Chavez congratulates Ahmadinejad

[KurtFF8]

Source (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/venezuelas-chavez-praises-irans-ahmadinejad/)


http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hugo-chavez-and-irans-ahmadinejad.jpg?w=320&h=216 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hugo-chavez-and-irans-ahmadinejad.jpg)Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad (at an earlier meeting)

Chavez congratulates Ahmadinejad (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=97983&sectionid=351020101)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has congratulated his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the success of his re-election bid, in yesterday’s poll.
In a telephone conversation with the Iranian president, Chavez said, “The victory of Dr. Ahmadinejad in the recent election is a win for all people in the world and free nations against global arrogance,” Iran’s Presidential Office reported. Chavez usually uses the term “global arrogance” to refer to Venezuela’s arch-foe the United States.
The call came after preliminary results were announced by the Interior Ministry saying that Iran’s incumbent president has won a landslide victory, gaining more than 64 percent of the votes.
Chavez also noted that the Venezuelan people and government always stand behind the Iranians.
In his reply, Ahmadinejad said that, “Despite all pressures, the nation of Iran had completely won (the election) and indeed this victory shows the clear road for the future.”
Before the start of the election too, the socialist leader had wished Ahmadinejad good luck in his re-election bid.
Speaking to supporters Thursday, Chavez called the Iranian president “a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution, the defense of the Third World, and in the struggle against imperialism.”

[REDSOX]

As much as i admire Hugo chavez i feel he has made a mistake here by backing a faction of the Iranian bourgeois. Judging by what he has said he seems to equate the movement in Iran with the bourgeois rabble of a middle class in Venezuela that used to riot and march in Venezuela when they tried to topple him and indeed still try. I thinks he feels empathy with ahmadinejad.

[( R )evolution]

Hugo Chavez has now moved even lower on my list.


the defense of the Third World

I think he means the exploitation of the 3rd world.

[BobKKKindle$]

As much as i admire Hugo chavez i feel he has made a mistake here by backing a faction of the Iranian bourgeoisI don't think he made a mistake at all. However much he might posture as a leader who supports the Venezuelan working class, and despite the gains that have been made since his government came to power, Chavez is fundamentally part of the same ruling class as Amadinejad and all the other bourgeois politicians who rule their respective nation-states, and that is why he is hostile to any movement that involves workers challenging his allies, due to fears that it might lead to workers in Venezuela taking action, or undermine his image as a progressive leader. This is nothing new - Chavez's government has always been willing to use coercion against striking workers.

[REDSOX]

Hugo chavez is not a member of the ruling class in Venezuela. He is not a Bonarpartist a proletarian bonarpartist or a populist. He is a socialist but not a marxist. I think he is wrong on Iran however, better for him not to get involved in bourgeis squabbles. If the proletariat enter the arena however i expect more from him.

[YSR]

In the surprise of the century, an "anti-imperialist" strongman leader congratulates another anti-imperialist strongman leader. Film at 11!

[Il Medico]

I hope Chavez's support of Iran's regime is as a fellow enemy of American Imperialism. If not then he is no where near as progressive as I thought. I still hold hope for Latin America as it seems to be more progressive and open to leftism as a whole.

[Yehuda Stern]

Boy, do the Chavez cheerleaders find themselves in a bind now. On the one hand, they want to keep sucking up to Chavez and present him as some revolutionary socialist ("BUT NOT A MARXIST!," they exclaim, as if that creates less illusions in him among workers sympathetic to these groups). On the other hand, they also want to suck up to Mousavi, and send him open letters and other such things. What will they do? Chavez only cares for his narrow bourgeois interests when dealing with other countries, so he certainly doesn't care who is hurt by his opportunism towards Obama and his support of Ahmadinejad. We can only guess that the Chavistas also don't care, and will soon reverse one of their positions and pronounce one of yesterday's great revolutionaries to have suddenly become a traitor or some stupid thing like that.

[More Fire for the People]

OH MY GOD, HE'S NOT JESUS.

You're conflicted over who you like more, Daft Punk or Crass. Chavez's contradictions are more complex--but the both of you are riddled with contradictions, one's that push you forward and ones that set you back.

[ZeroNowhere]

I hope Chavez's support of Iran's regime is as a fellow enemy of American Imperialism.Wait, why does this matter? It's alright to support a reactionary ruler, especially given current events, because he's the enemy of your enemy? If he's supporting Ahmadinejad for being anti-imperialist, then all it shows is that his 'anti-imperialism' is bankrupt.

[Revy]

Hugo chavez is not a member of the ruling class in Venezuela. He is not a Bonarpartist a proletarian bonarpartist or a populist. He is a socialist but not a marxist. I think he is wrong on Iran however, better for him not to get involved in bourgeis squabbles. If the proletariat enter the arena however i expect more from him.

Actually, he called himself a social democrat in a late-2008 interview. Which is pretty recent in the scope of his 10 year presidency.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

He's called himself a Trotskyist, Maoist, Christian, socialist, social democrat and Quixotist.

[Revy]

He's called himself a Trotskyist, Maoist, Christian, socialist, social democrat and Quixotist.

So he's a chameleon-ist, then?

[scarletghoul]

I dunno what Quixotist is but for the other ones he certainly has elements of them in his politics.

[RHIZOMES]

When the US is trying to fuck you up the ass, realpolitik and trying to solidify an anti-imperialist bloc is important regardless of your feelings towards their domestic government. The Iranian elections is a pro-west reactionary vs. an anti-west reactionary, so...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

..so throwing your support behind the leader of a capitalist state which is in the midst of a crisis in the name of preserving your own spot as the head of another capitalist state from meddling by US imperialism is absolutely fine and should not be criticized.

Pragmatism right? How revolutionary! :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I dunno what Quixotist is

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

[Yehuda Stern]

You're conflicted over who you like more, Daft Punk or Crass. Chavez's contradictions are more complex--but the both of you are riddled with contradictions, one's that push you forward and ones that set you back. I actually like neither band, as well as pretentious posters who use vague worn-out phrases instead of real arguments.

[Revy]

Did he actually seriously describe himself as "Quixotist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quixotism)"? :blink:

[RHIZOMES]

..so throwing your support behind the leader of a capitalist state which is in the midst of a crisis in the name of preserving your own spot as the head of another capitalist state from meddling by US imperialism is absolutely fine and should not be criticized.

Pragmatism right? How revolutionary! :lol:

Not "preserving your own spot", forming links which may come in handy if the US decides to do anything shifty against the Venezuelan revolution as a whole.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I admire Hugo Chavez, and I'm still doing so. While I don't like Ahmadenijad very much, I totally understand why Chavez does this. Ahmadinejad is, however you look at it, a very strong person in the struggle against American imperialism, and the leader of a powerful nation. That's the reason of this congratulation: showing "unity" to America and Israel.

[JammyDodger]

While the US trains its gaze at Iran, Venezuala shows less visible on the radar I guess.
This result in Iran will not be overturned Hugo knows it, four more years of Imadinnerjacket may change Iran forever.

In four years Venezuala will be vastly improved and better defended, and the workers parties in Iran will do a glorious trade.

It has still not yet been proved to my confidence that the result is wrong, if atall.

It is best to see what ground can be made from it, new stronger efforts can be made for workers parties and groups the world over to aid the Iranians.

The land Iran along with the land of Iraq is the true cradle of civilisation, its given birth to much in its history, a workers revolution will be the next child if we help them.
And the door is open in Iraq too.

The struggle is hard, but where opportunities abound we have to make the best of them.

Well that my 2 pence worth on it anyway.

[Q]

I'd love to see the IMT defend this...

[Mälli]

So he's a chameleon-ist, then?

So he is a populist?

[Yehuda Stern]

I'd love to see the IMT defend this...

Especially after their disgusting "open letter" to Mousavi, where they begged him to become the people's hero.

[REDSOX]

The IMT will not be able to defend this but i am sure they will simply say its chavez's opinion. I can't see themselves denouncing Hugo chavez inpublic considering that Alan woods is a mate of chavez's. Personally i think Chavez should not be backing bourgeois factions who are fighting each other for state power leave them to it i say, unless as i have repeatedly said the workers get involved and change the dynamic. If that happens and the state puts it down then that leaves chavez and socialists around the world with a decision to make Do you stand with the workers and oppressed or do you stand with the clerics It will be a Czecholosovakia moment a la 1968 again and i for one will stand with the working class at that point.

Interestingly Cuba has not spoken publicly on the developments in Iran yet

[Killfacer]

I admire Hugo Chavez, and I'm still doing so. While I don't like Ahmadenijad very much, I totally understand why Chavez does this. Ahmadinejad is, however you look at it, a very strong person in the struggle against American imperialism, and the leader of a powerful nation. That's the reason of this congratulation: showing "unity" to America and Israel.

Great, one election fixing autocrat patting another on the back.

[KurtFF8]

Boy, do the Chavez cheerleaders find themselves in a bind now. On the one hand, they want to keep sucking up to Chavez and present him as some revolutionary socialist ("BUT NOT A MARXIST!," they exclaim, as if that creates less illusions in him among workers sympathetic to these groups). On the other hand, they also want to suck up to Mousavi, and send him open letters and other such things. What will they do? Chavez only cares for his narrow bourgeois interests when dealing with other countries, so he certainly doesn't care who is hurt by his opportunism towards Obama and his support of Ahmadinejad. We can only guess that the Chavistas also don't care, and will soon reverse one of their positions and pronounce one of yesterday's great revolutionaries to have suddenly become a traitor or some stupid thing like that.

Oh man, Chavez took a position that many of us disagree with on an issue, we should completely write him off now! At least this seems to be your position on most revolutionary movements: if it's not 100% in line with the way it ought to be, it must be abandoned.

I'm not even a huge fan of Chavez, and I think he's quite wrong about this, but come on.

[redguard2009]

So, Avante, your logic is basically that if the US supports it, it must be bad?

Please don't let that information get out. If it were as ridiculously simple as that, the US would have to do nothing more than say it supports everything the left does and suddenly we'll be out of the job.

[YSR]

The principal contradiction is U.S. imperialism? When did that change? I thought it was the class system and the commodity form and all that.

[redguard2009]

It is a gross misinterpretation of Maoist principle which emphasises quite a bit the extremely negative impact of American imperialism on the revolutionary movements of the world and urges further action against global imperialism as a greater means of advancing the revolution. Some take that and make anti-imperialism the sole contradiction, or atleast most important.

[YSR]

Oh man, Chavez took a position that many of us disagree with on an issue, we should completely write him off now! At least this seems to be your position on most revolutionary movements: if it's not 100% in line with the way it ought to be, it must be abandoned.

I mean, yeah, of course. This doesn't make any sense. If a "revolutionary leader" starts doing and saying things that aren't revolutionary, one should find a new leader. Anything else is pledging yourself to something you don't believe has the interests of the working class in mind.

The CPUSA says it wants people to vote for Obama even though they disagree with him on many points and everyone on RevLeft gets up in a tizzy. How is your position any different?

Of course, this points towards the bankruptcy of "revolutionary leadership" in the form of political parties and state actors in the first place. Which is a point that should be raised in conversation about the Iran situation and am surprised that my non-party communist/anarchist comrades haven't really piped up on here to draw the connections, because they're so clear in this situation.

[More Fire for the People]

I actually like neither band, as well as pretentious posters who use vague worn-out phrases instead of real arguments.
You're right, phrases like "he's a walking contradiction" and " you just contradicted yourself" are in no way used by ordinary people. I'm so glad you set me straight, I was afraid I might be talking too pretty. Thanks for putting me in my place, master. :rolleyes:

[Kassad]

Wait, has the International Marxist Tendency already made a statement on the Iran issue? If so, this royally fucks them pretty well. They support Chavez as much as my party does.

[Guerrilla22]

I think people are putting too much into this. Chavez did this because he knew it would piss off the US government. It's classic Chavez.

[redguard2009]

A statement? They've already made an entire section of their website to devote to Iran:

http://www.marxist.com/iran/

Funny quotes:

"What we are witnessing in Iran is a full-blown popular revolution."

"The events in Iran are like the situation in tsarist Russia in the Spring of 1905." (this actually is from an article written in 1999 about the student strikes during that year, which they also coined as a revolution, and mentioned how they predicted it a year prior)

"All the objective conditions for revolution as outlined by Lenin have matured in Iran. The events of the past few days mark the beginning of the Iranian revolution"

"Iran: The Revolution has Begun!"

"Even more significantly, yesterday: six footballers playing for Iran's national team, including the captain, appeared in a World Cup qualifier in Seoul, South Korea, wearing armbands in the green associated with the protests." (in reference to Iran state TV showing glimpses of the protests)

State TV showing the protests?! Six football players wear green armbands!? THE REVOLUTION IS HERE!

I'm sorry, but why does it seem like some Trotskyists are always first on AND last off the bandwagon? No offense to our resident Trotskyists -- I've even had Trotskyist friends joke about the affinity for their organizations to make the loudest predictions possible -- but why?

I'm also very interested to see the IMT put so much faith and arguement into the idea of this being the Iranian revolution, and explain Chavez, their long-time prediction "target" to turn around and congratulate Ahmadinajad and give well-wishes to his continued regime.

[redasheville]

I think people are putting too much into this. Chavez did this because he knew it would piss off the US government. It's classic Chavez.

Well...Chavez is also allied with Iran.

[Charles Xavier]

Chavez: Still on the right side of the principle contradiction

RevLefters: Unsurprisingly still acting like stooges for imperialism

Quoted for Truth and Justice.

[Yehuda Stern]

Oh man, Chavez took a position that many of us disagree with on an issue, we should completely write him off now!

This isn't the only reason why I'm against Chavez. It's just another reason - which is also wonderful as it puts his cheerleaders in a very problematic position. Bottom line, I'm against Chavez because he is a bourgeois nationalist who uses socialist rhetoric but protects capitalism and suppresses militant workers.

Also, your "100%" criticism is pretty fucking stupid - it's impossible for someone to be revolutionary on every single thing but to just support the counterrevolution on one isolated case. Our political positions form a whole, and supporting a bourgeois state against a mass protest movement shows that in Chavez's case, that whole is bourgeois nationalism.


You're right, phrases like "he's a walking contradiction" and " you just contradicted yourself" are in no way used by ordinary people.

I have no idea whether or not you are an "ordinary person," whatever that means, but yeah, I think those are vague empty phrases used by Chavez supporters instead of trying to argue about the class character of his regime. But what do you care? You just want to sound smart on a web forum.


I'm so glad you set me straight, I was afraid I might be talking too pretty. Thanks for putting me in my place, masterWait, is this guy trying to make me feel like I am condescending the same guy who said that while Chavez is a free complex person, all I care about is which band I like more (while I really don't like either)? Give me a break.


Wait, has the International Marxist Tendency already made a statement on the Iran issue? If so, this royally fucks them pretty well. They support Chavez as much as my party does.Yeah, isn't this (http://www.marxist.com/open-letter-to-mir-hossein-mousavi.htm) great?

[BIG BROTHER]

yehuda, I would argue that bourgeoisie nationalism in a neo-colonial country is what pushed Chavez towards Socialism, or you could say Socialist like policies, since nationalism of an oppressed nation runs contrary to Imperialism.

It is those same workers who you claim he suppresses, the ones who have pushed him, and made him rise in ways very contrary to foreign capital.

Now I'm not a Chavez cheerleader either, although he is anti-imperialist we have seen him now supporting Ahmadinejad which is not revolutionary. Could this mean Chavez is just making a political mistake? The contradiction between the workers interests and the national bourgoisie are influecing this?

[Wanted Man]

Especially after their disgusting "open letter" to Mousavi, where they begged him to become the people's hero.
That's kind of funny. It reminds me of an article I read yesterday, by Afshin Ellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshin_Ellian), who wrote that Mousavi could become "the new Mandela". :rolleyes:

From the IMT, it's even funnier because they claim to be "revolutionary"...

[Chambered Word]

Chavez is alright, but he's a bit of a tool. Alot of the time he doesn't seem to have a clue what he's talking about, kind of like the blunt end of the hammer and sickle :laugh: Also fuck the Islamic Revolution.

[Yehuda Stern]

I would argue that bourgeoisie nationalism in a neo-colonial country is what pushed Chavez towards Socialism, or you could say Socialist like policies, since nationalism of an oppressed nation runs contrary to Imperialism.

This has a grain of truth in it; of course, all it means is that the bourgeois nationalists end up capitulating to imperialism, as the history of the last one hundred years shows.


It is those same workers who you claim he suppresses, the ones who have pushed him, and made him rise in ways very contrary to foreign capital.

The same could be said of Allende and of dozens of other similar bourgeois nationalists in Latin America and elsewhere. That the workers support a certain leader doesn't mean his regime is proletarian; it signifies false consciousness of the working class.
Also, I've only said that Chavez suppresses militant workers - those who are critical of him or who try to force nationalizations and so on. And yes, in some cases Chavez does nationalize a factory under working class pressure. Other times, the workers find themselves at the business end of a military boot, the same military which Chavez controls and among whose ranks Chavez is, or at least was, quite popular.


Could this mean Chavez is just making a political mistake? The contradiction between the workers interests and the national bourgoisie are influecing this?

And what about his capitulation towards Obama? Why should we keep insisting that Chavez is making mistakes, while it's clear that these "mistakes" are actually manifestations of the class interests he represents?

[Honggweilo]

Its obvious that Chavez has to make geopolitical alliances in a hostile international enviorment, but that does not justify the nature of the Iranian regime and the legitamite right of the progressive forces in Iran to back the protests.

[Jorge Miguel]

Great to see two democratic leaders continue to forge ties together - along with a third, the DPRK.

[Honggweilo]

Great to see two democratic leaders continue to forge ties together - along with a third, the DPRK.
Democratic? Seriously... some ML'ist are taking a reaaaaally black&white anti-imperialist stance here

[Jorge Miguel]

Kim Yong Nam Sends Congratulatory Message to Iranian President
file:///images/02mm.gif
file:///images/02mm.gif
Pyongyang, June 15 (KCNA) -- Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, Sunday sent a congratulatory message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upon his reelection as president of Iran.
Kim in the message said that his reelection as Iranian president is the expression of support and trust of the Iranian people in him and sincerely wished him success in his responsible work to frustrate pressure and interference of outsiders and build independent and prosperous Iran.

He expressed belief that the friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries that were forged in the joint struggle for independence against imperialism would favorably grow stronger in all fields.

[Honggweilo]

Dont you see the difference between the geopolitical strategies of nation states as the DPRK and Venezuela who try to build up anti-imperialist alliances against the US (in their own intrests) and the internal struggle of the Iranian people that is not just a stooge of US imperialism as some of you seem to believe, most of the Iranian protesters are well aware of the decietfullness of the US and arent taking a "pro-western" position.... They learned that during the Shah regime.

[Revy]

Kim Yong Nam Sends Congratulatory Message to Iranian President
file:///images/02mm.gif
file:///images/02mm.gif
Pyongyang, June 15 (KCNA) -- Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, Sunday sent a congratulatory message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upon his reelection as president of Iran.
Kim in the message said that his reelection as Iranian president is the expression of support and trust of the Iranian people in him and sincerely wished him success in his responsible work to frustrate pressure and interference of outsiders and build independent and prosperous Iran.

He expressed belief that the friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries that were forged in the joint struggle for independence against imperialism would favorably grow stronger in all fields.

both figureheads for tyrannical regimes. maybe they can discuss how they serve their Supreme Leaders over tea.

[Jorge Miguel]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00802/Kim-Jong-Il-460_802195c.jpg
LUL WUT

[Revy]

Dude, you're the most obvious of the CIA trolls here. I think we can all see through that. Though, I think the CIA might have tried to build a more convincing character, I have to assume you're just a run of the mill right-wing troll.

ugh....:sleep:

[Honggweilo]

Dude, you're the most obvious of the CIA trolls here. I think we can all see through that. Though, I think the CIA might have tried to build a more convincing character, I have to assume you're just a run of the mill right-wing troll.

ugh....:sleep:
LOLWUT? Cool story bro

Anyway, to ignore the liberal douche here and get back to business.

@Jorge

Even Mousavi wasnt going to be a stooge for western imperialism even if he won, he is still a moderate bourgeois nationalist loyal to the imams and conservative supporters of the religous powerstructure of Ayatolla. This is a genuine struggle of the Iranian people.

[el_chavista]

Our customs has a strong influence from the Saracens (Arabs dominated in Spain for almost 800 years). During the dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gómez (1908-1935) homosexuals were incarcerated. Only recently the antifeminism embodied in laws has been changed, like the article on the causes of divorce in the civil code which stated that adultery by women is a ground for divorce in any case, but if it is by the man, divorce only applies when adultery is public knowledge.

Besides, the riots in Iran look that akin to the "escuálidos" riots here, with their signs in English, that any "chavista" is suspicious of them being a "colour revolution".

[Davie zepeda]

He Congratulated him wow your over analyzing something that's nothing. Let's continue on Chavez has my support and he's not a nationalist nor was Allende you twit they where genuine revolutions that came about from the crisis that capitalism created imf and the depression. It shock's me that most comrades don't take into consideration the condition in which he is in. Also you all have seem to forgot about the major projects Iran has promised to do in Venezuela from the telephone lines to the massive housing project.

[50cal_words]

Not to justify his actions, but i do wonder how much of a choice he had. There is a lot of pressure from the world... though, i dont know how much there was in this case specifically.

[Dimentio]

Wait, why does this matter? It's alright to support a reactionary ruler, especially given current events, because he's the enemy of your enemy? If he's supporting Ahmadinejad for being anti-imperialist, then all it shows is that his 'anti-imperialism' is bankrupt.

This alliance is silly. Iran cannot offer Venezuela that much. It would be wiser to try to get resources from China or Russia, which Chavèz also has done.

[bolshevik butcher]

That's kind of funny. It reminds me of an article I read yesterday, by Afshin Ellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshin_Ellian), who wrote that Mousavi could become "the new Mandela". :rolleyes:

From the IMT, it's even funnier because they claim to be "revolutionary"...
This thread is ridiculous, I thought there might be some decent discussion on this subject but apparently not. I've left the letter below because I think that frankly to argue that it was pro-Mousavi is an out right lie and an insult to the Iranian section of the IMT who work in illegal conditions. This letter was an attempt to reach the workers and youth who are out in the streets just now, which is what anyone who sees themselves as a marxist should surely be attempting to do in such a situation?



Mr Mir-Hossein Mousavi
Many of the youth of Iran have taken part in the tenth presidential election of the ‘Islamic Republic’ and have voted for you as their preferred candidate. But this was a forced choice. This is because the four election candidates, including you, have in fact been selected by the Guardian Council. There is no doubt, that if the election had been free from the beginning, and that candidates from different tendencies in society, including workers’ representatives (like Mansour Osanloo who is today behind bars because of defending freedom and the right to form an independent trade union) could take part; the votes of the majority of toiling people and the youth would have belonged to him and not to the likes of you.
http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/200x301-images-stories-iran-Hossein_Mousavi.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/iran/Hossein_Mousavi.jpg)Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Photo by Mardetanha.The first question that the youth, who are today being intimidated and threatened by Ahmadinejad’s government, put to you is this: why didn’t you complaint about the undemocratic nature of the election earlier? Didn’t you know that an election in which only four out of 400 people are selected by the Guardian Council and thousands of oppositionists of the capitalist government are either suppressed, intimidated or in prison, and have therefore been excluded from being a candidate, is an undemocratic election? If you were elected instead of Ahmadinejad, would you have kept quiet about this central question? It is obvious that the only reason you demand a democratic election now is because you have been subject to hostility yourself? Does the principle of democracy for all mean nothing to you?
In your statement to the people you write: “The actions we have witnessed in the past few days have no precedent in the Islamic Republic”.
Do you really believe that this is the first time we have witnessed such actions in the Islamic Republic? Mr Mousavi, the thirty-year history of the Islamic Republic is full of such actions. Let us not go too far back in time. Last month (on May Day) nearly 2000 honourable workers gathered in Laleh Park so that they could celebrate May Day peacefully. Before the ceremony could begin, your former friends, the plain-clothes officers, attacked them and arrested over 150 without any legal justification. Some of them are still in prison. Earlier, most of the leaders of the Vahed Trade Union were arrested and abused, because they want to form a free trade union. Do you remember last year’s attacks on students and women? Do you remember the flogging of labour activists in Kurdistan? Were you even aware of the recent events in the social movements? If you were aware (and as a presidential candidate you must have been aware) why were you silent about these undemocratic actions? And why do you call the hostility against yourself “unprecedented”? The reason for your forgetfulness is clear, because you also have had a share in these undemocratic decisions yourself, or at best, had no objection to them.
In this statement you write: “We, as people who abide by the Islamic Republic’s system and the Constitution, see the principle of the velayat-e faghih [Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists] as one of the pillars of this system and conduct [our] political activity within this framework.”
Mr Mousavi, the question the youth put to you is this: what happens if the main cause and architect of the electoral fraud and the subsequent repression is the velayat-e faghih himself? How can you resolve this contradiction between your words and your deeds? With Khamenei’s position in support of Ahmadinejad, and his premature and illegal positions on confirming Ahmadinejad’s presidency, today it is not a secret for anyone, including you, that the vali-e faghih is himself the person who is the cause of these events. How can you now write a letter of complaint to the person who has committed the crime and expect him to investigate these events? In the opinion of the youth who voted for you, this action by you is nothing but a joke. How can you, on the one hand, criticise the velayat-e faghih and, on the other, demand democracy in Iran? These two are clearly contradictory. Destroying one will lead to achieving the other.
Mr Mousavi, you applied for a legal permit to hold a demonstration on June 15th 2009. This permit was not given to you and your campaign staff immediately postponed this rally. Of course, when you found out later that things had gone too far and the masses of the people would not put up with postponing the rally, you then also took part in it so as to calm them down. The question the youth put to you is: why don’t you declare yourself the president elected by the majority of the people? Don’t you believe that you had the majority of the votes? And why don’t you call on the people to hold continuous street protests until this matter has been investigated? Mr Mousavi, you can’t sit on the fence forever. You must either side with the people who voted for you or with the vali-e faghih (and the repressive apparatus of the state). Being at the service of the people would mean that you should cut your links with the whole state apparatus. That is because this government has lost its legitimacy among the youth of Iran.
You say: “I, your servant, emphatically and once again, advise you to continue your civil and legal opposition peacefully and by observing the principle of refraining from clashes.” Mr Mousavi, are you aware that in yesterday’s demonstration seven of your supporters were killed and a number of others were injured with the bullets of hezbollahi motorcyclists? Do you want to pursue these criminal motorcyclists through the legal process? Is it the Ahmadinejad government or the Tehran prosecutor that is supposed to try and sentence these people? If you make such claims then most of your young supporters who were marching in the streets yesterday will laugh at you loudly! You, someone who has been a part of the ruling body for 30 years and has been a prime minister, can’t even defend your own rights today. What can you do for your supporters who, on the orders of the Intelligence Ministry and the approval of the very same vali-e faghih of yours, were killed on the streets yesterday?
Mr Mousavi, it is obvious that the masses of the people, whether they support you or whether they oppose you, are taking part in the rallies. You can be sure that no one is coming to the demonstrations with the intention of wrecking, disturbing and carrying out a plot (don’t believe the Ahmadinejad government’s propaganda). The question is this: when the regime’s mercenaries were attacking the people and were hitting them with truncheons and cables, and killing them with knives and guns; what are the innocent people supposed to do? Do you even give them the permission to defend themselves? Don’t our youth even have the right to defend themselves against these aggressions and have the right not to be beaten up?
Mr Mousavi, you know all these points yourself; but in order to dance to the tune of the vali-e faghih and abide by the direct wishes of Khamenei in your recent meeting with him; you want to show him that you are against any kind of extreme behaviour by your supporters. Even if the resistance of the youth is aimed at defending you!
Mr Mousavi, you are at a crossroads: on the one hand, you can uphold the despotic system and all its apparatus for repression, and on the other, you can defend the democratic demands of millions of the people of Iran. During just a few days you have clearly shown that despite losing the position of president, you have chosen the first path. You didn’t call on the people to struggle against injustice. You didn’t defend the people’s right to self-defence against the mercenaries of Ahmadinejad’s government. You preferred that the people stayed quiet and finally returned to their homes. You called off the demonstration on Monday and you only took part in it to calm down the anger of the masses. In other words, you have submitted yourself to Ahmadinejad’s government.
Mr Mousavi, the youth of Iran will continue this resistance without your leadership, just as they went to yesterday’s demonstration without it. If they are again defeated, be sure that a new generation of the masses of the people will turn towards the real revolutionary alternatives by breaking away from any type of reformism. The youth of Iran will find a response to the mercenaries. They will find their own leader, and they will confront this government, or any other repressive capitalist government, and in the future will finally build a government that gives them political and economic democracy.
You can be sure of that!
Maziar Razi
16 June 2009

[Yehuda Stern]

The letter doesn't lie in the sense that it doesn't claim that Mousavi is leading the masses towards a revolution; however, it suggests that he may be able to in the future, i.e. it builds illusions in him. I never claimed anything more than that in my post.

At any rate, how would you reconcile the IMT claim that Chavez is a revolutionary who represents the working class with the fact that he supports the suppression of the protests in Iran?

[Louis Pio]

http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-solidarity-iran-statement-cmr.htm


however, it suggests that he may be able to in the future, i.e. it builds illusions in him.

But it really doesn't suggest any of that sort, I think it's description of his role are pretty clear.

[Yehuda Stern]

But it really doesn't suggest any of that sort, I think it's description of his role are pretty clear.

Of his role, maybe. I'll just say that any class characterization of Mousavi, the mass movement, or the regime is conspicuously absent from the article, other than for saying twice that the government is capitalist. Workers are mentioned once in the whole article; the bourgeoisie, not even that.

At any rate, you are clearly building illusions in the capabilities of the reformists:


Mr Mousavi, you are at a crossroads: on the one hand, you can uphold the despotic system and all its apparatus for repression, and on the other, you can defend the democratic demands of millions of the people of Iran.

Can he, now?

Also, since your comrade chose to not answer this question twice, I am turning it to you: how would you reconcile the IMT claim that Chavez is a revolutionary who represents the working class with the fact that he supports the suppression of the protests in Iran?

[Faceless]

how would you reconcile the IMT claim that Chavez is a revolutionary who represents the working class with the fact that he supports the suppression of the protests in Iran?

You have asked the question twice and you have been answered twice but you are either too hollow headed or too dishonest to actually read the replys. The one resident Venezuelan comrade (that I know of) has already replied to you:


Our customs has a strong influence from the Saracens (Arabs dominated in Spain for almost 800 years). During the dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gómez (1908-1935) homosexuals were incarcerated. Only recently the antifeminism embodied in laws has been changed, like the article on the causes of divorce in the civil code which stated that adultery by women is a ground for divorce in any case, but if it is by the man, divorce only applies when adultery is public knowledge.

Besides, the riots in Iran look that akin to the "escuálidos" riots here, with their signs in English, that any "chavista" is suspicious of them being a "colour revolution".
(my emphasis)

Furthermore Louis Pio already linked you to the actual reply of the IMT's Venezuelan section to the statements by Chavez. Try reading it comrade, then perhaps you will understand. Many an honest revolutionary can be wrong - and there's no doubt Chavez and many honest Bolivarians are wrong on this - but it doesn't mean you have to denounce them as anti-revolutionary. It means you should patiently explain to them why they are wrong.

[Yehuda Stern]

You have asked the question twice and you have been answered twice but you are either too hollow headed or too dishonest to actually read the replys.

I have been answered zero times. You can only quote one reply, which was not to me, and honestly doesn't sound at all honest or relevant. So that takes care of who is hollow-headed.


Furthermore Louis Pio already linked you to the actual reply of the IMT's Venezuelan section to the statements by Chavez. Try reading it comrade, then perhaps you will understand.

I understand very well - the IMT wants to give Iranian workers the illusion that some reformist, if not Mousavi, can become the people's leader and challenge the theocratic regime. That is clear from the quote I posted. It's not surprising, either, because that's what the IMT does for social-democrat and bourgeois reformists in every country where it is active.


Many an honest revolutionary can be wrong - and there's no doubt Chavez and many honest Bolivarians are wrong on this - but it doesn't mean you have to denounce them as anti-revolutionary. It means you should patiently explain to them why they are wrong.

Support for the counterrevolution isn't a mere mistake. That you treat as such shows your opportunism towards Chavez, and the unprincipled nature of your politics. If you would at least denounce Chavez now it would show that you at least have a spine. As you don't, then, we have also taken care of who is dishonest.

[KC]

Support for the counterrevolution isn't a mere mistake. That you treat as such shows your opportunism towards Chavez, and the unprincipled nature of your politics. If you would at least denounce Chavez now it would show that you at least have a spine. As you don't, then, we have also taken care of who is dishonest.

I think Chavez's statement that the unrest in Iran is entirely a CIA plot goes a long way in disproving the assertion that Chavez is simply making a mistake in his analysis. Of course, his acceptance of Ahmedinejad as president and his towing of the reactionary regime's line in general goes even further in proving that this is much more than a mere mistake.

[Louis Pio]

I understand very well - the IMT wants to give Iranian workers the illusion that some reformist, if not Mousavi, can become the people's leader and challenge the theocratic regime. That is clear from the quote I posted. It's not surprising, either, because that's what the IMT does for social-democrat and bourgeois reformists in every country where it is active.



Some have those illusions in Iran, I think the article clearly states what should be done. This can only be seen as sowing illusions by someone who is totally dishonest as you clearly have shown you are on many occasions.
Btw I was wondering if how your line on joining the iranian army will work in this situation. If the USA was to offer more support to the protests (wich I doubt, but lets say for the sake of argument), would now then be the time to join the iranian army Yehuda?


I think Chavez's statement that the unrest in Iran is entirely a CIA plot goes a long way in disproving the assertion that Chavez is simply making a mistake in his analysis. Of course, his acceptance of Ahmedinejad as president and his towing of the reactionary regime's line in general goes even further in proving that this is much more than a mere mistake.

Yes it would suggest a certain level of paranoia, which is quite understandable really

[KC]

Yes it would suggest a certain level of paranoia, which is quite understandable really

Quite the opposite, actually. Ahmedinejad and the reactionary regime are comfortable allies with Chavez. He is defending them because of this, not because of any "mistaken views" or "paranoia". Russia is doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason. This is why we are seeing both Chavez and the Russian media picking up on the "CIA involvement" in Iran.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Source (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/venezuelas-chavez-praises-irans-ahmadinejad/)
Mmm, that picture of Che facepalming goes really well with Chavez's facepalm-inducing statement. I'm surprised no-one else has pointed it out.

I don't think he made a mistake at all. However much he might posture as a leader who supports the Venezuelan working class, and despite the gains that have been made since his government came to power, Chavez is fundamentally part of the same ruling class as Amadinejad and all the other bourgeois politicians who rule their respective nation-states, and that is why he is hostile to any movement that involves workers challenging his allies, due to fears that it might lead to workers in Venezuela taking action, or undermine his image as a progressive leader. This is nothing new - Chavez's government has always been willing to use coercion against striking workers.
This is basically everything that needed to be said about this thread.

Hugo chavez is not a member of the ruling class in Venezuela.
Funny that, I always thought the ruling class was the class that ruled. If the ruler of a country isn't ruling class, who is?

Not "preserving your own spot", forming links which may come in handy if the US decides to do anything shifty against the Venezuelan revolution as a whole.
Surely if the US decided to act against the Venezuelan government, the result should be determined by the Venezuelan proletariat, not the military of a middle-eastern state?

Great to see two democratic leaders continue to forge ties together - along with a third, the DPRK.
Awesomely funny post. You should do stand-up.

[Louis Pio]

He is defending them because of this, not because of any "mistaken views" or "paranoia". Russia is doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason. This is why we are seeing both Chavez and the Russian media picking up on the "CIA involvement" in Iran.

Foreign policy can be messy, but I would agree that his support for Ahmedinijad while dubious before is now gone byond that.
However to make it the background for characterizing the bolivarian revolution is just superficial.

[KC]

However to make it the background for characterizing the bolivarian revolution is just superficial.

This generalization is of your own creation. What I have said is that it is telling of what Chavez's interests are and what role he plays, which is not of a socialist revolutionary but rather an opportunist populist.

[Louis Pio]

Chavez is more of a centrist, he flip flops alot. But yes his and what interests he thinks Venezuela have plays a big role. He don't want isolation and he needs support from other oilproducing countries.

[Agnapostate]

IMO, there really needs to be some transcendence beyond mere and petty anti-Americanism here. Not that I'm not a foe of imperialism as much as the next person, but recognize distinctions between forms of repressive power. For example, I cannot see a sound moral objection to the forcible removal of dictatorships and installment of democratic governments; the military force that would be required to accomplish it would be a less severe authoritarian imposition than the policies of the dictatorship had it remained in place would have been. However, there is a critical divergence between the theoretical model of a clean regime change and the actual manifestation of it, not least of which being the fact that the motives of those who favor regime changes are not the purest in nature. And that's where the harsh reality of imperialism often being on behalf of supporters of explicitly anti-democratic sentiments or foreign profiteers enters the equation.

[Yehuda Stern]

Some have those illusions in Iran, I think the article clearly states what should be done. This can only be seen as sowing illusions by someone who is totally dishonest as you clearly have shown you are on many occasions.

Some have those illusions, and the IMT works to strengthen them by saying that yes, a reformist politician could become a popular democratic leader. And I'd like evidence that I've ever been proven dishonest any time we have argued; from my memory, time and time again I disproved your silly IMT mantras while you whined about sectarianism.


I was wondering if how your line on joining the iranian army will work in this situation. If the USA was to offer more support to the protests (wich I doubt, but lets say for the sake of argument), would now then be the time to join the iranian army Yehuda?

Well, it depends. What sort of support? If the USA would give money and weapons to the protesters, that in itself would not signify that the movement has become a tool of imperialism. So the position would not change. But if the US army were to attack Iran and use the protests as a pretext, then yes, revolutionaries in Iran would have to realize that the biggest enemy is imperialism and act accordingly. This would not mean changing one's political line.

But this Marxist method of analysis and coming up with positions is foreign to you. To you, your position can either be this or that; support this bourgeois candidate or that bourgeois candidate; join this army or that army; anything more complex cannot be comprehended by centrist muddle heads such as yourself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anything more complex cannot be comprehended by centrist muddle heads such as yourself.

Why do you like throwing around the word "centrist" a lot? That only serves to make you look more and more like the genuine sectarian that you are. :rolleyes:

[benhur]

anything more complex cannot be comprehended by centrist muddle heads such as yourself.

Please try to be civil.

It's always a 'for or against' situation. Your dubious 'third way' may suit fairy tales but in the real world, it just doesn't work that way.


If the USA would give money and weapons to the protesters, that in itself would not signify that the movement has become a tool of imperialismWhat a foolish analysis! An imperialist power isn't going to be generous enough to provide money and weapons to people in distant countries, unless they plan on getting those people to become pawns in their imperialist game. You think imperialists are on a goodwill mission to save 'little brown people' from themselves?

It's this condescending attitude of the first-world leftists that's keeping the socialism from spreading across the globe (so much so desperate people are forced to favor Islam as a reliable defense against imperialism).

[Yehuda Stern]

Why do you like throwing around the word "centrist" a lot?

Why do you throw a hissy fit every time I do? I guess centrists still don't like it when you tell them what they are.

Oh and, seeing as benhur is an anti-worker, sexist and racist who won't be here tomorrow, I don't see any reason to respond to his crap.

[Dimentio]

Foreign policy is not the same as domestic policy.

Chàvez seems to support almost everyone who is Anti-American, no matter their ideology. Given his situation, I understand him quite well.

[KC]

Foreign policy is not the same as domestic policy.

Chàvez seems to support almost everyone who is Anti-American, no matter their ideology. Given his situation, I understand him quite well.Quite a valuable contribution to the thread you have made.

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd336/fr_slingsandarrows/captain_obvious_rock_gift.jpg