Iran protests leave nine dead

[Lyev]

from the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/27/nine-dead-iran-protests

Edit: a bit more info, I'll try and put directly into a quote below.

Opposition leader's nephew among nine dead amid rioting and bloodshed in Iran

• Security forces open fire on protesters in Tehran
• Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew Ali Mousavi killed

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/12/27/1261945512326/Iranian-protesters-hold-d-001.jpg Iranian protesters hold demonstrations in Tehran. Photograph: EPA

Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran) was plunged deeper into crisis on a day of religious mourning as political tensions erupted into violence that left at least nine dead, including the nephew of the main opposition leader.

Mayhem unfolded on the streets of Tehran after a brutal crackdown resulted in security forces opening fire on protesters gathered on Ashura, one of the holiest days in Iran's Shia calendar. The shootings killed at least four people, with another said to have died from head injuries after being beaten by police. Among the dead was Ali Mousavi, nephew of Mir Hossein Mousavi, leader of the reformist movement. He was reported to have been shot through the heart.

Demonstrators – many chanting slogans against Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – retaliated by attacking members of the security forces, in some cases ripping off their uniforms and beating them with their own batons. Police cars were set on fire and photographs appeared to show riot officers retreating under a hail of stones.

A further four people were killed and many others injured in the northern city of Tabriz, according to reformist websites. Clashes were also reported in several other cities, including Isfahan, Shiraz, Arak, Mashhad, Babol and Najafabad.

The accounts could not be confirmed because of restrictions on the foreign media in Iran. However, Iranian state broadcaster Irib quoted a senior police official as saying 300 people had been arrested during clashes.
It was Iran's worst outbreak of violence since last June's disputed election, which the opposition claims President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole through mass fraud. But today's events differed from previous clashes in a way that seemed to herald further turmoil to come.

By using lethal force on a day meant to honour one of Shia Islam's holiest figures, Imam Hossein – seen as a martyr in the fight against oppression – the regime may have undermined its claim to uphold Iran's religious traditions. The violent response of the protesters to the security forces was also unprecedented and suggested many are becoming fearless in the face of state repression. While many demonstrators in the post-election protests covered their faces, footage from videos aired today on YouTube showed most people with their faces exposed.

[Red Saxon]

I have to wonder how long this Iranian people are going to take this. A revolution is bound to happen soon at this rate.

[Patchd]

A crowd has also attacked the house of an Ayatollah, I can't seem to find the youtube video anymore.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Iranian security forces have killed Mir-Hussein Mousavi's cousin.
I think it's gonna escalata heavy in Iran.

[Lyev]

Yah, the shit has definitely hit the fan. I find it interesting in situations like these, where we have an oppressor and an oppressed, that the oppressor does exactly the opposite of what he/she sets out to do. In that the police force and the government have tried to keep in line the people of Iran, but when events escalate like this, leaving nine dead, it's a great impetus for even more opposition to the oppressors. There's also the fact that it's the mourning ceremony of Ashura which hints towards a disobedience against religion as well as the State. Another thing, is I think it looks worse on Ahmadinejad's part when he carries on and celebrates the religious festival as if nothing has happened; it's almost as if he's trying to ignore what's happening and brush it under the carpet as if he's perhaps a little bit scared.

Also, a good selection of photos: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/dec/27/iran-protests

[Patchd]

Some photos:

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16939_106548532691534_100000091647558_174978_51163 36_n.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs142.snc3/16939_106549652691422_100000091647558_175008_38443 63_n.jpg

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16939_106549692691418_100000091647558_175011_83466 10_n.jpg

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs142.snc3/16939_106550209358033_100000091647558_175016_79087 24_n.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16939_106565072689880_100000091647558_175309_60667 51_n.jpg

It does seem like Mousavi is gaining more of a hold on the movement compared to earlier in the year, most likely due to a lack of a vocal 'left' in Iran (as they are mainly exiled, or imprisoned ... or dead) to provide alternatives to the system, unlike in 1979 before the mullahs took power, and the seemingly fizzling out of the earlier protests may have caused some disheartening among some protesters. Either way, workers are still fighting back in the way they can, the Khodro car workers are still active in class struggle (as they have always been) against the regime and it's neo liberal economic policies, as well as workers and students in other areas of the country.

[Intelligitimate]

Looks like the color-revolution is in full-swing.

[Patchd]

Looks like the color-revolution is in full-swing.
I thought you'd comment on this ;)

[Spawn of Stalin]

Beating the shit out of police officers doesn't seem like a good way to gain support for the reformists, if these people were proletarian revolutionaries it would be a different story and I would most likely be cheering them on, but they seem to be severely lacking in good politics.

[blake 3:17]

Looks like the color-revolution is in full-swing.

You might well be right. So should the theocracy smash it?

[Drace]

From the photos, I feel bad for the cop with the blood on his face.

[Patchd]

Beating the shit out of police officers doesn't seem like a good way to gain support for the reformists, if these people were proletarian revolutionaries it would be a different story and I would most likely be cheering them on, but they seem to be severely lacking in good politics.
No you're quite right, that it isn't a great way to gain support for the reformists, but we have to remember that there is real potential here for something different if the Iranian left were more sizeable in numbers and more vocal, or if a later event turns this revolt into a workers' revolution. Believe you me, I despise Mousavi as much as you and only see him and support for him to be detrimental to Iranian worker emancipation, afterall, Mousavi was complicit in the murder of Iranian leftists at the hands of the state.

We also have to remember the events of '79 and how that quickly changed from a dominant workers' movement actually setting up workers' councils (shoras) and running large aspects of the economy independently from the state and the bosses for around a year before events turned sour and the political environment changed to accomodate the political Islamists as the dominant force. Social change is fluid and at times extremely volatile and subject to much change, the same may well happen here, and this may also depend on what the working class elsewhere achieve. Perhaps the overthrow of the Nepalese state and the capitalist class there, or perhaps a more challenging Greek anti-capitalist political movement can spark further interest in revolutionary politics elsewhere in the world.

The protests are something to get behind, and the workers' struggle against the state and for socialism should also be supported (it is occuring, although heavily repressed and kept quiet in the bourgeois media for obvious reasons). It is the same logic in which I support resistance against zionism in Palestine, but not necessarily the form that most of the resistance is encapsulated by (political Islamism). I do not support reformism, but I do support workers' struggle against oppressive socio-economic systems, which to a large extent is taking place in Iran.

[Alam]

Particularly disturbing out of all this is the fact that imperialist powers are meddling in Iran's internal affairs over the security forces' handling of these riots. This is while they have been dead silent on the Israeli killings of Palestinians, the Saudi war on Yemen, the Pakistani aggression against Waziristan, etc. That the White House is making these provocative remarks is a sign it is frustrated at the failure of these conspiracies against Iran:


The White House on Sunday strongly condemned "violent and unjust suppression" of civilians in Iran, following a fierce government crackdown on opposition protests.

The blunt statement contrasted with careful initial responses by the White House following post-election protests in Iran in June and came as the nuclear showdown between Tehran and world powers reached a critical point.

"We strongly condemn the violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran seeking to exercise their universal rights," National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said in a statement.

"Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States.It seems that the western media is yet again trying to invent a political crisis in Iran.



Iran's police said on Sunday that four people were killed and 300 others arrested during clashes between anti-government protesters and security forces in Tehran, Iran's satellite channel Press TV reported.

"One died after falling from a bridge, two others were run over by cars and the fourth was shot dead by unknown assailants," Iran's deputy police chief Ahmad Reza Radan was quoted as saying.

Iranian police were not involved in the killings and the incidents were under investigation, Radan said, adding that over 300 people were arrested during the protests.

An Iranian reformist website said earlier that the nephew of Iran's opposition leader and defeated presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi was killed Sunday during the clashes in Tehran.

"Ali Mousavi was shot near his heart today at noon and died later in a Tehran hospital," said Parlemannews, a website run by the Iranian parliament's minority reformist faction.

However, according to Press TV, police dismissed reports that Mousavi's nephew was among the dead, saying the man claimed to be Mousavi's nephew was not a relative of the defeated presidential candidate.

Sporadic clashes were seen in some parts of downtown Tehran and police forces fired shots into the air and tear gas to disperse protestors, Press TV reported.

According to witness accounts, several banks, bus stops and a number of trash-cans were set on fire during the protests.

Meanwhile, pro-government demonstrators also took to the streets to protest against the opposition, shouting slogans in support of the government, Press TV said.

The unrest took place as millions of Iranians held rallies on Sunday across the country to commemorate the Shiite Muslim ritual of Ashura.

State television footage showed large crowds of people gathered in every major Iranian cities to commemorate Ashura, which marks the death of Imam Hussein, grandson of Prophet Mohammed, who was killed and buried in Karbala in 680 AD.

Some photos:Who took these photos, when were they taken, and have they been independently verified? Note that western media have not even witnessed the alleged events they are describing.


if the Iranian leftThere is no Iranian left i.e there is not a viable Marxist-Leninist vanguard party in Iran to lead the working-class.



The protests are something to get behind,
This is not Russia in 1905, China in 1949, Cuba in the 1950s, or even Iran of the late 1970s. The working-class under the leadership of the revolutionary proletarian party is not engaged in an armed uprising. There are no slogans calling for all power to the workers' councils or the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. These are reactionary bourgeois gatherings that have the support of imperialism, and deserve to be crushed.


and the workers' struggle against the state and for socialism
Where is your proof? In fact, Iran's labor unions stand solidly behind the Revolution.

[bcbm]

It seems that the western media is yet again trying to invent a political crisis in Iran.

demonstrations involving tens to hundreds of thousands in multiple cities that end in violent clashes with demonstrators killed continuing over several months despite severe repression sounds like a pretty real political crisis to me.

[Alam]

"One died after falling from a bridge, two others were run over by cars and the fourth was shot dead by unknown assailants," Iran's deputy police chief Ahmad Reza Radan was quoted as saying.If the Iranian authorities published the names and cause of death of all the "victims", then the enemies' propaganda would be discredited. Tripping over one's shoelaces and getting run over by a car does not make a martyr.


demonstrations involving tens to hundreds of thousands in multiple cities that end in violent clashes with demonstrators killed continuing over several months despite severe repression sounds like a pretty real political crisis to me. All Evidence from the past several months shows that Iran's authorities are firmly in control of the situation and that the Green gangs are isolated. For a political crisis, refer to Russia in 1905.

Your account of Iran's politics fails to consider the fact that literally millions of people have gathered in rallies on al-Quds Day, Students' Day, Friday prayers, and the recent Ashura holiday to show support to the Iranian government.

Al-Jazeera's correspondent reported that there were merely hundreds of rioters, numbers that have been vastly exceeded by pro-revolutionary rallies, to say nothing of the millions who turned out to mark Ashura.


Al-Jazeera's Mohammad Hassan al-Bahrani, reporting from Tehran, said the police had arrested a number of protesters. "Hundreds of supporters of the Iranian opposition, mainly of reformist forces, have protested and chanted slogans supporting [Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali] Montazeri and Mir Hossein Moussavi," he said.

Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor at the University of Tehran, told Al Jazeera that the sheer number of people gathering in the street for religious commemorations would make it difficult for the police to keep control.

"It's very difficult for the police to prevent the crowds today because Ashoura is the most important day in Shia religion. Hundreds and thousands and millions of people come out in the street towards noon. "It will be very difficult for the police to distinguish between genuine mourners and those who want to use the procession to register their protest against the government."
Either way, workers are still fighting back in the way they can, the Khodro car workers are still active in class struggle (as they have always been) against the regime and it's neo liberal economic policies, as well as workers and students in other areas of the country.What planet do you live on? If this reactionary movement had even a hint of support from the working-class, then there would be a general strike to topple the government a la France 1968. Even the most anti-IRI diehards acknowledge the fact that the working-class and impoverished strata stand firmly behind the Revolution. Note that Basij alone is composed of over 10 million working-class youths.

[Patchd]

Who took these photos, when were they taken, and have they been independently verified? Note that western media have not even witnessed the alleged events they are describing.
These photos are coming out of Iran itself, there are organisations which have links to Iranians living in Iran, Hands Off the People of Iran is an example, and they regularly receive information from workers groups, feminist, LGBTQ rights, and student groups in Iran.

This is happening, there is no bullshitting here. Simply because the imperialists have sought to get behind this (because if they do so it will further their interests in the Middle East without having to go to war) does not mean that it is reactionary in it's entirety.


There is no Iranian left i.e there is not a viable Marxist-Leninist vanguard party in Iran to lead the working-class.You live in your own little bubble, I understand now. Do you realise that it was the Marxist-Leninist Tudeh party that aligned with the mullahs in '79, which led to their eventual downfall, and the eventual downfall of the workers' movement there, which brought about the political Islamic state we see today.


Where is your proof? In fact, Iran's labor unions stand solidly behind the Revolution.And 'labour unions' in Britain stand solidly behind the Labour party, that makes them progressive right?

Here is some proof (http://hopoi.org/?p=801)
And some more (http://hopoi.org/?p=848)
Should I go on? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/iran-wagon-pars-t116616/index.html?t=116616&highlight=Iran)

Keep in mind that the protests from earlier in the year had not died down completely either, continuing workers' struggle against the regime, which the IMF even congratulates, continued to happen and is still happening.


If the Iranian authorities published the names and cause of death of all the "victims", then the enemies' propaganda would be discredited. Tripping over one's shoelaces and getting run over by a car does not make a martyr.Your attitude is so vile, I'm sitting here shaking my head right now in disgust at the moment, at some internet warrior revolutionary who can safely sit behind their computer slagging off people who are risking, and losing their lives, at the hands of an oppressive, anti-worker, anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ and religious state. If you knew anything about the Iranian state, it's 'militias' and other armed wings, you'd realise that the same tactics employed against leftists in the 80s and 90s are being employed again here.

In the last big stir up just after the 'elections', people were being thrown off rooftops by the Basiji, and it was being filmed also, the state is capable of anything, you should know this by now. Also did you even read my last post in detail?

"It is the same logic in which I support resistance against zionism in Palestine, but not necessarily the form that most of the resistance is encapsulated by (political Islamism). I do not support reformism, but I do support workers' struggle against oppressive socio-economic systems, which to a large extent is taking place in Iran."

[Alam]

More than 300 workers in the Abadan oil refinery gathered on Thursday November 12 to protest against non-payment of wages and bonuses,Even if we are to accept this story as accurate, I am still not impressed. Millions of Iranians are members of trade unions whose explicit goal is to defend the Revolution. If the Iranian workers led by the revolutionary proletarian party a la July 1917 in Petrograd came out to demand a dictatorship of the proletariat, only then would I come out in support.



And 'labour unions' in Britain stand solidly behind the Labour party, that makes them progressive right?Although this is off-topic, I'd say that the platform of TUC has got many positive aspects.


If you knew anything about the Iranian stateI don't claim to be an Iranian expert, but I look at any and all Iran reporting by western analysts and Iranian emigres, who clearly have an axe to grind, with the highest degree of skepticism. Whether it's turning Ahmadinejad into a Holocaust denier or telling scary stories about the Iranian nuclear threat, these people manipulate realities in Iran for their own selfish interests. I don't support the Iranian government nearly as much as I condemn the bourgeois-liberal opposition against it.

[Alam]

Latest from Iran shows that this was not Bloody Sunday, but were bloody street battles with casualties on both sides:


More than fifteen people were killed in riots on Sunday in Tehran, including five victims of "terrorist groups" and "over ten" belonging to "anti-revolutionary groups", said Monday the Iranian state television quoting the Ministry of Information.

[Patchd]

Even if we are to accept this story as accurate, I am still not impressed. Millions of Iranians are members of trade unions whose explicit goal is to defend the Revolution. If the Iranian workers led by the revolutionary proletarian party a la July 1917 in Petrograd came out to demand a dictatorship of the proletariat, only then would I come out in support.

Although this is off-topic, I'd say that the platform of TUC has got many positive aspects.

What like? The scabbing on one another between the differing trade unions? The complete reformist nature of the TUC throughout history (as shown by the 1926 General Strike where they sold out their own workers)? It's links with reformist parties? It's complete bureaucratic and privileged (to the upper echelons of the union bureaucracy) nature?

Also, please provide me with evidence that "millions of Iranians are members of trade unions whose explicit goal is to defend the Revolution."


I don't claim to be an Iranian expert, but I look at any and all Iran reporting by western analysts and Iranian emigres, who clearly have an axe to grind, with the highest degree of skepticism. Whether it's turning Ahmadinejad into a Holocaust denier or telling scary stories about the Iranian nuclear threat, these people manipulate realities in Iran for their own selfish interests. I don't support the Iranian government nearly as much as I condemn the bourgeois-liberal opposition against it.Iranian emigres? I believe you may be talking about Yassamine Mather, the author of one of the articles I linked to you. She was active in the struggle against the shah in '79 and ended up in the mountains with the Fedayeen minority fighting the Islamists, she is one of only two fighters from the F.minority left alive. But these are just petty bourgeois emigres no doubt.

There has been no denial that there is a lot of reformist elements within this movement, the point is to support the change of those elements and provide revolutionary alternatives to it, as opposed to merely condemning the whole act. But then this seems like the typical ML line, the complete denial of any bourgeois source (except for Al Jazeera, which has it's own bourgeois interests in the region) on the basis that it is bourgeois alone. They do not have to lie in order to use events for their own material interests.

In addition, there are socialist and communist organisations that are actively supporting the struggle against the Islamic Republic, are these all bourgeois-liberal opposition?


More than fifteen people were killed in riots on Sunday in Tehran, including five victims of "terrorist groups" and "over ten" belonging to "anti-revolutionary groups", said Monday the Iranian state television quoting the Ministry of Information.So you are fine reporting from a homophobic, anti-woman, anti-worker state which was, and still is responsible for the killing of leftists for their political allegiances, but when it comes from Hands Off the People of Iran, a socialist organisation, it is bourgeois liberalism.

In addition, your figure of 10 million youths in the basij alone does not match the figures I searched for and found. Where are your sources, except for Al Jazeera and the Iranian capitalist state?

This is more than a couple of hundred people 'rioting', they've managed to besiege and detain state security forces as well as besieging the houses of certain ayatollahs, they've pushed back the security forces on the streets and are facing massive repression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzStYcg86c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9djZJy9u4s&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVulslxDJh0&feature=related

... just a couple of hundred protesters I'm sure. ;)

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't think it's a question of being fine with citing reactionary sources vs. revolutionary sources. The best thing to do would be to decide whether or not there is any likelihood of the Iranian workers building a strong socialist movement out of unrests like the one happening right now. Personally I don't think there is much of a chance of this happening since, a) Ahmadinejad's supporters are mostly poor working class folk, their support is essential, literally nothing can be done without these people, and b) a victory for the demonstrators over the Iranian state would most likely result in the reformists taking power and allowing America to come in and build Western style capitalism, then you can kiss goodbye any hopes of a workers revolution for the next few decades. What Iranians should be working for is a proper socialist movement which has the backing of the majority of Ahmadinejad's supporters, which can defend the region from imperialism as Ahmadinejad has over the last few years, and which can influence other workers to topple their own reactionary governments, i.e. the Iraqis, and the Afghans. My own opinion is that there is more chance of achieving this under the current regime than there would be under a pro-West reformist one.

[Intelligitimate]

You might well be right. So should the theocracy smash it?

Yes. You gonna cry for the friends of the CIA if they do?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Yes. You gonna cry for the friends of the CIA if they do?

Supporting the Iranian theocracy that came to power as a counter-revolution against the communists and subsequently killed them in their millions..


How very communist.

[Intelligitimate]

Supporting the Iranian theocracy that came to power as a counter-revolution against the communists and subsequently killed them in their millions..


How very communist.

lol, Mousavi is part of the same shit. He literally was involved in the murder of tens of thousands of communists in the 1980s when he was Prime Minster of Iran. The choice is between one side of the government that wants to maintain an anti-imperialist stance, and the other which wants to basically be a puppet of the West.

And there weren't "millions" of communists to kill in Iran (things would have went very differently if there were). That's just clearly you pulling numbers out of your ass.

[ls]

lol, Mousavi is part of the same shit. He literally was involved in the murder of tens of thousands of communists in the 1980s when he was Prime Minster of Iran. The choice is between one side of the government that wants to maintain an anti-imperialist stance, and the other which wants to basically be a puppet of the West.

And there weren't "millions" of communists to kill in Iran (things would have went very differently if there were). That's just clearly you pulling numbers out of your ass.

You've missed the whole point completely and entirely. Mousavi killed more people than Ahmedinjad has, yet the protests signify open defiance of "Revolution".

That is the whole point, it still has to move beyond Mousavi and many people already have dissented against both sides, yes the West is meddling but then again that doesn't mean we should just say "the opposition should be crushed and the more anti-imperialist of the two should win" in any case. I'm pretty sure the WCPI (Maoist ML party in Iran) does not support the "Revolution", it supports dissent against both sides, I don't support the WCPI but at least they've gotten that perspective correct.

[Intelligitimate]

ls, the Left is basically non-existent in Iran. I know the son of Tudeh party members exiled in America, and they say the same thing. There is no Iranian Left leading this. It is Mousavi and the West. Period.

As to the support for the protests of local communists, that is to be completely expected, and indeed, what they should be doing as communists. A very good parallel would be what we should do as communists if, say, Obama lost the 2008 election in an electoral scandal. Even if the evidence for an Obama victory was weak, if there was massive anger directed at the Republican party over this, enough to get people in the street and smashing cars and beating up cops, of course we almost be forced to support it as revolutionaries. Would that mean we are in control of it and directing it? Literally every single person that is a member of some radical Leftist group in America probably totals about 5,000 people. You think 5,000 people can possibly direct and lead such a movement? Of course not. It would always be in the hands of the Democratic Party and their bourgeois backers. Probably George Soros would play the same role as Rafsanjani does in Iran. But we would have to participate anyway, and turn as many people as we could into radicals, and possibly have a larger effect on the outcome than our numbers would indicate.

The truth of the matter is that the internal contradictions in Iran are of a secondary concern to everyone but Iranian Leftists. The primary contradiction in the world today is between Western (mainly US) imperialism and the third world. In that sense, I hope the forces against US imperialism beat the would-be puppets in Iran. At the same time, I hope the Iranian Left can use this to their advantage somehow.

[khad]

Supporting the Iranian theocracy that came to power as a counter-revolution against the communists and subsequently killed them in their millions..

How very communist.
Since Moussavi has more leftist blood on his hands than Ahmadinejad by orders of magnitude, I'm not sure what you mean...

[FSL]

People say we can't really be supportive of Hamas against Fatah and Israel because it merely represents one section of bourgeoisie and because a palestinian state with a Hamas government would be just as opressive towards its workers. They are right of course in assuming that it would be so, but most people do support Hamas or generally the palestinian armed struggle, of which Hamas is a part. These people think that an independent Palestine will be an improvement (and also will bring class contradictions to everyone's attention since Israel couldn't be there to blame anymore) compared to what other choises they have.


How do things change here? I'm sure there are elements of the working class who support the opposition. But there are elements of the working class who support the current government. Or maybe not? Is any of the sides representing the interests of the working class or are they both representing two differing sections of the bourgeoisie, one who seeks a kind of a localized "alliance" of capital and another who thinks that its interests are better served by being closer to american capitalism?
If that's so, then why be so supportive of this?

I'll say what I think will happen.
A) The movement fails, the government remains as it is. People speak of a just fight that was supressed, a victory that is yet to come and wish the best to the opposition, waiting until the next such round of protests.
B) The opposition disposes the government. Joy and laughter all across the world. Obama comes in his first visit to Iran, a meaningful dialogue starts between the two sides, Iran drops its nuclear power programme and slowly becomes international community's "poster-boy", the country whose citizens emphatically rejected extremism. And all the people who were previously in support of the struggle for freedom apologize in a defensive tone on how some conservative leaders hijacked the movement and stopped it from bringing forth all its liberating policies.


Of course, others might have the opinion that this is a popular movement that aims in a better Iran in which case you are right to support it. If the protests do comes to fruition, we'll see who made the better judgement.

[Alam]

So you are fine reporting from a homophobic, anti-woman, anti-worker state which was, and still is responsible for the killing of leftists for their political allegiances.
Iranian news reports and analyses about the country's politics are far more plausible than material published by reactionary Iranian emigres and their western sponsors. Outside reporting on Iran about the country undergoing a "Green revolution" that is going to result in the demise in the mullahs is just wishful thinking.

Iranians have a much better understanding of their country and culture than people looking at the country from the outside. For example, one spurious stereotype about Iran is the notion that the majority of the country's youths are suffering from delusions about the corrupt, bourgeois way of life who want "freedom" and "democracy" just like us. If anything, the youths involved in these protests appear to represent a small minority of the population, a portion that is much less mainstream than Basij.


but when it comes from Hands Off the People of Iran, a socialist organisation, it is bourgeois liberalism.
Hands Off the People of Iran seems to reflect the anti-revolutionary politics characteristic of Iranian emigres of various political factions. From my observations, Iranian emigre political circles often distort the reality of Iran's politics and society to fit their own narrow-minded prejudices.

does not match the figures I searched for and found.

This is more than a couple of hundred people 'rioting',
I was watching a political analyst from Tehran University on RT say that barely a couple thousand anti-government protesters infiltrated the Ashura gatherings. The protests are far smaller in scale than during June 17-18, but have been far more violent.

But then this seems like the typical ML line, the complete denial of any bourgeois source (except for Al Jazeera, which has it's own bourgeois interests in the region) on the basis that it is bourgeois alone. They do not have to lie in order to use events for their own material interests.
What's with this suggestion that Al-Jazeera is not a reliable source just because it is bourgeois? It is among the most reliable, credible, even-handed soruces for news in the Middle East. If anything, Al-Jazeera, reflecting the point of the Gulf sheiks, has an anti-Iran bias.

In addition, there are socialist and communist organisations that are actively supporting the struggle against the Islamic Republic, are these all bourgeois-liberal opposition
Most of the opposition to Iran consists of right-opportunist degenerates like the AWL and to a lesser extent "left-wing" adventurists such as the anarchists, to say nothing of the bourgeois liberals from Daily Kos and fascists from Free Repblic, who all seem to be united in their desire for a counter-revolution in Iran.

Even the Trotskyists, who are usually way off on issues like this, have taken a much more responsible position, as WSWS explained:
Those who claim that the current “Green Revolution” in Iran is any different are either deluding themselves or have ulterior motives. The central political task is the fight for an independent political movement for a workers’ and farmers’ government and a socialist Iran as part of a United Socialist States of the Middle East and internationally. That requires the construction of a revolutionary party of the working class armed with a scientific socialist program based on all the strategic experiences of the twentieth century.


What like?
In just one of example, TUC supports banning BNP fascists from employment in public services. I'm not British and don't know a great deal about British politics, but from what I've read about TUC, it does have many progressive features, even if it is reformist.


Also, please provide me with evidence that "millions of Iranians are members of trade unions whose explicit goal is to defend the Revolution."
Iran's constitution says,
"councils consisting of the representatives of the workers, peasants, other employees, and managers, will be formed in educational and administrative units, units of service industries, and other units of a like nature, similar councils will be formed, composed of representatives of the members of those units."

Millions of Iranians are members of these unions.

[Patchd]

Since Moussavi has more leftist blood on his hands than Ahmadinejad by orders of magnitude, I'm not sure what you mean...
Where has he said he supported Mousavi? Straw-man argument perhaps? He is a member of HOPI, which have explicitly come out with articles such as "Support for the mass protests against Admadinejad's re-election! But we should have no illusions that Massouvi (sp.) would have been any better (http://www.hopoi.org/articles/elections%20June%202009.html)." So I don't really see where your argument lies?


[/SIZE]Iranian news reports and analyses about the country's politics are far more plausible than material published by reactionary Iranian emigres and their western sponsors. Outside reporting on Iran about the country undergoing a "Green revolution" that is going to result in the demise in the mullahs is just wishful thinking.

Iranians have a much better understanding of their country and culture than people looking at the country from the outside. For example, one spurious stereotype about Iran is the notion that the majority of the country's youths are suffering from delusions about the corrupt, bourgeois way of life who want "freedom" and "democracy" just like us. If anything, the youths involved in these protests appear to represent a small minority of the population, a portion that is much less mainstream than Basij.It is usually a good idea to back up statements such as that which I have bolded. In addition, do you not suppose that these groups still have contacts within Iran itself? I've already stated this, you seem to like to choose what to read, miss the entire post and then bang on about something which I have already tackled. HOPI is an organisation that I have already quoted as having links with working class Iranians in Iran, those who organise (and not just in this period) against the regime's anti-worker policies. Surely, you are not going to suggest that these Iranians living in Iran have no clue about what they are talking about?

One thing to take note about the Basij as well however is that over the weekend, there were reports of, not only the basij refusing orders to attack protesters (http://hopoi.org/?p=933), but also from the armed forces and police forces, as well as their surrender on the streets itself as opposed to continuing on the struggle against the protesters. Another note to make is that activity in the basij is rewarded civicly, members tend to get priority in educational establishments, sporting activities, government jobs (and with it comes better job prospects in the private sector also) as well as the ability to go around and act cop around town, arresting women for not wearing a hijab. Not only this, but it is devoted to Khamenei, it is fundamentally religious and reactionary, yet for some reason, on a revolutionary leftist board, it deserves less criticism than the 'petit-bourgeois' protests.


Hands Off the People of Iran seems to reflect the anti-revolutionary politics characteristic of Iranian emigres of various political factions. From my observations, Iranian emigre political circles often distort the reality of Iran's politics and society to fit their own narrow-minded prejudices.But they draw their information largely from the workers on the ground in Iran. What's your point?


I was watching a political analyst from Tehran University on RT say that barely a couple thousand anti-government protesters infiltrated the Ashura gatherings. The protests are far smaller in scale than during June 17-18, but have been far more violent.If you could, I'll be interested in watching this video, although if it is farci then I won't be able to understand it. What I'm also wondering is if this political analyst was one of the academics of Tehran university who went on strike earlier in the year to protest against the beatings, arrest and killings of students in their dormatories by the basij and state security forces.


What's with this suggestion that Al-Jazeera is not a reliable source just because it is bourgeois? It is among the most reliable, credible, even-handed soruces for news in the Middle East. If anything, Al-Jazeera, reflecting the point of the Gulf sheiks, has an anti-Iran bias.Yes to an extent, although if they consider these protests in the same way as you do (as a pro-US imperialist movement), then surely their interests representing the Gulf sheiks would be at stake?


Most of the opposition to Iran consists of right-opportunist degenerates like the AWL and to a lesser extent "left-wing" adventurists such as the anarchists, to say nothing of the bourgeois liberals from Daily Kos and fascists from Free Repblic, who all seem to be united in their desire for a counter-revolution in Iran.The AWL have disgusting politics anyway, you don't have to lump us in with them. Anyway, you may be interested in this thread which was created earlier in the year:

Parties and organisations supporting and opposing this movement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parties-and-organizations-t111281/index.html?t=111281&highlight=list+groups+support+protest)


In just one of example, TUC supports banning BNP fascists from employment in public services. I'm not British and don't know a great deal about British politics, but from what I've read about TUC, it does have many progressive features, even if it is reformist.So one point, yes of course the TUC will play up to 'socialist' ideals once in a while, they have to, it's part of their job as trade union bureuacrats, make the workers believe you're working for them whilst reaping in their membership funds for your xmas bonuses. Hope Not Hate, and Unite Against Fascism, two reformist (and linked with reformist groups and parties) also support this policy.


Iran's constitution says,
"councils consisting of the representatives of the workers, peasants, other employees, and managers, will be formed in educational and administrative units, units of service industries, and other units of a like nature, similar councils will be formed, composed of representatives of the members of those units."

Millions of Iranians are members of these unions.

Ah, so state run councils? You should have been specifically clearer about the fact that most independent unions are repressed and it seems to only be these, 'councils', which are state-sanctioned and approved ... and even still, no numbers, no links, and no facts on the 'millions of Iranians' in these councils. Whatever happened to the independent workers' councils set up by the workers in '79? Oh that's right, they were destroyed by the very people who wrote that constitution you've just quoted from.


ls, the Left is basically non-existent in Iran. I know the son of Tudeh party members exiled in America, and they say the same thing. There is no Iranian Left leading this. It is Mousavi and the West. Period.

Regime threatens mass murder whilst left activists are arrested (http://hopoi.org/?p=942).

Seems like your friend's talking crap, there are more examples too, if only you read this thread thoroughly you might notice them ;) ... Workers unions and groups organising specifically against capitalism and the Iranian state for example. Again, the mindless hardliners within the ML movement is supporting reactionary Islamists against the working class.

[Intelligitimate]

Regime threatens mass murder whilst left activists are arrested (http://www.anonym.to/?http://hopoi.org/?p=942)

And this changes what? They go after known Leftists who are likely involved in some minor way? It doesn't change the fundamental fact that this in control of the West and neo-liberal billionaire Rafsanjani. That's a fact that the supporters of imperialism can never escape.


Again, the mindless hardliners within the ML movement is supporting reactionary Islamists against the working class.

lol, what a joke. The working and poor voted overwhelming voted for Ahmadinejad.

[Patchd]

And this changes what? They go after known Leftists who are likely involved in some minor way? It doesn't change the fundamental fact that this in control of the West and neo-liberal billionaire Rafsanjani. That's a fact that the supporters of imperialism can never escape.
Is it now? And where is your proof for this 'fact' that all, well, not even that, but most supporters in the movement are also supporters of Mousavi, and Rafsanjani? What about the workers who do not support either faction of the Iranian working class, you've just lumped them in with all the 'reactionaries'.


lol, what a joke. The working and poor voted overwhelming voted for Ahmadinejad.
Yeah, like they did in the Soviet Union! http://209.85.62.26/12332/168/emo/awesome.gif ... oh, oh wait ... no they didn't. Where are all these millions of poor and working class people who support the Islamic republic and Ahmadinejad in all this then? Why are they not on the streets actively opposing the supposedly pro-Mousavi lot along with their basij and state security friends?

[Alam]

Yes to an extent, although if they consider these protests in the same way as you do (as a pro-US imperialist movement), then surely their interests representing the Gulf sheiks would be at stake?The International Federation of Journalists today condemned the decision by the Iranian authorities to close the offices of Arab satellite television channel in Tehran as a “spiteful act of censorship.”

Jazeera is in no way pro-Iran.


there were reports of, not only the basij..., but also from the armed forces and police forces, as well as their surrender on the streets itself as opposed to continuing on the struggle against the protesters.Because these reports made by anonymous, random people cannot be verified by journalists on the ground in Iran, they are to be treated with skepticism. There has been no shortage of BS disinformation about Iran via Twitter, such as the presence of Hezbollah men among the security forces. :rolleyes:


it is fundamentally religious and reactionaryThat Iranian revolutionaries were and are religious does not mean that they are reactionary. Khomeini's brand of Shia Muslim is progressive in its mobilization of the masses and struggle against imperialism and monopoly-capitalism.

It was Tudeh that said 30 years ago:

The most important of all, struggle against world imperialism (led by U.S imperialism) for the achievement of real independence of the country as a basic condition of solving other problems.

In regards to the Iranian case and the leadership of Imam Khomeini, in our view this leadership has a national character (anti-imperialist) that is favorable toward the people (defends the rights of the toilers.)

Having said that, I would support a socialist revolution in the Islamic Republic, but I firmly stand by Iran's Government in suppressing these reactionary, bourgeois gatherings chatacterized by chants of "Obama: Are you with us or against us?" These people are like the Iranian equivalent of America's dumbass teabaggers.

[Patchd]

The International Federation of Journalists today condemned the decision by the Iranian authorities to close the offices of Arab satellite television channel in Tehran as a “spiteful act of censorship.”

Jazeera is in no way pro-Iran.

Never said it was ;) But in terms of their own imperialist ambitions, having an Iran that isn't under control of US imperialism would be in their interests. Obviously the Arabian peninsula and Iranians haven't always got on so well with one another, largely because of the exclusion of Persians from the pan-Arab politics that emerged in the 20th century. Hence, Iran and Turkey's former friendship with Israel.


Because these reports made by anonymous, random people cannot be verified by journalists on the ground in Iran, they are to be treated with skepticism. There has been no shortage of BS disinformation about Iran via Twitter, such as the presence of Hezbollah men among the security forces. :rolleyes:There probably will be bullshitting, but you're dismissing it all as bullshit, whilst relying on none other than the state, and it's media to tell you what's going on. Yeah, because they won't represent a completely biased view either ... :rolleyes:


That Iranian revolutionaries were and are religious does not mean that they are reactionary. Khomeini's brand of Shia Muslim is progressive in its mobilization of the masses and struggle against imperialism and monopoly-capitalism.Where is the progressiveness, anti-imperialism and pro-worker sentiments in Khomeini's unique religious beliefs?


It was Tudeh that said 30 years ago:

The most important of all, struggle against world imperialism (led by U.S imperialism) for the achievement of real independence of the country as a basic condition of solving other problems.

In regards to the Iranian case and the leadership of Imam Khomeini, in our view this leadership has a national character (anti-imperialist) that is favorable toward the people (defends the rights of the toilers.) Yeah, before they were shot by Khomeini.

[leninpuncher]

Tehran is a very Europeanized city, and consequently; people of Tehran don't care about socialism, capitalism, or fundamentalist religions. I get the impression that they're just very angry with the theocratic intrusions on their life, and the electoral corruption. They're fighting for secularity, and some sort of bourgeois democracy. This isn't brilliant, but it's much better than theocracy.

Mousavi is a former prime-minister, and was deemed suitable to run in the last elections by the Ayatollahs clique. He doesn't speak for the protesters, and probably has almost nothing in common with them.

[scarletghoul]

:scared:Why the fuck was Alam banned? His posts are perfectly reasonable and reflect a legitimate anti-imperialist stance.

****s like homoreactionary and patchd who are supporting bourgeois movements allied with US imperialism are the ones who should be banned. Of course the petit-bourgeois Zionist administration would never consider banning such people, but ah well, I guess RevLeft's gone too far down the shitter for salvation anyway.:(

[h0m0revolutionary]

lol, Mousavi is part of the same shit.The choice is between one side of the government that wants to maintain an anti-imperialist stance, and the other which wants to basically be a puppet of the West.

So what, I want the downfall of the Islamic Republic and that put's me in the Mousavi camp? Get off it..

The choice is between an islamic republic and an alternative that doesn't involve any pillar of the Islamic Republic.



And there weren't "millions" of communists to kill in Iran (things would have went very differently if there were). That's just clearly you pulling numbers out of your ass.

And you clearly don't know much about Iran except for that which your Tudeh friends tell you. And it's not that incidental that this would be the same Tudeh Party that when faced with 40% of Iran controlled directly by Shoras, when faced with a over 10% of the population taking an active part in uprisings across Iran - decided to capitulate with the Islamists!

There *were* literally millions of communists in Iran, the popularity of the uprising and the fact the National Front and incoming Ulema had to bargain with and take on the rhetoric of the far-left is testament to this.

And they way things turned out was exactly because of the failings of these groups - from their devotion to the Soviet Union and/or China, to their fetish for guerrilla armed struggle and their unwillingness to react positively to organic workers control, workers councils, neighborhood and strike committees.

[h0m0revolutionary]

:scared:Why the fuck was Alam banned? His posts are perfectly reasonable and reflect a legitimate anti-imperialist stance.

****s like homoreactionary and patchd who are supporting bourgeois movements allied with US imperialism are the ones who should be banned. Of course the petit-bourgeois Zionist administration would never consider banning such people, but ah well, I guess RevLeft's gone too far down the shitter for salvation anyway.:(

He was probably banned for hailing the regime that openly championed killing revolutionary leftists for decades.

Proof that the student groups in Iran, the feminist movement and/or the workers movements of Tehran Hospital, Bus Workers Syndicate or Sugar Cane Workers (all engaged in struggle with the Islamic Republic) are "allied with US imperialism" please?

And do me a favour and watch your language. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Patchd]

:scared:Why the fuck was Alam banned? His posts are perfectly reasonable and reflect a legitimate anti-imperialist stance.
I have no idea actually, I'll see what I can find out.


****s like homoreactionary and patchd who are supporting bourgeois movements allied with US imperialism are the ones who should be banned. Of course the petit-bourgeois Zionist administration would never consider banning such people, but ah well, I guess RevLeft's gone too far down the shitter for salvation anyway.:(Lol, what an idiot, an ad hominem attack that completely ignores what has been said in this thread is what you've just made. Grow up, or get out. Politics isn't a little theoretical game which you can toss off your ego to, for real people, it actually matters and can affect them direly.

[Intelligitimate]

Having said that, I would support a socialist revolution in the Islamic Republic, but I firmly stand by Iran's Government in suppressing these reactionary, bourgeois gatherings chatacterized by chants of "Obama: Are you with us or against us?" These people are like the Iranian equivalent of America's dumbass teabaggers.

lol, video of them doing it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/iranian-protesters-obama_n_345220.html

Here are the "revolutionaries" championed by h0m0 and Patchd, calling on Obama for help!

[h0m0revolutionary]

lol, video of them doing it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/iranian-protesters-obama_n_345220.html

Here are the "revolutionaries" championed by h0m0 and Patchd, calling on Obama for help!


and here's videos of actual revolutionaries chanting against the entire Islamic Republic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suLvyGf60-I

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0LCbccwiV4

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1327043973342&ref=mf

Are we really just going to swap youtube videos?

http://hopoi.org/?p=942

Or does your denial that the left are playing a part in this movement have any actual substance?

[Intelligitimate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suLvyGf60-I

lol, video starts off with a woman holding up a picture of Mousavi. Nothing appears to identify anyone as a Leftist, unless you think holding up English signs that read "Where is my vote?" somehow makes you a Leftist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZQt_FKikU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZQt_FKikU)

Couple hundred, maybe a thousand people standing in the street. Makes them Leftists how?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0LCbccwiV4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0LCbccwiV4)

Video of people burning shit and chanting something. The uploader's profile, facebook page, and blog don't contain even a hint of Leftist imagery or any Leftist message. Just blathering about freedom.


http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1327043973342&ref=mf

Samething.


http://hopoi.org/?p=942

A few random Leftists got arrested. Are they leading it? Hell no.


Or does your denial that the left are playing a part in this movement have any actual substance?

You've presented no evidence there is even a major Left in Iran to begin with, let alone that they have any part in this.

[h0m0revolutionary]

You know you're right, all these bloody workers and students going on strike in protest, how can they be influenced by anything other than AmeriKKKa?

It's not as if Iran has always had a history of a strong and vibrant (if not brutally repressed) left.

http://hopoi.org/?p=848 <-- Written by CIA no doubt. Clever bastards.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Ah, more CIA-backed shinanagns in Iran, as we all know, there can be no legitatamate workers' movement unless it is BRIGHT RED and CLEARLY LEFTWING.

[ls]

Some of the replies here are just amazing.


ls, the Left is basically non-existent in Iran. I know the son of Tudeh party members exiled in America, and they say the same thing. There is no Iranian Left leading this. It is Mousavi and the West. Period.

The same Tudeh party who supported the initial 'revolution' then got immediately repressed? Also, your dogma about "It is mousavi and the west. Period." is just simplistic and unhelpful.


As to the support for the protests of local communists, that is to be completely expected, and indeed, what they should be doing as communists.:bored: Your line truly, truly makes no sense, not one bit.


A very good parallel would be what we should do as communists if, say, Obama lost the 2008 election in an electoral scandal. Even if the evidence for an Obama victory was weak, if there was massive anger directed at the Republican party over this, enough to get people in the street and smashing cars and beating up cops, of course we almost be forced to support it as revolutionaries. Would that mean we are in control of it and directing it? Literally every single person that is a member of some radical Leftist group in America probably totals about 5,000 people. You think 5,000 people can possibly direct and lead such a movement? Of course not. It would always be in the hands of the Democratic Party and their bourgeois backers. Probably George Soros would play the same role as Rafsanjani does in Iran. But we would have to participate anyway, and turn as many people as we could into radicals, and possibly have a larger effect on the outcome than our numbers would indicate.Right, so what you are saying is that people in other countries should stay out of the affairs of others or something daft? Absolutely amazing, absolutely ridiculous. Also, your estimations about the size American left seem way off, yeah it's small but that's simply ridiculous, I mean seriously. And finally, your faith in the masses in taking power for themselves seems non-existent, I don't think you can place a dogma on it in a case like this, hopefully a vanguard party will emerge. Who knows? The fact is that we should not support repression of the leftists anywhere in the globe, we should not support Ahmadinejad in this nor Mousavi.


The truth of the matter is that the internal contradictions in Iran are of a secondary concern to everyone but Iranian Leftists. The primary contradiction in the world today is between Western (mainly US) imperialism and the third world. In that sense, I hope the forces against US imperialism beat the would-be puppets in Iran. At the same time, I hope the Iranian Left can use this to their advantage somehow.That's fantastic. 10/10 for beating my argument using unbeatable logic and reason. :rolleyes: I agree that we shouldn't give a shit what goes on anywhere else in the world and try to examine it.


How do things change here? I'm sure there are elements of the working class who support the opposition. But there are elements of the working class who support the current government. Or maybe not? Is any of the sides representing the interests of the working class or are they both representing two differing sections of the bourgeoisie, one who seeks a kind of a localized "alliance" of capital and another who thinks that its interests are better served by being closer to american capitalism?
If that's so, then why be so supportive of this?

Because workers of a reactionary and revolutionary nature alike have been and continued to be butchered and pushed back and forth between these bourgeois politicians, there was a massive wave of chanting not long ago condemning both sides, I believe it was "give me back my vote" about Mousavi.


B) The opposition disposes the government. Joy and laughter all across the world. Obama comes in his first visit to Iran, a meaningful dialogue starts between the two sides, Iran drops its nuclear power programme and slowly becomes international community's "poster-boy", the country whose citizens emphatically rejected extremism. And all the people who were previously in support of the struggle for freedom apologize in a defensive tone on how some conservative leaders hijacked the movement and stopped it from bringing forth all its liberating policies. But no one supports the "liberating policies" that are currently part of the movement.


Of course, others might have the opinion that this is a popular movement that aims in a better Iran in which case you are right to support it.Explain?


Iranian news reports and analyses about the country's politics are far more plausible than material published by reactionary Iranian emigres and their western sponsors. Outside reporting on Iran about the country undergoing a "Green revolution" that is going to result in the demise in the mullahs is just wishful thinking.

You are attributing false arguments to people in this thread, no one has argued in support of Mousavi or the "Green revolution", no true revolutionary leftist would argue in favour of one of those 'color' revolutions as they are always bourgeoisie.


If anything, the youths involved in these protests appear to represent a small minority of the population, a portion that is much less mainstream than Basij.

I can't really disagree with this.



Most of the opposition to Iran consists of right-opportunist degenerates like the AWL and to a lesser extent "left-wing" adventurists such as the anarchists, to say nothing of the bourgeois liberals from Daily Kos and fascists from Free Repblic, who all seem to be united in their desire for a counter-revolution in Iran.

A counter-revolution would indicate that a supportable socialist revolution had already occurred in Iran, also "the opposition to Iran"? Please explain?


Even the Trotskyists, who are usually way off on issues like this, have taken a much more responsible position, as WSWS explained:
Those who claim that the current “Green Revolution” in Iran is any different are either deluding themselves or have ulterior motives. The central political task is the fight for an independent political movement for a workers’ and farmers’ government and a socialist Iran as part of a United Socialist States of the Middle East and internationally. That requires the construction of a revolutionary party of the working class armed with a scientific socialist program based on all the strategic experiences of the twentieth century.

You are a joker and actually, wsws is probably THE best Trotskyist news source there is: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/pers-d29.shtml

Dated today:
Eight months later, the Obama administration is preparing to go beyond Bush and Cheney by pressing for a world gasoline export embargo on Iran, which, given Teheran’s dependence on imported gasoline, would deliver a body blow to its economy.

At the same time, it is encouraging the “Green Revolution,” whose leaders—especially Rafsanjani and Khatami—have long been publicly identified with the push for a rapprochement with Washington.

The Iranian working class must take advantage of this crisis to mount its own challenge to the Islamic Republic. The precondition for such a challenge is opposition to, and independence from, all factions of the bourgeoisie.

The Western media, with the virtual unanimous support of middle-class organizations that have lined up behind Obama to make their peace with imperialism, have proclaimed Iran’s bourgeois opposition a “democratizing” movement.

But the basic needs of the Iranian people—freedom from imperialist oppression, democratic rights, jobs, public services and social equality—will not be achieved by aligning with any section of the national bourgeoisie, let alone one, as in the case of the leaders of the “Green Revolution,” that is eager to make a bargain with US imperialism and is pressing for more radical anti-working class socio-economic policies.

The tragedy of contemporary Iran is that the mighty anti-imperialist revolution of 1978-79 was hijacked and perverted by the bourgeoisie through a section of the clergy spouting Shia populism and Iranian nationalism.

What made this possible was the criminal policies pursued by the Tudeh, Iran’s Stalinist party. It subordinated the working class to the forces grouped around Ayatollah Khomeini, claiming that, as Iran is an oppressed country of belated capitalist development, the Iranian revolution could not go beyond the “bourgeois-democratic” stage.

Thirty years on, the lessons of this vital experience must be brought to the Iranian working class and serve to guide a revolutionary challenge to the Islamic Republic based on a socialist and internationalist program.



In just one of example, TUC supports banning BNP fascists from employment in public services. I'm not British and don't know a great deal about British politics, but from what I've read about TUC, it does have many progressive features, even if it is reformist.

While they actually do more damage to workers than they stop? Yeah you don't know much so quit talking about them.


Iran's constitution says,
"councils consisting of the representatives of the workers, peasants, other employees, and managers, will be formed in educational and administrative units, units of service industries, and other units of a like nature, similar councils will be formed, composed of representatives of the members of those units."

Millions of Iranians are members of these unions.


And? Worker's councils have been subverted for hundreds of years now

[Lyev]

I found this blog entry dated yesterday on http://worker-communistpartyofiran.blogspot.com/ I thought it might clear things up in part.

27 December saw one of the most critical days following the June / July protests in Iran. It supposedly was meant to be a religious mourning in Iran; It was to be the day that the most reactionary Islamist groups who use such ceremonies to impose the darkest of the dark on the people of Iran. It was meant to the moment that the government of Ahmadinejad and Khamanie reassert itself and show that he is still in charge following last months protests in November in Universities all over Iran.

The Islamic regime and its security forces had been preparing for this and had arrested nearly all of the known political activists beforehand in many cities.

However this day was turned into an anti-government protest that saw people from all walks of life confronted police, security forces and members of the baseeji militia groups with bear hands and calling for end to the Islamic regime in Iran. The protest took place in many cities such as Arak, Mashhad, babol, Esfahan and many parts of Tehran, including East and South East. The protest and street fights continued until early hours of Monday 28th December and declared an end to the Islamic Ashura in Iran.

Many parts of Tehran were in control of people for hours; it began at around 11.00 am and the first round of confrontation was under the college Bridge that saw people braved tear gas, and bullets, daggers of the Islamists thugs and clashed with the security forces. On many occasions groups of the hated security forces were surrounded handsomely beaten up. Police station in Vali Asr was brunt to the ground and many Baseeji headquarters were attacked. Later in the evening the Islamic News Agency headquarters were surrounded by the protesters and shootings were reported.

Yesterday left more than 15 people dead and hundreds injured; The government agencies have hidden the bodies of possible more people to prevent identification and follow up demonstrations that will ensue. Thousands have been arrested in Tehran and many cities. Many wounded have forcefully been removed from hospitals and taken to Islamic guards own Sadoughi hospital

One thing is clear that the end of this regime is near and the brutal Islamic regime is taking its last gasp and will not be able to drive the anger of 30 years of suppression back. People have waited 30 years for this moment and will not let the Islamic murdered get away this time.