This is Imperialism at work, not a mass democratic workers movement.

[Charles Xavier]

Comrades, please look at the man behind the curtain calling the shot. The working class in Iran has numerous reasons to feel outraged at the current government. They have many reasons to rebel and rise against. But this is not the working class rising up. This is Imperialism putting its dirty hands into the mix.

This is the war mongers and business men manipulating the justified anger that many Iranians have against the Mullahs, and instead of channeling it where it belongs towards worker's power. It is being put to use to destablize Iran in the interest of Monopoly capitalism. Iran we must not forget has among the largest oil reserves in the world, it is among the few countries that offers unconditional support to Hezbollah and the Palestinian cause. It is the biggest counter balance to Israel and US interest in the region. Why is this happening now?

Well it is a probe to see if they can bomb and rob Iran back 20 years. After 30 years of development after a brutal war with Iraq that the US had provoked where millions of lives were lost, Iran has represented an independent path of developement and a counter balance to US Imperialism in the region. Iran while a bourgeoisie republic which doesn't have the worker's interests at heart has developed in a progressive manner, its military, its infrastructure, its industry, its technology, its universities, have all developed to a level where its beginning to become a power in the region, a country able to dictate its own terms at the bargaining table. Imperialism would have no problem of this if their interests where to open up and be blindly rob by its companies.

But instead Iran represents an independent path of developement, dictated by its own sovereignty. Please do not be manipulated by corporate media, you can tell this is Imperialism's hand at work by how the most reactionaries of the State Department are the first ones who show excitement at this development.

And by no means is Iran a worker's republic, they are not going to address the concerns of the working class, they represent the interest of a sovereign Iranian bourgeoisie. Not a semi-colonial bourgeoisie, but a sovereign bourgeoisie. They are going to be blunt and heavy handed against the protests. But the Iranian state is forced to react and react hard or more of these probes will happen.

[ls]

They have to be, if they care to defend their sovereignity from NATO powers.

Whatever you say mr vanguard of the revolution. I will now proceed to unsubscribe from this thread.

[Charles Xavier]

They have to be, if they care to defend their sovereignity from NATO powers.

Whatever you say mr vanguard of the revolution. I will now proceed to unsubscribe from this thread.
Okay, enjoy being manipulated by Imperialist media.

[Josef Balin]

The Imperialist media also celebrated the Russian and Chinese revolutions, in the beginning stages. I'd rather base my political positions on correct theoretical lines than what the western media says.

And what do you propose to do by "opposing the movement"? All that could mean is that you would not be on strike against the current government with the Iranians in the event you could, which is clearly a wrong position to hold. Ahmadinejad is definitely incapable of pursuing a revolutionary situation while Mousavi coming to power would at least mean a radicalisation of the workers. The western bourgeois media is opposing Ahmadinejad because he represents a faction of an class that is opposed to their interests, the victims of his oppression oppose him for the same reason but they do not have the class consciousness to develop a correct theoretical line because of the current political climate. To support opposition to the movement is to support a continuation of the current Iranian climate which have lead to one of the worst leftist scenes in the world, the Iranian workers have nothing to lose by radicalizing.

[fatboy]

Until you get rid of religion in their country nothing will change. The leader is more or less a figure head. The religious leaders are the ones who run the country.

[RHIZOMES]

I am fully aware of imperialism's interests in this uprising. What I would like is the uprising to move beyond simply supporting pro-West pro-privatization lackey Mousavi which it's looking like more and more every day.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Ya, but i don't think that's going to happen tomorrow. Revolutionary movements take decades to build and require patience leadership. What's happening in Iran is much more likely to be in the interests of imperialism (because it is in part imperialist engineered) rather not blossom into a revolutionary anti-imperialist movement. Absent an actual revolutionary, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist force in Iran, we should make our main line one against imperialist intervention.

The so called left, nine month's ago, tricked themselves into thinking that that Obama was somehow a radical. Now so called revolutionary left is baboozled into campaigning for the CIA's color war in Iran.

[Pogue]

Ya, but i don't think that's going to happen tomorrow. Revolutionary movements take decades to build and require patience leadership. What's happening in Iran is much more likely to be in the interests of imperialism (because it is in part imperialist engineered) rather not blossom into a revolutionary anti-imperialist movement. Absent an actual revolutionary, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist force in Iran, we should make our main line one against imperialist intervention.

The so called left, nine month's ago, tricked themselves into thinking that that Obama was somehow a radical. Now so called revolutionary left is baboozled into campaigning for the CIA's color war in Iran.

What revolutionary leftists are you referring to when you mention them supporting Obama? Your such a paranoid idiot, your like a conspiracy theorists only much more of a joke because your clearly a self-loathing first world kiddie who wants to rage against himself and other people.

On the issue of this protest, I see large amounts of people protesting against a government that doesn't meet their needs. This is militancy of thousands of people against a reactionary government that is reponding with force. Such militancy teaches ordinary people of the power they have and the need for struggle, and so I support this movement and hope it moves in a revolutionary direction, rather than standing on the sidelines and expressing my support for some murdering bastard and his theocratic buddies because I'm an anti-imperialist.

It's funny, the 'anti-imperialists' are defending Ahmadinejad's repression, which includes killing protestors, on the basis that 'If this movement succeeds, the USA would oppress the Iranians!' Take a fucking look - Ahmadinejad is already doing that, idiots.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What revolutionary leftists are you referring to when you mention them supporting Obama? Your such a paranoid idiot, your like a conspiracy theorists only much more of a joke because your clearly a self-loathing first world kiddie who wants to rage against himself and other people.

On the issue of this protest, I see large amounts of people protesting against a government that doesn't meet their needs. This is militancy of thousands of people against a reactionary government that is reponding with force. Such militancy teaches ordinary people of the power they have and the need for struggle, and so I support this movement and hope it moves in a revolutionary direction, rather than standing on the sidelines and expressing my support for some murdering bastard and his theocratic buddies because I'm an anti-imperialist.

It's funny, the 'anti-imperialists' are defending Ahmadinejad's repression, which includes killing protestors, on the basis that 'If this movement succeeds, the USA would oppress the Iranians!' Take a fucking look - Ahmadinejad is already doing that, idiots.

So protesters largely supporting the candidate that wants to attack food subsidies, redistribution of wealth, welfare programs, and speed up privatizations are doing so because the government doesn't meet their needs? I fail to understand your logic.

[Bilan]

Comrades, please look at the man behind the curtain calling the shot.




This is the war mongers and business men manipulating the justified anger that many Iranians have against the Mullahs, and instead of channeling it where it belongs towards worker's power. It is being put to use to destablize Iran in the interest of Monopoly capitalism. Iran we must not forget has among the largest oil reserves in the world, it is among the few countries that offers unconditional support to Hezbollah and the Palestinian cause. It is the biggest counter balance to Israel and US interest in the region. Why is this happening now?

Well it is a probe to see if they can bomb and rob Iran back 20 years. After 30 years of development after a brutal war with Iraq that the US had provoked where millions of lives were lost, Iran has represented an independent path of developement and a counter balance to US Imperialism in the region. Iran while a bourgeoisie republic which doesn't have the worker's interests at heart has developed in a progressive manner, its military, its infrastructure, its industry, its technology, its universities, have all developed to a level where its beginning to become a power in the region, a country able to dictate its own terms at the bargaining table. Imperialism would have no problem of this if their interests where to open up and be blindly rob by its companies.

You speak of imperialism as if it is some sort of separate entity, another higher economic being, rather than the highest stage of capitalism; a development of capitalism.
"Imperialism" is not just the actions of, or the intentions of, the United States. That is simply absurd, and a horribly vulgar understanding imperialism.

Realizing that Iran is a bourgeois republic, you also realize that Iran is capitalist; you then indicate that it has positive developments in education, and other such things (as if this changes anything). The fact that you realize that Iran is a capitalist state contradicts your own bourgeois analysis. Capitalism necessitates expansion to survive - it necessitates the destruction of other economic modes (natural economy, etc) in order to perpetuate it's domination. Iran, despite your chauvinistic, rose-tinted view of their government, is not independent of this, even if it's independent of the US' interests, or attempts to counter them.
Your analysis reduces itself to nonsense, by firstly siding with conspiracy-theorists, without any grounds for reason - acting like mediocre detectives in a b-grade film; by then ignoring the nature of global capitalism in its imperialist phase; and by ignoring Iran's own imperialist nature (interlinked with the previous point); and by then taking sides with a bourgeois state over another bourgeois state, under the illogical presumption that the bourgeoisie of any country is on the side of the proletariat.
It merely stems, however, from your ridiculous politics. Ridiculousness only perpetuates itself.




But instead Iran represents an independent path of developement, dictated by its own sovereignty. Please do not be manipulated by corporate media, you can tell this is Imperialism's hand at work by how the most reactionaries of the State Department are the first ones who show excitement at this development.

Sovereignty? Who's? National sovereignty, that "sovereignty" which while draping class in a flag, undermines and perpetuates the oppression of the working class? What interest is that to a socialist?



And by no means is Iran a worker's republic, they are not going to address the concerns of the working class, they represent the interest of a sovereign Iranian bourgeoisie.

What on earth are you supporting it for then? This is absolutely ludicrous, unsubstantiated nonsense.



Not a semi-colonial bourgeoisie, but a sovereign bourgeoisie.

How can a country be semi-colonial?



They are going to be blunt and heavy handed against the protests. But the Iranian state is forced to react and react hard or more of these probes will happen.

You are an apologist for the Iranian police state, and the violent and systematic oppression of the working class.

[Bilan]

And why don't you substantiate your claims?

[RHIZOMES]

Revolutionary movements take decades to build

lol

[khad]

I am fully aware of imperialism's interests in this uprising. What I would like is the uprising to move beyond simply supporting pro-West pro-privatization lackey Mousavi which it's looking like more and more every day.
I am also puzzled as to why there isn't more discussion of the man behind Mossavi's campaign, Akbar Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran (1989-1997) and a die-hard neoliberal. He's bound to be even more of a power player in Iranian politics if the Mossavi bloc succeeds:

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


Rafsanjani advocated a free market economy. With the state's coffers full, Rafsanjani pursued an economic liberalisation policy.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani#cite_note-r-5) Rafsanjani's support for a deal with the United States over Iran's nuclear programme and his free-market economic policies contrasted with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies, who advocate showing the West no quarter while pursuing a course of budget-busting state handouts in the face of repeated warnings of future economic problems.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani#cite_note-6) He urged universities to cooperate with industries. Turning to the quick pace of developments in today's world, he said that with "the world constantly changing, we should adjust ourselves to the conditions of our lifetime and make decisions according to present circumstances".[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani#cite_note-7) Among the projects he initiated are Islamic Azad University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Azad_University).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani#cite_note-8) During his administration inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) hit a record high of 49%.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani#cite_note-9)



Like Arizona Bay, I am still looking to see if the current unrest is able to grow into anything that could overturn the reactionary trajectories of the Mossavi bloc.

[Random Precision]

You have made an incredibly long-winded post that has nothing to back it up.

Could the pro-Mousavi current coincide with the interests of Western imperialism? Sure, but let's look at reality here. Iran was not very close to the West at all under the administration before Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad in his promotion of the nuclear power program and other moves has done what some in the Iranian ruling class would consider to be excessively alienating Iran from the West (they would not like to risk economic sanctions for example) but this is as far as the interests of the United States and Mousavi & co. align. Mousavi is very much a man of the Islamic Revolution, who called repeated times for a "return to the teachings of Khomeini" during his most recent campaign, and presided over a regime that was far more repressive and undemocratic than the current one in the eighties as Prime Minister.

Will the Western countries try to manipulate the situation to their advantage? No doubt. But you have not shown any evidence that they are on the ground in Iran doing so. The only thing you and many other "socialists" have shown by taking this position is your utter cravenness toward regimes that your government and media take a stance opposing. That, and complete theoretical bankruptcy, is the only way that mass uprisings in a Middle Eastern country could automatically translate into an expression of Western imperialism.

We will have a chance to see where these protests are going, within a week or so I should think. Mousavi is a member of the ruling class, he will seek a compromise with the ruling faction. At that point, whether he is able to sell that compromise on the street will be a good barometer for how much the protests are really behind him.

Also, I wanted to respond to this in particular:


it is among the few countries that offers unconditional support to Hezbollah and the Palestinian cause

Actually the regime in Iran has done quite a lot to damage the cause of Palestine solidarity in their own country. People are told not to worry about their own poverty and other economic issues at home, for the Palestinians have it worse. "Pray for Palestine" is shoved down people's throats in the same breath as "fix your hijab". Many Iranians resent all the aid to Hamas and Hezbollah when there is such poverty and underdevelopment at home. Thus, one of the chants at recent protests has been "mardom chera neshastin, Iran shode Felestin!" (People, why are you sitting down? Iran has become Palestine!)

[Djehuti]

Iran: how can the movement go forward? (http://www.marxist.com/iran-how-can-movement-go-forward.htm)

http://www.marxist.com/iran-how-can-movement-go-forward.htm

[REDSOX]

None of these factions currently slogging it out in Iran have the working class interest at heart and there are INDEED some signs that imperialists are manipulating behind the scenes in some way. i STAND FOR THE WORKING CLASS INTEREST NOT FOR FACTONAL INTERST!!!!

[RaiseYourVoice]

Ya, but i don't think that's going to happen tomorrow. Revolutionary movements take decades to build and require patience leadership. What's happening in Iran is much more likely to be in the interests of imperialism (because it is in part imperialist engineered) rather not blossom into a revolutionary anti-imperialist movement. Absent an actual revolutionary, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist force in Iran, we should make our main line one against imperialist intervention.
Uh and what do you think the Iranian workers and communists have been doing the last decades? Writing articles on revleft? Workers action and any attempt for a class concious mass movement met brutal repression by the iranian regime. Communists have been murdered. They have met the same repression under Moussavi, are you honestly thinking you can judge the situation better than ALL revolutionary forces in Iran? Also how the fuck can you first say we have to denounce the protests, and than say we have to build a revolutionary movement? If you had any idea of revolutionary movements, you'd know that they result out of struggles, not out of "antiimperialist" rethoric. The current protest isn't revolutionary for now, but it is a chance for all the workers, communists, anti-theocratic forces to gather and to radicalize. This is a chance the Iranian people just wouldn't have without this movement. Now how would you suggest the revolutionary forces in Iran should fight? Should they go home once a western newspaper dares to say something positive about them? Should they go home once the Imperialist countries see a chance in them? No they should radicalize the current movement (Which is not what some Antiimp students in the first world make it out to be just "middle class kids" rebelling) and use the chance to get better conditions for communists, for revolutionaries to work in.

And for the people who are "looking to see" if the protests can meet their standarts. What will happen than? Will you be inclined to write a positive article on them? The people of iran need our solidarity, not the hyprocritical bullshit from the imperialists or the media, but revolutionary international solidarity. We should support the progressive forces and the peoples movement against the regime in iran. Anyone supporting our comrades and fellow workers to be beat and shot down by a reactionary regime in the name of anti-imperialism cannot be called internationalist.

[bricolage]

What about the car workers going on strike yet specifically stating that strike is not about supporting one of the electoral candidates? What about the bus workers? The oil workers? Do you/will you oppose them all too, last time I checked workers tended to be working class...

And what about the fact that people are taking to the streets against an oppressive, dictatorial, theocratic regime, that it doesn't matter that this election was rigged more blatantly than the others because every election is a farce, that every communist/socialist/leftist party in/in exile from Iran supports the uprising, that Ahmadinejad is not an anti-imperialist, that support for Mousavi is dwindling yet the movement remains strong, that this is a genuine chance for the Iranian working class to seize a wave of popular discontent and revolt against the Iranian state, what about all this? And you sit at your computer screen condemning the people of Iran while they are getting attacked in the streets and claim to be 'revolutionary'. For fucks sake man.

[REDSOX]

Where are the working class Barrabas Where are the heavy duty boys like the Oil workers, steel workers, cement workers, construction workers chemical workers etc. Where are the poor and dispossessed. Where are the peasent farmers. One day bus strikes are nothing

[Charles Xavier]

You speak of imperialism as if it is some sort of separate entity, another higher economic being, rather than the highest stage of capitalism; a development of capitalism.
"Imperialism" is not just the actions of, or the intentions of, the United States. That is simply absurd, and a horribly vulgar understanding imperialism.

Realizing that Iran is a bourgeois republic, you also realize that Iran is capitalist; you then indicate that it has positive developments in education, and other such things (as if this changes anything). The fact that you realize that Iran is a capitalist state contradicts your own bourgeois analysis. Capitalism necessitates expansion to survive - it necessitates the destruction of other economic modes (natural economy, etc) in order to perpetuate it's domination. Iran, despite your chauvinistic, rose-tinted view of their government, is not independent of this, even if it's independent of the US' interests, or attempts to counter them.
Your analysis reduces itself to nonsense, by firstly siding with conspiracy-theorists, without any grounds for reason - acting like mediocre detectives in a b-grade film; by then ignoring the nature of global capitalism in its imperialist phase; and by ignoring Iran's own imperialist nature (interlinked with the previous point); and by then taking sides with a bourgeois state over another bourgeois state, under the illogical presumption that the bourgeoisie of any country is on the side of the proletariat.
It merely stems, however, from your ridiculous politics. Ridiculousness only perpetuates itself.




Sovereignty? Who's? National sovereignty, that "sovereignty" which while draping class in a flag, undermines and perpetuates the oppression of the working class? What interest is that to a socialist?



What on earth are you supporting it for then? This is absolutely ludicrous, unsubstantiated nonsense.



How can a country be semi-colonial?



You are an apologist for the Iranian police state, and the violent and systematic oppression of the working class.


Dearest Bilan, I have not said anywhere in my posts that Imperialism is separate from Capitalism, they are one and the same. Imperialism represents a specific feature of capitalism at this stage of development, Imperialism means the robbing of other countries people and resources for the expansion necessary for Monopoly capitalism to survive, opening up markets, getting resources and labour at new low rates, and bringing about higher rates of return needed for further expansion. They need these additional markets to starve off the crisis in overproduction, which it will inevitable occur. Capitalism has ceased to be a progressive system of economic developement.

I have made no claims other than this is monopoly capitalism at work using the uprising as a probe to see if they can counter-balance the influence of Iran in the region by neutralizing it. It is in their interest. Capitalism has something called competition, there are things such as inter imperialist rivalries that exist. The fact that Iran is competing on their own terms is unthinkable. Sovereignty is something that real communists support. Instead of Bilan here who is cheer leading imperialism making semi-colonial countries out the third world. Semi-Colonialism means you have your own flag, your own government but that government is at the service of a foreign bourgeoisie. Sovereignty means your country has a direct say in what goes on within its borders. The struggle is much easier when you are facing your own bourgeoisie instead of one 1000 miles away.

This by no means is a thorough explanation of events. this is merely something a little deeper than the superficial comments that have been plaguing the forums, thinking this is Anarchism/worker's power in motion. Rather this is the opposite. Let us not forget are rival bourgeoisie within Iran itself. The working class with a justified anger against the status quo is having their justified anger channel not against their class enemy but for their class enemy.

Why do I support Iran? Because I believe countries have a right to an independent path of developement from the dictates of the Imperialist powers. I believe a peoples have a right to sovereignty. It is the job of the working class alone to solve the problems in Iran, not foreign bourgeoisie.

And I am not an apologist for the Iranian state, this is a capitalist state, not a humane worker's state, they employ blunt tactics against the uprisings. They are incapable of doing anything otherwise, they are not the working class in power, if Iran doesn't have a heavy hand against this probe by the Imperialist powers, the Imperialist powers will do what they wish. The Imperialist powers are testing the waters for whatever means necessary to neutralize this independent country.

[Yazman]

People that believe this wasn't imperialism at work obviously never saw this when it was published:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

snippet (my emphases placed):

Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran



President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed.

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.

Under the plan, pressure will be brought to bear on the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and international financial transactions.
Details have also emerged of a covert scheme to sabotage the Iranian nuclear programme, which United Nations nuclear watchdogs said last week could lead to a bomb within three years.

Security officials in Washington have disclosed that Teheran has been sold defective parts on the black market in a bid to delay and disrupt its uranium enrichment programme, the precursor to building a nuclear weapon.

...

The CIA will also be allowed to supply communications equipment which would enable opposition groups in Iran to work together and bypass internet censorship by the clerical regime.

[REDSOX]

Interesting this smells of CIA and NED written all over it. Just reinforces my view not to have anything to do with these protests

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs: There are different imperialist factions in the geopolitical battleground and only the most naive will not believe that they will try to use popular unrest for their own means. In the mad polish strikes of the 70s there was clearly a CIA hand. In the Hungarian uprising there were clearly reactionary elements, etc.

[Fidelbrand]

AmeriKa changed the maintenance time of "Twitter" to facilitate Iranian teens to share their views....

AmeriKA supporting liberalism apparently, but it's actually just cyber imperialism.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Tupac makes good points. Imperialism is capitalism in its primary modern form. Whereas the best of us are judging the movement in relation to global capital, most are upholding it on liberal 'ending tyranny' terms.

People who keep thinking that a revolutionary movement is going to spring forth from this and that it is necessary to support the protests now are "idiots (since it's been thrown around so many times towards me). For the record I support the extension of civil liberties within Iran, specifically to allow a better foothold for alternative revolutionary anti-imperialist forces within Iran.

However, since we're not in Iran and since apparently no "Iranian" Revlefters know Farsi, the correct approach is to primarily focus on denouncing obvious imperialist intervention, not join in the imperialist chorus, albeit from a "revolutionary left" perspective, of cheerleading for a collapse of the Iranian state.

[Pogue]

Tupac makes good points. Imperialism is capitalism in its primary modern form. Whereas the best of us are judging the movement in relation to global capital, most are upholding it on liberal 'ending tyranny' terms.

People who keep thinking that a revolutionary movement is going to spring forth from this and that it is necessary to support the protests now are "idiots (since it's been thrown around so many times towards me). For the record I support the extension of civil liberties within Iran, specifically to allow a better foothold for alternative revolutionary anti-imperialist forces within Iran.

However, since we're not in Iran and since apparently no "Iranian" Revlefters know Farsi, the correct approach is to primarily focus on denouncing obvious imperialist intervention, not join in the imperialist chorus, albeit from a "revolutionary left" perspective, of cheerleading for a collapse of the Iranian state.

Since when did revolutionary socialists not want states too collapse following a popular movement against them?

[AvanteRedGarde]

Whenever it is in the interests of finance capital and will objectively strength its positions vis a vis global struggles against imperialism.

[Pogue]

Whenever it is in the interests of finance capital and will objectively strength its positions vis a vis global struggles against imperialism.

Sorry, but I support the working class against oppression, I don't support empty ideas such as 'imperialism' against other nation states.

Your a nationalist twat (different from idiot) which is why your politics are so shite.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Sorry, but I support the working class against oppression, I don't support empty ideas such as 'imperialism' against other nation states.

Your a nationalist twat (different from idiot) which is why your politics are so shite.

Wow, Revlefters have a real tendency to use names for female gentalia as insults during political debates. Telling. Where's the 'infraction' on this.

What working class exactly? The so called "working class" is divided by an income disparity of 30x. Empty ideas about imperialism? Someone doesn't make two dollars a day because they're a woman, child, worker, etc- they do because they're a Third World worker.

You rhetorical about supporting such an abstract and broadly defined working class rings of liberalism... But hey, liberals support overthrowing the Iranian state also.

Capitalism exists as a system, a serious of relationships based around economic activity. This overarching system is defined by its imperialist aspects whereby the bourgeoisie of a handful of countries lord over the rest of the world, resulting in a situation where massive amounts as value are transferred from the 'Third World' to the 'First.'

"Empty idea?" Seems rather explanitory. Furthermore it illustrates the need to engage in stratgeies which tackle the system in its totality, as it functionally exists.

[Pogue]

Wow, Revlefters have a real tendency to use names for female gentalia as insults during political debates. Telling. Where's the 'infraction' on this.

What working class exactly? The so called "working class" is divided by an income disparity of 30x. Empty ideas about imperialism? Someone doesn't make two dollars a day because they're a woman, child, worker, etc- they do because they're a Third World worker.

You rhetorical about supporting such an abstract and broadly defined working class rings of liberalism... But hey, liberals support overthrowing the Iranian state also.

Capitalism exists as a system, a serious of relationships based around economic activity. This overarching system is defined by its imperialist aspects whereby the bourgeoisie of a handful of countries lord over the rest of the world, resulting in a situation where massive amounts as value are transferred from the 'Third World' to the 'First.'

"Empty idea?" Seems rather explanitory. Furthermore it illustrates the need to engage in stratgeies which tackle the system in its totality, as it functionally exists.

And oncemore we see AVantredgrade posting a pile of empty rubbish. This just further convinces me of the widely held hypothesis that your a confused rich kid who wants to range against something so you come on here to accuse genuine working class people of being exploiters or liberals or whatever shit you can dig up from MIM somewhere.

Anyway, how excactly is it you justify your support for a regime which is murdering dozens of people protesting against atatcks on their freedom?

Your a reactionary wanker.

[REDSOX]

Hayward go away and lie down keep taking the tablets and when you have something more civilised to say then please come back:)

[Pogue]

Hayward go away and lie down keep taking the tablets and when you have something more civilised to say then please come back:)

I don't need walking filth like you to tell me what to do. I'll continue defending a people fighting for freedom against arogant, jumped up little shits such as yourself, regardless of what little ****ish comments you make to me by the by.

[swampfox]

Imperialist media has had nothing to do with the Green Revolution of Iran. It is the workers and common men and women standing up against the tyrannical dictatorship of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In case you've been paying attention, most news coming out about the Green Revolution is from the actual protesters, not media.

This is a true revolution, not some machine-run uprising by a capitalist system. The people are standing up themselves, with their leader Mousavi and other reformists and revolutionaries in the country.

[REDSOX]

Please SWAMPFOX and i am begging you give me empirical evidence that the poor the peasentry and the working class are involved in these protests

[AvanteRedGarde]

And oncemore we see AVantredgrade posting a pile of empty rubbish. This just further convinces me of the widely held hypothesis that your a confused rich kid who wants to range against something so you come on here to accuse genuine working class people of being exploiters or liberals or whatever shit you can dig up from MIM somewhere.

Anyway, how excactly is it you justify your support for a regime which is murdering dozens of people protesting against atatcks on their freedom?

Your a reactionary wanker.

Why do you even quote my post if you're not going to actually address any of the ideas i presented?

[Pogue]

Why do you even quote my post if you're not going to actually address any of the ideas i presented?

There was nothing of worth in it, just more of the hypocritical bullshit you have been posting since you came to this forum. Theres a general consensus that your not worth dealing with around here.

[swampfox]

Please SWAMPFOX and i am begging you give me empirical evidence that the poor the peasentry and the working class are involved in these protests

First, give me empirical evidence that imperialism is behind the Green Revolution.

[Pogue]

Swampfox, don't worry, i've made a whole thread giving evidence that the most organised sections of the Iranian working class are behind this movement.

[REDSOX]

There was a retired pakistani general who in an interview said that the CIA were financing the opposition in IRAN with around 400 million dollars. Google it swampfox.

[Pogue]

There was a retired pakistani general who in an interview said that the CIA were financing the opposition in IRAN with around 400 million dollars. Google it swampfox.

So back to the fact that this movement has union backing...

[swampfox]

There was a retired pakistani general who in an interview said that the CIA were financing the opposition in IRAN with around 400 million dollars. Google it swampfox.

The retired Pakistani General was Mirza Aslam Beg, a supporter of Osama Bin Laden who has his fingers stuck in various corrupt deals throughout Pakistani politics. He supports a pro-Ahmadinejad tyranny in Iran and constantly pushes to sell nuclear weapons to terrorists throughout the Middle East.

Yeah, he sounds like a reliable guy.

I have nothing against you following some conspiracy theory, but come on Comrade, check your sources. This guy is as reliable as Fox News.

[REDSOX]

But he could be telling the truth at least it is some sort of evidence. Now you show me evidence that there is not imperialist interference in Iran

[swampfox]

But he could be telling the truth at least it is some sort of evidence. Now you show me evidence that there is not imperialist interference in Iran

It's not even a shred of truth! This guy is a mouthpiece for Middle East extremism! You can't rely on him.

You want evidence?

http://iran.twazzup.com/

All these people on twitter and other social networking sites are fucking PISSED that their votes were not counted. Not because some "imperialist" force is pushing them to revolt. Their fighting because the Supreme Leader and President rigged the election in order to keep power and stability for their Anti-West policies. Mousavi doesn't follow these hateful and aggressive policies.

Not everything that happens is a conspiracy.

[REDSOX]

Ok lets try this. The CIA has been financing an armed campaign in the sunni areas of Iran to the so called peoples mujahadeen as revealed by Seymour hersh a while back in order to destabilise Iran. Is it not conceivable that the CIA NED etc have been funding the liberal bourgeois faction in Iran to destabilise Iran and produce the scenes we are witnessing now

P.s Give me evidence that this election was rigged. If it was would they do it in such a way where ahmadinejad would win by 11 million votes!!!!

[Pogue]

Ok lets try this. The CIA has been financing an armed campaign in the sunni areas of Iran to the so called peoples mujahadeen as revealed by Seymour hersh a while back in order to destabilise Iran. Is it not conceivable that the CIA NED etc have been funding the liberal bourgeois faction in Iran to destabilise Iran and produce the scenes we are witnessing now

Surely your line woud be that socialists need to aid this movement to move it in a reovlutionary line away from any potential manipulation at all?

Oh wait, I forgot, coherency isn't your thing.

[REDSOX]

Good night Haywood Make sure you have a glass of water beside your bed when you wake up with that hangover:):laugh:

[Pogue]

Good night Haywood Make sure you have a glass of water beside your bed when you wake up with that hangover:):laugh:

Nice argument. I'm sure the board now realises what an intelligent person you are. Face it, I just utterly decimated your argument, which is why, because you lack any response, any evidence, sources, etc, you are resorting to some sort of role play scenario in which you keep offering me drinks of water and tablets.

Erm yeh, whatever floats your boat, freak.

[REDSOX]

More insults from a stalinist who has just had his arguments smashed apart. What a fucking rotter

[Pogue]

More insults from a stalinist who has just had his arguments smashed apart. What a fucking rotter

Right, you sure did smash my arguments apart, what with your coherent arguments


Sweet dreams hayward. Dont worry i have asked yor mommy to buy you a sucker tommorowhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-union-involvement-p1472119/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

sourced claims:


stalinist

(
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Organisation: IWW/L&S
Posts: 3,500
Tendency: Anarchist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-union-involvement-p1472119/group.php?groupid=2))

and consistency:


They are proletarians IS who struck for one hour in protest against the crackdown


I want empirical evidence that the working class are involved as a force in these demos

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iran-khodro-auto-workers-begin-work-slowdown-protest-regime

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iranian-bus-workers-join-resistance

Wow, I can really see I was beaten there, I guess all the people who thanked my posts could see this too.

[Pogue]

What a fucking rotter


Oh dear, someone likes the Sex Pistols a bit too much too, did you enjoy the Grundy interview you've taken to quoting from it?

[REDSOX]

Yeah and bill grundy was a drunk too like you perhaps. His career and reputation also went down the piss hole

[swampfox]

Apparently REDSOX has no clear and valid arguements for me.

[REDSOX]

And i am off to bed some of us have to work tommorow.

[swampfox]

Ok lets try this. The CIA has been financing an armed campaign in the sunni areas of Iran to the so called peoples mujahadeen as revealed by Seymour hersh a while back in order to destabilise Iran. Is it not conceivable that the CIA NED etc have been funding the liberal bourgeois faction in Iran to destabilise Iran and produce the scenes we are witnessing now

P.s Give me evidence that this election was rigged. If it was would they do it in such a way where ahmadinejad would win by 11 million votes!!!!

He did win by 11,000,000 votes you idiot. You argue with me when you know nothing about the subject. At least Haywood's Fingers is using logic when arguing with me.

[REDSOX]

Final post

The point is that if you are going to fiddle you would fiddle by having the result much closer perhaps a million not fucking 11 million votes for gods sake like Zimbabwe

[swampfox]

Final post

The point is that if you are going to fiddle you would fiddle by having the result much closer perhaps a million not fucking 11 million votes for gods sake like Zimbabwe

Yeah so it would look like the Supreme Leader didn't have as much power if the vote was divided? If Ahmadinejad appeared to win by a landslide, it would "show" the world that more than just a small majority of Iranians supported him. When in reality they didn't because it was completely rigged.

[Crux]

Comrades, please look at the man behind the curtain calling the shot. The working class in Iran has numerous reasons to feel outraged at the current government. They have many reasons to rebel and rise against. But this is not the working class rising up. This is Imperialism putting its dirty hands into the mix.

This is the war mongers and business men manipulating the justified anger that many Iranians have against the Mullahs, and instead of channeling it where it belongs towards worker's power. It is being put to use to destablize Iran in the interest of Monopoly capitalism. Iran we must not forget has among the largest oil reserves in the world, it is among the few countries that offers unconditional support to Hezbollah and the Palestinian cause. It is the biggest counter balance to Israel and US interest in the region. Why is this happening now?

Well it is a probe to see if they can bomb and rob Iran back 20 years. After 30 years of development after a brutal war with Iraq that the US had provoked where millions of lives were lost, Iran has represented an independent path of developement and a counter balance to US Imperialism in the region. Iran while a bourgeoisie republic which doesn't have the worker's interests at heart has developed in a progressive manner, its military, its infrastructure, its industry, its technology, its universities, have all developed to a level where its beginning to become a power in the region, a country able to dictate its own terms at the bargaining table. Imperialism would have no problem of this if their interests where to open up and be blindly rob by its companies.

But instead Iran represents an independent path of developement, dictated by its own sovereignty. Please do not be manipulated by corporate media, you can tell this is Imperialism's hand at work by how the most reactionaries of the State Department are the first ones who show excitement at this development.

And by no means is Iran a worker's republic, they are not going to address the concerns of the working class, they represent the interest of a sovereign Iranian bourgeoisie. Not a semi-colonial bourgeoisie, but a sovereign bourgeoisie. They are going to be blunt and heavy handed against the protests. But the Iranian state is forced to react and react hard or more of these probes will happen.
"Probes"? You have no idea what you are talking about. Even the stalinists in iran realize asmuch. But your reactionary and counterrevolutionary position is hardly suprising. just as the local stalinist party paper was just about which candidate to support. Hah, thankfully, when teh revolution comes you will be swept aside. i myself believe this is just an overture, a 1905 if you will. But thanks for proving your irrelevance to the worker's movement once more.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What working class exactly? The so called "working class" is divided by an income disparity of 30x. Empty ideas about imperialism? Someone doesn't make two dollars a day because they're a woman, child, worker, etc- they do because they're a Third World worker.

Yes, and capitalism is not fully developed in the third world. If I recall correctly you gave up trying to prove this crap because, well, you can't, but if you want to try again be my guest.

I guess all those capitalists that only make $100,000 a year really aren't capitalists since there are plenty that make $3,000,000 a year...


You rhetorical about supporting such an abstract and broadly defined working class rings of liberalism... But hey, liberals support overthrowing the Iranian state also.

Yes, that rings of liberalism, but defining classes based on income doesn't? Also, any actual socialist supports smashing the Iranian state. If you don't you shouldn't be on this forum.


Capitalism exists as a system, a serious of relationships based around economic activity. This overarching system is defined by its imperialist aspects whereby the bourgeoisie of a handful of countries lord over the rest of the world, resulting in a situation where massive amounts as value are transferred from the 'Third World' to the 'First.'

Care to prove that? We can have this debate again, I don't mind. I'll just dig up all my old posts and prove you wrong again.

[Bilan]

Dearest Bilan, I have not said anywhere in my posts that Imperialism is separate from Capitalism, they are one and the same.

No, they're not. Imperialism is a by product of capitalism, indeed, it is (in Lenin's words), the highest stage of capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system which underpins it.



Imperialism represents a specific feature of capitalism at this stage of development, Imperialism means the robbing of other countries people and resources for the expansion necessary for Monopoly capitalism to survive, opening up markets, getting resources and labour at new low rates, and bringing about higher rates of return needed for further expansion. They need these additional markets to starve off the crisis in overproduction, which it will inevitable occur. Capitalism has ceased to be a progressive system of economic developement. Those are manifestations of imperialism. Imperialism is the economic expansion of capitalism (from a particular nation state), so for example, the expansion of England, manifesting itself as the opium wars in China, the occupation of India, the carving up of Africa, the creation of the Australian colonies, etc. Low rates of labour are, again, by products of this process, and are necessary for capitalism to perpetuate its existence.




I have made no claims other than this is monopoly capitalism at work using the uprising as a probe to see if they can counter-balance the influence of Iran in the region by neutralizing it.And you're yet to substantiate that, other than appealing to conspiracy theorism and skepticism. Neither of which are of any substance whatsoever.



It is in their interest. Capitalism has something called competition, there are things such as inter imperialist rivalries that exist. The fact that Iran is competing on their own terms is unthinkable.They are superficial interests. Even if the political shape of Iran changes into a democratic republic, or the state becomes a new puppet of American imperialism, capitalism wont be able to revive its decaying corpse. The interests of national capital - in regards to capitalist expansion - undermine themselves: they create the conditions for their own demise.



Sovereignty is something that real communists support.No, it's something bourgeois nationalists support, who fetishise bourgeois states who stand up to AmeriKKKa, and who've rejected all class analysis and class politics, and substitute it with chauvinistic anti-imperialism.



Instead of Bilan here who is cheer leading imperialism making semi-colonial countries out the third world.I haven't cheered on anything. Don't slander unless you can back it up. It just makes you look stupid.



Semi-Colonialism means you have your own flag, your own government but that government is at the service of a foreign bourgeoisie.Australia has its own flag, but is still subjected to the whims of global capitalism - and indeed its most dominant players (China, and the US in particular). Is Australia a semi-colony for these reasons? And if so, every country in the world is (which merely removes any relevance from the term "semi colony" in the first place) due to the global domination of capitalism.



Sovereignty means your country has a direct say in what goes on within its borders. The struggle is much easier when you are facing your own bourgeoisie instead of one 1000 miles away.Why do "real communists" want that, and why do they ignore the fact that within this country - a country which has brutal class divisions, of which no flag can cover up - there are diametrically opposed interests, i.e that they're merely class interests on a national scale?
Tell me, why are "real communists" so painfully bourgeois? I think you mean social democrats when you say "real communists". That, and or, muppets.



This by no means is a thorough explanation of events.You didn't explain anything. You made a series of unsubstantiated claims. That's it.



this is merely something a little deeper than the superficial comments that have been plaguing the forums, thinking this is Anarchism/worker's power in motion. Rather this is the opposite. Let us not forget are rival bourgeoisie within Iran itself. The working class with a justified anger against the status quo is having their justified anger channel not against their class enemy but for their class enemy.No one has said that it is "anarchism" or "workers power in motion". Again, these are made up arguments that you're trying to tear down. People have seen the potential in it, and realized it is an uprising against the current government in Iran, in which although opposing factions in the bourgeois are trying to take control over, has potential for the working class.
See this. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/demonstrations-iran-icc-t111005/index.html)



Why do I support Iran? Because I believe countries have a right to an independent path of developement from the dictates of the Imperialist powers. I believe a peoples have a right to sovereignty. It is the job of the working class alone to solve the problems in Iran, not foreign bourgeoisie.Hence why you're a bourgeois idealist, and not a Marxist. Because you believe in "independent paths of development" within global capitalism, which is ludicrous for any capitalist state, and negates any materialist analysis of capitalism. All paths which are seemingly independent are fostered by others, and will trample on others "Independence". Capitalism breeds conflict and expansion. Indepdent development is idealist bullshit.



And I am not an apologist for the Iranian state, this is a capitalist state, not a humane worker's state, they employ blunt tactics against the uprisings.You say this. Then you say this:



They are incapable of doing anything otherwise, they are not the working class in power, if Iran doesn't have a heavy hand against this probe by the Imperialist powers, the Imperialist powers will do what they wish. The Imperialist powers are testing the waters for whatever means necessary to neutralize this independent country.You're not skilled in realizing irony, it would seem.

[Davie zepeda]

Mousavi Killed comrade's so why? support him again? Plus all Muslim countries lean towards fascism. I could give a whoot about this green revolution either it will work or not but in the end it won't be a victory for the working class but the bourgeoisie managing to reinvent it self into a moderate image.

[#FF0000]

P.s Give me evidence that this election was rigged. If it was would they do it in such a way where ahmadinejad would win by 11 million votes!!!!

Whether the election was rigged is irrelevant. The fact that people are so willing to struggle so desperately against a particularly repressive and violent government as Iran's Islamic Republic, is what has us so goddamn interested.

Jesus. For all the analysis you've been reading, I would think that by now you would have at least found the point.

[pierrotlefou]

Right, you sure did smash my arguments apart, what with your coherent arguments



sourced claims:



(
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Organisation: IWW/L&S
Posts: 3,500
Tendency: Anarchist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-union-involvement-p1472119/group.php?groupid=2))

and consistency:





http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iran-khodro-auto-workers-begin-work-slowdown-protest-regime

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iranian-bus-workers-join-resistance

Wow, I can really see I was beaten there, I guess all the people who thanked my posts could see this too.
checkmate

[Bright Banana Beard]

I am certainty not opportunistic about this as it seems that around the world are taking advantage of this protest. I hope Communist Iranian will lead the protest, but I don't see them leading it.

[Saorsa]

Nobody who takes the side of a theocracy against millions of people protesting against it can in good conscience call themselves a leftist.

[Saorsa]

In response to the misguided individuals who are backing the theocracy against the uprising:

Nobody is disputing that the CIA, MI6, Mossad, STFU and WTF are involved in covert operations in Iran. The Iranian ruling class toes a comparatively independent line compared to what they want from it. But so what? The imperialist countries meddle in countries all around the world, and everyone's spying on everyone else. There were Israeli spies in New Zealand a few years a go ffs! But if there was a mass movement against the government, like (for example) the movement against the anti-union Employment Contracts Act in 1991, I would actively partipicate in it and support it despite the large influence of the Labour Party. Workers do not become passively radicalised when intellectual Marxists preach at them from on high, they become radicalised in the course of struggle - on picket lines and in mass upsurges like this.

The fact that the US wants the theocracy destabilised does not mean that this movement necessarily is advancing US interests. It was in Germany's interests for Russia to be destabilised in 1917, and the Germans happily gave Lenin a train ride over the border and back home because they wanted him to stir up trouble and weaken the Russian war effort. Does that make Lenin an agent of German imperialism? Does that mean we should refuse to support the masses marching through Petrograd? By your logic, the answers to both questions is yes.

There have been political strikes by the bus drivers and the car workers, two of the most advanced and well organised sections of the Iranian proletariat. All of the Iranian revolutionary groups worth mentioning (and some that aren't!) have thrown their support behind the uprising. This movement, this uprising could potentially lead to something far greater, and at the very least the consciousness of the workers and progressive people involved in these demonstartions is likely to rise as they become conscious of their own power, and note that what change they may or may not win will come through struggle on the streets, not through the ballot box.

To condemn this movement now is to call for the murder of an infant that has just come into the world... Even if it's parent's are reactionaries, there's no telling what it could turn out to be.

[REDSOX]

Exactly which is why no working class organisation should choose sides We need a genuine proletarian revolution across the region to sweep away the tyrants and puppet kings

[Pogue]

Exactly which is why no working class organisation should choose sides We need a genuine proletarian revolution across the region to sweep away the tyrants and puppet kings

This being what everyone on the board is calling for...

[REDSOX]

But the tactics haywood the tactics

[Pogue]

But the tactics haywood the tactics

What?

[Saorsa]

Exactly which is why no working class organisation should choose sides We need a genuine proletarian revolution across the region to sweep away the tyrants and puppet kings

Um that's what we're arguing for. We're saying that this movement should be supported (not Mousavi, but the ordinary people in the streets protesting against a theocracy), that this uprising is a good thing, and that it could turn into a full blown revolutionary situation. Even if it doesn't, lots of people will come out of it radicalised and politically aware that wouldn't have otherwise.

You, on the other hand, are saying we should denounce the protesters, not oppose them being shot at and beaten up, and treat it as a petty squabble rather than the biggest thing in Iran since the Islamic Revolution, which it objectively is.

Pick the revolutionary line and the reactionary one, boys and girls.

[REDSOX]

We should denounce both factions comrade alistair because no faction represents our interests. Of course one side is being shot at and billyclubbed and that's tragic for them but that's because one side of the faction fight has state power the conservative faction. If the situation was reversed and the liberal bourgeois had power and it was ahmadinejad and his supporters up in arms what would your reaction be then??? The working class must always denounce indiscrininate violence from a humanitarian point of view in struggles like this but that is different than taking sides in a faction fight which is not in the class interest

[Pogue]

We should denounce both factions comrade alistair because no faction represents our interests. Of course one side is being shot at and billyclubbed and that's tragic for them but that's because one side of the faction fight has state power the conservative faction. If the situation was reversed and the liberal bourgeois had power and it was ahmadinejad and his supporters up in arms what would your reaction be then??? The working class must always denounce indiscrininate violence from a humanitarian point of view in struggles like this but that is different than taking sides in a faction fight which is not in the class interest

Do you not read? He said, as we all have, that we support the ordinary people in their struggle, not either of the bourgeoisie factions. In your ignorance you see it impsosible to distinguish between these different groups. As we have said, this struggle is about more than just Mousavi vs Ahmadinejad and has the potential to progress much further - thie events in Iran are very similar to the events of Russia in 1917, for example.

[Saorsa]

The people on the street are not all following Mousavi like brainless zombies. You're analysing this in a very superficial and unscientific way. The crowds are shouting "death to the dictator", a slogan Mousavi would never put forward and never has. Over and over again, Mousavi and co have cancelled the demonstrations in order to try and appease the theocrats, only to see hundreds of thousands of people show up anyway. Mousavi and his croneys are then forced to show up anyway so as to keep pretending to be the 'leaders' of this movement, but the people of Iran have clearly shown they don't need him, and we all know as revolutionary communists that they'd be much better off without him!


If the situation was reversed and the liberal bourgeois had power and it was ahmadinejad and his supporters up in arms what would your reaction be then???

I would take the exact same line as I am now, that the workers need to move beyond the rhetoric of Mousavi and adopt a revolutionary outlook. But that's not going to happen if they stay home and ignore the mass protests aginst the dictatorship - consciousness is gained through struggle. These protests are not happening because of a contested election vote. Protests of this scale never happen just because of some little thing like that. The people of Iran have real, legitimate grievances against the regime and against the privations and oppression they face in daily life, and the election provided a spark to an already bone dry prairie. The question facing us now is simple - do we argue that the flames should be stoked higher and encouraged to spread wider, regardless of who provided the initial spark? Or do we instead support the efforts of those trying to douse the flames in blood?

I know which side I'm on.

[Bilan]

One liner posts will be trashed if this does not stop.

[Bilan]

Petty back and forth between Haywood's fingers and Redsox trashed.

[Saorsa]

You would need millions on the streets for that and they would have to overwhelmingly working class

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iran-khodro-auto-workers-begin-work-slowdown-protest-regime

According to measurements in the demonstrations by the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi in the Azadi Square, at least three million people were present. A representative of the Principalist faction (caucus) on the sides of yesterday's public meeting of the Majles (parliament) stated unofficially that according to the report submitted to the Majles from Mohamad Bagher Ghalibaf, mayor of Tehran, in the demonstrations by the supporters of of Mir Hossein Mousavi in the Azadi Square at least three million people were present.


In a city of seven million, I might add.

Russia was something like 80% peasant when the revolution took place, the working class was pretty tiny. Nepal today has what I would argue is the world's most significant revolutionary process taking place, but it's heaviest indusrty would probably be carpet making! Percentage wise it's proletariat is tiny. That does not however detract from the fact that in both of these countries proletarian revolutions were and are taking place.

Nobodies arguing this is a fully fledged revolution. Nobodies arguing that the working class has overwhelmingly come out yet. But what we're saying is that if this uprising continues, then just as with Tiananmen square the working class is likely to take an increasingly prominent role, and that's when things are bound to get interesting.

[Saorsa]

According to what I think are twitter reports posted here (http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/), the people at Sunday's protest were chanting down with khamene'i.

Just a bunch of liberal, middle class idiots who dont want to change radical change eh.

[Davie zepeda]

This is nonsense we should for one not be listening to the media, two Carefully analyze the situation, three support the working class who are fighting and reject any form of government that resembles a puppet state!

[Honggweilo]

If the situation was reversed and the liberal bourgeois had power and it was ahmadinejad and his supporters up in arms what would your reaction be then???lol 1979 anyone? because that liberal bourgeoisie was a comprador one and just as oppresive, and back then it wasnt sure if the iranian uprising was going to be a communist one or a islamic one.. i became the latter and we got backstabbed. I think we can say the same thing for this one, we dont know yet.

[Honggweilo]

According to what I think are twitter reports posted here (http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/), the people at Sunday's protest were chanting down with khamene'i.

Just a bunch of liberal, middle class idiots who dont want to change radical change eh.

Like i said in the other topic, this is what the Fedaeen Guerilla is claiming the protesters are chanting;

“Down with absolutism!”, “Death to the dictator!”, “Down with the regime of lies!” and “Seyed Ali (Referring to Khamenei) Pinochet, Iran will not be another Chile!”

[manic expression]

In response to the misguided individuals who are backing the theocracy against the uprising:

Nobody is disputing that the CIA, MI6, Mossad, STFU and WTF are involved in covert operations in Iran. The Iranian ruling class toes a comparatively independent line compared to what they want from it. But so what? The imperialist countries meddle in countries all around the world, and everyone's spying on everyone else. There were Israeli spies in New Zealand a few years a go ffs! But if there was a mass movement against the government, like (for example) the movement against the anti-union Employment Contracts Act in 1991, I would actively partipicate in it and support it despite the large influence of the Labour Party. Workers do not become passively radicalised when intellectual Marxists preach at them from on high, they become radicalised in the course of struggle - on picket lines and in mass upsurges like this.

The fact that the US wants the theocracy destabilised does not mean that this movement necessarily is advancing US interests. It was in Germany's interests for Russia to be destabilised in 1917, and the Germans happily gave Lenin a train ride over the border and back home because they wanted him to stir up trouble and weaken the Russian war effort. Does that make Lenin an agent of German imperialism? Does that mean we should refuse to support the masses marching through Petrograd? By your logic, the answers to both questions is yes.

Comrade, this comparison cannot seriously be applied to these demonstrations. There are many facets to this, but allow me to get to the most important ones. First, we are not looking at routine imperialist meddling in a country, we are looking at an all-out mobilization of imperialist forces to cause instability within Iran. This is imperialism's opportunity to reinforce its oppression over the Iranian workers. On the other side of the coin, what are the demonstrations in support of? The election of a candidate who stands for Iranian business interests. Mousavi and Rafsanjani are leading and directing the protests, and they, by no means, want progress for the working class.

We do not decry the revolutionaries who are attempting to propagate genuinely socialist politics within the demonstrations, we guard against their bourgeois focal point and the imperialists who are eager to take advantage of the instability.


There have been political strikes by the bus drivers and the car workers, two of the most advanced and well organised sections of the Iranian proletariat. All of the Iranian revolutionary groups worth mentioning (and some that aren't!) have thrown their support behind the uprising. This movement, this uprising could potentially lead to something far greater, and at the very least the consciousness of the workers and progressive people involved in these demonstartions is likely to rise as they become conscious of their own power, and note that what change they may or may not win will come through struggle on the streets, not through the ballot box.

And these developments are encouraging and positive. However, the leadership of the demonstrations remains bourgeois. This is the overriding concern of the PSL (as well as imperialism's interests, but that is another matter).


To condemn this movement now is to call for the murder of an infant that has just come into the world... Even if it's parent's are reactionaries, there's no telling what it could turn out to be.

Agreed. But this is counter-factual. It could become revolutionary, but at present, it is not. It could further working-class interests, but again, it is not at the moment or in the foreseeable future. Wishful thinking cannot color a Marxist analysis.

[Honggweilo]

Here is a good article from the People's Fedaeen about the "anti-imperialist" character of the Islamic Republic

http://www.siahkal.com/english/lackeys.html

[YSR]

All of this analysis by those who see this as an issue of imperialism, or class struggle on a world-wide stage, are committing the #1 error of orthodox Marxist critique: They are only observing and giving subjectivity to the international and Iranian ruling classes and ignoring the subjective position of the Iranian working classes. All of this analysis is centered on a worldview where the bourgeoisie makes history, whether it be international capitalists trying to open more markets via imperial powers from the West, or Iranian state actors trying to hold together their fundamentalist government, or Iranian capitalist reformists trying to seize power in order to neoliberalize the nationalized sectors of the economy, or whatever.

Yet for all this focus on how this uprising fulfills the needs of this or that particular faction of the ruling class, it is completely blind to the fact that the working classes have exactly the same amount of subjectivity as their rulers. Why are we obsessing over these ruling class factions? Obviously, their role in this is important, but writing this off as simply something that the ruling class is doing to another ruling class or whatever repeats the classic error that posits class power as hegemony and allows for little or no space for the working class to assert its wishes. Just the opposite is true though, workers are not passive observers of history, they are actors in a giant struggle, the class struggle, and the one that Marx suggests is the engine of history.

It is the role and opinions of the workers in this struggle that we must interrogate to understand it.

[manic expression]

It is the role and opinions of the workers in this struggle that we must interrogate to understand it.

The issue is that the workers are NOT in control of the demonstrations, and are at present acting in support of one of the richest men in Iran and his favored politician. It is exactly the role of workers, that is a marginalized role, that brings us to view the demonstrations at present as an opportunity first and foremost for imperialism.

No one is denying the agency of the workers, what is being outlined is the fact that the workers have no driving position in the movement today. Could this change? Yes, but as it stands today, the demonstrations are not being led or determined by the workers.

The assertion that those who bring the interests of imperialism into account are somehow rejecting the idea that workers matter is incorrect and counterproductive.

[YSR]

Should we understand the role of imperialism? Sure. But should we dismiss workers as simply those who follow rich men in their dreams? Only if we admit that the project of communism is bankrupt and that the workers are backwards and reactionary, something I refuse to admit.

You misinterpret me, manic expression, and you are incorrect. The workers do not have a "marginalized role" in these demonstrations. Quite the opposite, they are the ones out in the street, protesting and rioting, often without formal leadership. They are developing technologies to move around censorship and are expressing increasingly radical demands. Their allies in the Western world are helping them. Why? What prompts them and what do they think they have to gain from this? Those are the questions we need to be asking. It is the working class which makes up the primary social subject, not the pitiful ruling class.

What is the composition of the Iranian working class? What is the relationship of gender to work and workers? Ethnicity and religion? Technology? How does the history of militancy in the Iranian workers movement effect what workers believe they can do? I think rather than viewing this moment as an opportunity for imperialism (whatever that means, exactly) we need to view this as an opportunity for the working class. So we need to understand what that working class actual does and thinks about itself and its enemies.

[manic expression]

Should we understand the role of imperialism? Sure. But should we dismiss workers as simply those who follow rich men in their dreams? Only if we admit that the project of communism is bankrupt and that the workers are backwards and reactionary, something I refuse to admit.

Many movements which are un-progressive and pro-bourgeois encompass elements of the working class. The "movement" for Obama is one recent example. In such cases, the working class has no way of enforcing its own interests or winning any genuine victories. In this case, Mousavi stands for cutting welfare and privitization. It is no secret that the working class does not stand to gain from such a "regime change".

I did not say that Iranian workers are backwards or reactionary, I stated the simple fact that they aren't in control of the demonstrations.


You misinterpret me, manic expression, and you are incorrect. The workers do not have a "marginalized role" in these demonstrations. Quite the opposite, they are the ones out in the street, protesting and rioting, often without formal leadership.

Politically, they certainly have a marginalized role. The rallying cries of the demonstrations are levelled at Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khomenei. The leaders, yes, leaders of the demonstrations are bourgeois; who do you think called for the "Sea of Green" protests? What do you think "Green" represents here? Mousavi's faction and Mousavi's faction, respectively. You're acting as though Mousavi isn't the entire purpose of the demonstrations, which he is.

That workers are in the streets only makes this even more of a cynical struggle within the Islamic Republic, with workers being used as pawns for bourgeois aspirations. World War I saw mostly workers in the trenches, but that didn't make it class warfare.


They are developing technologies to move around censorship and are expressing increasingly radical demands. Their allies in the Western world are helping them. Why? What prompts them and what do they think they have to gain from this? Those are the questions we need to be asking. It is the working class which makes up the primary social subject, not the pitiful ruling class.

Steadfast working-class "allies"? Like Netanyahu and FOX News. Turn on the TV, every two-bit capitalist hack is finding every reason to applaud the protestors.

The ruling class is not "pitiful", it's ruling. It's ruling both the state and the direction of the protests, and yet we're supposed to believe it has no control over the latter simply because workers have some sort of involvement in them.


What is the composition of the Iranian working class? What is the relationship of gender to work and workers? Ethnicity and religion? Technology? How does the history of militancy in the Iranian workers movement effect what workers believe they can do? I think rather than viewing this moment as an opportunity for imperialism (whatever that means, exactly) we need to view this as an opportunity for the working class. So we need to understand what that working class actual does and thinks about itself and its enemies.

You can't just view something differently because you want to, you need to take into account the actual conditions at play. CAN workers take command of the protests? Yes, it is possible, but quite unlikely at the moment, given what I've said above. The working class has no real independence as of today, the workers are not determining the goals of the demonstrations, the workers are not in positions of leadership (that goes to the pro-business Musavi and his ultra-rich religious backer Rafsanjani). We can either engage in wishful thinking and try to will a revolution into existence thousands of miles away, or we can pinpoint the dynamics of the situation and organize for the interests of the workers where we are. The former means calling something working-class when it clearly isn't; the latter means exposing imperialism's deadly activities and opposing them at all costs.

And you should know precisely what I mean by an "opportunity for imperialism". Any instability in Iran is good for business. The US bourgeoisie faces opposition from Iran on a host of issues, and American businessmen have been unable to sink their teeth into the nation for some decades. As the saying goes, "When your enemies are arguing amongst themselves, go and sit comfortably with your friends, but if you see them with one mind, string your bow and hold close your sword". Imperialism wants a weak Iran, and this is providing them an opening for facilitating such a result.

[RHIZOMES]

People that believe this wasn't imperialism at work obviously never saw this when it was published:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

snippet (my emphases placed):

Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran

Aren't you the same guy that always posts imperialist rhetoric against North Korea for pursuing a defensive nuclear weapons system?

[BobKKKindle$]

Why do I support Iran? Because I believe countries have a right to an independent path of developement from the dictates of the Imperialist powers. I believe a peoples have a right to sovereignty. It is the job of the working class alone to solve the problems in Iran, not foreign bourgeoisie.I just want to pick up on this, because I think that it really demonstrates how you and other Stalinists have taken what Lenin had to say on the national question and anti-imperialist struggles and abused his ideas to suit your own opportunist ends. Marxists do not support anti-imperialist struggles because we think that nations have a "right" to do this or that, and we also recognize that the idea of an "independent path of development" will always be a fiction as long as capitalism continues to exist, because the fact that all countries are part of an imperialist world-system means that each and every government (and especially governments which rule underdeveloped countries such as Iran) will always be pressured to consider the interests of their trading partners and main sources of investment in everything they do, regardless of whether they have political independence or not. Lenin made it explicitly clear time and time again when debating with people like Luxemburg who oppossed his position on the national question that his arguments were only applicable to workers freeing themselves from the territorial domination of an imperialist power, as the Irish working class tried to do when it rose up against British domination in 1916 - he was aware that if workers, perhaps as part of a movement led by the petty-bourgeoisie, were able to attain political independence, they would still be subject to imperialism in the form of economic forces such as not having developed industries and being chained to the dynamics of the world market. This is because imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism, and not something that is dependent on a particular government being in power, or a country having direct political control over a certain territory. Lenin expressed this thus:

"For the question of the political self-determination of nations and their independence as states in bourgeois society, Rosa Luxemburg has substituted the question of their economic independence. This is just as intelligent as if someone, in discussing the programmatic demand for the supremacy of parliament, i. e., the assembly of people’s representatives, in a bourgeois state, were to expound the perfectly correct conviction that big capital dominates in a bourgeois country, whatever the regime in it."

Lenin: The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914 (http://marxists.catbull.com/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm)

You, of course, are marking the opposite of Luxemburg's error: you are assuming that countries can actually be economically independent as well as having political independence, which is why you tail Amadinejad. Given this analysis, Lenin (and Trotsky) supported anti-imperialist struggles because they recognized that victory would remove the most immediate source of oppression for workers who were formerly suffering under occupation, giving rise to a more confident and militant proletariat, with similar consequences for workers who inhabit imperialist countries. It is clear from the above that the Marxist position on national liberation is practical, in the sense that it is always based on the relationship between political oppression and class consciousness, and orientated towards the prospect of international socialist revolution, in contrast to the Stalinist conception of imperialism, which accepts the language of bourgeois morality by asserting that nations have a "right" to do certain things, and that whether a group of people constitute a nation or not can be determined solely with reference to a mechanistic set of criteria, as well as proclaiming the value of "national soviereignty". Lenin's position, which is also Marx's, is expressed here, Lenin quoting from Marx:

“Quite apart from all phrases about ‘international’ and ‘humane’ justice for Ireland—which are taken for granted in the International Council—it is in the direct and absolute interest of the English working class to get rid of their present connexion with Ireland. And this is my fullest conviction; and for reasons which in part I can not tell the English workers themselves. For a long time I believed that it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime by English working-class ascendancy. I always expressed this point of view in the New York Tribune [an American paper to which Marx contributed for a long time]. Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything until it has got rid of Ireland.... The English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” (Marx’s italics)

ibid.

Your entire line of argument and its abstract nature is based on the assumption that there is something that unites Iranian workers and the Iranian ruling class, but in fact there is not - for all your talk of the difference between a "national" and "comprador" bourgeoisie, the ruling class of Iran has much more in common with the ruling classes of other countries, including the US, than it does with the Iranian proletariat, because every section of the international ruling class is dependent on the continued existence of the global capitalist system in order to be able to exploit workers and maintain their privileges. For that reason, even ruling classes which use nationalist rhetoric to maintain support amongst the working population will always capitulate to imperialism in the end - we've seen that in the West Bank, where Fatah receives funds from Israel and accepts Israel's right to exist, and we can also see it in the case of Amadinejad, who has privatized numerous industries during his time as President, including the state bank, has not done anything substantial to aid the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation, and continues to deny cultural and political autonomy to Iran's Kurdish population. Here is what Trotsky had to say about the so-called "national/anti-imperialist bourgeoisie", when discussing China:

"Under these conditions [when communists join the KMT and give up their political independence] the petty-bourgeois intellectual center can only trail behind the nationalist-liberal bourgeoisie, which is bound up by imperceptible gradations with the compradorian, i.e., overtly imperialist bourgeoisie; and, in proportion as the struggle of the masses sharpens, go over openly to its side"

Leon Trotsky: Class Relations in the Chinese Revolution, 1927 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/04/china.htm)

Trotsky's comment is also applicable to Mousavi - albeit in a slightly different way. Despite his prominent role in the protests, Mousavi cannot afford to allow the protesters to challenge the legitimacy of the Islamic republic itself, because such a development would pose a threat to his own position, as a member of the ruling class, along with Amadinejad and all the other candidates, and as a politician who wants the current political system to remain in place so that he can use it to protect his class interests. This is exactly what they are beginning to do, as we can see from the large numbers of protesters who have continued to demonstrate in the past few days, despite Khamenei's request that they stay at home, as well as the slogan "Death to Khamenei", and this, combined with the entry of the working class in the form of the general strike on Tuesday, and the workers who have already come out on strike in support of the protests, will serve to put pressure on Mousavi to make his loyalties clear, i.e., to side with Amadinejad, at which point the protests will be free to develop in a more radical direction.

[Charles Xavier]

Comrades, the working class encompasses 95% of a country population. As a result they will be the foot soldiers of every mass movement out there. Revolutionary or Reactionary. The vast majority of the people who voted for George Bush were working class. They voted in a way counter to their interest, why did they do this? They are anger and upset with the status quo, their anger was being misdirected in a way that not only isn't favouring their class, but is harming their class and social well being. The majority of people who favour privatization are working class, only because the proletariat out number other classes in society by a vast margin. We will see working people at the demonstrations against Socialism, not because socialism won't benefit them, but they are manipulated with valid anger by conservative forces to fight their fellow workers instead of their bosses.

We see this in the current crisis of over production where you can go to a news paper online with an article about trade unions, strikes or concessions or the failure of the auto makers, and instead of saying "These companies are doing business bad, capitalism is bad, the companies are corrupt, etc etc", statements in a general maybe even apolitical in their outlook but anti-corporate, we see anti-worker statements instead, "Those workers are asking too much I make just 10$ an hour, unions are causing the economy to collapse, unions are dinosaurs, etc etc.", statements made by our fellow brothers and sisters in our class against our class, the conservative forces are mobilizing a campaign on this question, against unions, immigrants, and whatnot. Divide and conquer.

So when they do it here, in the belly of imperialism, do you not think, the imperialist powers with hundreds of years of doing this, even in the past openly are trying to divide and conquer smaller countries? Do you think Imperialism is taking a rest, forgetting the need to expand? Of course they aren't, not because they want to but because it has to, if it doesn't it gets beaten.

--Below this line I quickly wrote without time to provide a detailed explanation---

On the issue of the national question, of course, it is nearly impossible for a smaller country a non-imperialist country, especially capitalist country to develop independently. The capitalist economies are interlinked and intertwined. They trade resources and commodities to produce capital. Lets not forget that Iran is a capitalist country, the capital produced mainly goes into private hands for the benefit of private interests. They retrieve this all off the backs of the working class. They are the owners of industry.

Of course our interest is not to product the Capitalist class of any country, however why would it be better for Iranians to have capitalist which they can wage a political fight with instead of where the capitalists are 1000 miles away. Ones where the the monopolists have the ability to rob a country blind, take its resources, and have nothing to show for it. The production for export only, with absolutely no interest in building a domestic economy. With a country where the government is weak, where when the working class can force concessions the government lacks the power to do so.

We as communists are in favour of increasing the well being of workers regardless what system they are under. It is easy to see, that a colonial status semi-colonial status represents doesn't represent the interest of working people, being under occupation or forced into being a tributary state to an imperialist power doesn't advance the interest of working people.

A conquered people have a much more uphill struggle. Would the struggle of the Irish Working Class be easier independent or under a colonial government of England? Would the workers of Palestine have an easier struggle for socialism, under attacks from Israel on a regular basis or without?

I hope to explain this in more detail and more refined when I have more time, however I must end my post here for now as I must go to sleep.

[bcbm]

Its interesting that while socialist groups in Iran that are actually risking something are supportive and participating in the demonstrations, comfortable, Western leftists are supporting the regime trying to kill them in the name of "anti-imperialism." Marx was right; this is history repeating itself as farce.

[KC]

Its interesting that while socialist groups in Iran that are actually risking something are supportive and participating in the demonstrations, comfortable, Western leftists are supporting the regime trying to kill them in the name of "anti-imperialism." Marx was right; this is history repeating itself as farce.

The best response to that that I have received from the "anti-imperialist" crowd was this sarcastic gem:

yes, we should definitely only concern ourselves with what small groups of "iranian revolutionaries" pontificate about the process. Who cares what the remaining 65000000 iranians have to say.

[#FF0000]

Anti-imperialism is the catchphrase of the losing faction of the ruling class.

Dohoho shit.

[RHIZOMES]

Comrades, the working class encompasses 95% of a country population.

This isn't 1848 Victorian England.


The best response to that that I have received from the "anti-imperialist" crowd was this sarcastic gem:

yes, we should definitely only concern ourselves with what small groups of "iranian revolutionaries" pontificate about the process. Who cares what the remaining 65000000 iranians have to say.

Yeah when 3 million protesters turn up in a city of 7 million people, those Iranians sure have shown how much they love the government!

[ls]

This isn't 1848 Victorian England.

Yeah, but in essence he is right, the thin line between petite-bourgeoisie and proletariat is actually decided by your relation to the means of production, the other elements that people think make up "middle-class" and "working-class" are are extremely changeable based on circumstance.

Not saying that I agree with the rest of tupac's post btw.

[the last donut of the night]

Until you get rid of religion in their country nothing will change.

Well, we doubt that's gonna happen soon.

[mosfeld]

Im kind of indifferent toward these protests, i guess. I think its amazing that the people are standing up against this reactionary theocracy and I bet lots of people will come out of them radicalized and maybe even turned toward socialism, but what really turns me off is that the USA have their fingerprints all over these protests and, like Tupac, im beginning to think that these protests are really just imperialism at work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkQ1iNHEGW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA8xTgQROwo

Sorry if these videos have been posted, i haven't been actively reading the threads in this forum.

[bcbm]

Im kind of indifferent toward these protests, i guess. I think its amazing that the people are standing up against this reactionary theocracy and I bet lots of people will come out of them radicalized and maybe even turned toward socialism, but what really turns me off is that the USA have their fingerprints all over these protests and, like Tupac, im beginning to think that these protests are really just imperialism at work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkQ1iNHEGW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA8xTgQROwo

Sorry if these videos have been posted, i haven't been actively reading the threads in this forum.

Its interesting that whenever some sort of movement for change arises in a third-world country there are so many cries of "Oh the US has their hand in this; its imperialism" as though nobody in these countries can think for themselves and its impossible for wide-spread dissatisfaction to exist? Not to say imperialist countries can't have a hand but I think the way its drawn to here discredits the feelings of millions.

Perhaps there is a US hand at work here but even so we're seeing a lot more discontent here than that alone would allow. I think this is a movement socialists should be following with interest and trying to learn about before issuing statements of support or condemnation.

[Robespierre2.0]

Its interesting that whenever some sort of movement for change arises in a third-world country there are so many cries of "Oh the US has their hand in this; its imperialism" as though nobody in these countries can think for themselves and its impossible for wide-spread dissatisfaction to exist? Not to say imperialist countries can't have a hand but I think the way its drawn to here discredits the feelings of millions.

Perhaps there is a US hand at work here but even so we're seeing a lot more discontent here than that alone would allow. I think this is a movement socialists should be following with interest and trying to learn about before issuing statements of support or condemnation.

We're questioning whether the dissatisfaction is 'wide-spread'. What the skeptics point to is the fact that the media could be blowing these demonstrations out of proportion. They present the reformists and their allies as though they have mass support not just because the imperialists have interests in the region, but because they assume Tehran and Tabriz are representative of the entire urban population.

Honestly, I'd be glad if this were a mass uprising, as long as someone could furnish evidence proving that the Iranian working class was behind it. However, based on what I'm seeing, this looks like a minority of pro-western liberals trying to return the comprador bourgeoisie to power.

I don't like how some of those who support the demonstrators have been extremely indignant and vitriolic towards the skeptics. They say that we are 'apologists for a repressive dictatorship that persecutes women and gays etc. etc.'. However, I thought communists would know better than to just spout off this 'repressive dictatorship' nonsense, because by definition, all governments are 'repressive dictatorships', in which either the bourgeoisie represses the proletariat or vice versa. The Iranian regime is no more worthy of overthrow than any other bourgeois regime.

Yes, the Iranian regime upholds reactionary and conservative viewpoints with regards to women and homosexuals, but the United States and the rest of the western world don't exactly have stellar track records with regards to these issues either. Women are still objectified, except instead of the patronizing attitude of the religious, in which women are 'delicate' and must be shielded from everything impure, they are treated as 'disposable sex objects' like any other commodity. True gender equality and sexual freedom can only exist under socialism.

If we stand for the self-determination of nations, we should led the Iranian workers themselves decide what sort of regime they want to live under, and that means accepting that the majority may not yet be ready or willing to accept liberalism or socialism.

[REDSOX]

Plenty of evidence to suggest that imperialism is manipulating things behind the scenes. To what extent they are involved i do not know for sure but rest assured they are involved in some way. The renouned socialist James petras as something to say on this as well as the election. check out his website and also from the other end of the spectrum Paul craig roberts of the paleoconservatives has something to say on his website regarding these protests.

[Guerrilla22]

Trotsky's comment is also applicable to Mousavi - albeit in a slightly different way. Despite his prominent role in the protests, Mousavi cannot afford to allow the protesters to challenge the legitimacy of the Islamic republic itself, because such a development would pose a threat to his own position, as a member of the ruling class, along with Amadinejad and all the other candidates, and as a politician who wants the current political system to remain in place so that he can use it to protect his class interests.

This. If people want to use Mousavi as a catalyst to get something going that's fine. The people on the streets are yelling "death to dictatorship, death to Khamenei," which is a sign the uprising is becoming about getting rid of the current system all together. The uprising will only be successful if the current regime is chased out. Simply getting Mousavi into the office of the president would be pointless. Which is why I'm affraid the regime might attempt to make a concession to Mousavi in order to get him to call off the protest.

[Charles Xavier]

This isn't 1848 Victorian England.
In 1848 Victorian england there was a large peasantry. In 2009 England there is virtually no peasantry, and the proletariat encompass 95% of the population.