OUR iran subforum

[danyboy27]

lets talk about the events.

iranian governement used live amunition against protester, so far not a really great succes.

i dont know what will happen next, but if the guardian council is not replaced by a dictatoeship, that would be just great.

[GPDP]

You'll find the majority of us here at Revleft support the uprising, with only a minority of Leninists rejecting it as a tool of American imperialism trying to weasel its way into Iran.

[IcarusAngel]

The Iran uprising is great. It shows that the people in the third world will revolt even though doing so is generally far more dangerous than rebelling in first world countries where free-speech and free-assembly is more understood. It also shows that they will revolt even when the issue is simply a miscounting of votes when one guy isn't all that different from the other.

Remember, this happened in America when Bush stole the election (probably breaking far more laws than the laws broken in Iran), but many Americans just assumed that Bush was being "smart." This comes from capitalist indoctrination.

People in the third world revolt over issues like water privatization as well. Compare the uprising in Cochabamba to the few liberal protesters who've protested water privatization (where companies like Nestle come in and tap local wells without paying so much as a penny for it, and then sell it as "spring water" and turn a huge profit). There have also been numerous rebellions over workers rights. Riots, rebellions, uprisings, etc. happen all the time in the third world - what Noam Chomsky has called "the civilized world."

Imagine if Americans kept rebelling the Vietnam war protests to the point where Nixon had to be seculded to protect himself from the Americans? That would create enough social unrest to solve problems like the Iraq war.

Whenever things don't go the public way people should revolt to get their ideas spread across.

The third world seems to be the 'last chance' for freedom that comes from drastic action.

The uprising also proves that the people of the Middle East will eventually take care of their own problems as long as the West doesn't interfere to install dictators more friendly to the corporate interests.

Read the book Resurrecting Empire byu Rashid Khalidi, he shows that there have been many movements for democracy all undermined by the West, and Iraq war is no exception.

[attis]

It's proof in the pudding that social changes cannot come from power elites or social engineers that suppose pure determinism or some idiotic formulation of historicism. It's the market of ideas (the pattern) in action. And she's a *****. :3

[danyboy27]

You'll find the majority of us here at Revleft support the uprising, with only a minority of Leninists rejecting it as a tool of American imperialism trying to weasel its way into Iran.

lol, even if it was true, iranian would have more liberty over their destinies than what they have now.

So far, if at some point the current uprising succed, it would send a clear message to all the middle east, to the egyptian, the syrian and other dictatorship in the region that the people could actually kick some asses for a change.

[attis]

I just hope it doesn't get any bloodier. I hate violence.

[danyboy27]

I just hope it doesn't get any bloodier. I hate violence.

believe me, it will get bloodier, the iranian governement will do anything necessary to protect their assets, even if it mean using machinegun to suppress the crowd.

the question is how much violence can the military endure before getting upset with it.

during the iranian revolution, the heavy suppression of people in the street troubled the armed forces, and eventually they turned toward the crowd instead of obeying to the sha.

if the protest keep up, i say a fews thousand. so far iranian crowd suppression seem to be pretty weak, that whole motorbike technique didnt worked well so far and they have startedfto use live amunition to supress the crowd.
we could see the police retreat on several video after pushing the crowd, the crowd felt back, regrouped and charged the whole motorbike force.

[GPDP]

I just hope it doesn't get any bloodier. I hate violence.

Such is the nature of a state, especially when it openly turns against its own people. Not much that can be done in this case. A revolution is only as bloody as the powers that be make it. If they cede power, then the conflict will end with minimal bloodshed. If they decide to stand their ground and fight, then there will be hell to pay.

What you should be hoping for is for the Iranian people to topple the government before things get really, really ugly.

[danyboy27]

Such is the nature of a state, especially when it openly turns against its own people. Not much that can be done in this case. A revolution is only as bloody as the powers that be make it. If they cede power, then the conflict will end with minimal bloodshed. If they decide to stand their ground and fight, then there will be hell to pay.

What you should be hoping for is for the Iranian people to topple the government before things get really, really ugly.

unfortinatly i dont think its really possible. in order to do that the people need support from their own military, or at least some part of the military.

the basijii are fundamentalist milita, the IRGC too, their only hope reside in the artesh itself.

the artesh is the standard iranian military, mostly made up of different social and cultural background, often looked down by both the basijii and the IRGC for their lack of training and faith.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You'll find the majority of us here at Revleft support the uprising, with only a minority of Leninists rejecting it as a tool of American imperialism trying to weasel its way into Iran.

I think you mean Stalinists, friend. They tend to take and "enemy of my enemy is a friend" approach to world affairs since during the USSR, it would have given the USSR and imperialist advantage.

[Ele'ill]

It will be interesting to see what tactics are used by the commoners to over throw the current regime. How will they combat a military presence? Violence or peace? And of course it will be interesting to see, in about five years or so when its released, how the united states had their hands in it.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I say it's high-time people challenged the Iranian State and we should support them. The idea even of an office like "Supreme Leader" is ridiculous; this has the potential of becoming another Tienanmen Square and we need to build up international pressure before the State turns overtly-lethal.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I just hope it doesn't get any bloodier. I hate violence.

Likewise. Neda is the reason non-violent resistance has got to be established; violence only prolongs hate and hate only prolongs violence. Revolution is an act of love and has no room for these things.

[Bud Struggle]

This is right up there with the Anarchists protests not long ago in Greece. Remember them? What did they change?

Revolutionists are "yesterday's" Communists. We need a more subtle change.

[danyboy27]

This is right up there with the Anarchists protests not long ago in Greece. Remember them? What did they change?

Revolutionists are "yesterday's" Communists. We need a more subtle change.

agreed, but well, i guess it depend of the place where the situation is happening.

also, i think that a democratic environnement is more likely to be changed by those subtility you are talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3puJa2EfcM

And more seriously:

How Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, sees the world
Ayatollah Khamenei has preserved his view of the revolution in postelection clampdown, analysts say – but perhaps at great cost to the office he occupies.
By Dan Murphy | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

from the June 23, 2009 edition


Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, which toppled with breathtaking speed Iran's corrupt and secular shah, the country has had two rulers.

One is the package – standard in modern republics – of head of state and parliament. And then there’s the supreme leader, who, in practice, has to work with the consent of the nation’s formally democratic institutions but who, in theory, has the power to overrule them if he feels their actions run counter to God’s will. [Editor's note: The original version misstated the political hierarchy in Iran.]

The supreme leader today is Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, for 20 years now the successor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei, the charismatic preacher who defined the contours of the theocratic Iranian state and who died in 1989.

Karim Sadjadpour, a senior Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called Mr. Khamenei "the single most powerful individual in a highly factionalized, autocratic regime" in a paper on the cleric last year.

High cost of controversial decision

It is Khamenei who has the ultimate responsibility for the apparent decision to skew Iran's presidential election in favor of his preferred candidate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and for unleashing the security forces that have killed at least 17 Iranians protesting the outcome in the past week, sending Iran into its greatest political crisis in 30 years.

Khamenei is preserving his vision, say analysts, of what the Islamic Republic should look like in the short term by denying the popular will. But he has taken that step, they say, at a cost so great to his own image and to that of the office he occupies that the Islamic Republic is unlikely to be the same again.

"It's easy to stop a riot or demonstration with violence, but it's not easy to regain moral authority once it's been chipped away by your actions," says Juan Cole, a historian of the Middle East and an expert on Shiite Islam at the University of Michigan. "This is the kind of thing the shah used to do. The revolution has always said it stands for justice and the rule of law, but a large segment of the public is not going to think that anymore."

Scholars of Iran say that while Khamenei has for most of his 20 years in power sought to avoid confrontation and played a behind-the-scenes role, he has always been devoted to adhering to Khomenei's call for a velayat-e-faqih, or "rule of the jurisprudent," which in practice means one man like Khamenei acting as "jurisprudent," or interpreter of God's rule on earth.

Adding word 'absolute' to his powers

Indeed, after Khamenei rose to Iran's most important position in 1989, he went further than Khomenei had, leading a successful effort to have the role of the faqih, or jurisprudent, defined more specifically in the Constitution with the insertion of the word "absolute" as in the "absolute rule of the jurisprudent."

When his younger brother Hadi Khamenei, a reformist cleric who favors more oversight and checks on the power of the supreme leader, called for this in a sermon in 1999, he was savagely beaten by basiji militia loyal to the ayatollah – the same group that has been used to attack protesters in recent days.

"I think, in some respects, what Khamenei has done in the past 10 years has been to amass even more authority institutionally than his predecessor ever had," says Suzanne Maloney, an Iran scholar at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "He clearly sees the revolution itself as under threat, and Iran has already begun to deliver with the violence over the weekend. I think they're in a good position to repress, and I don't think Khamenei will blink."

Iran's 'Dick Cheney'

Ms. Maloney says that what he lacks in charisma and theological heft (he is not considered among the country's top scholars of Shiite Islam), Khamenei has made up for in building networks of appointees and other relationships in Iran's political elite.

"I've always thought of him as the Dick Cheney of Iran," she says. "You wouldn't have expected, based on his personality, that he'd amass this kind of power."

Scholars say that Khamenei's political activism under the shah, as well as his experience of being tortured by the shah's secret police, helped cement his view that the United States and Britain see Islam and Iran as implacable foes, with both countries supporting the shah and providing training and resources to his apparatus of repression.

"Clearly, he views the world as aligned against Iran, he talks about the Iran-Iraq war as a war of the world against Iran, not a war of two states," says Maloney. "He talks about Ahmedinejad's term in office in very glowing terminology, as someone who brought the revolution back to its roots and returned Iran from the brink of vulnerability."

In his analysis, Mr. Sadjadpour notes that the ayatollah's writings reflect "a resolute leader with a remarkably consistent and coherent – though highly cynical and conspiratorial – world view."

Mr. Cole, at the University of Michigan, says Khamenei's worldview has led him to see Iran's reformists as abiding threats, even though many of them just want to tweak the nature of the Islamic revolution, not overthrow it entirely.

"What a lot of the reformers want is consumer capitalism and international integration … and Khamenei sees this as an existential to the republic," says Cole. "Khamenei is afraid that if Iran isn't economically independent, then the US will find a way to get a hold of it again and subjugate it. A lot of his paranoia is that the reformists want to give away the show."

[danyboy27]

well, that pretty much it tom.

iran is a pseudo-democratic regime with some religious zealot hijacking the whole democratic process every time. did you knew that over 2000 candiate where refused beccause they where not deemed enough religious?

has i said earlier tomk, i am all for subtitle change, but in a regime like that this is impossible. on another hand, north america is more than ready for those change you are talking about:cool:

[RGacky3]

This is right up there with the Anarchists protests not long ago in Greece. Remember them? What did they change?

Revolutionists are "yesterday's" Communists. We need a more subtle change.

What did they change? Well the power of the police nad government for one. Its gonna be a lot harder now for the government to use brute tactics.

As far as iran goes, yes I support the protests, as would most communists.

However what I find strange is the rediculous amount of coverage its getting on the news, essencially its a protests over an election, something which happens all the time in the third world, nothing new.

The coverage of it should show how ruling class controled the media is, the Oaxacan uprising is MUCH more significant when it comes to fights for liberty, however it almost got nothing. The Oaxacan uprising also was mroe significant because it was an actual uprising, not protests over an election, definately unique.

But who does Iran protests get the coverage and not the oaxacan uprising? Iran is Americas enemy, Mexico is Americas friend. Plain and simple.

Really, in the big scheme of things, this is just another dirty third world election, it happens all the time.


One is the package – standard in modern republics – of head of state and parliament. And then there’s the supreme leader, who, in practice, has to work with the consent of the nation’s formally democratic institutions but who, in theory, has the power to overrule them if he feels their actions run counter to God’s will.

Essencially, the same in most constitutional monarchies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is right up there with the Anarchists protests not long ago in Greece. Remember them? What did they change?

Revolutionists are "yesterday's" Communists. We need a more subtle change.Look into the 2nd international - social democrats are "yesterday's communists" too.

If you ask me, part of the problem is that all we've had is "subtle" change: Reformers offering eventual rights, eventual equality, eventual democracy, and eventual justice. With most of the European and Latin American social democratic parties promising socialism but delivering neoliberalsim, I think it's time to realize that subtle change is no change at all.

The Greeks protested and shut down their country and forced people to listen. I live in California where dozens of cell-phone cameras videotaped a Oakland policeman shooting an unarmed 20 year old in the back while he was on his stomach with his hands behind his back. This is much worse than what happened in Greece or Paris when protesters shut those places down. So what is the result of the "subtle" approach in California - none of the police were even fired, none of the subway officials that tried to hide their videotapes of the incident have been suspended or fired. The cop that shot Oscar Grant was not arrested or charged for weeks (despite clear video evidence) and the police let him cross state lines. It was only immediately after a night of riots that the cop was charged. Riots are disorganized and are not that effective - imagine what we could have done if we organized a general strike instead!

I hope the Iranians keep the pressure up!

[Bud Struggle]

Look into the 2nd international - social democrats are "yesterday's communists" too.

If you ask me, part of the problem is that all we've had is "subtle" change: Reformers offering eventual rights, eventual equality, eventual democracy, and eventual justice. With most of the European and Latin American social democratic parties promising socialism but delivering neoliberalsim, I think it's time to realize that subtle change is no change at all.


I don't know--we've had serious social change here in the USA over the past 100 years or so without any Revolution. We've had women's sufferage, Black liberation and equality, we are getting equal rights for gays. None of this is happening overnight, but be have become mre sociall and ecologically aware.

Now there's a long way to go, but things are headed in the right direction at a rather healthy clip. Now of course the economic structure of things hasn't changed a lot--but I rather thing we are headed for more taxes ont the wealthy and more public programs for thenot so wealthy.

All in all I think the direction we are headed in peacefull--isn't that bad.

[Jimmie Higgins]

All in all I think the direction we are headed in peacefull--isn't that bad.

Peacefull? I wouldn't say the bombing of black churches peaceful? The attacks on abortion clinics? Attacks on civil rights marchers? All our gains has come with a brutal price.

I don't believe Revolution means being armed resistance fighter - I think we will use peaceful means for a Revolution - but we will be attacked by those in power - look at the history of labor struggles in the US: peaceful (as well as violent) strikers have been attacked by Pinkertons, Police, State Militia, National Gaurd, and fascist thugs. The bosses are willing to use any of these on us (and have in the past) regardless of how Revolutionary or Reformist our aims are.

This "peaceful change" has left a long and bloody trail. If we don't make an overall change, then we will continue to fight the same fights and have more and more of our blood spilt.

Look at the protesters in Iran, they are not revolutionary at this point, but the ruling order is treating them as though they are - it would be no different here if such a movement existed.

[Il Medico]

The Christian Science Monitor
:lol:

[RGacky3]

I don't know--we've had serious social change here in the USA over the past 100 years or so without any Revolution. We've had women's sufferage, Black liberation and equality, we are getting equal rights for gays. None of this is happening overnight, but be have become mre sociall and ecologically aware.

This happened with America getting close to revolution at least twice. The governments did'nt just become more socially aware just out of the blue, they did'nt have a choice.

[Bud Struggle]

Peacefull? I wouldn't say the bombing of black churches peaceful? The attacks on abortion clinics? Attacks on civil rights marchers? All our gains has come with a brutal price. I agree there was some tribulations but they were minor incidents. Most people looked to laws not revolution to change thing for the better--and for the most part in the USA at least all those laws were in place in the Constitution.


I don't believe Revolution means being armed resistance fighter - I think we will use peaceful means for a Revolution - but we will be attacked by those in power By Revolution I mean a change in government--and I don't think anyone is interested in that idea.



- look at the history of labor struggles in the US: peaceful (as well as violent) strikers have been attacked by Pinkertons, Police, State Militia, National Gaurd, and fascist thugs. The bosses are willing to use any of these on us (and have in the past) regardless of how Revolutionary or Reformist our aims are. Right, in the beginning there were some altercations, but things soon quieted down and such violence is almost unimaginable today. Those days are over.


This "peaceful change" has left a long and bloody trail. If we don't make an overall change, then we will continue to fight the same fights and have more and more of our blood spilt. More people die in traffic accidents in one month in Toledo than died in union altercations--and it's bee a long time since anything like that has happened.


Look at the protesters in Iran, they are not revolutionary at this point, but the ruling order is treating them as though they are - it would be no different here if such a movement existed. They are fighting for LIBERAL DEMOCRACY--with an Islamic flavor, that want what we have in america and Western Europe. There's nothing Marxist about anything they are doing.


Originally Posted by RGacky3
This happened with America getting close to revolution at least twice. The governments did'nt just become more socially aware just out of the blue, they did'nt have a choice.

I was around in the 60s--and there was some civil unrest to be sure but it was mostly cultural--the political part of it was confined to protesting the Vietnam War not ot over throw the government. No one was interested in upsetting the established order. And the response by the American people was to elect Richard Nixon.

[RGacky3]

was around in the 60s--and there was some civil unrest to be sure but it was mostly cultural

Segregation and Vietnam were Cultural?


No one was interested in upsetting the established order.

Actually a large part of the population interested in that, which is why Countilpro was put in place.


Most people looked to laws not revolution to change thing for the better--and for the most part in the USA at least all those laws were in place in the Constitution.


Until they figure out that the laws are on the side of the elite, in which case they have to go outside the institution, and force the institution the change (which sometimes happens).


By Revolution I mean a change in government--and I don't think anyone is interested in that idea.

The Zapatistas revolution was'nt a change in government, niehter was Anachist spain, it was simply overriding the government.


Right, in the beginning there were some altercations, but things soon quieted down and such violence is almost unimaginable today. Those days are over.


Things quieted down BECAUSE of the rough labor struggles, and only after the violence. As soon as radical labor starts up again, which chances are it will the more capitalism fails workers, cances are the Capitalist will resist, and one way that has always been an acceptable tool for Capitalists is violence.

It happens in countries that are set up just like Americas but who's economies are hurting worse, don't think it would'nt happen here. There is nothing special about America.


They are fighting for LIBERAL DEMOCRACY--with an Islamic flavor, that want what we have in america and Western Europe. There's nothing Marxist about anything they are doing.


You know this how? A large part of the fight is the labor struggle, union activists.

Keep in mind, this is really just another "our guy did'nt win I call fraud" encounter, which happens non stop in third world countries. This is'nt a grand pro-america anti-iran government uprising the United States media paints it as (as it compleatly ignores uprisings in friendly countries).