ISO: The roots of Iran's revolt

[OriginalGumby]

http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/01/roots-of-irans-revolt

Lee Sustar sets out 30 years of background to the mass demonstrations that shook Iran after the June 12 election.

[MilitantWorker]

Nothing really new or groundbreaking has been said here. But, I have to commend the ISO once again for their scholarly and efficient work. The article was very clear and I liked the layout of the website.

[fredbergen]

The ISO are consistent when it comes to religious reaction: they like it! They hailed the victory of Reagan's vicious Mujehadin in Afghanistan (Trotskyists supported the Red Army), they declared that there was "no alternative" to Ayatollah Khomenei in 1979 (Trotskyists called for workers revolution and no support to the ayatollahs), and they praised the catholic-nationalist "union" Solidarity (Trotskyists said Stop Solidarnosc Counterrevolution).

[OriginalGumby]

Fred, don't you ever have anything nice to say?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The ISO are consistent when it comes to religious reaction: they like it! They hailed the victory of Reagan's vicious Mujehadin in Afghanistan (Trotskyists supported the Red Army), and they praised the catholic-nationalist "union" Solidarity (Trotskyists said Stop Solidarnosc Counterrevolution).
Trotskyists say some pretty stupid things, if that's the case.

[redwinter]

it's laughable how opportunist the ISO is...so right now they're saying they support this uprising against the Islamic Republic of Iran. A couple years ago they were supporting Hamas and Hezbollah (still do, I think? and these are appendages of the Iranian state apparatus..) and calling the RCP "Islamophobic" for putting out the analysis that both the US imperialists and the Islamic fundamentalists were reactionaries and needed to be opposed.

For the exchange between Sunsara Taylor and a couple ISOers:
"U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism…and the Need for Another Way"
http://revcom.us/a/091/iso-polemic-en.html
(the ISO's article "Standing Up to Islamophobia" is at the bottom of the page)

[OriginalGumby]

How is it opportunistic?? We support the resistance against Israeli assaults in Palestine and Lebanon. Nothing wrong with that and I don't buy the hype that they are a part of the state apparatus. Legit self determination struggle in response to real oppression regardless of whatever support they get from Iran. We don't support or promote Political Islam as an alternative to capitalism or anything. We still need to support the concrete struggles on the ground that are fighting for the right things. That is why we also support the struggle in Iran for democracy, and while not supporting all the politics that are a part of it, recognizing that it is playing a progressive role in the class struggle. I think it is absurd to argue that this this is the wrong position. United Front for common goals, linking arms with people that you may disagree with on many other things, and talking with them as you fight together. Of course we also oppose Islamic fundamentalism. However in the debates between luxenburg and lenin about self determination the side that ultimately won out and that I agree with was that you support the resistance to imperialism as its happening. A weaker oppressed nation of people needs political support as they are being occupied or invaded. You argue for their right to soverignty and to resist. Arguing about the political ideas of the resistence is secondary to supporting the resistence. The fact is that Political Islam will continue to influence resistence movements but we must support the real resistence movements despite that. Its less helpful to put out a conflicting message that in some ways repeats and defacto supports the ideological justification used to fight the war in the first place. I say we need to cut against that line altogether, the emphasis for us is the just resistence. After the US loses in the middle east when a movement succeeds, conditions will exist where people will rise up against theocratic dictators because they would prefer real democracy and eventually socialism as the international movement for that is built. What do you suggest as an alternative strategy to this. Oh and I don't want mindless insulting either as I could take plenty of shots at the RCP.

To fred,
To think that a group of trotkists would have so many positions that Stalin and the theory of socialism in one country would agree with is very troubling. I am quite sure that Trotsky himself would have evaulated his own ideas to correct this had he not been assainated RIP. I honestly think that suggesting that a state that long prior abandoned the basis of socialism, self emacipation of the working class, was later exporting socialism with a red army often against self-active (though not socialist) workers movement is absurd. To the dustbin with this nonsense.
I think that the International Socialist Organization is right on.

[fredbergen]

To fred,
To think that a group of trotkists would have so many positions that Stalin and the theory of socialism in one country would agree with is very troubling. I am quite sure that Trotsky himself would have evaulated his own ideas to correct this had he not been assainated RIP. I honestly think that suggesting that a state that long prior abandoned the basis of socialism, self emacipation of the working class, was later exporting socialism with a red army often against self-active (though not socialist) workers movement is absurd. To the dustbin with this nonsense.
I think that the International Socialist Organization is right on.

I'm not sure if you're talking about Afghanistan, Poland, or something else, but where and how does the Internationalist Group/LFI uphold the "theory" of "socialism in one country"?

As for Afghanistan, are you saying the CIA financed Mujehadin, Reagan's "holy warriors," were a "workers movement"?

In Poland, Solidarinosc, with the support of its CIA and Vatican advisers, had merged with "rural Solidarnosc," an organization of rich peasants (kulaks), which numerically and politically dominated the organization. Of course, this didn't matter to the pro-imperialist labor bureaucrats who solidarized with Solidarity, or to the fake socialists who habitually tail after them. But class matters to Trotskyists. We wrote that it was a tragedy caused by the betrayals of Stalinism that Solidarnosc had to be crushed, but that the consequences for workers and the oppressed would be far worse if Solidarnosc were allowed to take power. We were proved right when Lech Walesa took power: the first thing he did was ban abortion. Then his government attacked dock workers and imposed deadly capitalist "shock treatment" on the working class, for the benefit of Wall Street! Some "workers movement"!

I think instead of taking the facile slanders and one-liners, that the ISO uses to wall its members off from the Trotskyists of the Internationalist Group, for granted, you should take the time to study what we actually wrote. It is not so hard to separate truth from "conventional wisdom."

From the Anti-Soviet War Drive to Today: U.S. Sponsors the Enslavers of Afghan Women (http://www.internationalist.org/afghanwomen1001.html) (October 2001)

ICL Still Caught Between Shachtman and Trotsky -- China: For Workers Political Revolution to Defeat Capitalist Counterrevolution! (http://www.internationalist.org/iclcaught0301.html) (March 2001)

I also recommend reading the main articles from Spartacist (not available online) on the war in Afghanistan and Solidarnosc, back when Spartacist still stood for Trotskyism. If you want copies you can just write to the Internationalist Group.

[fredbergen]

Also, I would like to point out that despite the current disagreement seen above, both the ISO and the RCP's wholly-owned subsidiary "World Can't Wait" signed this petition (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iranpetitiontwo) politely advising the imperialists on the most efficient way of disarming Iran:


The most effective way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be to closely monitor its nuclear energy program

Do they remember how "weapons inspectors" helped pave the way for the Iraq slaughter? Of course they do: in the lead-up to the present Iraq war, both the ISO and RCP built "anti-war" popular fronts with pro-sanctions, pro-inspections, imperialist war Democrats who are now administering the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

In contrast, Trotskyists defend Iran's right to nuclear or any other sort of weapons to defend itself against nuclear-armed U.S. imperialists and Zionist madmen. We said: Defend Afghanistan and Iraq! Defeat U.S. Imperialism! (http://www.internationalist.org/defendiraq1002.html).

[khad]

To think that a group of trotkists would have so many positions that Stalin and the theory of socialism in one country would agree with is very troubling. I am quite sure that Trotsky himself would have evaulated his own ideas to correct this had he not been assainated RIP. I honestly think that suggesting that a state that long prior abandoned the basis of socialism, self emacipation of the working class, was later exporting socialism with a red army often against self-active (though not socialist) workers movement is absurd. To the dustbin with this nonsense.
I think that the International Socialist Organization is right on.
The ISO should just stick to complaining about domestic identity politics issues instead of commenting on anything that matters.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

In contrast, Trotskyists defend Iran's right to nuclear or any other sort of weapons to defend itself against nuclear-armed U.S. imperialists and Zionist madmen. We said: Defend Afghanistan and Iraq! Defeat U.S. Imperialism! (http://www.internationalist.org/defendiraq1002.html).
Lol, "Trotskyists" are genuinely mental if that's the case. Trotskyists may say that, but actual communists don't support bourgeois nation-states squandering the world's resources on weapons. If Iran launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the area where you live, would you welcome your glorious incineration as a blow against imperialism and an important gain for the world's working-class?

[khad]

Lol, "Trotskyists" are genuinely mental if that's the case. Trotskyists may say that, but actual communists don't support bourgeois nation-states squandering the world's resources on weapons. If Iran launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the area where you live, would you welcome your glorious incineration as a blow against imperialism and an important gain for the world's working-class?
*Yawn*

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Here's a much better article regarding the roots of this "revolt": http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56154.shtml

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here's a much better article regarding the roots of this "revolt": http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56154.shtml

No, that link is a decent article chronicling how the US had interfered with other countries and also explaining why the US wants to control Iran. None of which is disputed by the majority of radicals here who see the protests as a genuine expression of discontentment inside Iran.

The link proves all these things and proves that the US media is an unabashed cheerleader for US imperialism. As far as the roots of the revolt and anger of people in Iran...? All the article offers is that some Twitters may be caused by the US or pro-Shah Iranians in the US.

Not a very convincing case for dismissing these protests as a US plot.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

All the article offers is that some Twitters may be caused by the US or pro-Shah Iranians in the US.

If that's all you got out of it, then I suggest you read it again. Although it doesn't do it directly, it shows how an entire population can be duped by the media and how much of an effect foreign imperialist powers can have at overthrowing an unfriendly regime just by throwing money at dissidents and spreading propaganda.

You know, the same things they've done in every other country where imperialist support has attempted to (and sometimes successfully) overthrow regimes (even popular ones). You know, like has happened in Iran before and even leftist nations such as Venezuela.

Just because Iran isn't leftist doesn't mean this act of imperialism is for some reason worth supporting.