Waves of Struggle Continue in Iran

[redwinter]

Clearly in the imperialist media the previous hype about the upsurges in Iran has taken less and less attention since the summer, but the resistance has continued in the streets. The masses are continuing to fight back against the reactionary Islamic Republic and the revolutionary communist forces in Iran are still preparing minds and organizing forces for the battles to come.

In addition to this news blurb and the link at the bottom, I recommend people check out the article "Iran: What Is Mousavi's Message?" (http://www.revcom.us/a/192/AWTWNS-Iran-en.html) from A World to Win News Service [which includes a statement from the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)] for more analysis.

http://www.revcom.us/a/192/Iran-en.html
Waves of Struggle Continue in Iran

The struggle in Iran has continued to simmer and erupt. Iranian people—especially youth and women—took to the streets in protest at the end of December. And more protests are planned for later this month.


Last June, one candidate in the Iranian elections—the prime minister, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—seemed to steal the election. This was one outrage too many for millions of Iranian people, who had attached their hopes for change to a competing candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi. The people rebelled in the streets, and the section of rulers that had backed Mousavi also began to oppose the government. The government—headed by Ahmadinejad and the overall religious ruler Khamenei—reacted with fierce repression. The government beat and jailed people, and even murdered dozens of protesters, on the streets and in custody. Now the state has begun to hang people involved in the protest movement. Meanwhile, the rulers of the U.S. are attempting to use the crisis to further their own interests; they want to force Iran to conform more to U.S. aims in the region, and even totally change the regime.


Iran is an Islamic Republic—its laws are based on the Qur’an (Koran). One thing this means is that women are severely discriminated against—forced to dress in certain ways, unequal before the law, and constantly harassed by religious police. Mousavi wants to maintain this form of rule, while reforming some aspects of it. Ahmadinejad represents those who want to crack down harder.


As this struggle has developed, the masses have begun to get out of Mousavi’s control. At the end of December, there was sharp fighting in the streets, which went further in its demands and opposition than ever before. Increasingly people are calling into question the Islamic Republic itself. But Mousavi wants to maintain the Islamic Republic—he just wants to reform some aspects of it in order to make it better able to contain people’s anger and to fit itself into the imperialist geostrategic order and economic structure in a way more advantageous for the clique he represents. As a result, Mousavi is now offering to compromise.


Revolutionary communist forces are in the thick of all this, working to bring forward a real alternative and win masses to all-the-way revolution, one that would both overthrow the Islamic Republic and rupture with U.S. imperialism.


See our article online for more analysis of Mousavi’s maneuvering and the overall struggle (“Fearless Upsurge Rocks Iran,” revcom.us/a/189/iran-en.html (http://revcom.us/a/189/iran-en.html)).

[Lenin II]

Why does the RCP tail the imperialists by spending most of their newspaper attacking the foreign policy enemy of the month? Where exactly were all their articles on Iran BEFORE the US started calling for war?

With all the shit thats happening at home, you guys spend your time attacking an anti-imperialist nation on another continent? If the Color Revolution wins, Mousavi will end up in power. Is that what you want to happen?

The Communist Party of Iran (Maoist) says this in a document published by the RCP’s Revolution newspaper:

“It is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally."Source: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/iran/iranspyweed2.txt

Is THIS what you support?


Mousavi wants to maintain this form of rule, while reforming some aspects of it. Ahmadinejad represents those who want to crack down harder.

So Mousavi is better than Ahmadinejad. That is exactly what this sentence means. Western pro-US liberals are better than anti-imperialist fundamentalists.

Interesting you take the Trotskyite line : http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/12/iran-which-side-are-you-on

[Crux]

The Iranian regime is anti-US, not anti-imperialist. It is most definately anti-working class in all it's feautures. It might do you good to learn the difference some day.

Also, being the president of Iran does not carry as much power as you might think. Ultimately power resides with the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader Khamenei.
And...Mousavi is a liberal? What a joke.

I certainly will not attempt to speak for the RCP, but my own group has supported the worker's resistance in Iran for a very, very long time. That's what's called internationalism.

[Lenin II]

The Iranian regime is anti-US, not anti-imperialist.The US is the leading imperialist power right now. As well, Iran has stood up the US and has funded national liberation movements such as in Palestine.


It is most definately anti-working class in all it's feautures.Do you think these protests will usher in a government more friendly to the working class, or will they usher in Mousavi? Will they build socialism or let Zionist tanks run over the Iranian working class?

The protests are being lead by pro-US reactionaries, much like the Hungarian Counterrevolution. The US has never let up trying to take back Iran for its sphere of influence since the Iranian Revolution which ousted their friend the Shah.


And...Mousavi is a liberal? What a joke.

Mousavi is a proponent of "opening up" to the West, and that means he supports the reconciliation of the Iranian state with the Western-style "liberals" (meaning liberal capitalists) in the US.


I certainly will not attempt to speak for the RCP, but my own group has supported the worker's resistance in Iran for a very, very long time. That's what's called internationalism.

If you have supported "worker's" resistance then you should have no problem being against these protests led by petty-bourgeois and well-to-do students.

Students have always been against any and all established orders, particularly ones from a bourgeois background. This is shown in student protests not just in Iran, but in the USSR, in China, in socialist Albania, in the US and everywhere else. It does not qualitatively matter what type of government, progressive or reactionary, exists in any given state - this strata of society will rebel against it and call for its destruction. This is what all of the Marxist "heads" have said about the petty-bourgeoisie: they are vacillitating.

[Crux]

The US is the leading imperialist power right now. As well, Iran has stood up the US and has funded national liberation movements such as in Palestine.



Do you think these protests will usher in a government more friendly to the working class, or will they usher in Mousavi? Will they build socialism or let Zionist tanks run over the Iranian working class?

The protests are being lead by pro-US reactionaries, much like the Hungarian Counterrevolution. The US has never let up trying to take back Iran for its sphere of influence since the Iranian Revolution which ousted their friend the Shah.
I don't think Mousavi will benefit from the crushing of the iranian regime of the iranian masses. In fact, as you might be aware he represents one wing of the regime, the so called "reformists".

The Iranian regime has also tended to their own imperial interests in Iraq, in co-operation with the US regime.

I think that the under revolutionary leadership; the monarchists and other pro-us groups trying to benefit from the movement, will be swept aside by the working class. They offer no alternatives and serves the bourguise just as much as the Islamic regime.

The ousting of the shah was a task completed by the iranian workingclass not the islamists, the islamists managed to crusch the revolution in blood when Khomenei came back from his exile in Paris to assume power.

[Crux]

You might be unaware, since I doubt neither your own pro-regime sources nor the bourguise media will give the worker's resistance much space. For both sides it is much more comfortable trying to paint the movement as "students" protests, incidentally just as they did with the massive protest movement in china around 1989.

The working-class in Iran are under attack by the regime, routinely murdering and imprisoning worker activists. Several strike movements have shaken the iranian state, including a 24-hour general strike against the regime last summer. the underground radicla unions are doing a heroic work in their struggle for worker's rights in Iran, much more so than western supposed "marxists" acting as apoligists for the regime.

[Valeofruin]

You might be unaware, since I doubt neither your own pro-regime sources nor the bourguise media will give the worker's resistance much space. For both sides it is much more comfortable trying to paint the movement as "students" protests, incidentally just as they did with the massive protest movement in china around 1989.

The working-class in Iran are under attack by the regime, routinely murdering and imprisoning worker activists. Several strike movements have shaken the iranian state, including a 24-hour general strike against the regime last summer. the underground radicla unions are doing a heroic work in their struggle for worker's rights in Iran, much more so than western supposed "marxists" acting as apoligists for the regime.

Can you prove that this uprising is a working class uprising?

Like do you have any statistics that show the bulk of the protesters aren't privileged and unemployed students, petty bourgeois, intelligentsia and labor aristocrats (the union elites)?

Can you actually prove that the 'working class' are being crushed? Who are these worker activists that are being imprisoned? What radical unions? How many workers participated in the general strike, if any at all? what was the reason for it?

I'm calling you out on this one, and saying this business about this being a working class uprising is nonsense. I think what happened here is imperialist propaganda, islamophobia, revsionism and liberalism all came together on the Iran issue. People heard a bunch of nostalgic stuff about the people coming together with love and friendship to rise against injustice and topple a corrupt regime nonviolently, the same liberal, petty bourgeois, idealist ideas about revolution they themselves have in common with the Iranian students, and decided to support them. I have seen NO evidence that the notion that this is truly a workers uprising is true, and it appears to me that the word working class is used for propaganda purposes. It's rhetoric not reality.

[Crux]

Can you prove that this uprising is a working class uprising?

Like do you have any statistics that show the bulk of the protesters aren't privileged and unemployed students, petty bourgeois, intelligentsia and labor aristocrats (the union elites)?

Can you actually prove that the 'working class' are being crushed? Who are these worker activists that are being imprisoned? What radical unions? How many workers participated in the general strike, if any at all? what was the reason for it?
What union elites? The only official unions are the "islamic worker's councils" which main function is to monitor and supress worker's. The unions that do exist are all underground.

The general strike and the strikes in the autoindiustry are some examples. As is the long going strike at the sugar refinery factory. I could probably find you some sources in farsi if you are interested.

However, what is true is that the workingclass have yet to take a deicive lead in the movement, being mostly spontaneus in nature. This calls for the need of forming a stronger organized worker's movement in Iran, if we are to be able to topple the dictatorship. Mousavi, being a representative of the regime, will make himself irrelevant, but in order to not repeat the mistakes of 1979 and let the power slip to the reactionaries the working class must be organized enough to seize power themselfes.

[Valeofruin]

What union elites? The only official unions are the "islamic worker's councils" which main function is to monitor and supress worker's. The unions that do exist are all underground.

The general strike and the strikes in the autoindiustry are some examples. As is the long going strike at the sugar refinery factory. I could probably find you some sources in farsi if you are interested.

However, what is true is that the workingclass have yet to take a deicive lead in the movement, being mostly spontaneus in nature. This calls for the need of forming a stronger organized worker's movement in Iran, if we are to be able to topple the dictatorship. Mousavi, being a representative of the regime, will make himself irrelevant, but in order to not repeat the mistakes of 1979 and let the power slip to the reactionaries the working class must be organized enough to seize power themselfes.

If the unions are so underground how do you know they exist? Are you an Iranian freedom fighter?

I asked you to show me some facts on the general strike, you answered by questions by listing other, far smaller strikes. I assume you read Farsi?

Ok, so the workers don't lead the movement, that means it's lead by the bourgeois right? Now we're getting somewhere... so in reality you don't support the 'workers uprising' in Iran, but the 'bourgeois' one.

Now that we've established this, may I ask WHY you support them? Are they progressive? Is the Islamic regime feudal or bourgeois? Is there still a shah, is there a lack of elections and bourgeois forces working behind the scenes? Is the bourgeois movement anti imperialist? More or less so then the group they seek to overthrow?

You are well aware I'm sure Mousavi has a history of playing ball with the regime, and taking part in repressions. How do you know you are not just swapping out 1 bourgeois regime for another? Most importantly of all.. if no workers organization exists, why are you supporting the students and petty bourgeois elements against the regime and not instead calling for the continuation of an anti imperialist Iran, until such a time as a militant working class organization can be formed, without selling out anti imperialist forces abroad?

[Crux]

If the unions are so underground how do you know they exist? Are you an Iranian freedom fighter?

I asked you to show me some facts on the general strike, you answered by questions by listing other, far smaller strikes. I assume you read Farsi?

Ok, so the workers don't lead the movement, that means it's lead by the bourgeois right? Now we're getting somewhere... so in reality you don't support the 'workers uprising' in Iran, but the 'bourgeois' one.

Now that we've established this, may I ask WHY you support them? Are they progressive? Is the Islamic regime feudal or bourgeois? Is there still a shah, is there a lack of elections and bourgeois forces working behind the scenes? Is the bourgeois movement anti imperialist? More or less so then the group they seek to overthrow?

You are well aware I'm sure Mousavi has a history of playing ball with the regime, and taking part in repressions. How do you know you are not just swapping out 1 bourgeois regime for another? Most importantly of all.. if no workers organization exists, why are you supporting the students and petty bourgeois elements against the regime and not instead calling for the continuation of an anti imperialist Iran, until such a time as a militant working class organization can be formed, without selling out anti imperialist forces abroad?
I have met exiled activists, and information is also routinely leaked out of Iran. Some of the links are listed in the other Iran threads, such as the blog Revolutionary Road maintained by supporters of Worker Communist party Iran- Hekmhatists. The impression I have got is that the movement has gone much further than being about the presedential election, in targetting the regime itself it necessarily puts Mousavi in a though spot if he is going to try and paint himself as an "opposition". Most of the exiles that I have talked to about this seem very aware of what Mousavi really is.

No, it does not. You are clearly unable to have an honest debate. A quick glance at the regime would show that it is thouroughly bourguise in it's politics. Privatizations and attacks on worker's have been the rule of the day. Unemployment figures are around 20%.

I am sorry for the break of Godwin's law, but the Third Reich also had elements of "anti-imperialism" in their foreign politics, in regards to India for example. The point here is that such "anti-imperialism" does not define the character of the regime.

[Crux]

So I should advice the worker's activists in iran being imprisoned and murdered to "wait"? How the hell do you think a worker's movement gains strength? Your apologism for the regime in reference to the current weakness of the worker's movement is sickening. So basically your line is to defend bourguise regimes until the worker's movement is "strong enough"?

[Valeofruin]

I have met exiled activists, and information is also routinely leaked out of Iran. Some of the links are listed in the other Iran threads, such as the blog Revolutionary Road maintained by supporters of Worker Communist party Iran- Hekmhatists. The impression I have got is that the movement has gone much further than being about the presedential election, in targetting the regime itself it necessarily puts Mousavi in a though spot if he is going to try and paint himself as an "opposition". Most of the exiles that I have talked to about this seem very aware of what Mousavi really is.

No, it does not. You are clearly unable to have an honest debate. A quick glance at the regime would show that it is thouroughly bourguise in it's politics. Privatizations and attacks on worker's have been the rule of the day. Unemployment figures are around 20%.

I am sorry for the break of Godwin's law, but the Third Reich also had elements of "anti-imperialism" in their foreign politics, in regards to India for example. The point here is that such "anti-imperialism" does not define the character of the regime.

What Iranian Exiles, what country are these 'supporters' in, who or where are their sources? If the links are in other threads, surely it cant be too hard to present them? You're not answering my questions comrade, you are dancing around them.

What is this feeling you get about the protests no longer being an election? Are you a psychic, or by 'feelings' do you actually mean the opinions of Iranian communists in exile taking opportunist stances to gain more support in and out of Iran?

Where did you get these unemployment figures? What exiles? How is my debate dishonest?

Last I checked I wasn't the one giving dishonest or incomplete answers to completely fair and reasonable questions.

If the regime is bourgeois, and the movement trying to topple it is bourgeois, why are you supporting one bourgeois movement over the other? What does one bring to the table that the other does not? What in your view 'defines' each side of the debate and why are you supporting one over the other? Or is that an 'unfair' question to ask?

[Crux]

What Iranian Exiles, what country are these 'supporters' in, who or where are their sources? If the links are in other threads, surely it cant be too hard to present them? You're not answering my questions comrade, you are dancing around them.

What is this feeling you get about the protests no longer being an election? Are you a psychic, or by 'feelings' do you actually mean the opinions of Iranian communists in exile taking opportunist stances to gain more support in and out of Iran?

Where did you get these unemployment figures? What exiles? How is my debate dishonest?

Last I checked I wasn't the one giving dishonest or incomplete answers to completely fair and reasonable questions.

If the regime is bourgeois, and the movement trying to topple it is bourgeois, why are you supporting one bourgeois movement over the other? What does one bring to the table that the other does not? What in your view 'defines' each side of the debate and why are you supporting one over the other? Or is that an 'unfair' question to ask?
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/10/1501.html would be the latest interview translated into english.

http://www.komalah.org/english/index.htm the Webpage of Komalah, a communist guerilla in the Kurdish parts of Iran, which has many emembers currently in exile.

http://www.hekmatist.com/english-index.htm The worker-communist part hekmhatists. They are currently on Interpols terror list, after pressure from Iran who are also a member of Interpol.

There's also many articles on the gothenburg branch page that have yet to be translated into english. i don't know how good google translate is with swedish but you could check it out:

http://rsgoteborg.wordpress.com

It is true that some organisation on the left have opportunistically lined up behind mousavi, just as there are left organizations (strangely none from iran though) that oppurtunistically support Ahmadinejad and the other wing of the regime. The Tudeh party, the traditional pro-moscow party, would be an example of the former. having learned nothing from their history, when the opportunistically capitaulated to Khomeini, they now capitulate to Mousavi.

But yes, I would go so far as to say that all Iranians I have spoken to have at the very least been very critical of Mousavi, but usually they have been very clear about the movement being against the regime as a whole. This is also reflected in iran where "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Khamenei!" are becoming more and more common. A friend who was in Iran, many months before the elections, also said that there is a pretty strong anti-regime mood even among the rural communities, based on the people he had spoken to.

Those are the official figures.

It is dishonest to claim I am supporting a "bourgeoise" movement, I dispute that claim. the working class certainly are taking part in the protests, but the movement itself is at a crossroads. I am sure you, as a marxist, would know that there is no such thing as a "pure" protest movement.

then, let me ask you, why would you support the regime? And on what grounds, if you are indeed doing that, would you dispute the pretty obvious classcharacter of the regime?

[RadioRaheem84]

This maybe a bit off the subject but I remember trying to set up a pro-Democratic rally in favor of the Students in Iran and contacting an organization called Daneshjoo. I wanted them to provide a speaker with enough information on the situation in Iran but I later found out that the organization was a Pro-Monarchy front. Apparently, a lot of the organizations in exile in the US and Europe are pro-Monarchy fronts that use the students democratic movement to bash the Iranian government in favor of establishing the Shah's son to the throne.

[Red Commissar]

Yeah. I noticed that as well. A lot of the Iranian exiles living in the United States have blurred nostalgic recollections of Iran before the Revolution, because they were the ones who benefited from the economic policies of the time, and thus were targeted during and after the revolution. They typically have the largest amount of money too from their favorable financial situation and thus are able to bank roll interest groups. I mean the protests this past election were the largest, but they were not certainly the first. There was a wave of uprisings across Kurdish Iran that was brutally put down, but little attention was paid to it in international media because it wasn't working to the Iranian's favors.

Here is an instance from that revolt, a body of a student that was dragged around Mahabad to set an example.

http://www.iran.org/humanrights/torture-victim.htm

I remember reading somewhere that Komalah, which Maya linked too, occupied a few of the predominately Kurdish villages and made a sort of general strike across them, and slowly the people took over those industries for themselves until the Iranian military was moved to re-secure the area.

There's also the People's Mujaheddin that are more common in Europe, but are anti-monarchist. They were heavily involved in the original revolution but forced out during the internal struggle that took place immediately after wards. They however have little support from within Iran because they worked with the Ba'ath in Iraq during Iran-Iraq War, and didn't sever ties when Iraq started using violent tactics against civilians in that conflict.

I know in Canada and Europe, it is possible to find some of the more left-wing Iranian exiles, but they are absent as a powerful force in the US for political reasons.

However the Mousavi supporters are still just as suspicious towards western and exile interests. That is partly one of the reasons why the current protests haven't been heavily supported by foreign agents. While they are not in support of the current regime, they do not want to go back to the capitalist free-for-all that was embodied during the Shah's time. In some ways they are advocating for a reform of the government but not wholly embracing Western ideals. I think at the rate things are going though, either the current government is going to have to budge on their demands or risk a regime change.

What I'm hoping for the Mousavi group to do is to be able to form a common front with other like-minded groups in the country currently. It seems their support is limited to urban populations, the youth, and intellectuals currently, but the people elsewhere are beginning to wake up to what the current regime stands for.

[Saorsa]

The Communist Party of Iran (Maoist) says this in a document published by the RCP’s Revolution newspaper:

Quote:
“It is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally."

Source: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/arc...anspyweed2.txt

Is THIS what you support?


Erm, yes. The IRI regime is the one actually shooting workers and students in the streets of Tehran, suppressing the democratic rights of the masses, suppressing unions and worker self-organisation, and carrying out cutbacks and privatisations when and where it sees fit. There is no direct way revolutionaries in Iran can challenge US imperialism concretely (I suppose they could organise bombings etc of US troops in the Middle East or whatever... I think it'd be a silly tactic though), and there are no US troops in Iran and not much of a US presence economically in Iran for them to take on.

Therefore, having concretely analysed the situation, they can see that the primary oppressor of the people is the theocratic regime, and that it is also the only force they can concretely challenge.

Calling on workers and peasants to suspend class struggle and also more general political struggle in order to defend a brutal, theocratic regime that happens to not get along with US imperialism is a 100% counter-revolutionary line. I wonder why there's no Hoxhaist party worth mentioning in Iran :lol:

[Crux]

Yeah. I noticed that as well. A lot of the Iranian exiles living in the United States have blurred nostalgic recollections of Iran before the Revolution, because they were the ones who benefited from the economic policies of the time, and thus were targeted during and after the revolution. They typically have the largest amount of money too from their favorable financial situation and thus are able to bank roll interest groups. I mean the protests this past election were the largest, but they were not certainly the first. There was a wave of uprisings across Kurdish Iran that was brutally put down, but little attention was paid to it in international media because it wasn't working to the Iranian's favors.

Here is an instance from that revolt, a body of a student that was dragged around Mahabad to set an example.

http://www.iran.org/humanrights/torture-victim.htm

I remember reading somewhere that Komalah, which Maya linked too, occupied a few of the predominately Kurdish villages and made a sort of general strike across them, and slowly the people took over those industries for themselves until the Iranian military was moved to re-secure the area.

There's also the People's Mujaheddin that are more common in Europe, but are anti-monarchist. They were heavily involved in the original revolution but forced out during the internal struggle that took place immediately after wards. They however have little support from within Iran because they worked with the Ba'ath in Iraq during Iran-Iraq War, and didn't sever ties when Iraq started using violent tactics against civilians in that conflict.

I know in Canada and Europe, it is possible to find some of the more left-wing Iranian exiles, but they are absent as a powerful force in the US for political reasons.

However the Mousavi supporters are still just as suspicious towards western and exile interests. That is partly one of the reasons why the current protests haven't been heavily supported by foreign agents. While they are not in support of the current regime, they do not want to go back to the capitalist free-for-all that was embodied during the Shah's time. In some ways they are advocating for a reform of the government but not wholly embracing Western ideals. I think at the rate things are going though, either the current government is going to have to budge on their demands or risk a regime change.

What I'm hoping for the Mousavi group to do is to be able to form a common front with other like-minded groups in the country currently. It seems their support is limited to urban populations, the youth, and intellectuals currently, but the people elsewhere are beginning to wake up to what the current regime stands for.
The People's Mujaheedin today are quite different from the organization they were in the 70's. I wouldn't work with them not only for their strange amalgation of islamism and liberalism (and in the past occasional marxist rhetoric, actually there was a marxist splinter group) but for their collusion with the Baathist regime in Iraq, as you mentioned. They seem very confused politically.

Yes, in fact most of the leadership of the Hekmhatists are curently in exile here in sweden. After all what self-respecting leftwinger would move to the US? ;P

As, I said, I think that a much stronger anti-regime sentiement has come forward already than the so called reformism of Mousavi. The question now is to form strong enough socialist and worker's organizations in Iran to topple the regime.

Comrade Alastair: Actually from what I remember from the "Organizations that support the movement in Iran" the Iranian Hoxhaist group too support the resistance to the regime. I have yet to find any Iranian left organization siding with the regime.

[Valeofruin]

The People's Mujaheedin today are quite different from the organization they were in the 70's. I wouldn't work with them not only for their strange amalgation of islamism and liberalism (and in the past occasional marxist rhetoric, actually there was a marxist splinter group) but for their collusion with the Baathist regime in Iraq, as you mentioned. They seem very confused politically.

Yes, in fact most of the leadership of the Hekmhatists are curently in exile here in sweden. After all what self-respecting leftwinger would move to the US? ;P

As, I said, I think that a much stronger anti-regime sentiement has come forward already than the so called reformism of Mousavi. The question now is to form strong enough socialist and worker's organizations in Iran to topple the regime.

Comrade Alastair: Actually from what I remember from the "Organizations that support the movement in Iran" the Iranian Hoxhaist group too support the resistance to the regime. I have yet to find any Iranian left organization siding with the regime.


The Iranian Hoxhaists.. actually, I believe you mean Toufan.. is neutral. They have acted a bit opportunistically, initially supporting the protests, but have been getting better as of late.

[Crux]

"neutral"? Do explain. "neutral" towards Mousavi, the regime or the working class? Or maybe all of them?

[Nathanromml]

Oppressed people of imperialistic Iran can be very helpful in starting New Revolution.

[RadioRaheem84]

I get mixed feelings about the opposition movements in Iran. I keep reading about the liberal attitudes of a lot of young people in Iran and how they're desperate to rid themselves of the regime. While this is good they seem very pro-Western and USA friendly. It seems more like the uprisings are liberal in nature and scope. Monarchists in exile have been using the youth to fund opposition movements in the EU and USA. Every movement that's gotten some sort of press or backing from a US politician is usually a monarchist front.

What are the actual socialist opposition movements to the Iranian regime?

[Crux]

keep in mind that this is the image presented by the western media. they have a vested interest in presenting the movement as "liberal", just as they did with the Tianmen protesters. just as they ignored the fact that the protests were mostly working class, in fact an independent union was formed, and majority of murdered were workers not students, and the protests were foremostly aimed at the market-liberalization carried through by Deng (and succesfully continued as you might have seen). For the same reason no west media has mentioned the 24-hour general strike last august in Iran. And that US politician would back monarchist fronts is hardly a suprise.

Apart from the other groups I linked, there is currently a group calling themselfes the Worker Council co-ordinating committee or something similiar. We met with one of their recently exiled members, and he said they had been gaining support recently and are attempting to unite the underground worker's resistance into a unified front. Someone should translate that article, but I don't have the time tonight.

Edit: http://translate.google.se/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Frsgoteborg.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F0 1%2F19%2Farbetaraktivist-fran-iran-om-arbetarrorelsens-kamp%2F&sl=sv&tl=en

there are som grammatical errors like in the sentence where it says "money never came up" it means, they were unable to recieve the money, but hopefully you'll get the gist of the article at least.

[RadioRaheem84]

I figured that he Western Press would make sure that the protests seem liberal and a repeat of Tienanmen Square would happen. The US also blocks out the opposition in Iraq to US occupation by the Trade Unions in Iraq as well as the Iraqi Communist Party.

[Crux]

The current Iraqi regime is easily one of the most anti-union regimes in the world. But that's another debate. Being wary of how the western media (or any media really) portrays any movement, even movements it supposedly supports, is always a good idea.

[Uppercut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrp02yd4zjc

This is a very touching video I found some time ago.

[Crux]

Vale of ruin, I am still curious as to see your response to this:
then, let me ask you, why would you support the regime? And on what grounds, if you are indeed doing that, would you dispute the pretty obvious classcharacter of the regime?

[Crux]

http://www.socialistworld.net/m/Iran_leaflet_201002.pdf