What now for Iranian politics?

[RSS News]

Iranians gather for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri's funeral. What impact will his death have on the country?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Buffalo Souljah]

The Iranians need to understand that they're not ready for democricy wand we'll show them why they're wrong. We'll spread freedom like butter on buttcheeks. :thumbup1:

[Intelligitimate]

lol, workers movements.

[BobKKKindle$]

lol, workers movements.

^^An apt summary of the relationship between Stalinism and the working class.

[Drace]

America needs to run their democracy for them.

[Intelligitimate]

^^An apt summary of the relationship between Stalinism and the working class.

Trotskyites, anarchists, liberals, conservatives, Zionists and the bourgeois mass media all agree: "revolution" in Iran would be a good thing.

I would say I almost hope it succeeds, because then you might learn a lesson about supporting US backed puppets. But history has afforded countless examples of this, and Trotskyites have never, ever learned this lesson. You are cheerleaders of Western imperialism. You objectively represent the presence of bourgeois ideology in the communist movement. You are an enemy. Thankfully Trotskyism always exposes itself as completely counterrevolutionary when push comes to shove, and you're dealt with appropriately.

[Red Fist]

Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri was a Iranian Islamic theologian, who believed that Iran was not an Islamic state as announced. He was active during the Iranian revolution in 1979, but after the Iranian theocracy came to power, he had a minor confrontation with the first Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeni, because he executed political prisoners and of the women forced headscarf law. After Ayatollah Khomeni's death there were elections in the Guardian Council on who should be the new supreme leader of Iran between Ayatollah Montazeri and the current Ayatollah Khameni. Khameni won and put immediately Montazeri under house arrest. In the following years Montazeri has published several articles on civil and women's rights. He believed that Iran had developed into a despotic theocracy and not an Islamic regime. As late as spring 2009, he invited the country's youth to continue their protests against the regime. I personally am opposed to a Islamic state in any ways, religion and democracy fit together as a plus and minus. Hezbollah and the mullah regime in Iran is in itself a mafia organization. Ayatollahs are the "Godfathers" there fighting about who should control the country and its causes. Today the battle is between the current Ayatollah Khameni and Montazeri (until his death), each with their representatives, current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mousavi with his Green Movement party. The Islamic regime of Iran has in this way even built their own "oppostion" against the regime, but it still goes in favor of an Islamic state. Without the socialists and communists or liberals have the right to participate in it. To be communist in Iran today is the same if your sign your own death. The protesters who demonstrate is Mousavis and Montezaris supporters who want more civil rights. The impact of Montezaris death can lead to more protests, perhaps a new revolution or in the future might trigger a civil war between the current Islamists against nationalists. Iran need at new revolution but the people must choose the right ideology. before the 1979 revolution was the Communists the largest majority in oppostionen against the Shah regime, even though Shah executed political prisoners and crack down on leftist movements in cooperation with the U.S., were the Communists still insist on their opinions, whereas Shah saw the Islamists as the smallest threat because he thought they were only harmless religious people, but the Islamists were given more freedom to organize themselves and gain new fans while the Marxists only lost its owns.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Trotskyites, anarchists, liberals, conservatives, Zionists and the bourgeois mass media all agree: "revolution" in Iran would be a good thing.

I would say I almost hope it succeeds, because then you might learn a lesson about supporting US backed puppets. But history has afforded countless examples of this, and Trotskyites have never, ever learned this lesson. You are cheerleaders of Western imperialism. You objectively represent the presence of bourgeois ideology in the communist movement. You are an enemy. Thankfully Trotskyism always exposes itself as completely counterrevolutionary when push comes to shove, and you're dealt with appropriately.

This is somewhat ridiculous, to say that Trotskyists are 'cheerleaders of Western imperialism', 'counterrevolutionary' and the representation of 'bourgeois ideology in the communist movement.' I don't really wish to precipitate yet another boring argument between Stalinists and Trotskyists, but really if you want to criticise Trotskyists for supporting the 'reform' movement in Iran, in an intellectual way, then you have every right to do so and indeed I would wholeheartedly support you. There is nothing to be gained by supporting a US backed movement which, whilst less extreme than the theocrats currently in power in Iran, are still right wing, free marketeering, devout Muslims. I don't really see the point in expending effort to replace one anti-Socialist regime with another.

However, to start calling out names just strikes me as petty factionalism. History has not shown Trotsky or his followers to be any type of Capitalist lackey. Perhaps Trotskyists adopt wrong positions at times, but then so do many on the left, which is part of the reason as to why we are in danger of becoming irrelevant in many countries.

And no, i'm not a Trotskyist in any way.;)