Žižek on Iran: Time for a Drop into the Abyss?

[bellyscratch]

http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/zizek-on-iran-time-for-a-drop-into-the-abyss/


When an authoritarian regime approaches its final crisis, its dissolution as a rule follows two steps. Before its actual collapse, a mysterious rupture takes place: all of a sudden people know that the game is over, they are simply no longer afraid. It is not only that the regime loses its legitimacy, its exercise of power itself is perceived as an impotent panic reaction.


We all know the classic scene from cartoons: the cat reaches a precipice, but it goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is no ground under its feet; it starts to fall only when it looks down and notices the abyss. When it loses its authority, the regime is like a cat above the precipice: in order to fall, it only has to be reminded to look down…


In Shah of Shahs, a classic account of the Khomeini revolution, Ryszard Kapuscinski located the precise moment of this rupture: at a Tehran crossroad, a single demonstrator refused to budge when a policeman shouted at him to move, and the embarrassed policeman simply withdrew; in a couple of hours, all Tehran knew about this incident, and although there were street fights going on for weeks, everyone somehow knew the game is over.


Is something similar going on now?


There are many versions of the events in Tehran. Some see in the protests the culmination of the pro-Western “reform movement” along the lines of the “orange” revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. – a secular reaction to the Khomeini revolution.


They support the protests as the first step towards a new liberal-democratic secular Iran freed of Muslim fundamentalism.


They are counteracted by skeptics who think that Ahmadinejad really won: he is the voice of the majority, while the support of Mousavi comes from the middle classes and their gilded youth.


In short: let’s drop the illusions and face the fact that, in Ahmadinejad, Iran has a president it deserves. Then there are those who dismiss Mousavi as a member of the cleric establishment with merely cosmetic differences from Ahmadinejad: Mousavi also wants to continue the atomic energy program, he is against recognizing Israel, plus he enjoyed the full support of Khomeini as a prime minister in the years of the war with Iraq.


Finally, the saddest of them all are the Leftist supporters of Ahmadinejad: what is really at stake for them is Iranian independence. Ahmadinejad won because he stood up for the country’s independence, exposed elite corruption and used oil wealth to boost the incomes of the poor majority – this is, so we are told, the true Ahmadinejad beneath the Western-media image of a holocaust-denying fanatic. According to this view, what is effectively going on now in Iran is a repetition of the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh – a West-financed coup against the legitimate president. This view not only ignores facts: the high electoral participation – up from the usual 55% to 85% – can only be explained as a protest vote. It also displays its blindness for a genuine demonstration of popular will, patronizingly assuming that, for the backward Iranians, Ahmadinejad is good enough – they are not yet sufficiently mature to be ruled by a secular Left.


Opposed as they are, all these versions read the Iranian protests along the axis of Islamic hardliners versus pro-Western liberal reformists, which is why they find it so difficult to locate Mousavi: Is he a Western-backed reformer who wants more personal freedom and market economy, or a member of the cleric establishment whose eventual victory would not affect in any serious way the nature of the regime?


Such extreme oscillations demonstrate that they all miss the true nature of the protests.


The green color adopted by the Mousavi supporters, the cries of “Allah akbar!” that resonate from the roofs of Tehran in the evening darkness, clearly indicate that they see their activity as the repetition of the 1979 Khomeini revolution, as the return to its roots, the undoing of the revolution’s later corruption. This return to the roots is not only programmatic; it concerns even more the mode of activity of the crowds: the emphatic unity of the people, their all-encompassing solidarity, creative self-organization, improvising of the ways to articulate protest, the unique mixture of spontaneity and discipline, like the ominous march of thousands in complete silence. We are dealing with a genuine popular uprising of the deceived partisans of the Khomeini revolution.


There are a couple of crucial consequences to be drawn from this insight. First, Ahmadinejad is not the hero of the Islamist poor, but a genuine corrupted Islamo-Fascist populist, a kind of Iranian Berlusconi whose mixture of clownish posturing and ruthless power politics is causing unease even among the majority of ayatollahs. His demagogic distributing of crumbs to the poor should not deceive us: behind him are not only organs of police repression and a very Westernized PR apparatus, but also a strong new rich class, the result of the regime’s corruption.


(Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is not a working class militia, but a mega-corporation, the strongest center of wealth in the country.)


Second, one should draw a clear difference between the two main candidates opposed to Ahmadinejad, Mehdi Karroubi and Mousavi. Karroubi effectively is a reformist, basically proposing the Iranian version of identity politics, promising favors to all particular groups. Mousavi is something entirely different: his name stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution. Even if this dream was a utopia, one should recognize in it the genuine utopia of the revolution itself. What this means is that the 1979 Khomeini revolution cannot be reduced to a hard line Islamist takeover – it was much more. Now is the time to remember the incredible effervescence of the first year after the revolution, with the breath-taking explosion of political and social creativity, organizational experiments and debates among students and ordinary people. The very fact that this explosion had to be stifled demonstrates that the Khomeini revolution was an authentic political event, a momentary opening that unleashed unheard-of forces of social transformation, a moment in which “everything seemed possible.” What followed was a gradual closing through the take-over of political control by the Islam establishment. To put it in Freudian terms, today’s protest movement is the “return of the repressed” of the Khomeini revolution.


And, last but not least, what this means is that there is a genuine liberating potential in Islam – to find a “good” Islam, one doesn’t have to go back to the 10th century, we have it right here, in front of our eyes.


The future is uncertain – in all probability, those in power will contain the popular explosion, and the cat will not fall into the precipice, but regain ground. However, it will no longer be the same regime, but just one corrupted authoritarian rule among others.


Whatever the outcome, it is vitally important to keep in mind that we are witnessing a great emancipatory event which doesn’t fit the frame of the struggle between pro-Western liberals and anti-Western fundamentalists. If our cynical pragmatism will make us lose the capacity to recognize this emancipatory dimension, then we in the West are effectively entering a post-democratic era, getting ready for our own Ahmadinejads. Italians already know his name: Berlusconi. Others are waiting in line.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I love some of Zizek's stuff. I just really hope he's right.

[Intelligitimate]

Zizek is terrible. Take this stupid bit of bullshit:


If our cynical pragmatism will make us lose the capacity to recognize this emancipatory dimension, then we in the West are effectively entering a post-democratic era, getting ready for our own Ahmadinejads.

The very idea we live in any kind of meaningful democracy is laughable. Indeed, the parallels you can draw between how elections are controlled in the US and how they are controlled in Iran are numerous. It also sets up the idea that somehow Western bourgeois democracy is better than what is in Iran (which is essentially the same thing), and we should applaud the protesters.

And his romanticizing of Mousavi is fucking disgusting:


Mousavi is something entirely different: his name stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution.

What a god damn moron. The man presided over the murder of thousands of communists and used children as mine-sweepers in the war. Zizek is a disgusting fucking apologist for Western imperialism. Fuck him and his retarded mixture of Marxism and Freudian psycho-bullshit.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It also sets up the idea that somehow Western bourgeois democracy is better than what is in Iran (which is essentially the same thing), and we should applaud the protesters.

We shouldn't applaud the protesters? Who should we be applauding? The state security forces repressing them?

[Intelligitimate]

We shouldn't applaud the protesters? Who should we be applauding? The state security forces repressing them?

As long as the protests represent petite bourgeois forces calling for a more pro-Western, pro-free market government, then I support the forces representing the guy that is opposed to this.

If and when the Iranian Left can turn things around, then I'll change my mind. Until then, this is just another color revolution (it's Green this time).

[black magick hustla]

zizek is a goddamn fraud. the only people who like him are illiterate art students and gimmicky critical theory academics.

[Honggweilo]

zizek is a goddamn fraud. the only people who like him are illiterate art students and gimmicky critical theory academics.
wasn't TC a fan of Zizek?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

As long as the protests represent petite bourgeois forces calling for a more pro-Western, pro-free market government, then I support the grand bourgeois forces repressing them.
Fair enough, if that's how you see it.

[Intelligitimate]

Snip. Consider this a verbal warning for flaming - Sean.

[Sean]

Actually, disregard that, given the previous post it was baited. Still snipped though Intelligitimate, both of you need to try to be civil, please.

[Intelligitimate]

Reactionary mods that openly support Western imperialism delete comments responding to insult of fellow reactionary posters who support Western imperialism ITT.

[Intelligitimate]

Revleft: haven of reactionaries that rival StormFront and FreeRepublic!

[Sean]

Well ok then, just you paste exactly what you said earlier. And fuck your stupid reactionary attack, I actually want to hear that side of the coin voiced just as loud as the other, I just wish you werent the spokesman funnily enough, because you're fucking stupid. Gee that Zizek he be a dumb dumb, me smart smart me know west bad so big man no like der west be good good. Get the fuck off the stage or articulate the position better than calling everyone moronic tools of western imperialism. Some of the most intelligent people on this board are weathering the kiss of death because they see it as something that, even if the opportunistic bastard west are supporting because of their own designs, an uprising benefits the worker, not to remove any kind of resistance against the west.

[Intelligitimate]

because you're fucking stupid.lol, once again the reactionary trash that control this forum show their moderating policies don't have a fucking thing to do with maintaining civility and everything to do with promoting their reactionary brand of politics under the guise of being "revolutionary" (as if it was revolutionary to ride the coat tails of the corporate mass media).

The "Green" revolution is just another color revolution, meant to destroy what little resistance that remains in Iran to Western economic domination and turn them into a comprador regime. One almost wants it to succeed, just so real revolutionaries can say "I told you so!" Too bad the "Left" that supports this brand of gutter-trash politics didn't learn their lesson last time they cheered on the "color" revolutions that put capitalist reactionaries and fascists into power.

[black magick hustla]

The "Green" revolution is just another color revolution, meant to destroy what little resistance that remains in Iran to Western economic domination and turn them into a comprador regime

The thing is that most "anti-imperialist" regimes are "comprador", except they dont pay allegiance to american imperialism, but to the E.U., Russia, etc. The whole idea that third world countries can resist imperial domination is silly because imperialism is a world system. Its a remnant of soviet realpolitik, where the world was divided within "communists" and "imperialists". there is no soviet uniont anymore though.

[Intelligitimate]

The thing is that most "anti-imperialist" regimes are "comprador", except they dont pay allegiance to american imperialism, but to the E.U., Russia, etc. The whole idea that third world countries can resist imperial domination is silly because imperialism is a world system. Its a remnant of soviet realpolitik, where the world was divided within "communists" and "imperialists". there is no soviet uniont anymore though.

Russia and the EU don't own Iran. They trade with them. Imperialism does not equal trade.

[makesi]

This isn't the first time Zizek has come out with mainstream views on an issue relating to Islam. I believe he adopted the anti-veil, supposedly pro-secular position with respect to the debate in France.

Zizek has an endless stock of pop culture-based metaphors and analogies to explain everything. Sometimes he can be pretty damn funny but, more often than not, he is useless. I especially liked his mockery of Deleuzian philosophical concepts that he began one of his essays with.

I'm rather sceptical of Zizek's seeming prediction of an imminent fall of the Islamic Republic's government. These events have played out like a color revolution and, therefore, looking at the two most recent color revolutions that have occurred, I kind of suspect that the Iranian government is more resourceful than Sylvester than Cat or Wily Coyote. Belarus and Moldova dealth with their own versions of a color revolution without much difficulty and neither would a comparison of the problems facing the population of the three countries (Iran, Bel., Mol.) give grounds for thinking that the Iranian regime is slipping off a precipice.

Zizek may already have a new book planned to address the Iranian situation. He certainly demonstrates the capability to pump out with rapidity a hundred or so pages of fluff, replete with redundant arguments and Hollywood analogies.

[Enragé]

Im not a fan of zizek myself, but this is a nice article. Those claiming this is another colour revolution should read iit again, the colour green refers to the '79 revolution - one which was for a large part influenced by the radical left and saw the establishment of worker-councils (shora's).

Those claiming this is the CIA's work can explain to me why then pictures of mossadegh have also been carried around by protestors.

[fredbergen]

Those claiming this is another colour revolution should read iit again, the colour green refers to the '79 revolution - one which was for a large part influenced by the radical left and saw the establishment of worker-councils (shora's).

The role of the left '79 "revolution" was to support the Islamic dictatorship: they bowed to their executioners and are responsible for the destruction of a generation of the Iranian working class. Only the Trotskyists of the then-revolutionary Spartacist Tendency opposed Khomeini and the Shah. The mullahs murdered, imprisoned and tortured the leaders of the pre-"revolution" independent shuras while phony "Trotskyists" were chanting "allahu akbar" in the streets!

Today the opportunist left is proving that it never learns from history, by again supporting one or the other of the candidates of the islamic capitalist dictatorship.

Read this article from the League for the Fourth International: Mass Protests Rock Iran: No to All Wings of the Mullah Regime! (http://www.internationalist.org/iranmassprotests0906.html)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm rather sceptical of Zizek's seeming prediction of an imminent fall of the Islamic Republic's government.
To be fair, he does say "The future is uncertain – in all probability, those in power will contain the popular explosion, and the cat will not fall into the precipice, but regain ground", so I don't think you can accuse him of undue optimism too much.

He's something of a bottom feeder, isn't he? Trawling through the detritus of capitalism for the most inane and useless pieces of pop culture.
Because trying to relate to pop culture is such a terrible crime against socialism, isn't it?

I swear, this guy must be the liberals' pet radical. They trot him out whenever they need to make a point about socialism, only to have him implicitly discredit the left through his stupid antics.
If the left has any credibility left after Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and George Galloway, I can't really see how one quirky academic who sometimes says some odd stuff could dent it any further.

[khad]

Because trying to relate to pop culture is such a terrible crime against socialism, isn't it?
When most of this freak's work is scatterbrained bullshit, yes.


If the left has any credibility left after Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and George Galloway, I can't really see how one quirky academic who sometimes says some odd stuff could dent it any further.Ironically, here's Zizek's take on your boogeyman Stalin. This article was originally published in the Financial Times.

http://ionalecsandru.blogspot.com/2009/03/lunch-with-ft-slavoj-zizek-by-john.html


What, after all, are we to make of Žižek’s apparently absurd argument in his recent book In Defence of Lost Causes (Verso Books) that Stalin, author of some of the most monstrous crimes of the 20th century, “saved the humanity of man”?

Clearly bruised by Kirsch’s assault, Žižek denounces his US critic as “stupid”. He then sets about trying to clarify his apparently ambiguous attitude towards Stalinism. First, he readily acknowledges all the human suffering that occurred in Stalin’s time and trots out a series of “nice, horrible” stories illustrating the exceptional cruelty of the times. But, he insists, we should make more efforts to understand Stalinism. “One can argue that there was more violence than under Hitler,” he says. “But Hitler was a bad guy who announced he would do bad things and did them. The true tragedy of Stalinism is that it started as a popular explosion of emancipatory equality. We don’t have a good theory as to why this turned into an even worse nightmare.”

What we often fail to understand, he argues, is how Stalinism was a counter-revolution, reacting against the extreme “post-human” utopian ambitions that were championed by Bolshevik leaders in the 1920s. Communist extremists predicted the day when workers would live in a perfect society with no need for emotions, or even names, and all sexuality and family life would be suppressed. But Stalin was far more conservative, reacting against experimental art and insisting on the sanctity of family life. “Stalinism reacted against these negative dystopias that were even more terrifying. Stalinism was, in that sense, a return to normal life. People forget that.”

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

It also sets up the idea that somehow Western bourgeois democracy is better than what is in Iran (which is essentially the same thing), and we should applaud the protesters.

Right to elect the most powerful politician in the country?
Western bourgeois democracy: Yes
Islamic Republic of Iran: No

Right to question and protest the system without (necessarily) getting attacked and teargassed?
WBD: Yes
IRI: No

Right to be an outspoken atheist without being imprisoned or executed?
WBD: Yes
IRI: No

Right to be an outspoken communist, be involved in a revolutionary communist organization, or have a revolutionary press without being imprisoned or executed?
WBD: Yes
IRI: No

Right to virtually unfettered access to the internet?
WBD: Yes
IRI: No

Right of women to wear whatever they want and have de jure equal rights to men?
WBD: Yes
IRI: No

Shall I continue? Western bourgeois democracy sucks, no doubt, but to say that Iran's system of governance is no worse than the West is 3rd worldist romanticism, i.e. prettifying anything that isn't Western out of a guilt trip. Iran's system is a lot worse. There's a tendency among the most zealous anti-imperialists to diminish the value of things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, etc. in the name of opposition to the United States. Obviously, that's bad. It's not ALL about economics kids.

[Patchd]

As long as the protests represent petite bourgeois forces calling for a more pro-Western, pro-free market government, then I support the forces representing the guy that is opposed to this.

If and when the Iranian Left can turn things around, then I'll change my mind. Until then, this is just another color revolution (it's Green this time).

The current Islamic Republic is far far far from a workers' haven too, even the IMF applauded it for it's ability to enforce part time contracts on it's workers than most other states in the region. Not to mention it's anti-worker actions (the crushing of unions, imprisonment and execution of worker militants, feminists, student activists, and secularists), this may be why you are apparently not seeing the Iranian left much, as such, you wish to maintain this anti-worker state despite all your 'anti-Imperialist' rhetoric. It was the Iranian Islamists who crushed the Iranian left, it's funny because if you were in Iran spouting your revolutionary ideas, you too would be in the basement of the building of the Interior Ministry being beaten up.

EDIT: For anyone who's interested, a member of the Anarchist Federation has written an article on the situation which is up on our blog (done in personal capacity):

http://afed.org.uk/blog/international/99-the-situation-in-iran.html

[Intelligitimate]

Right to elect the most powerful politician in the country?
Western bourgeois democracy: Yes
Islamic Republic of Iran: NoThis, is of course, bullshit. No one elects the Prime Ministers of most bourgeois democracies directly. The same is true with the Supreme Leader. He is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is elected by the people.


Right to question and protest the system without (necessarily) getting attacked and teargassed?
WBD: Yes
IRI: NoMore bullshit from someone who has never apparently been beaten in a protest in the West.


Right to be an outspoken atheist without being imprisoned or executed?
WBD: Yes
IRI: NoI've found no evidence this is the case.


Right to be an outspoken communist, be involved in a revolutionary communist organization, or have a revolutionary press without being imprisoned or executed?
WBD: Yes
IRI: NoThe difference is the Iranian Left aren't wussies who don't do anything. They are dangerous to the regime. The US has gone through periods of extensive crackdown of communists whenever it has felt threatened.


Right to virtually unfettered access to the internet?
WBD: Yes
IRI: NoMore bullshit. People are directing protests from Twitter and visiting English sites in record number that claim fraud.


Right of women to wear whatever they want and have de jure equal rights to men?
WBD: Yes
IRI: NoAnd the situation wasn't much different here just a few decades ago.

Iran is a slightly worse style of bourgeois democracy than found in the West. Zizek is a fool to think any improvement could come from these petty bourgeois protests, orchestrated by the billionaire neo-liberal Rafsanjani.


Shall I continue? Western bourgeois democracy sucks, no doubt, but to say that Iran's system of governance is no worse than the West is 3rd worldist romanticismNo, it's a realistic, truthful appraisal of bourgeois democracy. Only moronic liberals would think any different.


There's a tendency among the most zealous anti-imperialists to diminish the value of things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, etc.lol, what a fucking joke. They let liberals into Kasama?


The current Islamic Republic is far far far from a workers' havenNo shit. Who said otherwise? This conflict is between one section of the bourgeois leadership against another, and frankly the only difference is one is even more reactionary when it comes to kowtowing to the West and speeding up privatization. That's the thing a lot of dumbass "Leftists" on this site don't seem to understand: this is a COLOR REVOLUTION, not some fucking uprising of democracy.

[Patchd]

No shit. Who said otherwise? This conflict is between one section of the bourgeois leadership against another, and frankly the only difference is one is even more reactionary when it comes to kowtowing to the West and speeding up privatization. That's the thing a lot of dumbass "Leftists" on this site don't seem to understand: this is a COLOR REVOLUTION, not some fucking uprising of democracy.

... and your proof that the protests are representative of one ruling faction, opposing another comes from ... the well known fact that CIA agents are operating in Iran?

Speeding up privatisation? Do you even know what Ahmadinejad has done in his term in office? I said it in another post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1477767&postcount=8), so you may have missed it:


Yassamine Mather, an exiled ex-Fedayeen (minority) guerilla [yeah, so someone who was actually involved in a revolutionary struggle against the Islamists in '79-'82] writes on this matter:

"The problem with most dictators is that, even in their dying days, they believe they can stop the movement by simply passing orders or blaming ‘foreign powers’. Some supporters of the shah are still under the illusion that he was not overthrown by the 1979 Iranian revolution, but was deposed thanks to a plot by Britain and the US."

"Those of us who can identify the class composition of demonstrators from their clothes and accents have not had the slightest doubt about the predominance of workers and wage-earners (including teachers, nurses and public employees) on recent protests, but for the benefit of those who have no knowledge of Iran and who keep telling us the demonstrators are ‘middle class’ let me explain some basic facts.

If you live in a country where the ministry of labour claims that over 80% of the workforce are employed on limited contracts and reassures capitalists that by 2010 the figure will have reached 100%, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?

If you live in a country where in the year ending March 2009 despite the repression there were over 4,000 workers’ actions against privatisation and job losses (unemployment stands at 30%, while inflation has reached 25%), including sit-ins, the kidnap of managers, as well as strikes, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?

If you live in a country that has been praised by the International Monetary Fund for its firm pursuit of neoliberal economic policies, all under a certain Mr Ahmadinejad, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?

If you live in a country where teachers and nurses have waged at least four major strikes in the last two years against their government’s economic and political stance, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?"If we're "dumbass leftists", then I doubt you've got a single brain cell left in your head at all.

[Intelligitimate]

Your post doesn't say shit about what Ahmadinejad has done in comparison to what Rafsanjani and his puppet Mousavi want. They have extensively criticized him for not doing enough to privatize the economy and aiding the poor.


If we're "dumbass leftists", then I doubt you've got a single brain cell left in your head at all

This coming from a dumb fuck who is stupid enough to stand with the mass media in their praise of the protests. Where the fuck is the bourgeois media regarding the protests in Honduras? Nowhere.

They're a thousand times more class conscious than you'll ever be, and they knew which side of the class divide these protesters are on, and it sure as hell isn't the working class.

[Intelligitimate]

Look at the Iranian working class holding up their English signs for their fellow Iranian workers!

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

[Patchd]

Look at the Iranian working class holding up their English signs for their fellow Iranian workers!

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

Hmmm, your one picture seems to have swayed my position on this, oh wait hang on, no it hasn't, I still think you're a stupid prick. :D


Your post doesn't say shit about what Ahmadinejad has done in comparison to what Rafsanjani and his puppet Mousavi want. They have extensively criticized him for not doing enough to privatize the economy and aiding the poor.Many many workers do not have illusions in the Reformist faction, they experienced Rafsanjani's corruption, and failure to deliver on promises for reforms regarding not only economy, but also political and social reforms, back when he was in power. In addition, a number will remember Mousavi's role in the crushing of workers' movements and the maintenance of the Islamic Republic back in the time of the war against Iraq too.

Of course there will be a level of support for reactionaries during a revolutionary, or insurrectionary period, as there is always, but that is not to say that the protests are homogenously in support of Mousavi and the other Reformists. Perhaps you would have used the attack on an immigrant worker by fascists, in the backdrop of the recent Greek insurrection to claim that the insurrection was entirely reactionary and fascistic, otherwise you've just chucked political consistency out the window.

You must be comfortable sitting behind your computer screen denouncing the whole protest, while ignoring facts like the quite common chant; "Marg Bar Jomhuriye Eslami" ("Death to the Islamic Republic"), as well as revolutionary demands made by student occupations, militant workers and trade unionists and Communist organisations in Iran, as well as the call for secularism. But then, it doesn't matter, we're arguing on an online board, and I hardly think Iranian workers give two shits about some insignificant Stalinist denouncing their efforts.

Way to go dipshit. :thumbup1:

EDIT:


This coming from a dumb fuck who is stupid enough to stand with the mass media in their praise of the protests. Where the fuck is the bourgeois media regarding the protests in Honduras? Nowhere.Here we go, should have expected this coming from someone who has to defend the Soviet Union, usually with cries that evidence showing that their politics are shit comes from bourgeois sources, fact of the matter is, sometimes the Capitalist class does not have to lie. No doubt are they trying to swing these protests their own way, they have their own interests at stake in the region, their shouts for "freedom" serve their own purposes and they will continue to do so. What we, as revolutionaries, should be doing is attempting to counter that, explaining that not only is liberal 'democracy' a farce and harmful to the very idea of "freedom", but so is the Theocratic regime, we should be presenting an alternative, but then, it's probably just about image for you fucks. You have to seem like the radical, odd one out, what don't you get about opposing both the Theocratic regime (both factions of it) and Imperialism?

[Patchd]

http://hopinewsfromiran.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/protests-continue-in-iran-free-all-political-prisoners/


We have received requests from student comrades in Iran to raise the plight of political prisoners in Iran and to call for their release. At the moment they are very worried about a student called Bita Samimizad. Bita was born in October 1986, and and is studying Physics at Amirkabir Polytechnic university. She is a leftist activist and a translator, she has recently co-translated the book: ‘France – The struggle goes on’ by Tony Cliff (1968). She was also arrested in 2007 and spent 40 days in the notorious Evin, last Saturday she was arrested about 5 o’clock at 16th Azar street (Shanzdahe Azar street) which is very close to Enghelab sq. She was arrested by plain clothes members of the Sepah and is in Evin prison now, she has been able to call her mom once and let her know she is in Evin.


Reactionary student right? Your opposition to the protests as one homogeneous entity is not only a mere political matter, it's downright reactionary, lazy and offensive. It's you who is getting your news from the bourgeois press, perhaps if you start looking at what groups like HOPI which have long been working with leftist elements in Iran have been doing, you'd have a better understanding of the situation Intelligitimate.

[Intelligitimate]

Of course there will be a level of support for reactionaries during a revolutionary, or insurrectionary period, as there is always, but that is not to say that the protests are homogenously in support of Mousavi and the other Reformists. Perhaps you would have used the attack on an immigrant worker by fascists, in the backdrop of the recent Greek insurrection to claim that the insurrection was entirely reactionary and fascistic, otherwise you've just chucked political consistency out the window.


The Greek insurrection a few months ago was definitely led by Leftist forces. The anarchists, communists, and the major socialist party all were major players. This is not even near the case in Iran. There are no radicals leading these protests in Iran, and they are clearly being egged on by US forces and the billionaire neo-liberal Rafsanjani. Oh, and the bourgeois media wasn't fucking in love with the Greek protests.

There is a very clear difference here.



You must be comfortable sitting behind your computer screen denouncing the whole protest, while ignoring facts like the quite common chant; "Marg Bar Jomhuriye Eslami" ("Death to the Islamic Republic"), as well as revolutionary demands made by student occupations, militant workers and trade unionists and Communist organisations in Iran, as well as the call for secularism.


An extreme minority of protesters are secularists and radicals. The majority are petty bourgeois students (no doubt students of the private Islamic Azad University system, owned by Rafsanjani (maybe they get extra credit for showing up, lol)). Despite pretending otherwise, this is an even more reactionary mass movement against a somewhat less reactionary regime. A handful of secularists and radicals with zero visibility in the protests doesn't change that, just like an attack on immigrants by fascists in Greece didn't change the fundamentally radical nature of their protests.



But then, it doesn't matter, we're arguing on an online board, and I hardly think Iranian workers give two shits about some insignificant Stalinist denouncing their efforts.


I'm sure Iranian workers are thrilled that a stupid anarcho-moron in an American historical society (IWW) is supporting protesters who side with and are lead by the opposition that is openly hostile to them, and that they overwhelmingly voted against.



Here we go, should have expected this coming from someone who has to defend the Soviet Union, usually with cries that evidence showing that their politics are shit comes from bourgeois sources, fact of the matter is, sometimes the Capitalist class does not have to lie.


lol, only moronic pseudo-Left liberals say stupid shit like this. “The mass media doesn't always lie.”


Yes they do, every single time it is in their class interests to do so.



No doubt are they trying to swing these protests their own way


They are already that way, which is why they support them. This is a color revolution.



What we, as revolutionaries, should be doing is attempting to counter that, explaining that not only is liberal 'democracy' a farce and harmful to the very idea of "freedom", but so is the Theocratic regime, we should be presenting an alternative, but then, it's probably just about image for you fucks.


lol, what fucking idiotic nonsense is this? Just how the hell does us “presenting an alternative” do fucking anything for Iranian workers and radicals? It is up the Iranian working class and their radical leadership to that, and they're not currently leading these protests and probably never will. It is just opportunistic for so-called “Leftists” in America to side with their own bourgeoisie on this issue. I'm sure it makes your liberal Obama-loving friends happy.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The Greek insurrection a few months ago was definitely led by Leftist forces. The anarchists, communists, and the major socialist party all were major players. This is not even near the case in Iran. There are no radicals leading these protests in Iran, and they are clearly being egged on by US forces and the billionaire neo-liberal Rafsanjani. Oh, and the bourgeois media wasn't fucking in love with the Greek protests.

I think somebody has been listening to the Mousavi camp and ironically, bourgeois media a bit too much.. These protests have been littered with chants such as "Marg Bar Dictator" (Death to the Dictator), moreover these protests have seen the Khodro car workers strike, 120+ university teaches walk out in solidairty with harrassed and arrested (and leftist!) student as well as hospital workers striking. Not to mention the possibilty of oil workers going on strike!

What we see form the workers going on strike (see for example the letter form the Bus Workers Syndicate) in iran isn't concern over the election, but solidairty with leftist protesters taking to the streets in opposition to the regime. Iranians are well known for their apathy towards the regime and with their history of workers volatility i'd suggest you stop invalidating workers responce to this crisis between two factions of the ruling class and publicise their plight, instead of rallying aorund the regime that brutalises workers everyday.



An extreme minority of protesters are secularists and radicals. The majority are petty bourgeois students (no doubt students of the private Islamic Azad University system, owned by Rafsanjani (maybe they get extra credit for showing up, lol)). Despite pretending otherwise, this is an even more reactionary mass movement against a somewhat less reactionary regime. A handful of secularists and radicals with zero visibility in the protests doesn't change that, just like an attack on immigrants by fascists in Greece didn't change the fundamentally radical nature of their protests.

Seriously, who are you kidding?
The whole maramenter of what you're saying is wrong. If this is simply one bourgios faction against another then explain the brutality of the Basji and Revolution Guard in these protests. You're assuming Ahmadinejad views Mousavi as a threat, he does not - and with very good reason! Mousavi is a pillar of the islamic republic, Mousavi isn't calling for the detah of the islamic republic, that would be the protesters. In fact so deluded are you about the nature of these protests, that you havn't noticed that as soon as Khomeini declared them illegal Mousavi urged his supporters to take their frustration through the "correct channels" leaving the streets of tehran flooded with leftists, secularists, students, feminists and democrats, people who have no allegeance to either faction of the Mullahs.

Do you really think Maousavi and his ilk would march alongside chants of "Marg bar Jomhouri Islami" (Death to the Islamic Republic) as well as unvieled women?!


I'm sure Iranian workers are thrilled that a stupid anarcho-moron in an American historical society (IWW) is supporting protesters who side with and are lead by the opposition that is openly hostile to them, and that they overwhelmingly voted against.

So reports of ballot rigging, 14 million cast votes gone missing mean nothing?

Iranian workers during this period and in fact any period under the brutal theoracy, need our support. Our job as revolutionaries isn't to apologise for the Islamic regime as you've done and it certainly isn't to validate bourgeois elections. Our task is to support Iranian workers in whatever way we can and help publicise their plight, simultaniously we recognise that our own bourgeoisie is our main enemy and that averting the threat of war is our main priority - in this vein we highlight to hypocracy of the western governemnts (and in deed media) in using (or at least trying) these protests to their own advantage.



lol, only moronic pseudo-Left liberals say stupid shit like this. “The mass media doesn't always lie.”

Yes they do, every single time it is in their class interests to do so.

They are already that way, which is why they support them. This is a color revolution.

The media always lie? Lol sometimes they don't have to, Iran is a brutal theoracy that does not tolerate demonstrations against the Islamic nature of the Republic. Fact.
Don't take my word for it, ask any one of the EXILED Iranian leftist groups.


It is up the Iranian working class and their radical leadership to that, and they're not currently leading these protests and probably never will. It is just opportunistic for so-called “Leftists” in America to side with their own bourgeoisie on this issue. I'm sure it makes your liberal Obama-loving friends happy.

No it isn't just up to the Iranian workers to sort out their 'own' affairs though is it? We're INTERNATIONALISTS, so it's our duty to support in any way we can the struggles of Iranian workers who are locked in a abttle against their barbarous government and the imperialists who would see Iran become a bloodbath.

In siding with Iranian workers we are no way supporting our own national bourgeoisie (in the US or UK) because and i hope this doesn't come as a surprise to you, our national bourgeoisie does NOT have the interests of Iranian workers at mind. We seek to support workers in Iran to overthrow the regime has murdered Iranian leftists/national minorities/secularists in their millions, this support howver is ONLY in the form of internal (Iranian) revolution, we do not support external intervention as our own national bourgeoisie is no better, and in fac toften much worse, than the regime of Iran. But when faced with Iranian workers taking to the streets in their hundreds of thousands against the Islamic republic, we can either side with them and publicise their plight, or we can ignore their struggles and allow the imperialists to distort what their struggle is about.

No to imperialism. No to the theocratic regime.!

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm sure Iranian workers are thrilled that a stupid anarcho-moron in an American historical society (IWW) is supporting protesters who side with and are lead by the opposition that is openly hostile to them.
Proof of this open hostility?


lol, only moronic pseudo-Left liberals say stupid shit like this. “The mass media doesn't always lie.”


Yes they do, every single time it is in their class interests to do so.

You're right. The moon landings were a bourgeois conspiracy, comrade! Elvis's death is a myth perpetuated by the running dogs of capitalism!


lol, what fucking idiotic nonsense is this? Just how the hell does us “presenting an alternative” do fucking anything for Iranian workers and radicals? It is up the Iranian working class and their radical leadership to that, and they're not currently leading these protests and probably never will. It is just opportunistic for so-called “Leftists” in America to side with their own bourgeoisie on this issue.
The correct thing to do, of course, is to side with the Iranian bourgeoisie repressing the protests. That does a lot to help Iranian workers and radicals, obviously.

[Patchd]

The Greek insurrection a few months ago was definitely led by Leftist forces. The anarchists, communists, and the major socialist party all were major players. This is not even near the case in Iran. There are no radicals leading these protests in Iran, and they are clearly being egged on by US forces and the billionaire neo-liberal Rafsanjani. Oh, and the bourgeois media wasn't fucking in love with the Greek protests.

There is a very clear difference here.

Point taken. :cool:


An extreme minority of protesters are secularists and radicals. The majority are petty bourgeois students (no doubt students of the private Islamic Azad University system, owned by Rafsanjani (maybe they get extra credit for showing up, lol)). Despite pretending otherwise, this is an even more reactionary mass movement against a somewhat less reactionary regime. A handful of secularists and radicals with zero visibility in the protests doesn't change that, just like an attack on immigrants by fascists in Greece didn't change the fundamentally radical nature of their protests.Perhaps you didn't see this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1478396&postcount=26) and the ones after, oh wait, you did but you still disregarded them.

Prove it, prove anything you've said so far. So far all I have is one picture, the well known fact that the CIA and other Imperialists operate (and have been doing so for ages) in Iran, and erm, nothing else. You base your claims on what the mainstream bourgeois press has been saying, and you're saying that I support reactionaries? Hah, get real mate. :laugh:


I'm sure Iranian workers are thrilled that a stupid anarcho-moron in an American historical society (IWW) is supporting protesters who side with and are lead by the opposition that is openly hostile to them, and that they overwhelmingly voted against.As opposed to someone denouncing them who creams over a dead and failed state? LOL. Yeh, people I know have talked to Iranians on the ground, they are quite thrilled that people are supporting them actually, even if they are from an American historical society.

Also, h0m0revolutionary answers your second part quite well, you're completely deluded to believe a reactionary, LGBTQ killing, worker crushing, women hating Conservative Islamist's side of the story on this one, should you believe Mousavi? Nope, but perhaps you could take the story from the (at least) 3 Million people who have protested in Tehran so far, where are all these Ahmadinejad supporters then if he really was in the majority? Oh yeah, they're concentrated in the basji and pasdaran, great job in supporting yet another oppressive state ;) :thumbup1:

Pure apologism here, you shouldn't even be in the workers' movement, you don't support them.


lol, only moronic pseudo-Left liberals say stupid shit like this. “The mass media doesn't always lie.”Glorious Comrades! The Bourgeois media is constantly lying about everything! Nothing they say can be taken to be fact, not even these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8111648.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm

Wow, I really didn't know you were that stupid. Thanks for the laugh. :lol:


lol, what fucking idiotic nonsense is this? Just how the hell does us “presenting an alternative” do fucking anything for Iranian workers and radicals? It is up the Iranian working class and their radical leadership to that, and they're not currently leading these protests and probably never will. It is just opportunistic for so-called “Leftists” in America to side with their own bourgeoisie on this issue. I'm sure it makes your liberal Obama-loving friends happy.But that's the point, if you actually worked with Iranians, you'd be able to actually do stuff for them, but then sitting behind a computer screen denouncing them will get you more radical stalin-kiddie points right? :thumbup1:

It doesn't make them happy when I call for a stateless solution for it, or when I criticise their idea of liberal 'democracy'. The point is, the situation can go either way, a number of people are working for it to turn left, and you're comfortable denouncing the whole thing as an Obama led drive. The protests aren't homogenous, want me to drill that into your head?

The protests aren't homogenous
The protests aren't homogenous
The protests aren't homogenous
The protests aren't homogenous
The protests aren't homogenous
The protests aren't homogenous

[Intelligitimate]

I think somebody has been listening to the Mousavi camp and ironically, bourgeois media a bit too much.. These protests have been littered with chants such as "Marg Bar Dictator" (Death to the Dictator), moreover these protests have seen the Khodro car workers strike, 120+ university teaches walk out in solidairty with harrassed and arrested (and leftist!) student as well as hospital workers striking. Not to mention the possibilty of oil workers going on strike!


Lots of workers in Iran went on strike to oust the Shah too, including the oil workers. Did that mean it was ushering into power something other than the mullahs led by Khomeini? Of course not. As usual, it is important to pay attention to the forces at work here, and not support something simply because a handful of Iranian Leftists think they can exploit the situation and some workers go on strike.



i'd suggest you stop invalidating workers responce to this crisis between two factions of the ruling class and publicise their plight, instead of rallying aorund the regime that brutalises workers everyday.


I'd suggest you stop supporting your own imperialists who clearly want to bring about a more Western friendly regime in Iran, which will be the only result of these protests. There isn't gonna be any workers state in Iran any time soon. Protests are organized and have leaders, and these leaders aren't Iranian Leftists. Women won't benefit, workers won't benefit, no one benefits but the corrupt billionaire Rafsanjani and his supporters, Israel, and the West.



Seriously, who are you kidding?
The whole maramenter of what you're saying is wrong. If this is simply one bourgios faction against another then explain the brutality of the Basji and Revolution Guard in these protests.


The bourgeois don't always settle their differences peacefully. They'll murder millions to get their way.



You're assuming Ahmadinejad views Mousavi as a threat, he does not - and with very good reason! Mousavi is a pillar of the islamic republic, Mousavi isn't calling for the detah of the islamic republic, that would be the protesters.


lol, a minority of protesters are calling for the end of the Islamic Republic (to replace it with what, exactly? That isn't said), while the majority are out there because they support Mousavi. That's the facts, and pretending this is some kind of radical uprising is just delusional. This is a color revolution, through and through.



Do you really think Maousavi and his ilk would march alongside chants of "Marg bar Jomhouri Islami" (Death to the Islamic Republic) as well as unvieled women?!


It's hysterical you think this element actually represents the majority of people on the street. It doesn't. Even this message isn't necessarily radical in the slightest. Lots of pro-Western, pro-capitalist, petty bourgeois Iranians would love to see the Islamic Republic replaced with someone along the lines of the Shah.



So reports of ballot rigging, 14 million cast votes gone missing mean nothing?


Those reports are mostly bullshit. All reliable polling data indicate Ahmadinejad would beat Mousavi 2 to 1.



Iranian workers during this period and in fact any period under the brutal theoracy, need our support.


I agree. Supporting color revolutions is criminally abandoning the workers of Iran, hence why I don't support this “Green” revolution.



Our job as revolutionaries isn't to apologise for the Islamic regime as you've done and it certainly isn't to validate bourgeois elections.


I agree. Our job as revolutionaries in the imperialist countries is to do everything in our power to hamper the plans of our bourgeoisie. So why are you lining up with the imperialists in their support of this color revolution?



The media always lie? Lol sometimes they don't have to, Iran is a brutal theoracy that does not tolerate demonstrations against the Islamic nature of the Republic. Fact.


There been many Iranian protests in the last 30 years. The society isn't anywhere near as oppressive as the bourgeois media wants people to believe. It's more repressive than ours, but not by much. It is essentially an Islamic bourgeois republic.



Don't take my word for it, ask any one of the EXILED Iranian leftist groups.


Again, Iranian communists actually are dangerous to the regime (or rather, have been at various periods where they underwent extreme repression). If the Left in America even put up a fraction of the threat to the ruling class as the Iranian Left does, we'd be hunted down and killed all the same.



No it isn't just up to the Iranian workers to sort out their 'own' affairs though is it? We're INTERNATIONALISTS, so it's our duty to support in any way we can the struggles of Iranian workers who are locked in a abttle against their barbarous government and the imperialists who would see Iran become a bloodbath.


Being an internationalist and being able to actually do something material for the Iranian workers and communists are two different things. I hope they eventually have the strength to overthrow the Islamic Republic. That is clearly their job and not ours. Supporting Western-backed color revolutions sure as hell doesn't help Iranian workers or the Left in Iran in any shape, form or fashion.



Also, h0m0revolutionary answers your second part quite well, you're completely deluded to believe a reactionary, LGBTQ killing, worker crushing, women hating Conservative Islamist's side of the story on this one


I believe the only reliable, independent polling that shows Ahmadinejad leading 2-to-1 over Mousavi. You're the one who believes the opposition claims of fraud, which is also “reactionary, LGBTQ killing, worker crushing, women hating Conservative Islamist.”



Nope, but perhaps you could take the story from the (at least) 3 Million people who have protested in Tehran so far, where are all these Ahmadinejad supporters then if he really was in the majority?


There are massive pro-Ahmadinejad rallies in Iran as well, but of course the Western media doesn't show you them. Here is you youtube video showing how large these pro-Ahmadinejad rallies are:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCaN2KBXnc



Wow, I really didn't know you were that stupid. Thanks for the laugh.


This coming from a moron who regurgitates the views of corporate America. I don't give a flying fuck if you think I'm stupid for not believing the mass media's line. I'm quite proud of the fact I'm not on the side of the fake anarcho-Trot Left that jumps on board the bandwagon of imperialism, along with the conservatives and liberals. I think it speaks volumes of who the real moron is.



But that's the point, if you actually worked with Iranians, you'd be able to actually do stuff for them, but then sitting behind a computer screen denouncing them will get you more radical stalin-kiddie points right?


Unless you live in Iran, you're not doing a god damn thing for them either, except making it easier for the imperialists to justify whatever plans they have for Iran.



The point is, the situation can go either way


This is complete bullshit, a lie you have to tell yourself in order to justify siding with imperialism. This isn't gonna turn Left: it is a color revolution. If it ever turns Left, I'll support it 100%, but that is highly, highly unlikely.



The protests aren't homogenous


It doesn't fucking matter if a handful of people have other intentions in mind. The protests are most certainly being led by Rafsanjani and his backers. They are in control of them.

[Patchd]

Lots of workers in Iran went on strike to oust the Shah too, including the oil workers. Did that mean it was ushering into power something other than the mullahs led by Khomeini? Of course not. As usual, it is important to pay attention to the forces at work here, and not support something simply because a handful of Iranian Leftists think they can exploit the situation and some workers go on strike.

I haven't got time to deal with the whole post now unfortunately, but this first part of your post just goes to show the lack of knowledge you have in the revolutionary movement in Iran in '79-80s. Perhaps if you looked into how workers occupied their workplaces, and in many sectors of Iran's economy, and saw how they self ran it for a whole year through Shoras (workers' councils) until they were ultimately crushed by the Islamists, who were allied to, believe it or not, the Stalinists, you may have a more revolutionary understanding of Iran.

The fight had to be continued in the mountains and the Kurdish regions, so yes, it ultimately could have been a successful revolution, but because of people like you, it failed 30 years ago. ;) Well done for repeating history.

[Intelligitimate]

I haven't got time to deal with the whole post now unfortunately, but this first part of your post just goes to show the lack of knowledge you have in the revolutionary movement in Iran in '79-80s. Perhaps if you looked into how workers occupied their workplaces, and in many sectors of Iran's economy, and saw how they self ran it for a whole year through Shoras (workers' councils) until they were ultimately crushed by the Islamists, who were allied to, believe it or not, the Stalinists, you may have a more revolutionary understanding of Iran.

More incoherent use of the word "Stalinist." All the Trot parties in the West except the Sparts supported Khomeini. The Soviet reaction was initially good, but relations clearly took a downturn after it become clear Khomeini, a staunch anti-communist, was going to come to power (not to mention the whole Afghan thing and selling weapons to Saddam). Deng opposed the uprising from the beginning, supporting the Shah.

Was there real revolutionary potential in 79? Of course there was. There was significant involvement from Iranian Leftists, and Khomeini and the mullahs crushed this. I think the majority of the Left was right to support it, at the very least for ousting the Shah, but that doesn't mean it wasn't possible to predict the results.

This is not the case in Iran today. The Left is not leading any significant section of the protests, and they are significantly weaker than they were in 79. There is no reason to see this as anything other than a color revolution.

[Martin Blank]

Look at the Iranian working class holding up their English signs for their fellow Iranian workers!

Here we see the absolute pig-ignorance of reactionary "anti-imperialism's" cheerleaders. Most signs in Iran are in Farsi and English. Case in point:...

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_RI7QelP1Gho/Rz_ou078owI/AAAAAAAAAP4/S60vESnvFHU/IMG_5135.JPG

The next time you want to argue a point, pull your head out of your ass and learn a little something about the country in question first.

[Intelligitimate]

Most signs in Iran are in Farsi and English.

I highly doubt the majority of Iranian workers read English, or would hold up a fucking sign in English denouncing the vote. That is purely for the Western media.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_RI7QelP1Gho/Rz_ou078owI/AAAAAAAAAP4/S60vESnvFHU/IMG_5135.JPG
The next time you want to argue a point, pull your head out of your ass and learn a little something about the country in question first.

That there are English signs doesn't mean a fucking thing. There are signs and labels in Spanish in America, doesn't mean every American knows Spanish.

[Martin Blank]

I highly doubt the majority of Iranian workers read English, or would hold up a fucking sign in English denouncing the vote. That is purely for the Western media.

Those are assertions, not facts. If the use of English was "purely for the Western media", then why are the police uniforms labeled as such in English? Why do the ambulances say "Ambulance" in English? Why does Iran have English-language daily newspapers?

Could it be that, while most Iranians speak one of five different first languages (Farsi [and its sub-languages], Azeri [and its sub-languages], Kurdish, Balochi and Arabic), English is the one language they all speak?


That there are English signs doesn't mean a fucking thing. There are signs and labels in Spanish in America, doesn't mean every American knows Spanish.

But the police uniforms here don't say "Policia", either.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Dogmatic sectarian alert

How about instead of pointless one liners you actually reply to his post.


Only the Trotskyists of the then-revolutionary Spartacist Tendency opposed Khomeini and the Shah.

This line that the Sparts (and their splinters) are so keen to repeat is in fact a lie.

Iran 1979: This was not a revolution (http://en.internationalism.org/2009/wr/322/iran-1979) - ICC
Thirty Years of Islamic Iran - A Warning from History (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2009-04-15/thirty-years-of-islamic-iran-a-warning-from-history) - IBRP

[Patchd]

Long post is looooooooooooonggggggggggg.


I'd suggest you stop supporting your own imperialists who clearly want to bring about a more Western friendly regime in Iran, which will be the only result of these protests. There isn't gonna be any workers state in Iran any time soon. Protests are organized and have leaders, and these leaders aren't Iranian Leftists. Women won't benefit, workers won't benefit, no one benefits but the corrupt billionaire Rafsanjani and his supporters, Israel, and the West.

Hmm ... you've once again disregarded the parts where I've asked, what you don't get about opposing both the Islamic Republic, and Western Imperialism?

In addition, I don't want to see a workers' state in Iran anytime soon, you forget, I'm not a statist. However, when I see a revolutionary potential in a largely spontaneous uprising against not only the Conservative faction, but also the Islamic Republic as a whole, that's not a Western Imperialist driven move, I will support that.

These protests have leaders? Sorry what? Where did you get that from? They were largely spontaneous, militant workers are taking part in them, so are revolutionary students, feminists and secularists. Oh, and please don't bring up the photo of Mousavi addressing a crowd, although that'll give me a few laughs again.

This corrupt Rafsanjani is just as much a part of the Islamic Regime as Ahmadinejad, his allegiance with Khamene'i is so strong that despite his opposition to Ahmadinejad, and Khamene'i's support, they have still regularly visited one another during these protests, and still maintain a brilliant relationship, and we can hardly call Khamene'i an American or Zionist stooge now can we? Again, I'd like to see your proof (bolded just so you don't miss that part again) that these protests are homogenously supportive of the Reformist faction of the Islamic Republic, and/or are Imperialist backed.

Also, if you're interested, you may want a read of this article from someone who had been on the ground in Iran covering the elections:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/28-10


The bourgeois don't always settle their differences peacefully. They'll murder millions to get their way.No shit, it seems they're already doing this in Iran, and so far, evidence suggests that it's the Iranian bourgeoisie doing this, well done for your apologism for anti-workerists.


lol, a minority of protesters are calling for the end of the Islamic Republic (to replace it with what, exactly? That isn't said), while the majority are out there because they support Mousavi. That's the facts, and pretending this is some kind of radical uprising is just delusional. This is a color revolution, through and through.I like your lazy, backward approach: "They haven't called for a workers' state, and so I'm not going to do anything to help their struggle against both their internal oppressors and external (Imperialist) oppressors, in fact I'm going to criticise them and label them as reactionaries."

Prove it, prove it, prove it. I've provided my stuff already, and you've dismissed it. What about workers' striking, revolutionary demands in university occupations, calls and chants for trade union rights, workers' rights, secularism, the end of sexual apartheid, womens' rights etc.?


Those reports are mostly bullshit. All reliable polling data indicate Ahmadinejad would beat Mousavi 2 to 1.:rolleyes: I can't be bothered to repeat stuff I've said. Perhaps you could go over what I've said, including the parts detailing the number of workers' actions against the Islamic Republic since Ahmadinejad has come in, the figures for unemployment, and the percentage of workers in Iran ... oh and you may like to explain where all of Ahmadinejad's supporters have gone? Did most of them suddenly go on holiday after the elections leaving only the Basji and Pasdaran to defend their chosen leader? That would be a hell of a migration, considering Ahmadinejad apparently secured 63% of the vote.


I agree. Our job as revolutionaries in the imperialist countries is to do everything in our power to hamper the plans of our bourgeoisie. So why are you lining up with the imperialists in their support of this color revolution?Everything in our power to hamper the plans of our bourgeoisie? Does that include apologising for a regime which would have me killed for being gay? :confused:

Hmm ... for some reason, I don't think I would like to do that.


There been many Iranian protests in the last 30 years. The society isn't anywhere near as oppressive as the bourgeois media wants people to believe. It's more repressive than ours, but not by much. It is essentially an Islamic bourgeois republic.You fucking what? Are you even on the left? Unless you've been with groups that have held similar positions to the Socialist Workers Party in Britain on the issue of Iran over the period before this uprising.

I guess you'd say Iran was democratic? Perhaps LGBTQ people aren't killed in Iran (bourgeois lies I'm assuming?), maybe women aren't forced by 'morality police' to cover up in public, maybe workers can actually strike and march without any fear of reprisals??? C'mon, there's a big difference, for example, I'm alive, but had I lived under the Islamic Republic and continued having sex with other self defining males, I'd be killed ... that's a pretty big fucking difference. :glare:


I believe the only reliable, independent polling that shows Ahmadinejad leading 2-to-1 over Mousavi. You're the one who believes the opposition claims of fraud, which is also “reactionary, LGBTQ killing, worker crushing, women hating Conservative Islamist.” I'm not the only one mate, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, in addition, the protests were largely spontaneous, people knew that it was fraudulent.

... and yep, I don't support Mousavi either, why do make me repeat myself?


There are massive pro-Ahmadinejad rallies in Iran as well, but of course the Western media doesn't show you them. Here is you youtube video showing how large these pro-Ahmadinejad rallies are:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCaN2KBXncErm ... that video was uploaded before the elections. In addition, it's much much easier for people to turn up to permitted rallies like the ones you've just provided in the video, but the fact that there have been millions defying the Islamic Republic on the streets, amid great repression says something else.

If there are really more Ahmadinejad supporters, why are there not as many uploaded videos on youtube and other video hosting sites (oh, and please, let's not make the already disproven claim that Iranian workers support Ahmadinejad and happen to not own phones or have access to the internet), and why have the Iranian state not made an effort to publicise the protests supporting them?


This coming from a moron who regurgitates the views of corporate America. I don't give a flying fuck if you think I'm stupid for not believing the mass media's line. I'm quite proud of the fact I'm not on the side of the fake anarcho-Trot Left that jumps on board the bandwagon of imperialism, along with the conservatives and liberals. I think it speaks volumes of who the real moron is.Actually, you're the one taking news from corporate America, especially if you think that these protests are largely in support of Mousavi, something which Imperialist media companies have been coming out with.

NO U. :D


It doesn't fucking matter if a handful of people have other intentions in mind. The protests are most certainly being led by Rafsanjani and his backers. They are in control of them.Hopefully, it'll help if I highlighted what h0m0revolutionary has already pointed out (take into consideration that Rafsanjani is in the same camp as Mousavi)?


--- "Mousavi is a pillar of the islamic republic, Mousavi isn't calling for the detah of the islamic republic, that would be the protesters. In fact so deluded are you about the nature of these protests, that you havn't noticed that as soon as Khomeini declared them illegal Mousavi urged his supporters to take their frustration through the "correct channels" leaving the streets of tehran flooded with leftists, secularists, students, feminists and democrats, people who have no allegeance to either faction of the Mullahs."

DAMN THESE PROTESTERS FOR NOT LISTENING TO THEIR "LEADER"!!!!!

Oh, and I'd also like you to answer where the vast numbers of Reformist and Conservative Islamists were at this event: link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/3000-gather-commemorate-t111973/index.html)

EDIT: To save you time (because I'm such a nice guy ;) ), I've quoted it below for you:



Rafsanjani, a well known reformist clerical leader in Iran called for the commemoration of the death of Ayotollah Mohammad Beheshti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Beheshti#Assassination), the then head of the Islamic Republic Party, and head of the Islamic Republic's judicial system. It is useful to note that Beheshti's death was no accident, and is usually perceived to have been orchestrated by an Islamist Socialist group, People's Mujahedin of Iran (calling for a democratic, secular Iran, was described as Marxist-Leninist as well as militant Islamic Socialist before '79), who in the Hafte tir bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafte_tir_bombing) assassinated Beheshti and 72 other leading officials of the Islamic Republic in 1981.

Although I would not expect anyone on a revolutionary leftist board to think otherwise, this is further proof of the Reformists' similarities with the Conservative faction, and their desire of maintaining the Islamic Republic, and it's oppressive and exploitative tools (just with a nice smile on their face).

This commemoration was a state approved one, thus making it safer to attend than the "illegal" protests we have seen so far, although it was still reported to have been "uneasy, but peaceful" (bourgeois media sources were quick to make the claim that riot police clashed with protesters [1 (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009628192214829335.html)]). Still, only 3,000 (some reports say 5,000) attended it in Tehran where it was commemorated, taking this into perspective, considering that rough figures estimate that around 3 million people have participated in the protests in Tehran, this figure is only 0.1%, or 1 in 1000, of the total number of the protesters, showing that many people really didn't give a fuck about 'heroes' of the Islamic Republic. It ended peacefully [2 (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99288&sectionid=351020101)] (CNN also reports it as being silent and ending peacefully [3 (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/28/iran.demonstration/index.html)]). Mousavi apparently attempted to address the crowd via phone call, reports say he had been put under house arrest a few days ago.

I have got this information from various different sources, some personal, and some from bourgeois news sources, all public internet sources I used I have linked to.

[Patchd]

What is this I don't even.

[black magick hustla]

ive read some articles an excerpts from that clown but i might buy a book and read it only so that i can legitimately shit on art students

[Intelligitimate]

Hmm ... you've once again disregarded the parts where I've asked, what you don't get about opposing both the Islamic Republic, and Western Imperialism?
Opposing both the Islamic Republic and Western imperialism doesn't entail supporting the protests, which simultaneously represents both the more reactionary section of the Islamic Republic and Western imperialism.



n addition, I don't want to see a workers' state in Iran anytime soon, you forget, I'm not a statist.
I didn't know anything about you to forget. So you're an anarchist. Ok, I'm dealing with a petty bourgeois white male anti-communist, that's good to know.



However, when I see a revolutionary potential in a largely spontaneous uprising against not only the Conservative faction, but also the Islamic Republic as a whole, that's not a Western Imperialist driven move, I will support that.
lol, you'll support anything CNN /Fox/liberals/conservatives/bourgeoisie tells you to. There is no such thing as a “spontaneous uprising.”



These protests have leaders? Sorry what? Where did you get that from?
All protests have leaders. The leadership of the Iranian protests is Rafsanjani and possibly the CIA. One wonders if you've ever led a protest or been part of one to say something so ridiculously stupid.



Oh, and please don't bring up the photo of Mousavi addressing a crowd, although that'll give me a few laughs again.
The vast, vast majority of all photos with large crowds show people holding up pictures of Mousavi. Even Iranian Leftists say the protests are being co-opted by them (though I'm pretty sure they were in their control from the start).



Again, I'd like to see your proof (bolded just so you don't miss that part again) that these protests are homogenously supportive of the Reformist faction of the Islamic Republic, and/or are Imperialist backed.
One need only point to the vast crowds of people holding up pictures of Mousavi, and the fact that the Western mass media, which is the mouthpiece of Washington and the bourgeoisie, are ardent supporters of the protests. Not to mention the $400 million dollars that went toward destabilizing the country, that apparently has come to fruition in this “Green” revolution.



No shit, it seems they're already doing this in Iran, and so far, evidence suggests that it's the Iranian bourgeoisie doing this, well done for your apologism for anti-workerists.
I can't even understand this sentence, as nothing I've said is even vaguely apologetic to Ahmadinejad or against workers in Iran.



I like your lazy, backward approach: "They haven't called for a workers' state, and so I'm not going to do anything to help their struggle against both their internal oppressors and external (Imperialist) oppressors, in fact I'm going to criticise them and label them as reactionaries."
If the protests represented anything even vaguely progressive, I'd support them. They represent nothinig but color revolution and the politics of the supporters of the billionaire neo-liberal Rafsanjani.



Prove it, prove it, prove it. I've provided my stuff already, and you've dismissed it.
Prove what? A statement attributed to me that I never said?



What about workers' striking, revolutionary demands in university occupations, calls and chants for trade union rights, workers' rights, secularism, the end of sexual apartheid, womens' rights etc.?
What about them? Do they represent the masses of people in the streets, or are they tiny voices amplified by a Left desperate to line up with imperialism?



Perhaps you could go over what I've said, including the parts detailing the number of workers' actions against the Islamic Republic since Ahmadinejad has come in, the figures for unemployment, and the percentage of workers in Iran
And all this will change how when this “Green” revolution succeeds and the billionaire neo-liberal Rafsanjani is in power how? Oh, that's right, it won't.



oh and you may like to explain where all of Ahmadinejad's supporters have gone?
In the streets, in their own massive pro-Ahmadinejad rallies.



Everything in our power to hamper the plans of our bourgeoisie? Does that include apologising for a regime which would have me killed for being gay?
The Rafsanjani clique isn't any friendlier to gays, so what does that matter? You think Iran is gonna emerge from this “Green” Revolution as some kind of secular bourgeois republic that is friendly to women, workers and homosexuals? You can't be that delusional, can you?



You fucking what? Are you even on the left?
I would ask you the same question, as apparently you have bizarre beliefs about how great bourgeois democracy is that lead you to think Iran is really any different.



Unless you've been with groups that have held similar positions to the Socialist Workers Party in Britain on the issue of Iran over the period before this uprising.
I'm an American.



I guess you'd say Iran was democratic?
It's as “democratic” as any other bourgeois democracy, which is to say, not much at all.



Perhaps LGBTQ people aren't killed in Iran (bourgeois lies I'm assuming?)
They've executed people for crimes relating to homosexuality, yes. There have been reported 107 executions related to homosexuality between 1979 and 1990, according to wikipedia, but that doesn't say if that was the sole crime. The famous 2005 case involved charges of rape as well, but I didn't follow them very much at the time. (On a side note, the government is actually surprisingly tolerant of transgendered people, and they suffer no legal repression if they get a sex change, which are legally performed in Iran.)


Is this bad? Of course. Does that mean the Iranian judicial system is significantly worse than America's? No. The US imprisons more of its people than any other country on the planet, most of them non-violent offenders.



maybe women aren't forced by 'morality police' to cover up in public, maybe workers can actually strike and march without any fear of reprisals?
Workers aren't exactly unafraid of reprisals here in America for attempting to form a union and striking. Pinkertons still exist today, in other forms.



C'mon, there's a big difference, for example, I'm alive, but had I lived under the Islamic Republic and continued having sex with other self defining males, I'd be killed
If there are as many gay people in Iran as in America, given the relatively small number of executions relating to homosexuality, I'd wager against it. In fact, from stuff I've read, homosexual sex is quite common, as finding female partners for young men looking for action can be difficult.


http://ramiswall.blogspot.com/2008/10/homosexuality-in-iran-real-encounters.html



I'm not the only one mate, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, in addition, the protests were largely spontaneous, people knew that it was fraudulent.
Again, the idea of a spontaneous protest is bullshit.



... and yep, I don't support Mousavi either, why do make me repeat myself?
You objectively do, even if you have to tell yourself you're supporting something else.



Actually, you're the one taking news from corporate America, especially if you think that these protests are largely in support of Mousavi, something which Imperialist media companies have been coming out with.
There is no evidence these protests are anything other than pro-Mousavi. There may be sections of it with more radical demands, but these don't appear to represent anything significant.



DAMN THESE PROTESTERS FOR NOT LISTENING TO THEIR "LEADER"!!!!!
It doesn't appear the streets are flooded with these people at all. All the large rallies have people carrying pictures of Mousavi.



Oh, and I'd also like you to answer where the vast numbers of Reformist and Conservative Islamists were at this event: link
A few thousand people is no big deal, relative to the other protests.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Opposing both the Islamic Republic and Western imperialism doesn't entail supporting the protests, which simultaneously represents both the more reactionary section of the Islamic Republic and Western imperialism.
No, opposing the Islamic Republic does mean supporting the opposition to the Islamic Republic. It's not rocket science.


I didn't know anything about you to forget. So you're an anarchist.
Sharp-eyed readers might have picked up a few subtle clues. Like how it says "Organization: Anarchist Federation" above his post.

Ok, I'm a petty bourgeois white male anti-communist, that's good to know.
Fixed.


There is no such thing as a “spontaneous uprising.”
All protests have leaders. The leadership of the Iranian protests is Rafsanjani and possibly the CIA. One wonders if you've ever led a protest or been part of one to say something so ridiculously stupid.

Because workers are incapable of self-organisation, right? All protests have leaders, just like all workers need bosses.



The vast, vast majority of all photos with large crowds show people holding up pictures of Mousavi.
Where are you getting this information from? It wouldn't be the Western bourgeois media, would it?


I can't even understand this sentence, as nothing I've said is even vaguely apologetic to Ahmadinejad or against workers in Iran.

Lololololol. Are you typing your posts with your eyes closed or something?


What about them? Do they represent the masses of people in the streets?

Yes. Well done.


They've executed people for crimes relating to homosexuality, yes. There have been reported 107 executions related to homosexuality between 1979 and 1990, according to wikipedia, but that doesn't say if that was the sole crime. The famous 2005 case involved charges of rape as well, but I didn't follow them very much at the time. (On a side note, the government is actually surprisingly tolerant of transgendered people, and they suffer no legal repression if they get a sex change, which are legally performed in Iran.)
Well, that makes everything alright then, doesn't it?


Again, the idea of a spontaneous protest is bullshit.

If only the Iranians had a wise leader like you to tell them what to do. Learn some history, kid.

[Intelligitimate]

No, opposing the Islamic Republic does mean supporting the opposition to the Islamic Republic.The protests aren't in opposition to the Islamic Republic. They're in support of Mousavi, or have a vision of an even more reactionary bourgeois, pro-Western regime.


Because workers are incapable of self-organisation, right?Idiotic statements like this tell me you've probably never, ever organized anything worth a shit in your life, especially with workers.

The self-organization of a class involves leadership from within that class. What the fuck do you think, everyone at a protest fucking knows to show up at the exact location and at the exact time? No, someone plans it and communicates it with everyone else, and they tell people who are likely to show up because they have similar views. The people that take on this role are generally in the leadership of the protests. You can easily fuck up a protest by calling one and not giving any kind of time frame or location you'll be at, which I have seen anarchists do, no doubt under the idea that these things just "organize themselves."

So yes, all protests have leaders. And it appears the leaders of these protests have largely come to terms with the Iranian regime, as this movement is all but dead.


Yes. Well done. No, they don't. You're just giving a ridiculous excuse to line up with Western imperialism, and it seems your beloved protest movement is dead anyway. Strange for that to be, if it were really about “trade union rights, workers' rights, secularism, the end of sexual apartheid, womens' rights.” As none of this has changed at all (nor would it change with Mousavi), though it does seem the opposition is beginning to accommodate itself to being the loser.



Well, that makes everything alright then, doesn't it? That and the link I posted give a lot clearer picture of Iranian society's views and treatment of homosexuality than your retarded bullshit did.



If only the Iranians had a wise leader like you to tell them what to do. There are no spontaneous protests. That you could even think that is the case shows you have never, ever lead a protest.



Learn some history, kid. I know more history than you ever will.

[khad]

There have been reported 107 executions related to homosexuality between 1979 and 1990, according to wikipedia, but that doesn't say if that was the sole crime. The famous 2005 case involved charges of rape as well, but I didn't follow them very much at the time.There have been, not to my knowledge, any case in Iran where people were executed for the sole crime of being homosexuals. In one such case, the main crime was heterosexual rape. While gays are oppressed in that society, the talk of physical pogroms being conducted by the government is not very credible. Unless there are other serious criminal accusations involved, the authorities tend to not give a shit.

http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/pourzal220507.html


2. Bahman Kalbasi, an Iranian activist who fled to Canada after being detained and beaten in 2001 for reasons other than his sexual orientation, had this to say to a Canadian gay journal (http://www.fabmagazine.com/features/309/Hadd_Crimes.html) last year:
. . . gay sex is thriving in [Iran's] cities and the powers-that-be generally look the other way . . . They know all the gay gatherings in the city, where people go. I've been to one party that I'm sure they knew about. Over 60 kids were having orgies there. . . . [Y]ou can party within your private sphere . . . as long as you don't make it political, as long as you don't start coming together and saying, 'we, as a community, have a right.'
Erdbrink was told by another gay man, "I have never had any trouble with the authorities. True the police occasionally bust a private gay party, but they do that to heterosexuals, too. Actually we have more freedom, because our parties do not include girls." Dr Mehrabi told the same reporter, "[In big cities] people who do not broadcast their gay lifestyle from the rooftop can live comfortably."
6. I am also suspicious about Tatchell's and Ireland's campaign because the fuss does not correspond to a detectable worsening of gay life in Iran. Social constraints in the Islamic Republic were harshest before the late 1990s, but claims of state violence against Iran's sexual minorities were far less common then in the West.

Even during those bleak years, harassing homosexuals was not a priority for Iranian authorities. My own sister could not in the mid-1980s get any attention when she presented evidence to Iranian law enforcement officials of her then-husband's homosexual flings. In another personal episode, a new immigrant whom I briefly dated in 1992 in Maryland had similarly divorced her husband in Iran after the police repeatedly refused to interfere with his same-sex infidelities.

7. In recent years the number of Iranians seeking asylum in the West on grounds that homosexual men are officially tortured and hanged back home has grown steadily while the overall number of Iranian asylum applications has declined. It is common knowledge among recent Iranian arrivals that many heterosexual Iranians with expired European Union, Canadian, and U.S. visas use the "endangered gay" defense solely to be allowed to remain in the West (http://www.iranian.com/SiamackBaniameri/2005/October/Gay/index.html). Award-winning human rights activist Omid Memarian (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33037) confirmed these suspicions last year, based on interviews he conducted with Iranians stranded in Turkey en route to Europe. Extremist expatriate organizations smell opportunity in this desperation.

[Janine Melnitz]

Wait, can we get back to how Zizek is a horrible piece of shit?

Islamo-Fascist
Charming.

[Mousavi] stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution
This is puzzling at first, and given no real explanation, but then you realize that of course Mousavi wore a lot of green etc., and things like wardrobe are what really count to a cult-studs Lacanian.

His dismissal of Karroubi is expected, but the way he does it is a little surprising; not for its airiness, or its use of Zizek's favorite curse word, "identity politics" (presumably referring to Karroubi's trifling, pandering concern for women, ethnic/religious minorities and all that touchy-feely bullshit) but because this "Marxist" Zizek actually has the balls to ignore the fact that Karroubi was for nationalizing oil profits, the only genuinely pro-worker or even potentially anti-imperialist stance taken by any candidate.

Anyway: it may be a little silly to say that there's "no such thing" as a spontaneous protest, but it's not nearly as dumb as using "spontaneous" as a compliment. I don't care what you think about "hierarchies" or whatever; surely any anarchist worth shit understands that nothing is accomplished without planning and organization. This is why people keep looking at Mousavi et al. when determining the character of the protests: it's not that we're unaware of all the heterogenous groups, it's that they're not significant at all, whatever their numbers. Without organization they either fizzle and disperse or get swallowed up into groups that have their shit together. The best case scenario is that maybe leftist group membership has swelled some; maybe, years and years from now, that'll put them in a position to do anything.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Anyway: it may be a little silly to say that there's "no such thing" as a spontaneous protest, but it's not nearly as dumb as using "spontaneous" as a compliment. I don't care what you think about "hierarchies" or whatever; surely any anarchist worth shit understands that nothing is accomplished without planning and organization.
Who organised Paris 68? Who organised Athens 08?

[Janine Melnitz]

Oh god you're right, I forgot all about the glorious victory of 1968. Things sure are different now, thanks to those brave young people!

Jesus, seriously? It's amazing that folks whose purported "goals" are nothing short of abolishing the state, utterly transforming society and humanity blahblahblah -- that these people can actually (and in fact, seemingly ONLY) be happy with purely symbolic exercises, beautiful failures that can then be looked back on nostalgically to warm their hearts even as the real world plunges ever rightward. Fucking christ, kid, I said accomplish, I thought it was clear I was speaking in material terms; but yeah, by your standard, the "greens" have already won -- people were in the streets, lots of excitement and danger, nice footage for distant spectators, this is at least as much as the soixante-huitards managed, and that's good enough for you, right?

Anyway, to answer your questions: situationists and union leaders in the first case; various anarchist groups in the second. They just didn't do a very good job, unfortunately (not to sneer; it really is unfortunate) -- if they had, the state would be all smashed and shit, no? Or at least a little tipsy.

[Pogue]

Is it so hard for people here to simply support the people whilst ignoring the politicians?

[Janine Melnitz]

It sort of is, if you don't live in Iran. What would this "support" consist of? Nevermind the lack of data as to who "the people" (as opposed to politicians and presumaby any rightists, who are not people) are in this whole kerfuffle.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Anyway, to answer your questions: situationists and union leaders in the first case; various anarchist groups in the second.
The situationists were an incredibly tiny group, the union leaders were reacting to events instead of causing them, and I'm not convinced by the claim that the Athens uprising was actually organised by anarchist groups.

[Patchd]

Oh god you're right, I forgot all about the glorious victory of 1968. Things sure are different now, thanks to those brave young people!

As opposed to the glorious planned revolution of 1917, oh wait, Russia's a fucking oligarchy now isn't it?

[Janine Melnitz]

That's a good point; people tend to forget that between 1917 and now, there were no material changes at all in how anyone lived their lives.

Don't be a tit; you know perfectly well I wasn't criticizing those demonstrations for not bringing about utopia once and for all. I'm lamenting the fact that they didn't accomplish anything, not even temporarily.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Don't be a tit; you know perfectly well I wasn't criticizing those demonstrations for not bringing about utopia once and for all. I'm lamenting the fact that they didn't accomplish anything, not even temporarily.
I'd disagree with that. But what about the spontaneous, unplanned bread riots of February 1917?

[Janine Melnitz]

Huh? "Bread riots" is a favored term of bourgeois historians; a "riot" alone wouldn't have crippled Petrograd's industry. There was a massive strike; you're claiming it wasn't planned? That it didn't start in the unions, highly organized and radicalized despite their collaborating leadership? I shouldn't have to explain to an anarchist that "organization" isn't the same thing as "being bossed around". By 1917 the working class throughout Russia was organized as fuck and teeming with radical ideas, largely thanks to the efforts of left-wing parties that had formed within it. This is why, when circumstances pushed them into open revolt, it took far more dangerous forms than just riots and petty "demonstrations" that would have easily been dispersed.

[Enragé]

The role of the left '79 "revolution" was to support the Islamic dictatorship: they bowed to their executioners and are responsible for the destruction of a generation of the Iranian working class. Only the Trotskyists of the then-revolutionary Spartacist Tendency opposed Khomeini and the Shah. The mullahs murdered, imprisoned and tortured the leaders of the pre-"revolution" independent shuras while phony "Trotskyists" were chanting "allahu akbar" in the streets!

Today the opportunist left is proving that it never learns from history, by again supporting one or the other of the candidates of the islamic capitalist dictatorship.

Read this article from the League for the Fourth International: Mass Protests Rock Iran: No to All Wings of the Mullah Regime! (http://www.internationalist.org/iranmassprotests0906.html)

Ofcourse the left organisations made mistakes, point is it was a popular, revolutionary uprising - which got crushed, ofcourse (but only after overthrowing the shah), like so many others before. But this is why protestors in iran refer to those days, in defiance of today's bullshit, referring to the last time a government/system was toppled by the people.

Oh, and for the last time, this is not about supporting either one candidate.