Confused

[What Would Durruti Do?]

So I'm confused. What exactly do the Mousavi protests and their alleged electoral fraud claims have to do with us workers and revolutionaries?

If someone could explain it to me that would be great. I'm trying to figure out why I should care if one bourgeois elite party defeats another? Is it just because it's slightly more to the center-left? If that's the case should I also go out and buy some Obama/Democratic Party bumper stickers and buttons and completely shed all my values?

What's the deal here? Has the revolutionary left suddenly become pro-imperialist or are we just ignoring the obvious interventionism by the CIA and CIA-backed groups such as MEK and other ethnic dissidents, religious extremists or the funding provided to reformist/dissident groups in Iran by the NED and USAID? What about the obvious media propaganda campaign blitz initiated by the Bush administration in 2006 that includes "media training workshops" for Iranian government and media officials?

I guess it's hard for the victims of the propaganda to speak out against it though...

Anyway, just wondering why suddenly the revolutionary left which has always (at least to my knowledge) criticized the imperialist color revolutions seems to be at the very least split on this one in Iran? Is it because Iran is also seen as imperialist and one imperialist power is better than two? Just some clarification would be nice I guess. Personally I'll continue to refuse to support wealthy Tehranians in their quest for more Americanization and western profiteering against the current nationalist government.

But support aside, I guess my main question is why does this have it's own forum and what does it have to do with us?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Careful, your strawman is blowing over.

Radicals should not care if Mousavi wins or not - no one here is saying that.

Edit: (Sorry to come off so hard - I just saw that these were your first two posts and I responded to both of them. Welcome comrade, nothing personal - just political debate and discussion!)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Careful, your strawman is blowing over.

Radicals should not care if Mousavi wins or not - no one here is saying that.

Then what is it that we care about? That people are protesting something? So any protests that ever happen are now worth supporting no matter what for or who is financially and covertly (as well as non-covertly if you include the mainstream media) supporting said protests?

So where's the forum for the Venezuelan coupists and anti-Chavez protesters?

[LOLseph Stalin]

It's not the parties themselves that matter, but the protests. They're protesting against what they see as a corrupted Bourgeois system. The election was obviously rigged and the citizens of Iran are angry about this. We care because it gives us a chance to spread our message. If people are angry with the current system, why not look for an alternative instead? Of course with that alternative being Socialism. People now are more likely to take the time to learn about it which is fully appropriate to form a proper revolutionary party(Iran lacks these due to Communists being suppressed by previous regimes). Also, if there was to be a Socialist regime Iran would generally open up better relations with the west. The current Islamic theocracy prevents that.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

It's not the parties themselves that matter, but the protests.

Which started because one party lost to another...


They're protesting against what they see as a corrupted Bourgeois system. The election was obviously rigged and the citizens of Iran are angry about this.Obviously? If it's so obvious then I hope you don't mind providing proof. (That doesn't come from the western media - the only ones claiming such to be the case)


We care because it gives us a chance to spread our message. If people are angry with the current system, why not look for an alternative instead?There's a difference between being upset with the current LEADERS and their corruption and being upset with the system. You realize most of the protesters are upset because corruption is a huge crime under Shia law and the ALLEGED electoral fraud is seen by the "greens" as an attack AGAINST the current system. Not to mention they want increased relationships with western corporate imperialism - the opposite of what leftist revolutionaries should be supporting.


Of course with that alternative being Socialism. People now are more likely to take the time to learn about it which is fully appropriate to form a proper revolutionary party(Iran lacks these due to Communists being suppressed by previous regimes).That alternative is socialism? How do you possibly get to that conclusion? You think Americanized bourgeoise Tehranians want socialism? ... :confused:

Of course the Iranian people are free to pursue whatever kind of system they want and I support them in that endevour. But why does anyone think that has anything to do with socialism or that the majority or Iranians even want change at all? That's like saying Americans obviously want socialism because of protests outside G8/WTO/FTAA/etc meetings or change from the current system because they voted Democrat..

You're drawing some pretty ridiculous conclusions.

Also, what makes you think the reformist Shias would be any less repressive against communists and socialists? Those groups don't exist inside the country so how could they have this imaginary massive support out of nowhere? The protesters are getting their information and propaganda from western corporate media, not from banished leftist groups that have no voice inside the country at all. They protest because of corruption, not capitalism. They got upset because Mousavi lost, not because revolutionary leftists are repressed.

[Crux]

I'm confused
Obviously.


What exactly do the Mousavi protests and their alleged electoral fraud claims have to do with us workers and revolutionaries?
You are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is what the massprotests against the brutal theocratic anti-workingclass regime has to do with "us". Then the answer should be prettty obvious.


If someone could explain it to me that would be great. I'm trying to figure out why I should care if one bourgeois elite party defeats another? Is it just because it's slightly more to the center-left? If that's the case should I also go out and buy some Obama/Democratic Party bumper stickers and buttons and completely shed all my values?
We'll technically I already answered this before but I do feel the urge to point out that Mousavis is not "centre-left" by any definition of the word.


What's the deal here? Has the revolutionary left suddenly become pro-imperialist or are we just ignoring the obvious interventionism by the CIA and CIA-backed groups such as MEK and other ethnic dissidents, religious extremists or the funding provided to reformist/dissident groups in Iran by the NED and USAID? What about the obvious media propaganda campaign blitz initiated by the Bush administration in 2006 that includes "media training workshops" for Iranian government and media officials? This has been adressed in other threads, but first fo all to suggest that the massmovment is led by Mousavi is not try at all, this is quite obvious if you have more sources than the mainstream media.
Further more to say that CIA would orchestrate this grossly overstimates the CIA and underestimates the mass of these protests. Again this has very little to do with an election result everything to do with the reactionary character of the regime. If you do consider yourself to be leftwing ignoring the masses is pretty much the most fatal mistake you can make. You ought to check out what the iranian left groups write.


I guess it's hard for the victims of the propaganda to speak out against it though...
How ironic. So what are your sources again?


Anyway, just wondering why suddenly the revolutionary left which has always (at least to my knowledge) criticized the imperialist color revolutions seems to be at the very least split on this one in Iran? Is it because Iran is also seen as imperialist and one imperialist power is better than two? Just some clarification would be nice I guess. Personally I'll continue to refuse to support wealthy Tehranians in their quest for more Americanization and western profiteering against the current nationalist government.
Well what you are doing is giving support to a reactionary regime in the face of a resistance based on students and worker`s. You seem to have an extremely mechanical and detached approach here. Not uncommon among your ideological peers.

[Crux]

Which started because one party lost to another...
No not at all. I guess you could say it statrted in 79 when the islamists kidnapped the revolution.


Obviously? If it's so obvious then I hope you don't mind providing proof. (That doesn't come from the western media - the only ones claiming such to be the case)
Well even the official sources show that there is an increas in votes for Ahmadinejad that just has no basis in reality. I suggest you check them out.



There's a difference between being upset with the current LEADERS and their corruption and being upset with the system. You realize most of the protesters are upset because corruption is a huge crime under Shia law and the ALLEGED electoral fraud is seen by the "greens" as an attack AGAINST the current system. Not to mention they want increased relationships with western corporate imperialism - the opposite of what leftist revolutionaries should be supporting.

You realise youre toeing the line of the Western media falsly claiming that the protests are just about the election fraud?


That alternative is socialism? How do you possibly get to that conclusion? You think Americanized bourgeoise Tehranians want socialism? ... :confused:
I think the more relevante question would be, do You want socialism? Because it sure does not seem like it.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

You are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is what the massprotests against the brutal theocratic anti-workingclass regime has to do with "us". Then the answer should be prettty obvious.

Actually I think I'm asking the right question. Why support one group of anti-working class theocrats over another? Doesn't make much sense to me.



We'll technically I already answered this before but I do feel the urge to point out that Mousavis is not "centre-left" by any definition of the word.Of course he isn't. He's as brutal of a right-wing fascist as the rest of the Iranian government. (He must have ran on a platform of "change" like the messiah Obama for everyone to eat it up so much) He's just slightly reformist and therefore worth supporting by the entire left for some reason..


This has been adressed in other threads, but first fo all to suggest that the massmovment is led by Mousavi is not try at all, this is quite obvious if you have more sources than the mainstream media.Really? Because I believe the mainstream media has been saying the same things as you. "It's not about Mousavi, it's about the people!"

Right.. that's why the protests started because MOUSAVI VOTERS AND SUPPORTERS were upset that their candidate lost. Ok, sign me up for the Democratic Party protests the next time the Republicans steal an election... and then tell me it doesn't have anything to do with the election... Pure BS.


Further more to say that CIA would orchestrate this grossly overstimates the CIA and underestimates the mass of these protests. Again this has very little to do with an election result everything to do with the reactionary character of the regime. If you do consider yourself to be leftwing ignoring the masses is pretty much the most fatal mistake you can make. You ought to check out what the iranian left groups write.Overestimates the CIA? You do realize that this is what they do right? How am I overestimating the CIA by expecting them to do their jobs? I'm not underestimating the mass of the protests either. People are stupid and get caught up in this stuff easily. Hell, Fox News/Glen Beck created the nation-wide Tea Party Protests by themselves and you think the American media and CIA can't support Khamenei/Ahmadinejad's political rivals? You're funny.

I'm not ignoring the masses. The masses voted for Ahmadinejad. Your precious innocent angels in the western media are the only ones saying otherwise. Still waiting on that proof of electoral fraud, btw.

I actually have good contacts with members of the "Iranian left" who, while they support the overthrow of the Iranian regime, have no sympathy whatsoever for this western-backed color revolution. And I'd rather listen to real individuals than bourgoise groups pretending to be revolutionaries.



How ironic. So what are your sources again?Well my main one would be common sense. This article is also pretty good, I believe I posted it in another thread already: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56154.shtml

Also, a quick google search about American involvement in Iran will bring up a lot of gems that you seem to want to ignore because apparently Iranians, unlike the rest of humanity, don't give in to propaganda or need money to support their causes. These movements just come out of nowhere, right?



Well what you are doing is giving support to a reactionary regime in the face of a resistance based on students and worker`s. You seem to have an extremely mechanical and detached approach here. Not uncommon among your ideological peers.The only one supporting a reactionary regime here is you for supporting the reformist/progressive wing of the Iranian leadership and the westernized bourgoise color revolutionaries that wants the help of American industries to suppress the working class even more and make the rich Tehranians even richer. It's no wonder so many people voted for Ahmadinejad given such shitty choices.

Just further proves why these representative "democratic" systems are a joke and why NEITHER side should be supported.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

No not at all. I guess you could say it statrted in 79 when the islamists kidnapped the revolution.

Wrong. Stop turning this into something it isn't. The revolutionary left and the workers have no voice in Iran and none of the protests have anything to do with them. This is simply one branch of a corrupt regime against the other, except one side has the support of the western media and American imperialism behind it. Supporting one side over the other is the equivalent of supporting one of the two elite bourgeois parties of the American electoral system (or any electoral system for that matter) over the other: pointless.



Well even the official sources show that there is an increas in votes for Ahmadinejad that just has no basis in reality. I suggest you check them out.No basis in reality? Why's that? Ahmadinejad was always popular in Iran and while his popularity decreased somewhat he was still highly favored to win the election and even unbiased foreign polling showed that.



You realise youre toeing the line of the Western media falsly claiming that the protests are just about the election fraud? Again, the western media has been saying the exact opposite of that so I don't understand this statement.



I think the more relevante question would be, do You want socialism? Because it sure does not seem like it.Supporting capitalists is going to bring us socialism now? You have some pretty odd revolutionary theories - but to each their own I guess.

[Crux]

Since you seem content on strawmanning and ignore reality you are hardly worth my time. Hopefully more sensible comrades will learn something from your obvious and willfull delusions.

[Intelligitimate]

Your confusion, SubcommandanteHelix, is based on the false assumption most American Leftists don't line up with their own bourgeoisie. They in fact do, hence why we see them cheerleading the protests. They have to justify it to themselves somehow, so they come up with absolutely ridiculous shit like these protests represent some kind of progressive force (who is leading it, they can't say).

[Pogue]

popular uprisings have revolutionary potential, we support struggles against oppression, etc

[Guerrilla22]

People were chanting "death to dictatorship" and "death to the Ayatollah" in the streets. Yes the uprising was iniated by alleged electoral fraud, however those responsible for the uprising have taken advantage of the sitaution and are using it as an opprotunity to seek regime change.

[LOLseph Stalin]

People were chanting "death to dictatorship" and "death to the Ayatollah" in the streets. Yes the uprising was iniated by alleged electoral fraud, however those responsible for the uprising have taken advantage of the sitaution and are using it as an opprotunity to seek regime change.

So they should. The current regime consists of oppression and inequality. Being an Islamic theocracy, that already denies several groups rights. Woman aren't treated the way they should be, homosexuality is punishable by stoning, and most of all there doesn't appear to be free "elections" as Ahmadinejad has demostrated.

[Sarah Palin]

I think we should all fervently support the protests, for they are being "committed"(for lack of a better word) by mostly working people and the petit-bourgeoise who are desperate for a modern country, free of an oppressive theocracy. But as they move on with supporting Mousavi, they should be wary. [According to The Nation] Mousavi is not this incredibly great guy. He is bourgeoise as anybody. While prime minister, he had extremely close ties to Ayatollah Khomehni and was particularly oppressive. He ordered the killing of hundreds of religious minority and leftist university students. And though I do support the protests, I think people need to realise that Mousavi is no friend to the left, the working class, or seculars/religious minorities.

[Patchd]

Which started because one party lost to another...

Actually, tensions in Iran have not been on standby up until the recent election, moreso, the recent election fraud, albeit a bourgeois one, was simply yet another spark which has lit the fires.


Wrong. Stop turning this into something it isn't. The revolutionary left and the workers have no voice in Iran and none of the protests have anything to do with them. This is simply one branch of a corrupt regime against the other, except one side has the support of the western media and American imperialism behind it. Supporting one side over the other is the equivalent of supporting one of the two elite bourgeois parties of the American electoral system (or any electoral system for that matter) over the other: pointless.

I don't have that much time on my hands right now, but there have been quite a number of topics on this already.

Please (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ek-iran-time-t111851/index.html) learn (http://www.revleft.com/vb/3000-gather-commemorate-t111973/index.html) to (http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-union-involvement-t111479/index.html) read (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-iran-khodro-t111360/index.html).

[Pol Pot]

When mousavi was prime minister there were much more human rights violations than today, but now all of a sudden he's a democrat, a true western ally. MORE LIKE NEO-LIBERAL TRAITOR!!!

I have respect for Ahmedinejad for standing up to American hegemony.

[ItalianCommie]

:confused: Comrades, comrades! You obviously don't seem to have ever been involved in REAL politics, that is fight alongside movements in REAL life rather than just ideally, behind your laptop computer:rolleyes:. Communists all around the world support any movement that wises to abolish the present state of society. In Iran now communists support the movement against Ahmadinejad's regime and try to radicalize it.. Of course in these spontaneous and diverse movements there are many different people with different aspirations for their own society and among them are also some communists. That's what the communists did in 1905 with the movement against the Tsar led by the priest Gapon(he later proved to be a traitor to the revolution), the Bolsheviks never used a magnifying glass to see which movement was more Marxist or communist.. They just enriched the movement with their own ideas and tried to get themselves known. The wide political unrest and its suppression gave the communists a lot of credit and publicity, increasing the ranks of the Russian Social Democratic Party, strngthening it for the struggles later to come! That's how you spread the seeds of a revolution, just like what happened in 1905 and what I try to do every effing day in the movement against the American bases in Italy; like in 1905, THE IRANIAN MOVEMENT MUST BE IN SOME way HEGEMONIZED BY THE COMMUNISTS IF THEY WANT TO GET ANYWHERE in their country.. REAL LENINIST COMMUNISTS DON'T JUST SIT BACK AND WATCH THE SHOW..