26 questions and answers about Iran.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought that this (http://www.alternet.org/story/146673/super_surprising_facts_about_%27our_enemy%27_iran_ remind_us_that_we_don%27t_know_squat) was interesting.

And possibly useful, if you're like me and you hear a lot of misinformation concerning Iran.

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is some great information! Thanks for this, Comrade. Someone should sticky this.

[zubovskyblvd]

Seconded, there was some very interesting information in there.- I was particularly surprised to read that there are quite so many Jewish people living there considering the constant accusations of Iranian anti-semitism.

[Devrim]

Seconded, there was some very interesting information in there.- I was particularly surprised to read that there are quite so many Jewish people living there considering the constant accusations of Iranian anti-semitism.

Although some people in the West may have some very strange ideas about Iran, I wouldn't take everything on this as gospel:


6. What is the Jewish population of Iran ?
6. 25,000. It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. After the 1979 Islamic revolution, thousands of Jews left for Israel, Western Europe or the U.S., fearing persecution. But Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's first post-revolutionary supreme leader, issued a fatwa, upon his return from exile in Paris, decreeing that the Jews and other religious minorities were to be protected, thus reducing the outflow of Iran's Jews to a trickle.

Although there may be 25,000 Jews in Iran, that would not make it 'by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country' as neighbouring Turkey has 26,000.

Devrim

[danyboy27]

For some reason, i used to roam around a forum called iraniandefence.net, and back in the day there was quite a large number of anti-semitic avatar and sig, some of them depicting hitler has some kind of hero.

one of those avatar who strike me the most was a big glass of orange juice and right under it where the word: Orange Jews, made of real concentration camp.

A lot of people seemed to believe the holocaust never happened has well.

then again, its only the internet, but it leave me a bad taste.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Although there may be 25,000 Jews in Iran, that would not make it 'by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country' as neighbouring Turkey has 26,000.

Define "Muslim country".

[Devrim]

Define "Muslim country".

One where 99.9% of the population is Muslim maybe?

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was under the impression that Turkey was (officially) a secular state.

[Devrim]

I was under the impression that Turkey was (officially) a secular state.

Turkey is a 'secular state', but that doesn't mean that it is not a 'Muslim country'. 99.9% of the population are officially Muslims, and it is a founder member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

It is not an 'Islamic State' although it has had an Islamic part in government for the last seven years though. The link didn't talk about 'Islamic states' though. It talked about 'Muslim countries' and on this instance is obviously wrong.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, you'd know better than I would.

I think the point about Iran having a significant Jewish population is important to mention, though, and I don't find the finer points of whether Turkey has 1,000 more Jews or not to be terribly concerning.

[Devrim]

I think the point about Iran having a significant Jewish population is important to mention, though, and I don't find the finer points of whether Turkey has 1,000 more Jews or not to be terribly concerning.

Ny point is that the article claims to give us "Super Surprising Facts", and then they turn out to be wrong.

Others are wrong (though more debatablely so) too:


2. Has Iran launched an aggressive war of conquest against another country since 1900?

2. No.
-According to Juan Cole, the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Iran has not launched such a war for at least 150 years. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p.199.)


Well they were small events, but Iran did invade Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs in 1971.

Of course one could also count the war in Kurdistan in 1979 when Khomeini declared jihad against the Kurds, which led to thousands of deaths, but that isn't another country.

I don't know that much about Iran, but from just a brief glance, it is very clear that these "Super Facts' aren't that factual.

Devrim

[Antifa94]

Iran still has a revisionist viewpoint on the Holocaust, ahmadinejad frequently proclaims his denial of it. This is entirely unacceptable. Then again, I would NOT call him anti-semitic. I as a jew also know about the Iranian Jewish community,and they are treated quite well.

Then again, Iran is oppressive. We must support the Green Movement and labour movements there.

[Red Commissar]

I think generally the point is about how Western media tends to portray Iran, while ignoring the actions of the far worse Saudi Arabia which is able to deflect criticism and play down human rights infringements because of their alignment with western countries.

That being said Iran isn't much cleaner than their western opponents either- their state is in the end anti-socialist. However we should be careful not to jump on media attempts to build support for imperialist action. That's the general point of this piece- draw a parallel to what Saudi Arabia does and it's apparent the West is not going after Iran for solely human rights or democracy issues as they claim.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well they were small events, but Iran did invade Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs in 1971.

Of course one could also count the war in Kurdistan in 1979 when Khomeini declared jihad against the Kurds, which led to thousands of deaths, but that isn't another country.

Devrim

Neither of those really qualify as an invasion of a sovereign nation-state, though. Those islands were disputed territory between the UAE and Iran.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the Iranian regime; I think that it's horrible. But you have to understand that there's a fairly large misinformation campaign about Iran in the United States, with talk about how the mullahs want to obliterate Israel and the U.S. with nuclear weapons to bring about the return of prophet and other such nonsense.


I don't know that much about Iran, but from just a brief glance, it is very clear that these "Super Facts' aren't that factual.

:lol: @ "Super Facts".

[Devrim]

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the Iranian regime; I think that it's horrible. But you have to understand that there's a fairly large misinformation campaign about Iran in the United States, with talk about how the mullahs want to obliterate Israel and the U.S. with nuclear weapons to bring about the return of prophet and other such nonsense.

I don't think that the point for socialists is to paint the Iranian regime white though, and if one wants to use facts they should be facts. The bit about 'by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country' was obviouslt added because a US audience living in a country which has millions of Jews would think that 25,000 (which incidentally is a very high estimate anyway) isn't very many. When 'facts' aren't true though they tend to come back to haunt you.

Devrim

[Barry Lyndon]

The thing that really gets me is the way that Western liberals, progressives, and even some so called socialists feted Mousavi, the leader of the 'Green Movement', as this great hero. When in fact, Mousavi served as prime minister under the Ayatollah Khomeini and was directly responsible for the prison massacres of thousands of Iranian communists and trade unionists. His main point of contention with Ahmedinejad was that he wanted to privatize many of Iran's public sector programs, which Ahmedinejad opposed. I mean, their both awful, but Mousavi might have been even worse had he won.

[mo7amEd]

I don't know that much about Iran, but from just a brief glance, it is very clear that these "Super Facts' aren't that factual.

Devrim

I didn't read everything, but after 2-3 pages I got the same impression. It feels like one-sided simple propaganda.

[Robocommie]

The thing that really gets me is the way that Western liberals, progressives, and even some so called socialists feted Mousavi, the leader of the 'Green Movement', as this great hero. When in fact, Mousavi served as prime minister under the Ayatollah Khomeini and was directly responsible for the prison massacres of thousands of Iranian communists and trade unionists. His main point of contention with Ahmedinejad was that he wanted to privatize many of Iran's public sector programs, which Ahmedinejad opposed. I mean, their both awful, but Mousavi might have been even worse had he won.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. I knew Mousavi was Khomeini's guy, but I had always figured that must have meant he was more in line with the revolution - I had completely forgotten that it would have meant he was complicit in the crackdown on leftists.

I guess that clarifies the protest situation in Iran - though it's concerning because from what I had read, the elections did look rigged in Ahmadinejad's favor. Can you shed any light on the truth of that?

[chegitz guevara]

The thing that really gets me is the way that Western liberals, progressives, and even some so called socialists feted Mousavi, the leader of the 'Green Movement', as this great hero.

I am not aware of any socialists who fêted Mousavi. Everything I read exposed him for the fraud he was as a supporter of democracy. Not withstanding, the vast majority of socialists supported the people in their efforts to overthrow the theocracy and establish a bourgeois democracy.

[Barry Lyndon]

I am not aware of any socialists who fêted Mousavi. Everything I read exposed him for the fraud he was as a supporter of democracy. Not withstanding, the vast majority of socialists supported the people in their efforts to overthrow the theocracy and establish a bourgeois democracy.

Yeah, I said 'some' socialists. I guess that was because at that time I was still around the Platypus crowd.

But who are 'the people'? It's not some amorphous entity. The 'people' who were supporting Mousavi were upper-and middle-class. That's why they were using Twitter and were so media-friendly with the West. Ahmedinejad's supporters tended to be working-class so they supported the defense of the public sector programs but were also not likely to be courting approval from the American media.
To be honest, I didn't take a side in this, both sides were bad in my view. It's not like I have any influence on it anyway.
To answer Robocommie- I never actually saw any evidence that the election was rigged. It was repeatedly asserted, but that's not evidence. It doesn't matter to me either way.

[chegitz guevara]

Even if some sectors of the working class upheld the theocracy, that is no excuse for Western socialists to support it. Even if most of the people opposing the theocracy were middle class, and I don't believe it, that is no reason to oppose them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wait, hold the phone. Since when are we apologists for right wing reactionary governments like that of Khomeini's Iran? I mean I know that the US likes to spin the nation as some sort of evil Hiterlite Islamo fascist paradise when it's not, but that doesn't mean we cannot support counter revolution. As long as that counter revolution isn't this US-backed pseudo-Revolution called the "green revolution" which is really orchestrated by exiled Monarchists.

How can we socialist support real democratic reform in Iran without indirectly supporting the "green revolution" or the right wing clerics? Are there any real socialist non-Monarchist, Non-Liberal US backed groups in Iran?

[Devrim]

How can we socialist support real democratic reform in Iran without indirectly supporting the "green revolution" or the right wing clerics? Are there any real socialist non-Monarchist, Non-Liberal US backed groups in Iran?

I don't think that it is a question of finding a group to 'support' like a foreign football team. It is a concept that many on the left use, but to me is completely meaningless.

Socialists support the working class. What does it mean to say I support this or that group?

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think that it is a question of finding a group to 'support' like a foreign football team. It is a concept that many on the left use, but to me is completely meaningless.

Socialists support the working class. What does it mean to say I support this or that group?

Devrim

What I meant is, is there a political party or organization that addresses worker concerns about total reform and workers struggle in Iran? One that adequately represents the interests of the working class and is free from US backed cronyism and Monarchism?

Football team? Devim, thou doth protest too much.

[cska]

Wait, hold the phone. Since when are we apologists for right wing reactionary governments like that of Khomeini's Iran? I mean I know that the US likes to spin the nation as some sort of evil Hiterlite Islamo fascist paradise when it's not, but that doesn't mean we cannot support counter revolution. As long as that counter revolution isn't this US-backed pseudo-Revolution called the "green revolution" which is really orchestrated by exiled Monarchists.

How can we socialist support real democratic reform in Iran without indirectly supporting the "green revolution" or the right wing clerics? Are there any real socialist non-Monarchist, Non-Liberal US backed groups in Iran?

We must always oppose lies created by Western imperialists, even if the targets of their imperialism aren't socialist.

[Robocommie]

Wait, hold the phone. Since when are we apologists for right wing reactionary governments like that of Khomeini's Iran?

The Iranian government is not strictly right-wing. You should look into Ali Sharia'ti, he was an Iranian writer well versed in Frantz Fanon and Marx, and considered the philosophical driving force behind the Iranian Revolution. He advocated a sort of Shi'ite liberation theology which held emphasis on social justice and class struggle, something he called "Red Shi'ism."

He wrote a fascinating piece on Cain and Abel, where he describes them of being representative of man's position in primitive communism, hunting and gathering (Abel, the shepherd) and how that epoch was overturned by man's development of agriculture which brought about private property and the exploitation of man by man, and the formation of class struggle symbolized by Cain's killing of Abel.

Beyond that, frankly, if you look at Iran's history, particularly in the 20th century, imperialism has been a constant threat and while Iran is not an ideal government, what it does represent is a chance for Iran to develop a progressive political culture and class consciousness internally, without interruptions from imperial powers, if they are allowed to do so. Whenever people get an actual picture of what Iranians are really like, and even to an extent what the Iranian government is really like, they tend to be surprised they're not the frothing zealots that we've had in mind ever since the Iran hostage crisis.

[Palingenisis]

He wrote a fascinating piece on Cain and Abel, where he describes them of being representative of man's position in primitive communism, hunting and gathering (Abel, the shepherd) and how that epoch was overturned by man's development of agriculture which brought about private property and the exploitation of man by man, and the formation of class struggle symbolized by Cain's killing of Abel.

Interestingly enough a lot of the early Christian "Church Fathers" held that communism was the natural order and that private property, etc came into the world because of sin.

[Robocommie]

Interestingly enough a lot of the early Christian "Church Fathers" held that communism was the natural order and that private property, etc came into the world because of sin.

Yeah, I'm fascinated by the arguments made by many medieval theologians that usury is sinful precisely because it's profiting off of other's labor without actually doing any work yourself - which is a charge made by socialists quite often against banks.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah, I'm fascinated by the arguments made by many medieval theologians that usury is sinful precisely because it's profiting off of other's labor without actually doing any work yourself - which is a charge made by socialists quite often against banks.

All mainstreams Religions as opposed to new age businesses stress humanity's social side and social duty which leads me to believe that religion isnt inherently reactionary.

[Antifa94]

Do we forget the imprisonment and execution of thousands and hundreds(respectively)of marxists in Iran?
Robocommie, Iran is repressive and theocratic. It isn't a bastion of class consciousness either.

Also, I really don't view religions as reactionary( in their original form) as they are staunchly anti-capitalist. I also like monasticism and scholasticism.

[Robocommie]

Do we forget the imprisonment and execution of thousands and hundreds(respectively)of marxists in Iran?
Robocommie, Iran is repressive and theocratic. It isn't a bastion of class consciousness either.

I think the revolution was certainly co-opted by the Ayatollah and he did indeed crushed the secular and Marxist elements. I'm not trying to say that Iran's government is truly enlightened or a bastion of leftist idealism, but I think it is at least an anti-imperialist government and as I said, it represents a chance for Iran to develop itself into a more progressive society from within, gradually. If western imperialism gets in to Iran in the way it did in previous decades, it could seriously set back Iran's social development to prevent that from occuring.

There is a trend in political Shi'a Islam, largely owing to Ali Shari'ati I think, to meld elements of Islamism and socialism - as a Palestinian professor of mine remarked recently, when Hezbollah makes an announcement it always sounds like a mixture of Marxist rhetoric and Islamic scripture.



Also, I really don't view religions as reactionary( in their original form) as they are staunchly anti-capitalist. I also like monasticism and scholasticism.

Yeah, you know I have a friend who's a syndicalist as well and a liberation theologist, he actually is very interested in the idea of monasticism as a base for spiritually-oriented syndicalism.

[Palingenisis]

Do we forget the imprisonment and execution of thousands and hundreds(respectively)of marxists in Iran?
Robocommie, Iran is repressive and theocratic. It isn't a bastion of class consciousness either.

Also, I really don't view religions as reactionary( in their original form) as they are staunchly anti-capitalist. I also like monasticism and scholasticism.

Of course Religion has been used for reactionary purposes but a lot of the left's attitude towards is basically that....a reaction to its reactionary use. The leader of the Maoists in Nepal has come out and said he believed in God and you had this mad ultra-left reaction to it by MonkeySmashsHeaven and the RCP-USA. I think a lot of the Left has to get over a "teenage rebellion" around this issue.

[southernmissfan]

Of course Religion has been used for reactionary purposes but a lot of the left's attitude towards is basically that....a reaction to its reactionary use. The leader of the Maoists in Nepal has come out and said he believed in God and you had this mad ultra-left reaction to it by MonkeySmashsHeaven and the RCP-USA. I think a lot of the Left has to get over a "teenage rebellion" around this issue.

Maybe it's because Marxists try to use science and reason to establish a mode of thought, not faith or superstition. Just my two cents.

Not that religion is necessarily always reactionary, but it certainly isn't logical, which is where many problems can arise.

[Devrim]

What I meant is, is there a political party or organization that addresses worker concerns about total reform and workers struggle in Iran? One that adequately represents the interests of the working class and is free from US backed cronyism and Monarchism?

Football team? Devim, thou doth protest too much.

No, I don't think so. What does it mean to 'support' somebody? Does it mean anything practically at all apart from cheer-leading?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Beyond that, frankly, if you look at Iran's history, particularly in the 20th century, imperialism has been a constant threat and while Iran is not an ideal government, what it does represent is a chance for Iran to develop a progressive political culture and class consciousness internally, without interruptions from imperial powers, if they are allowed to do so.

It is a repressive right-wing anti-working class state. Try telling striking Iranian workers being beaten by the Basij that the regime represents 'a chance for Iran to develop a progressive political culture and class consciousness'. Even the whole term though is nonsense. States don't develop class consciousness, the working class does.

Devrim

[Devrim]

but I think it is at least an anti-imperialist government and as I said, it represents a chance for Iran to develop itself into a more progressive society from within, gradually. If western imperialism gets in to Iran in the way it did in previous decades, it could seriously set back Iran's social development to prevent that from occuring.

I think that there are two problems here. The first is that it looks at the subject from a completely non-communist view point in that it talks about the development of the nation. Society is divided into classes. Also the Iran government is not 'anti-imperialist'. It is anti-Western İmperialism, but itself is an imperialist state, and a regional player, however small that imperialism may seem compared to the US'.


as a Palestinian professor of mine remarked recently, when Hezbollah makes an announcement it always sounds like a mixture of Marxist rhetoric and Islamic scripture.

It has never sounded that way to me. I'd say that this says more about your professor's lack of understanding of Marxism than Hezbollah's rhetoric.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Interestingly enough a lot of the early Christian "Church Fathers" held that communism was the natural order and that private property, etc came into the world because of sin.

Yes, I think that there were elements of millenarianism in early Christianity, and you can see its manifestations in the German peasants war, and things in England like the Diggers.

Islam is very different though. It has its origins in the Mercantile classes. Mohammed himself was a merchant. Its ideas of social justice do not involve common ownership, but charity. It is not incompatible with business, but the bourgeois religon par excellence. That doesn't mean that there have been no millennial currents, but they are far fewer.

Here is a picture of the biggest mosque in our city:

http://www.mimarizm.com/V_Images/2008/Kentin_Tozu/dini_yapilar/yorumsuz/10.JPG

Beğendik, the building underneath is a supermarket and department store. Even today in the West if you planned to build a new cathedral in the same building as a department store, there would be people talking about 'selling your soul to Mammon'. In the Islamic world people don't even see anything noticeable to comment on. Islam is the religion of business.

Devrim

[anticap]

[Ali Sharia'ti] wrote a fascinating piece on Cain and Abel, where he describes them of being representative of man's position in primitive communism, hunting and gathering (Abel, the shepherd) and how that epoch was overturned by man's development of agriculture which brought about private property and the exploitation of man by man, and the formation of class struggle symbolized by Cain's killing of Abel.

I've read bits and pieces of similar interpretations written by others, though I can't recall any names at the moment. They all run basically along those same lines: Cain represents the agricultural revolution, which supplanted the nomadism represented by Abel. Yahweh's preference for Abel's sacrifice over Cain's represents his objection to this revolution (presumably because, in his alleged omniscience, he foresees all the evils that will flow from it). The slaying of Abel by Cain represents the violent imposition of the revolution and its evils.

[zimmerwald1915]

Of course Religion has been used for reactionary purposes but a lot of the left's attitude towards is basically that....a reaction to its reactionary use. The leader of the Maoists in Nepal has come out and said he believed in God and you had this mad ultra-left reaction to it by MonkeySmashsHeaven and the RCP-USA. I think a lot of the Left has to get over a "teenage rebellion" around this issue.
This could have been put a lot better. The problem Marxists have with religion is not what religion says about itself. The problem is not even the claim made by religion to dictatorship over human behavior. The problem is the social role religion plays in the class struggle. It serves as a mental escape for suffering people into a haze of comforting superstitions.

Now, the role that religious institutions play is most often a reactionary one, precisely because of that niggling claim to dictatorship over behavior. But religion's power comes not from that, but from its promise, and, in certain senses, its delivered promise, of escape from the struggles and toils of bare existence.

[Robocommie]

Not that religion is necessarily always reactionary, but it certainly isn't logical, which is where many problems can arise.

Life is very rarely logical.

[Barry Lyndon]

Religion can play a progressive or even revolutionary role(liberation theology in Latin America, groups like the People's Mojehideen in Iran, etc.). But I would say that such cases are notable because they are exceptions. Religion is so relentlessly propagated by the ruling classes precisely because it has historically been one of the best ways of defusing class antagonisms, by telling people that personal salvation is all that matters and that there is no need to worry about the poverty and injustice in this world because there is another one beyond the grave.
I live on the South Side of Chicago and I encounter this all of the time with a lot of African-Americans, who obsess constantly about their relationship with a Jewish carpenter who died 2,000 years ago while their schools crumble and their young men die by the score killing each other over drugs instead of fighting the system. There's a reason why the preachers who tell them that their enemies are gays and such continue to live year after year while all the Black Panthers who told them who their real enemies were are long dead or are rotting in jail.

[Robocommie]

It is a repressive right-wing anti-working class state. Try telling striking Iranian workers being beaten by the Basij that the regime represents 'a chance for Iran to develop a progressive political culture and class consciousness'. Even the whole term though is nonsense. States don't develop class consciousness, the working class does.

Devrim

Point in fact, I was talking about the working class in general. Iran will have a chance to become a more progressive state through the gradual struggle of the Iranian people. I'm not sure why I'm bothering saying this though, I'm probably just going to be wading into a debate against impossibilism.


I think that there are two problems here. The first is that it looks at the subject from a completely non-communist view point in that it talks about the development of the nation.

That's nice. I'm not a Communist.



It has never sounded that way to me. I'd say that this says more about your professor's lack of understanding of Marxism than Hezbollah's rhetoric.

Devrim

In his defense, he used the terms socialist and leftist, not Marxist, that was my word, perhaps a mistake. But the man is a PhD who studied at Birzeit, and a Marxist. Also, because the historical fact bears out the truth that both the Islamic revolution in Iran and Hezbollah have both been influenced by leftist sources, I'm less interested in how it "sounds" to you, particularly since you share your tendencies dogmatic rigidity.

[Robocommie]

Religion can play a progressive or even revolutionary role(liberation theology in Latin America, groups like the People's Mojehideen in Iran, etc.). But I would say that such cases are notable because they are exceptions. Religion is so relentlessly propagated by the ruling classes precisely because it has historically been one of the best ways of defusing class antagonisms, by telling people that personal salvation is all that matters and that there is no need to worry about the poverty and injustice in this world because there is another one beyond the grave.
I live on the South Side of Chicago and I encounter this all of the time with a lot of African-Americans, who obsess constantly about their relationship with a Jewish carpenter who died 2,000 years ago while their schools crumble and their young men die by the score killing each other over drugs instead of fighting the system. There's a reason why the preachers who tell them that their enemies are gays and such continue to live year after year while all the Black Panthers who told them who their real enemies are are long dead or are rotting in jail.

Really, the issue with whether religion is revolutionary or not is overlooking the fact that religion has a purpose outside of politics, for the individual. It's more complicated than an issue of whether it's for or against class struggle. In other words, for those who find meaning in spiritual beliefs, religion is it's own justification.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, I don't think so. What does it mean to 'support' somebody? Does it mean anything practically at all apart from cheer-leading?Devrim, in college I was once attempted to organize an event with an Iranian organization called Daneshjoo. This was when I was a liberal hawk and I thought that supporting organizations by bringing awareness to the student movement would help their cause. I later found out that it was a monarchist front movement and I cancelled the event.

I wouldn't call that cheerleading. I actually wanted to get involved in something. Do something.

You bitter about something, because I mean, jeez you will debate the smallest things?

[Devrim]

Iran will have a chance to become a more progressive state through the gradual struggle of the Iranian people.

Bourgeoisie states are in no way progressive.


But the man is a PhD who studied at Birzeit, and a Marxist.

I am sorry, I am not really impressed by academic qualifications. He may well call himself a Marxist, but I would be quite surprised if he wasn't just some sort of nationalist.


Also, because the historical fact bears out the truth that both the Islamic revolution in Iran and Hezbollah have both been influenced by leftist sources, I'm less interested in how it "sounds" to you, particularly since you share your tendencies dogmatic rigidity.

The Iran revolution took place during a mass strike. The new regime were quick to massacre communists and militant workers though. I wouldn't really call that a 'leftist influence'.

Nor is there anything at all leftist about Hezbollah.

Please give examples rather than just referring to so-called historical fact.

Devrim

[Robocommie]

Alright, I see this conversation is rapidly going nowhere. I can't respect a position that doesn't recognize academic qualifications. That, and I really can't stomach impossibilism, to me, it really is the most depressing and frustrating lines of Marxist thinking.

[Devrim]

Alright, I see this conversation is rapidly going nowhere.

Yes because you are not backing up any of your points, just refering to some vague so-called 'historic fact'.


I can't respect a position that doesn't recognize academic qualifications.

'Academic Marxism' is a farce. Marxism is a political current. Something developed in workers' struggle. I would respect an academic qualification in something like biology, but in Marxism it is pretty much a joke. What is the left influence on Hizbollah?


That, and I really can't stomach impossibilism, to me, it really is the most depressing and frustrating lines of Marxist thinking.

I am not an 'impossibilist'. Impossiblism refers to the SPGB and similar groups.

Devrim

[Robocommie]

'Academic Marxism' is a farce. Marxism is a political current. Something developed in workers' struggle. I would respect an academic qualification in something like biology, but in Marxism it is pretty much a joke.

As a history student, I think that distinction is bullshit. Academics is not just useful for the hard sciences.

[son of man]

Agrees with Robbocommie on how Iran needs to be free of foreign power to find their own way.

[zimmerwald1915]

As a history student, I think that distinction is bullshit. Academics is not just useful for the hard sciences.
And as a history student, I think that Marxist historiography does not imply Marxist politics.

[southernmissfan]

Life is very rarely logical.

That does not justify us throwing up our hands and believing in whatever fairy tale suits us.

[Robocommie]

That does not justify us throwing up our hands and believing in whatever fairy tale suits us.

Well, as a religious person, I choose to believe in what holds meaning for me. And I don't feel it counts as "throwing up my hands and believing in fairy tales"

[southernmissfan]

Well, as a religious person, I choose to believe in what holds meaning for me. And I don't feel it counts as "throwing up my hands and believing in fairy tales"

Maybe my phrasing was harsh, but at the end of the day, you are choosing to believe in what holds meaning for you. Basically whatever you want, not necessarily what correlates to reality.

That in and of itself is problem enough, but as somebody pointed out earlier, Marxists are primarily concerned with the social role of religion. So if you want to believe in this or that god, unicorns, whatever, you are free to. Just don't expect us to take it seriously.

[Devrim]

As a history student, I think that distinction is bullshit. Academics is not just useful for the hard sciences.

I didn't say that. I just gave one example, which happened to be biology. Of course people learn about history. My point was about 'academic Marxism', which I think is a contradiction in terms.

I note that you are continuing to not answer the question about Hezbollah's left influence.

Devrim

[Robocommie]

I note that you are continuing to not answer the question about Hezbollah's left influence.

Devrim

Yeah, I'm just tired of it. Don't get ahead of yourself; just because I'm ignoring the point doesn't mean I think you're right, I just don't think there's much point in arguing it.

[Robocommie]

Maybe my phrasing was harsh, but at the end of the day, you are choosing to believe in what holds meaning for you. Basically whatever you want, not necessarily what correlates to reality.

I long ago rejected empirical epistemology as an archaic relic of the Enlightenment.


Just don't expect us to take it seriously.Don't worry, enough people, including on the left spectrum, take it seriously that your opinion of it doesn't much matter.

Religion matters to a lot of working class people. The whole, sky fairy unicorn thing isn't going to lend itself much to being able to relate to them. At most, it will only encourage an impression of you as an intellectual snob who thinks himself more enlightened than them. If you can't understand the power of religious experience, then you can't understand humanity.

[southernmissfan]

I long ago rejected empirical epistemology as an archaic relic of the Enlightenment.

Don't worry, enough people, including on the left spectrum, take it seriously that your opinion of it doesn't much matter.

Religion matters to a lot of working class people. The whole, sky fairy unicorn thing isn't going to lend itself much to being able to relate to them. At most, it will only encourage an impression of you as an intellectual snob who thinks himself more enlightened than them. If you can't understand the power of religious experience, then you can't understand humanity.

It's not just my opinion. Most every serious theorist on the left, from Bakunin to Marx would agree. And simply because it matters to a lot of working class people doesn't mean we should join in with the silliness. Guess what? Racism, homophobia, etc. all matter to a lot of working class people.

Religion promotes at the very least irrationality and a way of thinking that discredits evidence, science and logic. Being personally spiritual or believing in this or that god is fairly insignificant, but religion serves a very important social role. That role is opposed to the liberation of the working class.

The only archaic thing I see is ancient tribal texts, full of superstition, sexism, homophobia and virtually every other reprehensible human behavior guiding the actions of billions of human beings. How one expects to make progress with backwards, pre-capitalist ideology exerting so much influence I do not know.

And by the way, I understand the power of religious experience just fine. That's why I oppose it. And I oppose it because of my concern for humanity.

[Robocommie]

It's not just my opinion. Most every serious theorist on the left, from Bakunin to Marx would agree. And simply because it matters to a lot of working class people doesn't mean we should join in with the silliness. Guess what? Racism, homophobia, etc. all matter to a lot of working class people.

Religion promotes at the very least irrationality and a way of thinking that discredits evidence, science and logic. Being personally spiritual or believing in this or that god is fairly insignificant, but religion serves a very important social role. That role is opposed to the liberation of the working class.

The only archaic thing I see is ancient tribal texts, full of superstition, sexism, homophobia and virtually every other reprehensible human behavior guiding the actions of billions of human beings. How one expects to make progress with backwards, pre-capitalist ideology exerting so much influence I do not know.

And by the way, I understand the power of religious experience just fine. That's why I oppose it. And I oppose it because of my concern for humanity.

Yeah yeah, anti-theist wankery, white man's conceptualization of progress. I hear ya.

[anticap]

Religion matters to a lot of working class people. The whole, sky fairy unicorn thing isn't going to lend itself much to being able to relate to them.

I hope you're not suggesting that I as an atheist can't relate to the working class (especially since I'm part of it).

I completely understand that the majority of the working class believes in a supernatural realm. There's also a majority or significant minority who are racist, homophobic, conservative nationalists with a venomous hatred of socialism. I don't need to adopt any of those positions to relate to my fellow workers. All I need to do is recognize where they stand, avoid potentially volatile subjects, and relate to them based on our common interests as members of the exploited underclass. This is why I'm among those heretics who believe in reaching out to the Tea Party folks.


At most, it will only encourage an impression of you as an intellectual snob who thinks himself more enlightened than them.

I agree, and that's why I think the leftists attacks on Palin are foolhardy. Millions believe that she is "one of them," so when you attack her, you're attacking them. And when your attacks consist of mocking her as a hayseed, "it will only encourage an impression of you as an intellectual snob who thinks himself more enlightened than [her, and] them."


If you can't understand the power of religious experience, then you can't understand humanity.

In the sense of religion as a human phenomenon, sure. But if you're implying that I can't understand what it means to be a member of my own species unless I convince myself that I've forged a "personal relationship" with an alleged deity (for example), then that's just patent nonsense.