) (http://www.azady-barabary.com/) (Marxist)
Communist Party of Iran - MLM (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/iranian-maoists-to-regime-you-wanted-a-fight-let%E2%80%99s-fight/) (Maoist)
Union of Iranian Communists (Sarbedaran) (http://www.sarbedaran.org/) (Maoist)
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (http://www.iran.mojahedin.org/pages/index.aspx) (Islamic Socialist)
Vahed Corp Workers Syndicate in Iran (http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/demands/vahed-corp-workers-syndicatefree-union-of-workers-of-iran-demands/) (Union)
Free Union of Workers of Iran (http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/demands/vahed-corp-workers-syndicatefree-union-of-workers-of-iran-demands/) (Union)
Khodro Automobile Company in Iran (http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/demands/khodro-automobile-company-in-iran-declaration-of-strike-and-support/) (Union)

Iranian parties/organizations opposing this movement:

None.

Pawn Power

18th June 2009, 18:56

That's strange about the workers world party. I don't really understand their position. I got an email from some of their people with the following article (which I believe was an op ed in the Washington Post) on how the vote count "might be accurate" :

Iran vote may be accurate

An independent effort to take the pulse of the country's electorate found that Ahmadinejad was poised to win reelection handily.

By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people.

Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a ratio of more than 2-1 - greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, pre-election polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy.

By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, the field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, a member of the second-largest ethnic group in Iran, after Persians. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad 2-1 over Mousavi.

Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youths and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, and 18- to 24-year-olds were the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians.

When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad in our poll simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions.

For instance, nearly four of five Iranians - including most Ahmadinejad 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, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly politically correct responses in a largely authoritarian society.

Indeed, consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.

Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator - the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal, rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
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. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent - with the grave consequences such charges could bring - they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.

18th June 2009, 19:01

Pawn, we've directly responded to the WaPo article here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1469607&postcount=6).

Red October

18th June 2009, 19:03

I think the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (frso.org) is opposing the uprising too. I haven't seen an official statement yet, but the members I know have been posting stuff against it online. I'd take that to mean they aren't fans.

Led Zeppelin

18th June 2009, 20:35

KurtFF8

19th June 2009, 00:24

Chavez apparently has opposed the movement. See my thread about him praising the election results.

Rawthentic

19th June 2009, 01:00

Just for clarification: the Kasama Project is not a Maoist organization, even though many of its members come from that tradition.

Our main slogan is "reconceive as we regroup" for revolution (don't get it confused with left-refoundationism though).

Rawthentic

19th June 2009, 01:02

also: the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) is a strong supporter of this movement.

Kasama has posted two of their statements:

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/iranian-maoists-to-regime-you-wanted-a-fight-let%E2%80%99s-fight/

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/awtw-irans-maoistss-pre-election-statement/

Led Zeppelin

19th June 2009, 01:04

Rawthentic do you want me to rename the ideology?

Also I'll add more orgs in a few minutes.

AvanteRedGarde

19th June 2009, 01:22

The Communist Party of Iran (MLM), from what I can tell, is based in Germany.

Led Zeppelin

19th June 2009, 01:23

The Communist Party of Iran (MLM), from what I can tell, is based in Germany.

Yes, because they were forced into exile by the regime that arrests and kills them if they are public in Iran.

Weird huh?

It is still an Iranian organization with Iranian communists.

Still searching for one that is against it? Keep searching in vain.

Random Precision

19th June 2009, 01:45

ISO (US) article supporting the movement: http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-worker-iran-t111323/index.html

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th June 2009, 02:23

Here's another party against it, the SEP: http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/iran-j18.shtml

I agree with their analysis, so I suppose I am now a white middle class "anti-imperialist."

AvanteRedGarde

19th June 2009, 02:27

Yes, because they were forced into exile by the regime that arrests and kills them if they are public in Iran.

Weird huh?

It is still an Iranian organization with Iranian communists.

Still searching for one that is against it? Keep searching in vain.

Quite honestly I'm not horribly concerned with the positions of this or that group, Iranian or not, exiled or inside the country.

Iran is not as of a repressed place as your orientalist expressions imply, lest we forget the hundreds of political killing, mass imprisonment and harassment that many revolutionaries in the U.S. have faced. This is especially exceptional considering the melee of overt and covert, CIA-style attacks against the Islamic Republic.

Moreover, in a situation like this, for serious revolutionaries in Iran, I highly doubt reaching out to the West, including its nominal leftists, is really top of the list for things to do this week. However, it seems that Israel has a clear interest and exposed practice of trying to get the rest of the West on board the with Iranian "insurrection." Etc.

Our task and the task at hands for revolutionaries inside Iran are different, though part of the same overall strategy. Grasping this would help alleviate much of the poverty in theory and practice of the nominal revolutionary left.

At present the main enemy of the global masses, including those in Iran, is capitalist-imperialism, largely led by the U.S. In the context of this situation, a Mousavi victory would mean further neo-liberal reforms and a warming of relations with the West: a backstep in this overall struggle oppressed people. For revolutionaries in Iran, the correct route lie in using situation like this in ways which build dual power against the Iranian regime, not such that coaleses with the ideals and demands of U.S. imperialism, but in which such interest are explicily opposed an combatted. Revolutionaries should demands economic and political reforms from the Islamic system and link such reforms to the continuing struggle against capitalist imperialism.

Led Zeppelin

19th June 2009, 02:29

Here's another party against it, the SEP: http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/iran-j18.shtml

I agree with their analysis, so I suppose I am now a white middle class "anti-imperialist."

It also makes you illiterate:

Anyone who claims that an independent revolutionary movement of the Iranian workers is impossible and that backing one faction of the ruling establishment against another is the more “practical” approach is deliberately ignoring the profound revolutionary traditions of the Iranian working class.

The class lines must be drawn. Workers must advance their own independent program in defense of jobs, living standards and democratic rights, organizing popular assemblies to fight for these demands. They must link their struggles to those of the working class in the rest of the Middle East as well as Western Europe, America and internationally in order to defeat imperialism and the Iranian bourgeoisie.

This requires the building of a new revolutionary party of the working class as the Iranian section of the International Committee of the Fourth International.

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th June 2009, 02:32

Has anyone noticed how every communist and revolutionary leftist party and organization in Iran has supported this while only white upper middle-class "anti-imperialists" living in the west have opposed it?

I think that's pretty hilarious.

It seems the opposite is true in Iran. All of the brown upper middle-class students and other well to do people seem to support this, while the workers and poor peasants seem to overwhelmingly support Ahmadinejad.

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th June 2009, 02:34

It also makes you illiterate:

And they also say:

What is described here are the wealthiest and most privileged layers of Iranian society, which together constitute a decisive layer of the country’s ruling political establishment. What is noticeably missing from this “coalition” is the working class and the rural poor, the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population.

We are dealing with the movement as it is now, not what it can be in the future.

How did someone so childish become a moderator?

Led Zeppelin

19th June 2009, 02:36

Quite honestly I'm not horribly concerned with the positions of this or that group, Iranian or not, exiled or inside the country.

I know you are not. This is why you are a reactionary.

Moreover, in a situation like this, for serious revolutionaries in Iran, I highly doubt reaching out to the West, including its nominal leftists, is really top of the list for things to do this week.

Serious revolutionares in Iran are all those parties listed above who have members there but are working underground.

You probably thought that because they are based in Germany, the UK, France or some other country they do not have any members in Iran itself. You thought this because you are ignorant of the situation. Organizations such as these cannot exist in Iran publicly, which is why they do not.

Grasping this would help alleviate much of the poverty in theory and practice of the nominal revolutionary left.

You really shouldn't be the one talking about poverty of theory and practice. You are the epitome of this poverty. You cannot even distinguish between a people's movement against one capitalist state and a people's movement against another capitalist state.

You only look at which name that state has, and base your opinions on that.

That is, of course, the result of that poverty of theory and practice which you just mentioned.

For revolutionaries in Iran, the correct route lie in using situation like this in ways which build dual power against the Iranian regime, not such that coaleses with the ideals and demands of U.S. imperialism, but in which such interest are explicily opposed an combatted. Revolutionaries should demands economic and political reforms from the Islamic system and link such reforms to the continuing struggle against capitalist imperialism.

Thank you for those words, Oh Wise One, but they are already doing that and have been doing that since before you were born.

The only difference is that they do not consider this dictatorial capitalist government to be "progressive" anymore. They used to believe that given its "anti-imperialism", at least most of them did. And most of them got killed because of this position.

This is why they have moved on from this position while people who have not experienced it are still stuck in it.

Led Zeppelin

19th June 2009, 02:37

It seems the opposite is true in Iran. All of the brown upper middle-class students and other well to do people seem to support this, while the workers and poor peasants seem to overwhelmingly support Ahmadinejad.

I guess if I believed Iranian government propaganda it would seem the same to me.

But I don't.

How did someone so childish become a moderator?

By opposing reactionary idiots like you.

PeaderO'Donnell

19th June 2009, 02:42

. Revolutionaries should demands economic and political reforms from the Islamic system and link such reforms to the continuing struggle against capitalist imperialism.

IF this revolt was about demanding more social justice in Iran than I would support it. However this is a revolt in support of neo-liberbal reforms that go against the economnic (aswell as the political) interests of the Iranian working class...

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th June 2009, 02:45

I know you are not. This is why you are a reactionary.

Randomly throwing a word around in a way that makes zero sense isn't behavior befitting of a moderator.

I guess if I believed Iranian government propaganda it would seem the same to me.

But I don't.

That's been in every article I've seen on the subject wether it be by socialists, the capitalist media, etc. from both recently and before the election. Unless you show us otherwise I see no reason why I shouldn't stick to the dozens of articles contradicting what you're saying. The fact that you're a "brown person" and Iranian doesn't accord you some special position where backing up your statements on Iran is no longer necessary.

By opposing reactionary idiots like you.It seems that you like throwing that word around a lot without trying to justifty it and at times where it doesn't even make sense.

AvanteRedGarde

19th June 2009, 02:47

You really shouldn't be the one talking about poverty of theory and practice. You are the epitome of this poverty. You cannot even distinguish between a people's movement against one capitalist state and a people's movement against another capitalist state.

You only look at which name that state has, and base your opinions on that.

That is, of course, the result of that poverty of theory and practice which you just mentioned.

Haha, this is what's i'm talking about. You sound like an anarchist. It's just the workers and bosses to you. My perspective looks relations to finance capital as they exist. Right now, the Iranian regime is a fetter to capitalist imperialism. The Mousavi-fronted, failed color revolution movement, is one which is objectively in the interests of imperialism, plain and simple.

I'm all for the overthrow of the Iranian state, but only by way of a revolutionary anti-imperialist socialist state. But this quite simply isn't on the table right now.

So...Instead of being stooges for the CIA and backing a movement in support of their man, we should be supporting the formation of an independent revolutionary anti-imperialist pole within the Iranian territory.

Pawn Power

19th June 2009, 03:03

Bilan

19th June 2009, 03:21

Quite honestly I'm not horribly concerned with the positions of this or that group, Iranian or not, exiled or inside the country.

This statement contradicts this one:

Iran is not as of a repressed place as your orientalist expressions imply, lest we forget the hundreds of political killing, mass imprisonment and harassment that many revolutionaries in the U.S. have faced. This is especially exceptional considering the melee of overt and covert, CIA-style attacks against the Islamic Republic.

You're not concerned with the their positions - and obviously the workings of the communist movement in Iran, or the workers movement - you're too busy being a bourgeois "anti-imperialist" idiot, who over looks oppression in a country because it's one you support. Seriously.

Moreover, in a situation like this, for serious revolutionaries in Iran, I highly doubt reaching out to the West, including its nominal leftists, is really top of the list for things to do this week. However, it seems that Israel has a clear interest and exposed practice of trying to get the rest of the West on board the with Iranian "insurrection." Etc.

This is purely presumptious bullshit. The goal isn't "reaching out to Leftists" in the West, but over throwing the dictatorship, and for any "serious revolutionaries" the reality is that the struggle must spread, and that comrades who can spread information about the struggle outside it, help to spread it and strengthen it.

Our task and the task at hands for revolutionaries inside Iran are different, though part of the same overall strategy. Grasping this would help alleviate much of the poverty in theory and practice of the nominal revolutionary left.

Ironic you'd speak of "poverty in theory and practice".

[quote[
At present the main enemy of the global masses, including those in Iran, is capitalist-imperialism, largely led by the U.S. In the context of this situation, a Mousavi victory would mean further neo-liberal reforms and a warming of relations with the West: a backstep in this overall struggle oppressed people. For revolutionaries in Iran, the correct route lie in using situation like this in ways which build dual power against the Iranian regime, not such that coaleses with the ideals and demands of U.S. imperialism, but in which such interest are explicily opposed an combatted. Revolutionaries should demands economic and political reforms from the Islamic system and link such reforms to the continuing struggle against capitalist imperialism.[/QUOTE]

Reforms? In what way are you a revolutionary, not merely a social-democrat with white guilt?
Your analysis of the capitalist system, inside "oppressed nations" and outside, is bogus.

Led Zeppelin

19th June 2009, 03:33

It's not only hilarious but absurd. They are so disconnected from the actual reality of situation that it really makes no sense for them condemn the real actions of millions of Iranians. However, the fact is these groups, the WWP and the PSL, are so insignificant even in the US that they are not even on the radar as fare as international political discourse and action goes. So I don't think we should really be terribly concerned even if they are being rediculous.

Yes you are right. These people and their organizations are entirely irrelevant to what is going on of course. I mean, the only place they're actually able to voice their "opinion" is on Revleft. No one else really cares. I mean, if they say that kind of stuff amongst Iranian communists (exiles or internally) they'll just be laughed at at best, and beaten up at worst.

So yeah, I shouldn't really bother replying to them. It's a total waste of time which is something that shouldn't be wasted now.

I do hope other members will continue posting against their chauvinist garbage though. Keep up the good work!

Rawthentic

19th June 2009, 08:02

Even though I think the pro-imperialist garbage from a lot of these "revolutionaries" is disgusting, it's good to debate them so as to expose their line and further our revolutionary understanding (and responsibility) of the situation.

and LZ: just remove "Maoist" next to the Kasama Project name. Either don't put anything next to it or just put "communist."

Revy

19th June 2009, 08:09

Comrade, although the SPUSA has not issued a statement, I am sure we support the Iranian uprising. We have had some friendly relations with communist activists in the Iranian opposition such as Azar Majedi, whose articles have been published in The Socialist.

Little Red Robin Hood

19th June 2009, 12:06

Has anyone noticed how every communist and revolutionary leftist party and organization in Iran has supported this while only white upper middle-class "anti-imperialists" living in the west have opposed it?

I think that's pretty hilarious.

I think the PSL shares a certain belief with the U.S. government, namely that the U.S. government is practically omnipotent. So it is really very simple for them to come to their positions: identify who the U.S. government seems to consider its best potential ally, and support the other guys. It's a ridiculously simplistic version of the world and of political movements.

I don't think it's coincidental that the PSL, WWP and FRSO are American organizations. Americans are naturally more susceptible to their own government's propaganda about its invincibility.

Also, I think some American communists feel a bit personally guilty over the imperialist track record of their own government, and this too contributes to the fact that they prioritize opposing American imperialism above all else. This might be held to their credit, if it weren't for the fact that they're wrong to consider it their "own" government in the first place.

The CIA has had a few spectacular successes in overthrowing foreign governments with very little effort (Guatemala comes to mind, as does Iran in 1953). But truthfully, its list of laughable blunders is much, much, much longer. It hasn't even been able to overthrow Castro's government, 90 miles from its shore, in 50 years of nonstop trying. The idea that the Iranian people are merely the pawns of an almighty U.S. intelligence agency pulling the strings behind the curtain is a kindergarten version of how the world works.

To have said all this, of course, is not to say that the protesters should automatically be assumed as a progressive force. It is merely to brush aside a less important question ("what does the U.S. want?") and get down to the really important question ("what do the protesters want?").

Leo

19th June 2009, 14:13

Komala (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.komala.org/) (Marxist)

I think it would be more accurate to describe Komala as "Anti-Revisionist"/Kurdish Nationalist.

Louis Pio

19th June 2009, 14:41

Kassad

19th June 2009, 15:26

Iranian Revolutionary Marxists' Tendency.
The Iranian section of IMT of course also supports and participates in the movement.

It's sad to see how some armchair "marxist-leninists" have taken a totally reactionary stand on this because of the bourgios iranian regimes apparantly "anti-imperialist" credentials. It's sickening to say the least.

In the interest of not launching massive attacks on people based on my party, I've let people take their shots, but this is stupid. We aren't 'armchair' revolutionaries. We are active in struggles across the country. We have at least 7-8 people here who work with the party who are trying to become members or are supporters and they all state how active the party is. Sorry, but your statement was just ignorant.

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th June 2009, 15:55

Kassad

19th June 2009, 16:09

How many parties are against the movement because they think Ahmadinejad is an anti-imperialist and how many oppose it because it doesn't seem to have the support of the working class? I only skimmed through their article, but PSL seemed to be in the latter, and it seems most people are using that particular strawman to avoid actually dealing with character of the movement. And can someone justify how not supporting it equals reactionary? I took a look at the sites of the Iranian organizations, and most of them just seem to support it because they want to attempt to hijack the movement like people accused KKE and such of doing in Greece.

We do recognize that Ahmadinejad and the current Iranian government are an anti-imperialist force; rejecting American imperialism and colonial domination. However, we acknowledge that the Iranian state is reactionary. Our article on the current issue addresses our fear that the United States will use this current situation as a scapegoat for increased interventionism, which is already being pressed by Senate and House Republicans.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation takes a consistent anti-imperialist stance and we are focusing our energy mostly on making sure that the potentially progressive movement in Iran does not get hijacked by neo-liberal and pro-West tendencies, as well as preventing American intervention at all costs. Here's more from the PSL to help people understand our position at length.

U.S. Demonization Campaign Targets Iran's Leader
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7409&news_iv_ctrl=1038

Iranian Revolution: 30 Years of Resistance
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11375

Cheung Mo

20th June 2009, 00:00

It is natural that the entirety of the Iranian left would support the movement. They still want their pound of flesh and their drink of blood in retribution for the tens of thousands of comrades who were betrayed and left in Khomeini's torture chambers and death camps. Khomeini did far more to terrorize the left than he did to terrorize sympathisers of the Shah and members of SAVAK.

Josef Balin

20th June 2009, 00:34

Shouldn't the Communist Party of China be added to the list of opposing organizations?

20th June 2009, 06:59

Shouldn't the Communist Party of China be added to the list of opposing organizations?
I don't see the relevance for revolutionary socialists. It's about as important as the stance of the Democratic Party in the USA or Labour in the UK.

RHIZOMES

20th June 2009, 07:40

Nearly everyone I know in the Workers Party of New Zealand supports it, we are putting out an article about it in next month's "Spark" (Our paper).

Also I am very disappointed in the PSL, I was thinking of if I ever relocated to the US for a few years in the future (Which is likely) I would join up with them, but now I'm not too sure.

KurtFF8

20th June 2009, 08:09

RaiseYourVoice

20th June 2009, 17:31

You can add the Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (DKP) (German CP) to the supporters. There isnt a statement from the party yet (pretty busy in organising a big festival atm, but an article directly refering to the Tudeh Party statement. As Ideology you can put Marxist-Leninist.

http://kommunisten.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=461:tudeh-partei-staatsstreich-gegen-die-bevoelkerung-vereiteln&catid=44:internationales&Itemid=92

Also you can add the Hands Off the People of Iran, not sure what kind of organisation that is, but it has pretty good articles:
http://www.hopoi.org/articles/elections%20June%202009.html

Honggweilo

21st June 2009, 03:52

Wow even the Peoples Fedayeen (or Mudjahedeen, whatever) are supporting the movement.

Despite the respect i have for the PSL and WWP (which are definitely NOT armchair revolutionaires and middleclass i might add), i'm really dissapointed with them on this issue..

We dont have a official statement on the subject yet as the NCPN and CJB, but will probably issue a solidarity statement to Tudeh's communique asap.

RHIZOMES

21st June 2009, 06:40

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st June 2009, 07:00

I think the PSL shares a certain belief with the U.S. government, namely that the U.S. government is practically omnipotent. So it is really very simple for them to come to their positions: identify who the U.S. government seems to consider its best potential ally, and support the other guys. It's a ridiculously simplistic version of the world and of political movements.

You've just summed up the "global class war" theory engineered by Sam Marcy, founder of the WWP (from which the PSL split).

50cal_words

21st June 2009, 07:05

Socialism or Barbarianism, it seems to me that the reason that the peasants support Ahmadinejad is explained in KC's response to the Washington Post... maybe their support comes from the fact that they are the most susceptible to his bribes.

Wanted Man

21st June 2009, 09:29

The Author

21st June 2009, 16:27

It has been interesting to see the events going on so far, although CNN has been presenting a warped view of what is going on- as the reporters for that organization are professionally paid to misinform like any other source of bourgeois media. Still, the fact that we are seeing the Iranian working class rise up on this scale for the first time in 30 years pleases me, because the theocratic bourgeois-dictatorship has the potential of being overthrown by the Iranian proletariat and they won't be stuck with the likes of assholes such as Admadinejad, Mousavi, and Khamenei. Sure, there is the danger of imperialist intervention during and after the uprising, but that was always the case in past socialist revolutions throughout the twentieth century. What also pleases me is that in this case, we're not seeing the armed forces of the US or NATO step in and claim to "liberate" the Iranian people as was the case in neighboring Iraq or Afghanistan. In this case, we see the Iranian proletariat rising for themselves, which is excellent.

It's not right to simply pass judgment on this uprising as a mere "coup," as some have done in the leftist community. Lenin said,

'Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not “concoct” them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation, changes. In this respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass practice, and makes no claim what ever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by “systematisers” in the seclusion of their studies.'

As Marxist-Leninists or other leftists, it is not our job to pass judgment, it is to support this working class action to its logical conclusion: the overthrowal of the theocracy and its replacement by a socialist republic.

manic expression

21st June 2009, 16:57

The statements from these North American comrades are disappointing... Usually, it's better to listen to your comrades on the international level, including the ones who are either there on the ground, or hunted into exile, rather than mechanically applying your own theory to everything under the sun. No offence intended.

Point taken, and I agree with this principle. However, one thing I'd like to point out is that when one is bombarded constantly with pro-demonstration rhetoric from the imperialist media, it lends another dimension to the situation. I just watched Netanyahu on MSNBC hail the protests as "heroic", denounce Iran and credit Israel as a democracy in contrast with Iran. His interviewer, of course, made no mention of his borderline-genocide of the Palestinian people, and promptly asked him what information Israel's intelligence agencies knew of the situation. This is the political climate in which we are engaging the Iranian demonstrations.

It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to support demonstrations which were started for and led by bourgeois factions of the Iranian establishment, and which are being applauded by the most reactionary of reactionaries on our airwaves. Any victory for imperialism in Iran would be a defeat for the Iranian and American workers, and because of this we are first and foremost concerned with American imperialism and its lip-licking rhetoric in relation to the demonstrations there.

As far as revolutionaries in Iran, I think there is a very real difference between agitating in Iran today and agitating in the US. As far as I'm aware, the PSL is not saying that communists in Iran should abandon or help suppress the demonstrations, the PSL is saying that American imperialism is doing its utmost to turn this to its favor, and manipulating the demonstrations is part of this. Iranian communists should be engaging within and without the demonstrations to win workers and allies to the cause of revolution, but this is not the struggle of American communists: our struggle is in checking and turning back any effort by imperialism to reinforce its control over the people of Iran, and it is clear that the imperialists are already moving to use this as an opportunity.

If these demonstrations gain a working-class leadership and/or character, that will certainly be another matter. However, the PSL's analysis pinpoints the opposition leadership and goals as they exist today.

Wanted Man

21st June 2009, 17:22

I agree, your point is well taken too. Today, the Dutch far-right MP Wilders called on the government to cut relations with Iran in solidarity with the protests... It's very important to walk a fine line in these things, and in that sense, M-L's post above is something that I strongly agree with.

21st June 2009, 19:06

Please add the CPGB to the supporters list. As if the HOPI campaign wasn't enough, their article in the latest issue of the Weekly Worker Death to the Islamic republic (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/deathto.html) is a good read too.

Honggweilo

21st June 2009, 19:22

Add the Workers Party of Belgium to the list of supporting parties. Read this interview with one of their partymembers studying in Iran

http://www.pvda.be/weekblad/artikel/iran-overwinning-voor-uittredend-president-ahmadinejad.html

(Article in dutch or french, but since the OP of this thread can read the former, he can confirm it)

It's also very interesting because normally the WWP/PSL and the WPB are very close

The last paragraph of the interview is very interesting

Behind who do we need to stand in these circumstances?

The Communist Party of Iran (Tudeh) has called on us to vote to stop the military autoritarianism. From the internal side to vote for Mousavi, but also to highlight that the left has forgotten about the people. The Left must take back the anti-imperialist rethoric that Ahmadjinejad hijacked from them back into their own hands!

Edelweiss

22nd June 2009, 09:49

The "Anti-imperialist Camp" is also defending Ahmadinejad and denouncing the uprising (http://www.antiimperialista.org/content/view/6177/50/). But that's really not a surprise for everyone that knows about their shitty politics. One of the commentators recently called the Iranian Left "an attachment of the western, liberal mainstream (http://www.jungewelt.de/2009/06-18/034.php?sstr=)".

Wanted Man

22nd June 2009, 14:59

Who are they exactly, what's their alignment? Their wikipedia entry says that they are "independent", but that's what they all say. ;)

Edelweiss

22nd June 2009, 16:21

Who are they exactly, what's their alignment? Their wikipedia entry says that they are "independent", but that's what they all say. ;)

I don't know how good your German is, but Wikipedia Germany has some more information (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiimperialistische_Koordination) about them.

Here (http://www.im.nrw.de/sch/379.htm) is some more info by the German "Verfassungsschutz", the German inner intelligence.

Honggweilo

22nd June 2009, 16:29

is that article in Junge Welt by them?

Edelweiss

22nd June 2009, 16:35

is that article in Junge Welt by them?

It's by Werner Pirker, member or at least open sympathizer of the AIK Vienna, which is part, if not head of the "Anti-imperialist Camp". He is Junge Welt author, commentator and part of their editorial team. Nearly every single article by him is an annoyance. Without him, the JW would be such a better newspaper!

puke on cops

23rd June 2009, 12:02

It's less to do with an election fraud and more to do with being shat on for 30 years.

And what's this bollocks about whether Ahmadinejad won the vote or not? Who gives a rats arse? He's a piece of shit and the sooner his bullet-riddled corpse is dumped in an unmarked grave the better.

Martin Blank

23rd June 2009, 20:07

You forgot to add "Workers Party in America" to the list.

Wanted Man

24th June 2009, 18:03

About the developments in Iran

KKE has kept up with the developments in Iran in the resonance of the presidential elections with great concern.

The situation is not irrelevant to the progress of the imperialist plans in the broader region that move the centre of antagonisms and instability towards Central and South Asia. It is also related to the contradictions of the bourgeoisie of Iran, to the struggle within its ranks for domination and control over the political power.

KKE condemns any attempt to distort people’s will and the implementation of repressive measures against the popular movement.

KKE has firmly expressed its solidarity with the struggle of the working class and the popular strata in Iran to defend and assert their social and democratic rights, to restore trade-union and political freedoms as well as to release prisoners who struggle for workers and people’s rights. KKE demands the legalization of Tudeh and free political action for communists.

At the same time, KKE explicitly rejects any imperialist intervention that under the pretext of the condition that prevails in Iran seeks to promote the plans for the reform of the “Greater Middle East” at the expense of the peoples in the region.

In any case, responsible to give a solution and seek a way out of the crisis is only the people of Iran.

e-mail:[email protected]

25th June 2009, 17:19

FRSO (frso.org) opposes the movement:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/frso-imperialism-and-t111777/index.html?p=1475985#post1475985

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 03:23

Among the people "opposing" side, you should add FRSO, the DPRK, China, Chavez, Belarus, etc.

Has anyone noticed how every communist and revolutionary leftist party and organization in Iran has supported this while only white upper middle-class "anti-imperialists" living in the west have opposed it?This is hysterical, coming from a Trotskyist, who recruit almost exclusively from the ranks of the petite bourgeois white children.

But in any case, Middle Eastern communists/leftists often overemphasize opposition to their own governments and under-emphasize Western imperialism. This is why so many Iraqi communists supported the invasion initially.

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 03:38

This forum is still mostly a haven of reactionary anarcho-Trot trash, and this thread more than demonstrates the anarcho-Trots openly side with Western imperialism when push comes to shove.

If/when the opposition overthrows the government and they install pro-Western, pro-privatization, anti-Palestinian fascist shitbags into power, the real Marxist-Leninists will be there to say "I told you so." History has already taught us about the thoroughly reactionary nature of "color" revolutions. The same shitbag Trotskyites cheered when capitalism was restored in the USSR and Eastern Europe by anti-socialist reactionary trash, just as they cheer now when what traces of public ownership and anti-imperialism are left in Iran are wiped out. You're the lapdogs of the bourgeoisie, a poison to any and all workers struggles.

black magick hustla

26th June 2009, 03:44

oh shit its intelligitimate!!!!!!

:shrugs: while american marxist leninists get a hard on for their favorite tinpot nationalist that throws a hissy fit at washington, Iranian resources are being extracted by other imperialists like the european faction of the bourgeosie (France, Germany). American imperialism is not the only player in the geopoloitical battleground and it is the american education and media that drills into the minds of americans that "america is the greatest in the world" that makes american marxist-leninists think their own country is the shit. (albeit through a different discourse).

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 03:59

It's hysterical that anarcho-Trots talk about Marxist-Leninists being somehow chauvinistic and playing into media hype about America, when they literally are mouthing the same shit as the corporate mass media!

And in fact, if you take a closer look at what the Iranian parties actually say, their analysis of the protest movement is largely the same as ours. Take for instance the line of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist):

In the mind of millions, the Islamic Republic of Iran's disgrace in the election farce has discredited the "possibility of change and the rectification of the regime from within" far more rapidly and effectively than any political debate and reasoning. The leading faction took a serious gamble with this. And now may of the rebellious youth are thinking about ways for effectively getting rid of the regime.

There was a clear example of this yesterday in the students' response to Zahra Rahnavard [married to Mir-Hossein Mousavi] who had gone to [Tehran] university to calm them down: "We didn't come to battle for the presidency of Mousavi, we have come to defeat the coup and smash the dictators' set-up".

This faction is trying to put its own chains on people's minds by trying to popularise the slogan "Allah is great" and adopting the colour green [symbol of Islam]. They seek and to channel the people’s energy and imagination towards the cesspool of their own negotiations with the "Leader" and the ruling faction.Their assestment on the ground is clearly the same: the movement is being lead and directed by petite bourgeois forces in support of Mousavi and the billionaire neo-liberal Rafsanjani. Of course, their jobs as Iranian communists is to try to turn this into something different than what it is, to use it to overthrow the regime. Of course we support them in their struggle to do this. That doesn't mean Marxist-Leninists blind themselves to the class forces currently at work in Iranian society, or that we line up with our own bourgeoisie like opportunists, stupidly romanticizing the protesters.

black magick hustla

26th June 2009, 04:21

It's hysterical that anarcho-Trots talk about Marxist-Leninists being somehow chauvinistic and playing into media hype about America, when they literally are mouthing the same shit as the corporate mass media!

:shrugs: I don't think anybody here is talking about Moussavi or is for American intervention of this. I think everybody knows crystal clear that there are factions within the bourgeosie trying to overthrow the current president to tailor at american imperialists. Only the most naive would think that perturbations of this caliber would be left clean by the different imperialist factions existing in this age. This has always been the case.

And in fact, if you take a closer look at what the Iranian parties actually say, their analysis of the protest movement is largely the same as ours. Take for instance the line of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist):

rs.

I don't think anybody fundamentally disagrees with this quote. The issue here is that iranian communists do not make political service to tinpot islamist nationalists in the same way western marxist-leninists have been paying lipsetvice to the "anti-imperialist" nature of a man who killed so many communist militants just because he flips his finger at washington while three fourths of their oil are pumped out by European and Russian imperialists.

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 05:12

I don't think anybody here is talking about Moussavi or is for American intervention of this.

Romanticizing the protest movement as anything other than what it is most definitely is giving tactic support to Mousavi and Western imperialism.

The issue here is that iranian communists do not make political service to tinpot islamist nationalists in the same way western marxist-leninists have been paying lipsetvice to the "anti-imperialist" nature of a man who killed so many communist militants just because he flips his finger at washington while three fourths of their oil are pumped out by European and Russian imperialists.

Middle Eastern communists are also so hell bent on opposing their own governments that they often don't even acknowledge Western imperialism. This was taken to the extreme when the Iraqi and Kurdish communists initially supported the US invasion of Iraq, a completely ultra-Leftist error on their part.

So the Iranian communists have a beef with Islamic Republic. That is understandable. They killed thousands of them. Our duty as Western, and specifically American communists, is to do whatever it necessary to oppose and weaken our own bourgeoisie, up to and including supporting the nationalist bourgeoisie of other countries that try to chart an independent development. The duty of the Iranian communists is to fight for socialism in their own countries. This is surely an opportunity for them, and they are doing their best to capitalize on this, and I support this. This, however, doesn't mean it is our duty to line up with our own imperialists regarding the protest movement, when not even the Iranian communists are fooled by what they represent.

Make no mistake: we are witnessing an attempted "color" revolution. If and when the Iranian Left ever takes hold of this, expect a quick reunification of the bourgeois factions, along with complete Western media silence. This probably isn't going to happen though, as the Left in Iran doesn't appear strong enough to do this.

26th June 2009, 07:12

Do you ever stop whining, you fake marxist?

Honggweilo

26th June 2009, 07:18

Romanticizing the protest movement as anything other than what it is most definitely is giving tactic support to Mousavi and Western imperialism.

Middle Eastern communists are also so hell bent on opposing their own governments that they often don't even acknowledge Western imperialism. This was taken to the extreme when the Iraqi and Kurdish communists initially supported the US invasion of Iraq, a completely ultra-Leftist error on their part.

So the Iranian communists have a beef with Islamic Republic. That is understandable. They killed thousands of them. Our duty as Western, and specifically American communists, is to do whatever it necessary to oppose and weaken our own bourgeoisie, up to and including supporting the nationalist bourgeoisie of other countries that try to chart an independent development. The duty of the Iranian communists is to fight for socialism in their own countries. This is surely an opportunity for them, and they are doing their best to capitalize on this, and I support this. This, however, doesn't mean it is our duty to line up with our own imperialists regarding the protest movement, when not even the Iranian communists are fooled by what they represent.

Make no mistake: we are witnessing an attempted "color" revolution. If and when the Iranian Left ever takes hold of this, expect a quick reunification of the bourgeois factions, along with complete Western media silence. This probably isn't going to happen though, as the Left in Iran doesn't appear strong enough to do this.

Actually intel does have a point there, i can remember the major international dissolution with the CPI (Iraq) in the international communist movement (ML'ist) when they took the idiotic position of "disarming iraq by UN intervention is the sollution" during the invasion. While they never before took such an idiotic position.

I dont believe we should romanitize the uprising in Iran, but we shouldnt denounce it as a "color" revolution, when it still isnt apperant where its leading to.

It think us ML'ists should take the position of "Hand off Iran to Imperialism, and Hands off Iran to ourselves". Fiercly critizise imperialist intervention in the uprising and let the Iranian communists deal with their own people themselves.

rararoadrunner

26th June 2009, 08:33

Comrades:

I forwarded the list of Iranian and foreign organisations' stances on the Iranian uprising to my party, the Peace and Freedom Party: the comments I got back were generally favourable, although it was pointed out that such a for/against characterisation is kinda undialectical, so masks a lot of what the various orgs actually said (whatever that might be).

Having said that, let me pose a poser here and there on this forum, beginning here:

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a second, socialist revolution did come to Iran.

Not only would the Iranian left have to put aside its differences in order to be on the same page as the Iranian workers: it would have to deal with the deposed IRP and its foreign allies, Hazb'ullah (which, dispite its Lebanese origins, is quite powerful in Iran) and the the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq : the main party in the ruling coalition in Iraq.

In short, the Iranian workers would have to take on virtually the entire Shi'ite clergy and its political supporters: how likely is that?

Back to you, comrades, hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 16:31

Do you ever stop whining, you fake marxist?

Do you ever take a stance on any issue that isn't beneficial to American imperialism?

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 17:06

The WPB should be removed from the "pro" side.

Iran: A colorful new revolution? (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ptb.be%2Fnouvelles%2Farticle%2F iran-une-nouvelle-revolution-coloree.html&sl=fr&tl=en&history_state0=)

The Ungovernable Farce

26th June 2009, 18:59

Do you ever stop whining, you fake marxist?
I'm sure he doesn't whine when his favoured factions of the bourgeois are repressing workers. He must be pretty cheerful then.

Anyway, I think we can officially add AF to the list of organisations that aren't completely counter-revolutionary: http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/international/99-the-situation-in-iran.html

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 19:24

I'm sure he doesn't whine when his favoured factions of the bourgeois are repressing workers.Some fucking workers in Iran:

http://ampedstatus.com/images/iran-election-protests2.jpg

Look at the Iranian workers holding up their English-language signs for their fellow Iranian workers (or white petite bourgeois children in the West, whichever)!

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 19:30

More Iranian workers trying to reach the Iranian working class with their English signs!

http://www.infowars.com/images/where-vote.jpg

black magick hustla

26th June 2009, 19:37

i imagine the three million people confronting the state apparatus in tehran all held english posters too

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 19:49

3 million is a hugely inflated Western estimate.

26th June 2009, 20:51

3 million is a hugely inflated Western estimate.

Actually, the "hugely inflated Western estimate" is a few hundred thousand. And English is commonly spoken in Tehran next to Farsi.

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 21:17

English is commonly spoken in Tehran next to Farsi.

I'm sure it is commonly spoken amongst the petty bourgeois of Iran. Gotta get their news and views from the West somehow, right?

black magick hustla

26th June 2009, 21:30

I'm sure it is commonly spoken amongst the petty bourgeois of Iran. Gotta get their news and views from the West somehow, right?

university is free in iran. i dont get the whole shitty prejudice that only the petty bourgeoisie goes to university. loads of urban working class youth do in the cities. i imagine its easy to learn english at the university.

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 21:46

lol, it's the workers holding up English signs for their fellow workers!

university is free in iran

The public universities are mostly free. The Islamic Azad Universities are not, and nearly half of all Iranian students attend these private universities, as did the recently killed Neda Agha-Soltan. And guess what? This is the pet project of Rafsanjani.

More proof that these protesters are reactionary to the core.

Intelligitimate

26th June 2009, 21:49

To quote Wiki:

The Rafsanjani family own vast financial empires in Iran, including foreign trade, vast landholdings and the largest network of private universities in Iran, known as the Islamic Azad University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Azad_University), which has 300 campuses spread all over the country. The Islamic Azad University campuses not only have large financial resources, but also a cadre of student activists numbering around 3 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani

Yep, gotta love those working class roots!

ZeroNowhere

29th June 2009, 15:47

It seems the SPGB would fall on the side of supporting the movement, at least inasmuch as it has the potential to go beyond Mousavi-support. From this post (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-election-2009.html) on the SPGB blog:

What is happening in Iran? That extremely important question is hard to answer given the crackdown on reliable information coming from the country and reflected by the various claims and counter-claims appearing on the Internet.

Socialists have no hesitation in opposing Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime. Some of the hapless left-wing have, partly inspired by Lenin's historically bankrupt theory of Imperialism, seen something progressive about Ahmadinejad because of the Iranian stance towards the USA. They are hereby complicit in supporting one of the foulest dictatorships in modern times and deserve utter scorn. It was quite common pre-12 June to hear the Left say the Iranian regime should not be criticised because it would strengthen the interests of American Imperialism, as if the brutal repression of the Iranian working class (be they e.g. gays or trade unionists) mattered not one jot or opposing the interests of Capital and supporting workers gaining greater trade union and democratic rights couldn't be done simultaneously!

Nor do socialists hesitate in opposing Mousavi. His talk of dirty tricks in the election is a bit rich, coming as it does from a man who has been very much a part of that same brutal regime.

It is to be hoped that the protests will become bigger than Mousavi and the present Iranian regime, that they have grown beyond a question of vote rigging and a movement of the urban working class Iranian (who are, inaccurately, being described as "middle class" more often than not). It is quite possible this can happen as the distressing image of Neda's death gains greater circulation.
I take issue with the reference to 'Lenin's theory of imperialism', which implies that Lenin created a theory of imperialism, but yeah.

hekmatista

30th June 2009, 01:03

You either support the workers or you don't. There's been a lot of blather by "tankies" and, surprisingly, even by some other (mostly trot) groups about not falling for another "color revolution" masterminded by the CIA, thereby ginving Ahmedinejad "left" cover for his repression. OF COURSE there ... Read Moreare bourgeois forces at work whom the CIA and international neoliberalism would love to manipulate to reverse the attempts of the Islamic Republic to be a regional superpower "independent" of imperialism. There are always a variety of class forces at work in a revolution. But how does it benefit the Iranian workers to ONCE MORE applaud the "anti-iimperialism" of their repressors? Does a photo op with Chavez make Ahmadinejad a comrade? I think not. You are either with the General Strike and the people on the barricades (mostly proles) or you are with the conscript slave driving a tank through that barricade.
That has been the dividing line at least since Budapest in 1956. All the Leninist (really Stalinist) rationalizing in the world cannot change that.

Intelligitimate

30th June 2009, 04:12

If these protests are successful, there is only one outcome: a pro-Western, free-market regime that doesn't support Middle Eastern resistance movements against US and Israeli imperialism, and also doesn't give a fuck about women, workers, gays, etc. To be "for the protests" to be objectively in support of these things. Nothing else is going to happen except the "Green' Revolution desired by the West, so long as the Rafsanjani clique is leading the protests.

Just like the Trots, anarchists, liberals, conservatives, the bourgeois mass media, neo-Nazis, etc, cheered as workers' states were dismantled in Eastern Europe and Russia, to be replaced with Western colonial states and fascist regimes, so too does the phoney-Left cheer on the Iranian protests, right alongside the liberals, conservatives, the bourgeois press, etc. History repeates itself, and the Trots and anarchists once again cheer on Western imperialism, like the lapdogs of imperialism they are.

Martin Blank

30th June 2009, 05:50

If these protests are successful, there is only one outcome: a pro-Western, free-market regime that doesn't support Middle Eastern resistance movements against US and Israeli imperialism, and also doesn't give a fuck about women, workers, gays, etc. To be "for the protests" to be objectively in support of these things. Nothing else is going to happen except the "Green' Revolution desired by the West, so long as the Rafsanjani clique is leading the protests.

Umm, yeah. He abdicated (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98986&sectionid=351020101) any leadership of the protests he might have had. And yet, the protests, strikes and clashes continue daily.

Sounds like it's back to the drawing board for all you national socialists.

RaiseYourVoice

30th June 2009, 13:58

Not sure if this is included in the list, but the NPD and the DVU, the biggest German Nazis parties are in full support of Ahmadinejad.... Just for the record.

Patchd

30th June 2009, 14:07

lol, it's the workers holding up English signs for their fellow workers!

Even many of the Mousavi supporters use farsi on their placards:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/06/17/iranprotest1460.jpg

The Author

30th June 2009, 17:07

Just like the Trots, anarchists, liberals, conservatives, the bourgeois mass media, neo-Nazis, etc, cheered as workers' states were dismantled in Eastern Europe and Russia, to be replaced with Western colonial states and fascist regimes, so too does the phoney-Left cheer on the Iranian protests, right alongside the liberals, conservatives, the bourgeois press, etc. History repeates itself, and the Trots and anarchists once again cheer on Western imperialism, like the lapdogs of imperialism they are.

I wouldn't go so far as to compare the counterrevolutions of the Eastern Bloc with this uprising against a theocratic bourgeois dictatorial regime.

Crux

1st July 2009, 16:54

Romanticizing the protest movement as anything other than what it is most definitely is giving tactic support to Mousavi and Western imperialism.
So teh iranian organization you just quoted are romanticizing the protests? Because I highly doubt any of the left organizations defending the protests in Iran are doing it because they support Mousavi or have any illusions in him. but hey I guess it's easier arguing with a strawman.

Middle Eastern communists are also so hell bent on opposing their own governments that they often don't even acknowledge Western imperialism. This was taken to the extreme when the Iraqi and Kurdish communists initially supported the US invasion of Iraq, a completely ultra-Leftist error on their part.
No it is not an "ultra-leftist error" it's an oppurtunist error well in line with stalinist policy of supporting one imperialist bloc against another.

So the Iranian communists have a beef with Islamic Republic. That is understandable. They killed thousands of them. Our duty as Western, and specifically American communists, is to do whatever it necessary to oppose and weaken our own bourgeoisie, up to and including supporting the nationalist bourgeoisie of other countries that try to chart an independent development. The duty of the Iranian communists is to fight for socialism in their own countries. This is surely an opportunity for them, and they are doing their best to capitalize on this, and I support this. This, however, doesn't mean it is our duty to line up with our own imperialists regarding the protest movement, when not even the Iranian communists are fooled by what they represent.
The iranian communists do not have a "beef",as you express it, with the theocratic dictatorship of iran. The iranian workingclass have been opressed and murdered by this regime for 30 years. Anyone siding with the opressor in this case, as you seem to do, is clearly not a socialist nor even leftwing. The bourguise, as you seem to "forget", is not a purely national phenomena. further on you try to use the strawman that those opposing the regime would somehow be supporting the US. But I guess, with your black-and-white world view, not taking the international workingclass into account, that is what you are deiciding between.

[qoute]Make no mistake: we are witnessing an attempted "color" revolution. If and when the Iranian Left ever takes hold of this, expect a quick reunification of the bourgeois factions, along with complete Western media silence. This probably isn't going to happen though, as the Left in Iran doesn't appear strong enough to do this.[/QUOTE]
Ah good old triumfalism. So what you are saying is, if this was indeed your kind of revolution it would be failing so badly noone would want to pay attention? Again, the workingclass is completly absent from your analysis.

KurtFF8

2nd July 2009, 05:01

Social Party USA supports the movement:
http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/iran0609.html

Intelligitimate

2nd July 2009, 20:17

No it is not an "ultra-leftist error" it's an oppurtunist error well in line with stalinist policy of supporting one imperialist bloc against another.

More absolutely incoherent use of the word “Stalinist.” It literally means nothing to the anarcho-Trots except “Person I don't like.” There is no “Stalinist” policy of supporting one imperialist bloc against another. This is pure invention.

Because I highly doubt any of the left organizations defending the protests in Iran are doing it because they support Mousavi or have any illusions in him.

The Left in Iran has a different goal than we do. If there was a popular perception of McCain stealing the election from Obama and mass protests as a result, it would be the Left's duty to capitalize on this and push people in more radical directions, even if it was fundamentally the Democrats in the leadership of the protests. I wouldn't expect European radicals to give unconditional support to people in the streets waving around pictures of Obama though.

Anyone siding with the opressor in this case, as you seem to do, is clearly not a socialist nor even leftwing.

The oppressor is both sides in this fundamentally bourgeois power contest. The only question is do the street protests represent some kind of real, progressive opposition to the regime, or does it represent another color revolution which backs the neo-liberal billionaire Rafsanjani.

Ah good old triumfalism. So what you are saying is, if this was indeed your kind of revolution it would be failing so badly noone would want to pay attention?

The bourgeois mass media doesn't give air time to popular revolts that are in anyway progressive. For fuck's sake, just look at the media silence on Honduras, where a real mass protest movement that is truly progressive in nature has a total media blackout!

Again, the workingclass is completly absent from your analysis.

The Iranian working class voted for Ahmadenijad. Nor do they appear to be any substantial part of the protests, which is comprised mostly of petty bourgeois students.

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd July 2009, 18:35

While we're in the realm of rhetorical questions:

Is it ever possible for revolutionary leftists of different tendencies to get together and agree that a protest movement is likely composed of many different groups united against a common enemy - including some groups that need to be supported and some groups that need to be opposed - without said leftists throwing gratuitous insults at each other that tend to be much worse than the ones reserved for the capitalists?

Kassad

3rd July 2009, 22:13

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!) is opposing the movement:
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2009/06/imperialism-and-irans-elections.htm

LeninBalls

6th July 2009, 08:25

Led Zeppelin

6th July 2009, 09:26

I know this is slightly off topic but I don't feel for posting a new thread.

Anyways I have a friend in Tehran and she's been saying how the protests have stopped recently. So there's not much movement to oppose and support anymore?

The protests have indeed calmed down over the past few days given the huge state crackdown, but there are already new demonstrations planned for July 8th: http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/

And there are many demonstrations planned internationally.

The movement is far from dead. It has established itself and won't go away until a conclusion is reached; either in the destruction of the current regime or the total destruction of the movement (which is currently undergoing but the regime is certainly not immune from cracks within its structure either).

Anyway, regardless, people have the ability to read so they know what movement this thread refers to, even if it is "over", so I'm not sure what your point is.

The thread will stay regardless of the movement going through an ebb, for it's a great way to gauge the revolutionary nature of various organizations and ideologies. Though the forum should probably become a sub-forum.

Yehuda Stern

6th July 2009, 14:25

I wonder if it is possible to add my group, the Internationalist Socialist League (Trotskyist, Israel) to the list of non-Iranian organizations supporting the movement? We're very small but I still would like it to be clear that we are on the side of the protesters.

Random Precision

6th July 2009, 18:03

Trashed off-topic diversion by TUF and Intel. Please try desperately to stay on point.

RHIZOMES

6th July 2009, 23:10

http://workersparty.org.nz/2009/07/04/unrest-in-iran/

Here's the WP article/statement in support of the movement.

Sarah Palin

7th July 2009, 17:31

Crux

9th July 2009, 00:38

More absolutely incoherent use of the word “Stalinist.” It literally means nothing to the anarcho-Trots except “Person I don't like.” There is no “Stalinist” policy of supporting one imperialist bloc against another. This is pure invention.
I could go into explaining the theoretical basis of stalinism if you are curious but I think that would belong in th "Learning" subforum.
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Allies, Vietnam (when the CP was in power in france, French imperialism was Ok with Ho Chi Minh, or rather magically ceased to exist), and so on ad infinitum. But this too belongs in the Learning subforum.

The Left in Iran has a different goal than we do.Well, maybe a different goal than you do, but certainly not different than mine. That is world revolution and worker's power, in case you are wondering.

If there was a popular perception of McCain stealing the election from Obama and mass protests as a result, it would be the Left's duty to capitalize on this and push people in more radical directions, even if it was fundamentally the Democrats in the leadership of the protests. I wouldn't expect European radicals to give unconditional support to people in the streets waving around pictures of Obama though. Oh but here's the rub of the nub. That's not what's happening in Iran, again you perfectly well show what I was talking about earlier about the Stalinist tactic of supporting one bloc of the bourgeoisie against the other.
The Iranian left does not support Mousavi neither do the vast majority of protesters.

The oppressor is both sides in this fundamentally bourgeois power contest. The only question is do the street protests represent some kind of real, progressive opposition to the regime, or does it represent another color revolution which backs the neo-liberal billionaire Rafsanjani. Well, this is not a mechanical yes or no question. This is a question of dynamics how the protests develop however the illusions in the reformist bloc are small, and the reformists do not by any means have any control whatsoever of the protests.

The bourgeois mass media doesn't give air time to popular revolts that are in anyway progressive. For fuck's sake, just look at the media silence on Honduras, where a real mass protest movement that is truly progressive in nature has a total media blackout!So if the media had reported more on Honduras the protests would no longer be progressive? Your argument is standing on it's head.
Also I have in fact seen quite a few reports on Honduras. The US, for instance has gone out in support of the ousted president Zelaya, a favour they have not granted Mousavi as far as I am aware. However, yes of course the protests in Honduras are progressive and all that, but this too belongs in another thread.

The Iranian working class voted for Ahmadenijad. Nor do they appear to be any substantial part of the protests, which is comprised mostly of petty bourgeois students.The fuck they did. Have you seen the charts? I mean the official charts? Further more that you think the result of that sham election would somehow represent the iranian workingclass in any case is incredible!
I guess you are unaware of the general strike that has rocked Iran. I mean tell that to any Iranian that isn't a stooge for the regime and s/he'd slap you in the face. also your arguments doesn't make any sense one end you think left should capitalize on these protests on the other Ahmanadinejad is an elected representative of the workers.
But I'll give you this, those few who actually harbour serious illussions in Mousavi, Rafsanjavi and their friends are mostly middle-class, not unlike those in the Western "left" that harbour serious illussions in Ahmadinejad.
The massmovement itself proves that these "reformists" are not the leaders, nor are they strongly supported.

Crux

9th July 2009, 00:43

I don't think I can support Mousavi. While Prime Minister, he ordered the slaughter of innocent secular and religious minority students. He also condoned the hangings of hundreds of accused leftists.
And as previously stated, his economic policies are neo-liberal. He is quoted as saying he wants to speed up Irans process of privatization.
Well of course not. He is a murderous rightwing scum and part of the regime, but the mass movement has forced him into a position of opposition I think he never expected nor is very comfortable with. The movement will have to organize their own organizations, independent both of foreign imperialists and the regime. But as I have time and yet again, this is not about Mousavi. He is not leading teh movement he is being dragged kicking and screaming behind it. Soon enough the movement will have to let him go.

Kamerat

9th July 2009, 02:33

Rødt is supporting this movement, but not Mousavi.
Link here (http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Froedt.no%2Fnyheter%2F2009%2F06%2Fop pr%25C3%25B8ret-i-iran-truer-b%25C3%25A5de-et-ahmadinejad-og-et-mousavi-styre%2F)
Tendecy = Multi-Tendency

Pantaloons

16th July 2009, 16:45

Mousavi is a fundamentalist, he is associated with the fundamentalist regime and has a good deal of leftist blood on his hands. Regardless of the movement against him, he and his backer the Ayatollah Rafsanjani, stand to benefit. The movement is the product of an internal conflict among the Iranian bourgeoisie. Iranian students, workers and western leftists can fool themselves thinking there is a movement out there forcing him into a position of "opposition" but this is specious reasoning. If the movement succeeded Mousavi would take power, there would be no "reform" his need to oppose the hardliners and appease his base would be gone as would any sort of promises he made to them. The left takes sides among the fights of bourgeois politicians. You can force a capitalist politician momentarily into a position of opposition but that opposition will go out the window as soon as he gets into power. Make no mistake, anyone who takes a side for or against either faction of Iranian politicians is up for a big disappointment. Either way the workers of Iran will see no reforms. Only disappointment can come from supporting a capitalist politician.

There are Iranian revolutionaries out there that don't care for either Mousavi or Amadinjihad. Comrades in Peyke Anternasionalisti don't support Mousavi and they are Iranian. We have Iranian comrades with the IBRP that don't support the pro-Mousavi movement and don't intend to get killed for a pro-western capitalist pseudo-fundamentalist using a mass movement so he can have power.

The People's Mujahaddin, the MeK, were financed by Saddam Hussein and then after the US invasion retrained to go back into Iran to fight. This was openly written about in the US press. Anyone supporting these guys are supporting a group of folks armed and trained by the US. As are the Kurdish rebels in Iran, who ironically are linked to the KKP, funded by the US on the Iraqi and Turkish side, and attacked by the US and their Turkish allies in Iraq. Surely it is possible for people to think soberly before they leap into taking sides in every conflict, though I wouldn't expect this from anyone on the mainline left, in the west or in Iran for that matter.

For Mousavi or for Amadinjihad? Is this the "realistic" choice we have to make as revolutionaries?

There has got to be a better position than that.

Crux

16th July 2009, 18:08

For Mousavi or for Amadinjihad? Is this the "realistic" choice we have to make as revolutionaries?

There has got to be a better position than that.

Oh there is, but it has nothing to do with IBRP.

Pantaloons

17th July 2009, 18:24

The International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party isn't pro-Mousavi and isn't pro-Amadinjihad either. This is clear from IBRP statements on their website. The listing of supporters of Mousavi is wrong in respect to the positions of the IBRP and its militants, some of whom are Iranian.

As far as I can see there is little difference between the two aside from a slightly more pro-western orientation coming from Mousavi. Regardless of what the movement represents as it is now, Mousavi will benefit and the movement will find itself in the same spot that the pro-Khatami movement faced with its support for the "moderate" Islamic fundamentalist Khatami. It is predictable that most leftists would jump to deciding which side they should support in a bourgeois factional fight, rather than keeping their eyes open and employing some sort of materialist analysis to the situation and putting forward a perspective for the working class and for revolution. If the "real" movement as it is, offers nothing for Iranian workers then Iranian workers should reject it. Yesterday many of the same leftist organizations that opposed the war in Iraq wont hesitate to line up behind the Obama administration and the US State Department to support an intrigue and a political factional struggle where the participants on the ground are being used as fodder to put in another fundamentalist politician.

The US Government already supports the People's Mujahaddin, MeK, and Iran's Kurdish rebels, actively extending the imperialist war in the Gulf region into Iran. Make no mistake, when Israeli warships now have sailed through the Suez Canal and are engaged in directly threatening war against Iran, with the support of the US government. When the State Department, represented by Hillary Clinton "warns" Iran that US "engagement" and "patience" wont last forever, she is implicitly threatening military action against Iran. Iran has a security agreement with China and Russia and any US ambitions in the region could easily blossom into a very real 3rd world war. Given this eventuality one might think that a little caution or thought might be warranted before jumping to pick sides. These things apparently do not concern those leftists who think that by cheerleading "moderate" fundamentalists from the peanut gallery of the left that they are participating in something other than an exercise in their own vanity and self-deception.

The trouble is there is no party or movement of Iranian workers. There are left parties who will tell workers to join a movement in support of a "liberal" Islamic fundamentalist, who has a very clear political record of reactionary politics and mass-murder in his role as prime-minister of Iran during the eighties. The problem is precisely that there is no "real movement" present in Iran that is both by and for workers. The real movement is in fact a symptom of the problem of class politics in the world today.

Pantaloons

17th July 2009, 18:28

Crux

19th July 2009, 22:15

Do enlighten me Mayakovsky. Didn't your CWI have a Ukrainian section that went around ripping off other leftist organizations, mostly other Trotskyists, in a massive fraud?

So, what's your alternative?
Well, calling them "our" section is quite duibious given their reprehensible actions and the fact that CWI CIS and International Secretariat was completly unaware of their actions. They are, as far as I know, the only section that has been outright expelled without the ability to plead against it. But I am at loss as to how that would have anything to do with the current discussion.

perhaps your arguments are so weak you have to resort to mud slinging?Do enlighten me.

To IBRP? Well, if you are unaware the revolutionary party is not an opinion club, nor is it a sect. Your puritan search for a "real" movement makes you ignore actual reality and reduces you to complaining on the sidelines. the general strike called by the independent trade unions for example. Further more your claim that the CWI or the left in genral would support either wing of the regime is ludicrous and totally unsubstained. Most iranian left organisations, for example, rightly called for a boyocott in the elections.

Pantaloons

21st July 2009, 20:20

I was only stating a position in opposition to taking sides in imperialist factional conflict and then making excuses for it by labelling critics of the "struggle" as purists. Again I say to you that this "popular" movement could be heralding, not any change for the better for Iranian workers but instead imperialist intrigue and war in Iran. It could even be a part of a run up to a world war between the US, China, Russia and Iran.

As for whether it is ludicrous to suggest that left parties are lining up to take sides for or against this movement, I think the bulk of the statements on this list demonstrate that it is not farfetched to see here that many folks on the left are doing just that and it seems to be an error shared by Trots, M-Ls and SocDems alike.

I would also question the more vague position of supporting the movement but not the man. I think material reality would contradict this. If the man gets power, he will be a predictable capitalist politician and the mass movement will have put him there. When one supports the movement, one does indeed support the man. What the protestors think they support or not is irrelevant when those who will DIRECTLY benefit, Rafsanjani/Mousavi, have a clear reactionary record and we know exactly what they will do.

If we are hoping this movement will break free of Mousavi, that is another thing. Even this I would question, as I don't think this movement is capable of breaking free of its Mousavi/Rafsanjani orbit. We've already seen the fate of prior student/middle-class initiated movements in support of Khatami. The same people who support Mousavi today, supported Khatami yesterday. The worst thing that can happen to these popular movements, like for Mousavi in Iran or Zelaya in Honduras for example, is for these leaders to take power and show their true colors.

I think it is politically naive to think that the movement is dragging the man behind it and that a popular movement can force a capitalist politician to change his basic essence and imperatives. There is no materialist basis for such a supposition. In recent history, last forty years or so, I can't think of a single example where this has happened. Perhaps someone on this list could show some examples of this historically, that might indicate that such a thing is even possible.

It is better to think critically and complain from the sidelines than to let oneself become a chump cheerleading another capitalist politician and a middle-class led protest movement which will come to the predictable end that all such "movements" arrive at eventually.

[P.S.: Mayakovsky--you took a swipe at my organization and I took a swipe at yours. I apologize.]

Crux

23rd July 2009, 20:56

I was only stating a position in opposition to taking sides in imperialist factional conflict and then making excuses for it by labelling critics of the "struggle" as purists.
That's like saying, by supporting the russian revolution you are, in fact supporting german imperialism.

Again I say to you that this "popular" movement could be heralding, not any change for the better for Iranian workers but instead imperialist intrigue and war in Iran. It could even be a part of a run up to a world war between the US, China, Russia and Iran.
It "could" this and it "could" that. You are obviously out of your depth and clutching for straws.

As for whether it is ludicrous to suggest that left parties are lining up to take sides for or against this movement, I think the bulk of the statements on this list demonstrate that it is not farfetched to see here that many folks on the left are doing just that and it seems to be an error shared by Trots, M-Ls and SocDems alike.
Oh I forgot only the IBRP represents the genuine left.

I would also question the more vague position of supporting the movement but not the man. I think material reality would contradict this. If the man gets power, he will be a predictable capitalist politician and the mass movement will have put him there. When one supports the movement, one does indeed support the man. What the protestors think they support or not is irrelevant when those who will DIRECTLY benefit, Rafsanjani/Mousavi, have a clear reactionary record and we know exactly what they will do.
The movement, as has already been stated, is not primarily for Mousavi. So perhaps you ought to re-examine your "material reality".

If we are hoping this movement will break free of Mousavi, that is another thing. Even this I would question, as I don't think this movement is capable of breaking free of its Mousavi/Rafsanjani orbit. We've already seen the fate of prior student/middle-class initiated movements in support of Khatami. The same people who support Mousavi today, supported Khatami yesterday. The worst thing that can happen to these popular movements, like for Mousavi in Iran or Zelaya in Honduras for example, is for these leaders to take power and show their true colors.
So even if the workingclass would assume a leading position teh bourguise would still triumph? Defeatism in rgards to the worker's movement is quite an infantile mistake, my ultraleft friend.

I think it is politically naive to think that the movement is dragging the man behind it and that a popular movement can force a capitalist politician to change his basic essence and imperatives. There is no materialist basis for such a supposition. In recent history, last forty years or so, I can't think of a single example where this has happened. Perhaps someone on this list could show some examples of this historically, that might indicate that such a thing is even possible.

Really now? So Mousavi orchestrated the massprotests after the elction fraud? So when he told people not to protest he was really using reverse psychology? It is not about turning Mousavi left it si about throwing him off. that he has been radicalized is beyond debate for anyone who has actually been following what's happened in Iran.

It is better to think critically and complain from the sidelines than to let oneself become a chump cheerleading another capitalist politician and a middle-class led protest movement which will come to the predictable end that all such "movements" arrive at eventually.
And then, again, we are back where we started. It is not about Mousavi.

Pantaloons

4th August 2009, 21:53

Crux

12th August 2009, 12:33

You say the movement isn't about Mousavi and yet you paint a picture of a popular uprising dragging this bourgeois politician kicking and screaming behind it by virtue of their organized power. The trouble is that reality has never worked like this. Historically we've seen movements just like this one come and go.
True, Mousavi has not been thrown off yet by virtue of the lack of a real worker's alternative, yet. This needs to be formed.

Did not Marx point out in his writings on the Civil Wars in France the role of middle class "leadership" in such popular movements? The Khatami movement was led by the same faction in power and in the end the protestors, largely students, became disoriented and betrayed by the political retreat of their chosen leader. Likewise the same leftist Iranian exiles associated largely with the "marxist-leninist" (STALINIST) political tradition, initially supported the Ayatollahs who then proceeded to masscre them. A good deal of the political situation workers face is the direct result of the betrayals of the Stalinist parties.
Absolutly.

There are workers struggles going on elsewhere in the world. But middle-class leftists don't pay attention to them. By in large, strikes of workers against the restructuring of the auto industry have gone unnoticed by the left, like the factory occupation that occured in South Korea, or the blockade of FIAT-Pomigliano, or the wave of strikes in Egypt. Yet leftists argue about which faction of capitalists to support while workers when they do take action are largely invisible, unless some middle class leadership has taken them under their wing.
That would be by virtue of the bourguise media. If this is aimed at me personally, or the CWI in general, though, it's a pretty much swing and miss.

The IBRP comrades have written on Iran for years now and our position is a critical, marxist position. We don't support the repression of students and workers or the regime in Iran. Mayakovsky, I was mostly rejecting the idea that the IBRP has lined up for or against the protest movement. but what does this "not for or against" hold? I think it is a mistaken position, but not an unexpected one for your grouping.

If we can set aside the old Stalinist epithets like "ultra-left" that were used against any group, including Trotskyists, that was opposed to Stalinism for just one moment. Your of the word ultraleftist indicates that you are taking a centrist position and says nothing about the actual positions taken by myself or any of my comrades.
Not at all, you fall quite squaerly in the ultraleft camp. Calling soemone ultraleft does not imply a centrist position, and why would it? Obviously there are errors that can be made seemingly in a "leftward" direction, hence ultraleftism. I am using it the way Lenin used it, against groups incapable of building the revolutionary party and appealing to the workingclass.

I never said Mousavi "orchestrated" any mass movement. The very idea is ridiculous. However, the people in the movement, including the workers, have lined up behind Mousavi. Nor have I ever said that the IBRP represents the only genuine left as you seem to imply.
Well, there you go. They have not. The worker's organisations taking parts in the protests have not on any occasion supported Mousavi.

You say that, "defeatism in rgards to the worker's movement is quite an infantile mistake..."

To this I say that there is a difference between a movement that is by and for workers and a bourgeois movement that "leads" workers. You confuse middle-class liberal populism with a "worker's movement"--which is also a mistake. If you define a workers movement in your way any movement containing workers could be considered a workers movement. Consider that the left in Iran, Tudeh Party Stalinists and others, once considered the Ayatollahs to be preferable to the brutal regime of the Shah. Now they support a lesser fundamentalist as the better alternative to the current regime. One thing not addressed by this movement is the rule of the mullahs in Iranian politics, as it only seeks to challenge one of the mullahs' candidates.
A workingclass movement does not appear out of thin air.
And again you seem misinformed, there have been quite obvious tenedencies in the movement to challenge the regime as a whole. Again you express a detached secterian scepticism, rather than a marxist perspective.

To you I would ask how is this movement going to end up any other way than the student movement that once supported Khatami?
Well the diffrence ought to be obvious, these protests have shaken the iranian society and the iranian regime at it's fundaments. the masses have had their first try at mass struggle of this magnitude in 30 years. if a genuine leftwing and workingclass alternative leadership to the "reformist" wing of the regime can be posed the masses will follow. Think of Father Gapons role in the russian revolution and then think of Mousavi.

The entire schema of posting a list of groups that are either "for" or "against" the movement in Iran is flawed. It doesn't allow for any sort of analysis or understanding just a blanket simplistic position of "for" or "against". Would a meaningless psychophantic statement of support for the movement be preferable to attempting to understand the balance of class forces present in it? Would this meaningless statement of support help "the movement" in any way? Of course it wont.
That is because your understanding of the movement is schematic.

Blowing in the winds of bourgeois politics like a weathervane as most leftist groups seen to want to do does nothing for Iranian workers, it doesn't even help workers outside Iran attempt to understand the situation.
Speaking only for my own grouping, the CWI, we are not doing any such. had we come out with a statement prior to the elections it would have been, like the rest of the labour and left movement in iran, to call for a boycott.

It boils down to this: while you would characterize my politics as "ultraleftist", I would characterize your conceptions as ahistorical, naive and deceptive.
And yet it is you who are unable to understand history and where massmovements come from.

The point is the marxist movement need to prove their capabaility in the course of the struggle, to lead, to organize. This will make it possible for a massbasis and this will make it possibly for a revolutionary change in iran that undoubtly will echo far beyond the middle east and give an enormous impetus to the oppressed masses.

leochaos

12th August 2009, 16:41

Hi guys,
I hope I am not posting in the wrong place.Well,after reaching page 6 I gave up reading.I have nothing to add to the comments.Actually my point here is that the whole "debate" is lacking in content.
Obiously I have my own ideas about Iran,but I started reading the posts thinking that I would get something(mostly informations) out of it.
Maybe from page 7 on everything was different;so far I come out of this with...nothing.
Look,it is pretty useless to start/partecipate to a discussion when you basically have very little to say.Therefore I should stop writing!Right,maybe wrong because I am not making any comment on Iran
I am very happy to know that a lot of mini groups support the demonstrations;I am not sure if it means anything.Maybe.
The fact is that we need somebody who has direct informations/ideas coming from Iran.The few things related to reality, you can get from the media.Like the photos with the demonstrators(they look like middle class,but...).So, we have no data,then we put some theory(peppered by totally useless name calling.),very,very generic
My suggestion is that the time spent producing nothing would be better used trying to find some iranian who may have friends partecipating to the protest and then let the uninformed(like me) have something to cogitate about.Frankly I got more by reading Counterpunch, not exactly a revolutionary website.I'll invite everybody to be also "slower".This is not a situation where it is needed to do things immediately;even if there was a radical change the "revolutionary left" outside Iran would have not been a factor in it.There are campaigns that indeed need an immediate action.This seems not to be the case: we can wait a little more to try to understand the players etc.
I am not saying that we should not talk about it.Just to consider that we are not that informed.At least,this is my feeling.If I may add I can easily identify a number of posts written by somebody basically not open to discussion.Good luck to them, but they are not helping any cause by bringing brickthinking to a forum.I think we all know that. Ciao