U.S. progressives meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad

[Lolshevik]

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

Discuss?

I think it's very, um, awkward to say the least, when socialists line up to talk shop with a leader who presides over a regime that is so homophobic and misogynist. Don't they execute communists over there?

Also, it was weird to hear Ahmadinejad say he's against capitalism, considering he presides over a... capitalist regime.

[Tzadikim]

Stupid, misguided, and oh-so-typical of American liberals. What, do they need access to lay down some pipes?

[Lolshevik]

Stupid, misguided, and oh-so-typical of American liberals. What, do they need access to lay down some pipes?

Huh?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Tzadikim meant to say that only some were socialist sympathizers. Cynthia McKinney's presence indicates the politics of the majority of those meeting that scum.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Tzadikim meant to say that only some were socialist sympathizers. Cynthia McKinney's presence indicates the politics of the majority of those meeting that scum.

Deeply confusing for us Americans:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lay%20pipe

[Crux]

Margaret Sarfehjooy reported, “I think the meeting was important because we had the opportunity to meet with so many dedicated grassroots activists from all over the country and share our hopes for peace and justice with the Iranian people through their president and his wife.”
*shakes head in disbelief* Ahmadinejad has the blood of the iranian worker's and youth on his hands. And yes, Loshevik, the iranian regime regularly execute communists as well. Opposition to U.S war with Iran? Absolutely, but this, this is equal to giving the regime support and legitimacy. Since ANSWER was there, what do the PSL members here have to say about this?

[gorillafuck]

I think it's very, um, awkward to say the least, when socialists line up to talk shop with a leader who presides over a regime that is so homophobic and misogynist. Don't they execute communists over there?
Yes, communists were first in line to be murdered after the Iranian revolution.

[Tzadikim]

Tzadikim meant to say that only some were socialist sympathizers. Cynthia McKinney's presence indicates the politics of the majority of those meeting that scum.

This. And the ones that are ostensibly on "our side" are still behaving stupidly.

[Peace on Earth]

Self-righteous liberals who denounce American presidents (with good reason) and then go and meet with a just-as-horrible leader of an oppressive regime disgust me.

[The Red Next Door]

*shakes head in disbelief* Ahmadinejad has the blood of the iranian worker's and youth on his hands. And yes, Loshevik, the iranian regime regularly execute communists as well. Opposition to U.S war with Iran? Absolutely, but this, this is equal to giving the regime support and legitimacy. Since ANSWER was there, what do the PSL members here have to say about this?

I can't denounced party positions in public so i am backing this trip up.

[KC]

What a bunch of morons. I think we all knew where FRSO stood anyways. I wish I could say this is surprising.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What a bunch of morons. I think we all knew where FRSO stood anyways. I wish I could say this is surprising.

:confused:

How was this by any means an act of being moronic? They discussed with the Iranian president about Capitalism & the global wars taking place today. The FRSO does not see the Iranian President as Socialist whatsoever, but we do see him as being anti-imperialist, & is a major ally because of such. If you're not against imperialism over independent countries, then you're not a Communist.


Also, it was weird to hear Ahmadinejad say he's against capitalism, considering he presides over a... capitalist regime.

Yes, because leaders of a capitalist country can't speak out against Capitalism (http://www.moonbattery.com/hugo-chavez-fist.jpg). :rolleyes:

[Crux]

:confused:

How was this by any means an act of being moronic? They discussed with the Iranian president about Capitalism & the global wars taking place today. The FRSO does not see the Iranian President as Socialist whatsoever, but we do see him as being anti-imperialist, & is a major ally because of such. If you're not against imperialism over independent countries, then you're not a Communist.



Yes, because leaders of a capitalist country can't speak out against Capitalism (http://www.moonbattery.com/hugo-chavez-fist.jpg).
You are priceless. But you're support for the iranian regime, under the very thin guise of "peace", is nothing short of sickening. Ahmadinejad can't sleep because of bombings in Gaza, but he condones throwing university students off rooftops, kidnapping, torture and murder of student and worker's activists in Iran? Well, at least Ahmadinejad is not the only hypocrite in that article.

Compelling. (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/08/g8-summit-pope/) Although I don't see why you would want to attack the progressive developments in Venezuela by comparing them to Iran.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You are priceless. But you're support for the iranian regime, under the very thin guise of "peace", is nothing short of sickening. Ahmadinejad can't sleep because of bombings in Gaza, but he condones throwing university students off rooftops, kidnapping, torture and murder of student and worker's activists in Iran? Well, at least Ahmadinejad is not the only hypocrite in that article.

Compelling. (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/08/g8-summit-pope/) Although I don't see why you would want to attack the progressive developments in Venezuela by comparing them to Iran.

I support Iran as being anti-imperialist. I never stated that I support what happens internally within Iran. I'm very much against the corruption that takes place.

And I agree with the Pope with that statement. Doesn't mean I agree with every word that's uttered out of his mouth, but when it comes to that, I do agree. Was there a point out of that post to try disregard the fact that, under that certain message, the Pope was actually correct?

[KC]

I support Iran as being anti-imperialist. I never stated that I support what happens internally within Iran. I'm very much against the corruption that takes place.We all saw what that "support" meant during the demonstrations where WWP/PSL/FRSO implicitly supported the repression by state forces through attempting to legitimize the election results as well as hinting at "possible imperialist subversion".

You want to stand with Ahmedinejad and Khamenei on the basis of "anti-imperialism", yet you're the ones standing alone. Every single Iranian organization came out in support of the demonstrations and vehemently opposed the oppressive dictatorship.

You're supporting a regime that murders communists, homosexuals and active unionists, and then attempt to hide behind the claim that you're simply defending it on the grounds of "anti-imperialism" when that very clearly isn't the case. You don't ally with people that are trying to kill you. This really is pathetic.

EDIT: BTW that's the same line taken in 1979 and look where that went.

[Lolshevik]

TVM: I knew someone would bring up Chavez. Speaking as a cautious and sometimes critical supporter of Chavez, I've gotta say the two cases aren't comparable. Ahmadinejad endorses and is a spokesperson of a kind of politics that relegates women to nearly slave status, violently opposes homosexuality, and literally bans socialists. How could an anti-capitalist word come out of his mouth without y'all laughing if he has a track record like that? Chavez on the other hand leads a party that at least has the word 'Socialist' in its name, and what's going on in Venezuela right now is very good and could be the launching point for a revolution. The only way Ahmadinejad will launch a revolution is if the workers over there hate him so much they form their own national soviet federation just to get his head on a plate.

And no, I'm not pro-imperialist. I would oppose, vocally, in the streets, in writing, in all the ways I can, an invasion of Iran no matter who was running it. But part of building an anti-imperialist defense is promoting and solidarizing with OUR class; you know, the only truly reliable anti-imperialist class?

[Crux]

I support Iran as being anti-imperialist. I never stated that I support what happens internally within Iran. I'm very much against the corruption that takes place.

And I agree with the Pope with that statement. Doesn't mean I agree with every word that's uttered out of his mouth, but when it comes to that, I do agree. Was there a point out of that post to try disregard the fact that, under that certain message, the Pope was actually correct?
The Pope is hoping for "good bankers" not anti-capitalism, but that you'd agree with him is hardly surprising. The point however was, how a political leader acts is far more worth than some empty phrases.

But you obviously still view the regime as legitimate, if with corruption problems.

[Barry Lyndon]

We all saw what that "support" meant during the demonstrations where WWP/PSL/FRSO implicitly supported the repression by state forces through attempting to legitimize the election results as well as hinting at "possible imperialist subversion".

You want to stand with Ahmedinejad and Khamenei on the basis of "anti-imperialism", yet you're the ones standing alone. Every single Iranian organization came out in support of the demonstrations and vehemently opposed the oppressive dictatorship.

You're supporting a regime that murders communists, homosexuals and active unionists, and then attempt to hide behind the claim that you're simply defending it on the grounds of "anti-imperialism" when that very clearly isn't the case. You don't ally with people that are trying to kill you. This really is pathetic.

EDIT: BTW that's the same line taken in 1979 and look where that went.

Yeah, this is really taking things way too far. I definitely support the Iranian workers against an attack by US imperialism, and even would like at some point like to visit Iran, it is a fascinating country.
But endorse the regime in this way? Disgusting, especially if you consider yourself a Communist or a socialist. I suggest you read up on this-the inconvenient fact that this 'anti-imperialist' regime has massacred thousands of Iranian leftists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners

[KC]

Yeah, this is really taking things way too far. I definitely support the Iranian workers against an attack by US imperialism, and even would like at some point like to visit Iran, it is a fascinating country.

Being a communist, I doubt you would be able to get into the country.

[Crux]

Being a communist, I doubt you would be able to get into the country.
Now, now getting into Iran is not impossible.

[Barry Lyndon]

Being a communist, I doubt you would be able to get into the country.

I used to know a Iranian socialist who traveled back and forth between the US and Iran. However, it's safe to say that she kept her political affiliations under wraps.

[Homo Songun]

Stupid, misguided, and oh-so-typical of American liberals.
I respect Ramona Africa (http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/Bennett_Ramona-Africa.htm) quite a bit. I don't think she is stupid, misguided, or a liberal.

[Barry Lyndon]

I respect Ramona Africa (http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/Bennett_Ramona-Africa.htm) quite a bit. I don't think she is stupid, misguided, or a liberal.

Yeah-the same about Amiri Baraka. That's why I'm confused about this whole incident.

[KC]

The sad part is that those supporting Ahmedinejad/Khamenei on anti-imperialist/anti-capitalist grounds are actually supporting politicians who were calling for allowing further inroads of private capital investment into the national industry. This fact was, of course, completely lost on them in the midst of their "anti-imperialist" struggle.

[Homo Songun]

Yeah-the same about Amiri Baraka. That's why I'm confused about this whole incident.

Well, veteran Black revolutionaries tend to be clearer about the real enemy of the peoples of the world than your typical petit bourgeois Left scenester I suppose.

[KC]

Well, veteran Black revolutionaries tend to be clearer about the real enemy of the peoples of the world than your typical petit bourgeois Left scenester I suppose.Yeah those black ones totes are smarter.

[Homo Songun]

Yeah those black ones totes are smarter.

No, just more realistic.

[KC]

Wow right over your head.

[Homo Songun]

over head =/= not taking bait

[zimmerwald1915]

http://www.trainweb.org/vangab/alabama_derail.jpg

[Devrim]

Being a communist, I doubt you would be able to get into the country.

I have been there and on more than one occasion.

Devrim

[Soviet dude]

The opposition from deranged Trotskyites is pretty hysterical.

I think the people who wanted to be there, FRSO, WWP, and PSL, are basically the only real anti-imperialist groups in the US (not coincidently, the only serious Marxist-Leninist groups in the US as well).

Without going too in depth on old topics, it has basically been proven beyond a doubt the elections were completely legitimate. Western opinion polls about a year later indicated basically the exact same positions as the Western opinion polls did in June before the elections: Ahmadinejad has the support of the vast majority of Iran.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb10/IranElection_Feb10_quaire.pdf

Some video to go along with this as well:

http://www.raceforiran.com/live-stream-what-does-the-iranian-public-really-think

To anyone who isn't a moron, the West obviously tried to engineer a color revolution to back their favored candidate and lost. Within the internal dynamics of Iranian politics, Ahmadinejad represents a wing that is definitely much more hostile to the West, and less tolerant of their own local capitalists (as all the billionaires backed Mousavi), and is friendlier to the poor and working class. This is why he won the elections.

Is he perfect? No. Is he even really that good? No, but he sure is a hell of a lot better than Washington's preferred candidate. And as a Marxist-Leninist, I sure as hell don't support imperialist color-revolutions, though apparently deranged Trotskyites do.

[Crux]

The opposition from deranged Trotskyites is pretty hysterical.

I think the people who wanted to be there, FRSO, WWP, and PSL, are basically the only real anti-imperialist groups in the US (not coincidently, the only serious Marxist-Leninist groups in the US as well).

Without going too in depth on old topics, it has basically been proven beyond a doubt the elections were completely legitimate. Western opinion polls about a year later indicated basically the exact same positions as the Western opinion polls did in June before the elections: Ahmadinejad has the support of the vast majority of Iran.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb10/IranElection_Feb10_quaire.pdf

Some video to go along with this as well:

http://www.raceforiran.com/live-stream-what-does-the-iranian-public-really-think

To anyone who isn't a moron, the West obviously tried to engineer a color revolution to back their favored candidate and lost. Within the internal dynamics of Iranian politics, Ahmadinejad represents a wing that is definitely much more hostile to the West, and less tolerant of their own local capitalists (as all the billionaires backed Mousavi), and is friendlier to the poor and working class. This is why he won the elections.

Is he perfect? No. Is he even really that good? No, but he sure is a hell of a lot better than Washington's preferred candidate. And as a Marxist-Leninist, I sure as hell don't support imperialist color-revolutions, though apparently deranged Trotskyites do.
*facepalms* You're a fucking imbecile. I for one support no candidate in that sham election, that you suggest Ahmadinejad is legitimate in any way is ridicolous (or indeed more "intolerant" of local capitalists, appealing to the poor is nothing new for the far right). Also don't forget that most power does not lie with the president in Iranian society.

[Soviet dude]

*facepalms* You're a fucking imbecile.

*shrugs*

You're the one who also makes posts denouncing Chavez, so who really cares what you think of Iran? You'd line up with the Western bourgeois on pretty much any foreign policy matter. Whether that makes you an "imbecile" or a complete traitor, I don't know, but I would suspect the latter.


I for one support no candidate in that sham election, that you suggest Ahmadinejad is legitimate in any way is ridicolous

The elections, within the confines of a basically bourgeois-democracy, were completely legitimate. There were less irregularities than in the 2000 and 2004 elections in America. While I do think bourgeois-democracy is in principle a fraud, Iran's democracy isn't much different from any other Western bourgeois-democratic state, and there is literally no credible evidence of electoral fraud. Again, opinion polls rule it out completely.


(or indeed more "intolerant" of local capitalists, appealing to the poor is nothing new for the far right).

Democrats often supported monopoly-busting simply because the monopolies were controlled by Republicans who funded their party. There are a lot of reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with being anti-capitalist why the comprador-bourgeoisie of Iran don't like Ahmadinejad and why he doesn't like them. But it is objectively true that the ultra-rich of Iran supported Mousavi.


Also don't forget that most power does not lie with the president in Iranian society.

Real power doesn't lie with the president in any society. The elections could be broadly viewed in the context of the comprador-bourgeoisie in alliance with Western imperialism, whose base of support was the petty-bourgeoisie on one side and the National-bourgeoisie and Iranian military on the other, with their support coming from the working class and poor of Iran.

That you back the color-revolution puts you firmly in the camp of imperialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well I don't think that objectively Islamic Iran is really worse than many Western imperialist states. I think perhaps Westerners should criticise their own countries more rather than just demonise Iran all the time.

As a Chinese person, I can certainly recognise features in the Iranian state as it stands now which objectively beats the ultra-revisionist state that the PRC has become. Such as less economic inequality, for instance.

I only critically support two aspects of Iran: Its anti-imperialist policies against the US, and its relatively progressive (though unintentionally I'm sure, unlike say in Cuba) policy on transgenderism. (Of course I completely oppose the forced sex change operations done to gays in Iran) Otherwise I think it is generally a reactionary state objectively, but not really worse than many others. I don't agree with the demonisation of Iran, as if it is like the worst state on Earth or a Nazi state. The demonisation of Iran is linked to the reactionary Islamophobia that exists in the West.

I don't consider the Iranian state to be legitimate, because I think fundamentally the only kind of legitimate states are socialist/proletarian states, no feudal or bourgeois states are ever legitimate, progressive or not. Ultimately I call for the unlawful overthrow of every single non-socialist polity on Earth. And I certainly wouldn't put Iran into the same category as states like Cuba or the DPRK, whether you consider the latter to be deformed, revisionist or not.

[Crux]

*shrugs*

You're the one who also makes posts denouncing Chavez, so who really cares what you think of Iran? You'd line up with the Western bourgeois on pretty much any foreign policy matter. Whether that makes you an "imbecile" or a complete traitor, I don't know, but I would suspect the latter.
Yes, yes marxism must seem a betrayal to a friend of a murder of the left like Ahmadinejad. I make posts "denouncing" Chavez? So we are dealing with pure fantasy now? And from that, since I don't agree with your self-styled "anti-imperialism" that makes me "pro-Western"?




The elections, within the confines of a basically bourgeois-democracy, were completely legitimate. There were less irregularities than in the 2000 and 2004 elections in America. While I do think bourgeois-democracy is in principle a fraud, Iran's democracy isn't much different from any other Western bourgeois-democratic state, and there is literally no credible evidence of electoral fraud. Again, opinion polls rule it out completely.
The fuck it isn't, only candidates approved by the Guardian Council are allowed to run. You may side with the bourgeois if you like, me I side with the underground trade unions and other worker's organizations that for very good reason boycotted the elections.



Democrats often supported monopoly-busting simply because the monopolies were controlled by Republicans who funded their party. There are a lot of reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with being anti-capitalist why the comprador-bourgeoisie of Iran don't like Ahmadinejad and why he doesn't like them. But it is objectively true that the ultra-rich of Iran supported Mousavi.
I assume you base this solely on the fact that Rafsanjavi, who happen to be the richest man in Iran, backed Mousavi? In any case that's completly irrelevant, Mousavi didn't come to bring some pro-western colour revolution, he' s merely another face of the same regime.




Real power doesn't lie with the president in any society. The elections could be broadly viewed in the context of the comprador-bourgeoisie in alliance with Western imperialism, whose base of support was the petty-bourgeoisie on one side and the National-bourgeoisie and Iranian military on the other, with their support coming from the working class and poor of Iran.

That you back the color-revolution puts you firmly in the camp of imperialism.
That you eat babies puts you firmly in the camp of the baby eaters. What I can't make up your positions? Then why can you make up mine?
Furthermore, while Ahmadinjead might have *some* support in the countryside, certainly not by the majority of worker's and poor.
Far more people came into movement than those middle-class elements that had any hope in Mousavi as a "reformer", when the protests broke out.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I'm pretty sure I saw on the news in some of the late protests that the protesters were chanting 'Obama, you are either with us or against us', which at least implicitly implies they wanted imperialist intervention, or something of that kind.

Also, even the bourgeois media in the West admitted that the base of the support for the protests was North Tehran, which is regarded as very affluent and 'liberal' (at least in Iranian terms).

Also, in regard to the 'where is my vote' liberal type slogans, and the extreme emphasis placed on publicizing protests outside Iran, as opposed to internally, I would venture a guess if I wanted a class analysis that the protesters knew that the mass of the working class, the unemployed poor, and rural people, were never going to back them up, and that their only hope was for Western imperialism.

[Soviet dude]

Yes, yes marxism must seem a betrayal to a friend of a murder of the left like Ahmadinejad. I make posts "denouncing" Chavez? So we are dealing with pure fantasy now? And from that, since I don't agree with your self-styled "anti-imperialism" that makes me "pro-Western"?

You basically act like an agent of US imperialism. Most Trotskyites do. Trotsky himself was basically just that, as his only source of income was the reactionary press, who paid him handsomely for all his anti-Soviet rantings.

Here is your recent thread, denouncing Chavez:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-activists-including-t141217/index.html

That you would be disingenuous about your position on Chavez shows your fundamental dishonesty.


The fuck it isn't, only candidates approved by the Guardian Council are allowed to run.Only candidates chosen by the Democratic and Republican party apparatus are allowed to win in America. So what?


You may side with the bourgeois if you like, me I side with the underground trade unions and other worker's organizations that for very good reason boycotted the elections.It doesn't matter if you say you choose to side with a force that has no power in Iran. You actually support color-revolution, and no doubt supported calls for the overthrow of the government, which would mean a coup for the West. You objectively support US imperialism in Iran, and mealy-mouthed bullshit about supporting unnamed unions with no real power in Iran doesn't mean anything.


I assume you base this solely on the fact that Rafsanjavi, who happen to be the richest man in Iran, backed Mousavi? In any case that's completly irrelevant, Mousavi didn't come to bring some pro-western colour revolution, he' s merely another face of the same regime.This is objectively bullshit. Even in bourgeois democracies, the parties that exist represent real, different interests of the bourgeoisie. To pretend otherwise shows you don't have a Marxist understanding of politics.


That you eat babies puts you firmly in the camp of the baby eaters. What I can't make up your positions? Then why can you make up mine?You support color-revolution, whether you try and do so with mealy-mouthed bullshit or not.


Furthermore, while Ahmadinjead might have *some* support in the countryside, certainly not by the majority of worker's and poor.Opinion polls prove you wrong. The majority of working and poor people overwhelmingly voted for Ahmadinejad.


Far more people came into movement than those middle-class elements that had any hope in Mousavi as a "reformer", when the protests broke out.Lots and lots of students came out, because Rafsanjani controls the private university system pretty much in its entirety. The petty-bourgeois character of the crowds in any of these demonstrations is basically impossible to deny.


------------------

The Iran issue, I think, made a very clear dividing line between the Left and the pseudo-Left in America. Having happened shortly after the events in Honduras, where US media either remained silently or openly supported the coup against Zeleya, it should be clear to those on the Left the US government supports only shit that stands to benefit them. Bush had previously authorized the pumping of $700 million dollars into regime-change Iran. The "Green" revolution was the fruit from this rotten tree. This should all be very simple, but a section of the pseudo-Left in this country don't care about that.

Just like liberals, they lined up with the US government against Iran, and aggressively spread the lies of Washington. When they were ever forced to answer for their bullshit, they could do nothing but mutter bullshit about some weak unions or exile-communist groups. I think the real reason is just straight-up opportunism and racism. It's easier for them to capitulate to liberals and jump on the bandwagon of Islamophobia than actually take a principled, Marxist, anti-imperialist stand against their own bourgeoisie.

[graymouser]

The opposition from deranged Trotskyites is pretty hysterical.

I think the people who wanted to be there, FRSO, WWP, and PSL, are basically the only real anti-imperialist groups in the US (not coincidently, the only serious Marxist-Leninist groups in the US as well).

Without going too in depth on old topics, it has basically been proven beyond a doubt the elections were completely legitimate. Western opinion polls about a year later indicated basically the exact same positions as the Western opinion polls did in June before the elections: Ahmadinejad has the support of the vast majority of Iran.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb10/IranElection_Feb10_quaire.pdf

Some video to go along with this as well:

http://www.raceforiran.com/live-stream-what-does-the-iranian-public-really-think

To anyone who isn't a moron, the West obviously tried to engineer a color revolution to back their favored candidate and lost. Within the internal dynamics of Iranian politics, Ahmadinejad represents a wing that is definitely much more hostile to the West, and less tolerant of their own local capitalists (as all the billionaires backed Mousavi), and is friendlier to the poor and working class. This is why he won the elections.

Is he perfect? No. Is he even really that good? No, but he sure is a hell of a lot better than Washington's preferred candidate. And as a Marxist-Leninist, I sure as hell don't support imperialist color-revolutions, though apparently deranged Trotskyites do.
Deranged? You're the one saying that Marxists ought to support a government that has a history of murdering communists and would hang you for your views. The truth is, a revolutionary opposition could have been born in that protest movement - and could still. Kowtowing to Ahmadinejad is lethal to such an opposition, in the literal sense that it means their deaths. "Anti-imperialism" of this stripe got tens of thousands of communists murdered by Chiang Kai Shek in China in 1927. Why repeat it instead of supporting genuine revolutionary elements in the opposition movement and opposing pro-imperialist ones?

[Devrim]

Real power doesn't lie with the president in any society. The elections could be broadly viewed in the context of the comprador-bourgeoisie in alliance with Western imperialism, whose base of support was the petty-bourgeoisie on one side and the National-bourgeoisie and Iranian military on the other, with their support coming from the working class and poor of Iran.

Could you explain what you mean by these terms in the context of present day Iran giving examples of who is in which camp, please?

Devrim

[Crux]

I'm pretty sure I saw on the news in some of the late protests that the protesters were chanting 'Obama, you are either with us or against us', which at least implicitly implies they wanted imperialist intervention, or something of that kind.

Also, even the bourgeois media in the West admitted that the base of the support for the protests was North Tehran, which is regarded as very affluent and 'liberal' (at least in Iranian terms).

Also, in regard to the 'where is my vote' liberal type slogans, and the extreme emphasis placed on publicizing protests outside Iran, as opposed to internally, I would venture a guess if I wanted a class analysis that the protesters knew that the mass of the working class, the unemployed poor, and rural people, were never going to back them up, and that their only hope was for Western imperialism.
There was certainly a liberal middle-class element among the pro-Mousavi protests. The thing is the protests went much further than that, sections of the workingclass were involved (there were several mass-strikes). No-so-suprisingly this was ahrdly reported in the western press, who have a vested interest in portraying the protests as pro-West, as for internal media, the avialability of independent sources in Iran, through legal channels anyway, is rather limited. I know from sources inside iran that many parts of the student movement are keenly aware of the role of the working class that needs to be played to topple the regime.

Soviet_dude: Obvious troll is obvious. But keep backing the iranian bourgeoisie under the guise of anti-imperialism, bro. Because that went so well the last time.

[Devrim]

There was certainly a liberal middle-class element among the pro-Mousavi protests. The thing is the protests went much further than that, sections of the workingclass were involved (there were several mass-strikes). No-so-suprisingly this was ahrdly reported in the western press, who have a vested interest in portraying the protests as pro-West, as for internal media, the avialability of independent sources in Iran, through legal channels anyway, is rather limited. I know from sources inside iran that many parts of the student movement are keenly aware of the role of the working class that needs to be played to topple the regime.


Can you give examples, please. As far as I know there was a strike at Khodro, and a 'strike' of medical students at one university.

Devrim

[Crux]

Can you give examples, please. As far as I know there was a strike at Khodro, and a 'strike' of medical students at one university.

Devrim
There was a strike in Kurdistan as well. It's been a while so I don't have all my sources ready and available, but I am pretty sure there was at least one mare, sans the two you mentioned.

[Devrim]

There was a strike in Kurdistan as well. It's been a while so I don't have all my sources ready and available, but I am pretty sure there was at least one mare, sans the two you mentioned.

I didn't see it mentioned at the time, and I actively looked for them.

The strike of medical students seemed to me to be a lunchtime protest, and the information on the strike at Khodro is contradictory with some sources putting it as a 24-hour strike, and others as three one-hour strikes.

I don't think this really amounts to 'several'*.

Devrim

*You also used the term 'mass strike', which actually in English implies something altogether different, but I just presumed that that was a linguistic mistake.

Devrim

[Serge's Fist]

These people are scum. Brian Becker should be removed from his position in ANSWER.

[Kassad]

These people are scum. Brian Becker should be removed from his position in ANSWER.

Doesn't your party have another baseless assertion to make about us in one of their anti-communist articles? I'll let Brian know you think he's been naughty.

[GreenCommunism]

Deranged? You're the one saying that Marxists ought to support a government that has a history of murdering communists and would hang you for your views. The truth is, a revolutionary opposition could have been born in that protest movement - and could still. Kowtowing to Ahmadinejad is lethal to such an opposition, in the literal sense that it means their deaths. "Anti-imperialism" of this stripe got tens of thousands of communists murdered by Chiang Kai Shek in China in 1927. Why repeat it instead of supporting genuine revolutionary elements in the opposition movement and opposing pro-imperialist ones?

maybe you understand why anarchist don't want to talk with communist anymore? why is there so many people forgetting history here asking for left unity.

the islamophobia from some in this thread is fucking disgusting.

[Devrim]

the islamophobia from some in this thread is fucking disgusting.

Please give some examples because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Devrim

[Soviet dude]

Deranged?

For what its worth, I think you're one of the more level-headed Trots on this forum.


You're the one saying that Marxists ought to support a government that has a history of murdering communists

Mousavi was directly connected with murdering communists, while Ahmadinejad is not. The US has murdered millions of communist and communist sympathizers. Mousavi was their candidate. So if we wanna do a sheer calculation of who murdered more communists, Ahmadinejad still comes out ahead.


and would hang you for your views.

Asserting I would be hanged for my views is sheer Islamophobia. You should be above that.


The truth is, a revolutionary opposition could have been born in that protest movement - and could still.

This is fundamentally false. There is no revolutionary Left in Iran, let alone a powerful one. They're all in exile. They control nothing and do nothing, and without a powerful vanguard party, there is no possibility of anything revolutionary happening. This is basic Leninism: "We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc."


Kowtowing to Ahmadinejad is lethal to such an opposition, in the literal sense that it means their deaths.

The fate in store for millions more when America gets its clutches on Iran is far worse.


"Anti-imperialism" of this stripe got tens of thousands of communists murdered by Chiang Kai Shek in China in 1927.

This is a big can of worms that I don't really care to get into, but basically I think the position of the Comintern was correct. The Comintern line lead to the eventual success of the revolution in China, and without their advice, no one would be talking about Mao today. The unity between the communists and the KMT after the Xi'an incident (where Mao wanted to execute Chiang Kai Shek) was essential in defeating the Japanese and leading to the revolution in China.


Why repeat it instead of supporting genuine revolutionary elements in the opposition movement and opposing pro-imperialist ones?

The whole movement is pro-imperialist. There are not revolutionary elements worth talking about in Iran. They're all in exile.

[GreenCommunism]

the general tone and attitude of the anti-iran crowd reeks of islamophobia and anti-theist ultra-leftist idiocy.


Ahmadinejad endorses and is a spokesperson of a kind of politics that relegates women to nearly slave status, violently opposes homosexuality.

this is not true, it is partially true, to say that woman are nearly slave status is to be islamophobic. sorry. to say that they oppose homosexuality violently is true.

1. i doubt ahmadinejad is worsethan moussavi when it comes to homosexuality
2. we all know that muslims think homosexuality is man on man rape. it will take alot of effort to shake their belief.

and yes i am disgusted by iran for having such practice, but i am equally disgusted by the people on this thread who jump on iran at the first occasion to attack religion and islam.


and would hang you for your views.

i forgot one but soviet dude showed it to me. to be honest, how many people here seriously believe apostasy leads to murder? communist are never perfect anti-imperialist,anti-racist,anti-sexist people, these attitudes must always be confronted within our own movement.

[Queercommie Girl]

the general tone and attitude of the anti-iran crowd reeks of islamophobia and anti-theist ultra-leftist idiocy.



this is not true, it is partially true, to say that woman are nearly slave status is to be islamophobic. sorry. to say that they oppose homosexuality violently is true.

1. i doubt ahmadinejad is worsethan moussavi when it comes to homosexuality
2. we all know that muslims think homosexuality is man on man rape. it will take alot of effort to shake their belief.

and yes i am disgusted by iran for having such practice, but i am equally disgusted by the people on this thread who jump on iran at the first occasion to attack religion and islam.

You are being ridiculous. So you think Marxists can't even criticise Islam? Not even a relatively reactionary bourgeois form of Islam? So if anyone points out the sexist and homophobic features in one particular form of Islam is being Islamophobic? It's not attacking Islam intrinsically, unless you think somehow that Islamic culture is fundamentally sexist and homophobic. (If you think that way wouldn't it be you who is the Islamophobic one?) Actually even in Iran itself, there are many Islamic feminists who are also pro-homosexuality. Why would you side with a relatively reactionary interpretation of Islam against a relatively progressive interpretation of the same religion?

As a "by-product", Islamic Iran actually has a relatively progressive policy on transgenderism, but it's certainly very limited since they don't accept any genderqueers and being such an oppressive sexist society objectively things won't be so good for transwomen anyway. But certainly there is nothing in Marxism which says we can't even criticise reactionary elements within a certain religion.

Marxism is fundamentally atheist. Historically the "belief in God" has always been associated with some kind of class structure. It generally does not go by the militant atheism route but it isn't exactly anti-militant atheism either.

I'm not a militant atheist, but I'm not going to defend any religion from militant atheism either.

[The Red Next Door]

These people are scum. Brian Becker should be removed from his position in ANSWER.

FUCK YOU, BRIAN BECKER IS GOOD DUDE, I see him again i will tell him about Your ass.

[Queercommie Girl]

For what its worth, I think you're one of the more level-headed Trots on this forum.



Mousavi was directly connected with murdering communists, while Ahmadinejad is not. The US has murdered millions of communist and communist sympathizers. Mousavi was their candidate. So if we wanna do a sheer calculation of who murdered more communists, Ahmadinejad still comes out ahead.



Asserting I would be hanged for my views is sheer Islamophobia. You should be above that.



This is fundamentally false. There is no revolutionary Left in Iran, let alone a powerful one. They're all in exile. They control nothing and do nothing, and without a powerful vanguard party, there is no possibility of anything revolutionary happening. This is basic Leninism: "We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc."



The fate in store for millions more when America gets its clutches on Iran is far worse.



This is a big can of worms that I don't really care to get into, but basically I think the position of the Comintern was correct. The Comintern line lead to the eventual success of the revolution in China, and without their advice, no one would be talking about Mao today. The unity between the communists and the KMT after the Xi'an incident (where Mao wanted to execute Chiang Kai Shek) was essential in defeating the Japanese and leading to the revolution in China.



The whole movement is pro-imperialist. There are not revolutionary elements worth talking about in Iran. They're all in exile.

I don't see why you automatically think socialists must take a side in this at all. I just defend the country and its people from Western imperialism generally, that's it. I don't give anyone in the ruling bloc any kind of genuine support at all. The energy should be focussed on developing an independent working class political force.

Yes, the situation is extremely difficult objectively, but so was the situation in KMT China with the constant white terror yet the Maoists developed a socialist force there. If one has limited energy anyway why not focus all of it on developing an independent political force?

[Devrim]

the general tone and attitude of the anti-iran crowd reeks of islamophobia and anti-theist ultra-leftist idiocy.

Iran is a capitalist state. Do you believe that socialists should support it? Actually I thought that very little of the discussion on Iran in this thread was on the lines on anti-theism.


2. we all know that muslims think homosexuality is man on man rape.

Wow, I have never heard this before. I am 100% certain that I know many more Muslims than you, and I have never heard this idea expressed.

Of course, I could start shouting Islamophobia, but I don't think you having one ignorant idea about another culture means that you are in some way prejudiced.


how many people here seriously believe apostasy leads to murder?

Yes, I believe that on occasion it does.

Devrim

[GreenCommunism]

You are being ridiculous. So you think Marxists can't even criticise Islam? Not even a relatively reactionary bourgeois form of Islam? So if anyone points out the sexist and homophobic features in one particular form of Islam is being Islamophobic? It's not attacking Islam intrinsically, unless you think somehow that Islamic culture is fundamentally sexist and homophobic. (If you think that way wouldn't it be you who is the Islamophobic one?) Actually even in Iran itself, there are many Islamic feminists who are also pro-homosexuality. Why would you side with a relatively reactionary interpretation of Islam against a relatively progressive interpretation of the same religion?

As a "by-product", Islamic Iran actually has a relatively progressive policy on transgenderism, but it's certainly very limited since they don't accept any genderqueers and being such an oppressive sexist society objectively things won't be so good for transwomen anyway. But certainly there is nothing in Marxism which says we can't even criticise reactionary elements within a certain religion.

Marxism is fundamentally atheist. Historically the "belief in God" has always been associated with some kind of class structure. It generally does not go by the militant atheism route but it isn't exactly anti-militant atheism either.

I'm not a militant atheist, but I'm not going to defend any religion from militant atheism either.

i agree with most of what you said, excpet that marxism is fundamentally atheist, it questions religion but it is not fundamentally atheist. and yes i would support those feminist, i just disagree that sexism and homophobia in iran is an argument to invade it because that is how stories in the press are used as propaganda against iran, to justify invasion, my main point what that the people here, EXAGERATE the oppression of woman and homosexuals in iran. and i have often said that you can come up with any crime statistics about poor ethnic minorities it wouldn't be racist unless you exagerate. truth is never racist. i have exagerated i admit, but some of their basis for criticizing iran is based on soft islamophobia. the main problem i have however on the religious issue are atheist comrade in islamic countries for example, i do not want to alienate them, just as much as i do not want to alienate religious comrade in the west or anywhere for that matter.


Wow, I have never heard this before. I am 100% certain that I know many more Muslims than you, and I have never heard this idea expressed.

Of course, I could start shouting Islamophobia, but I don't think you having one ignorant idea about another culture means that you are in some way prejudiced.

i am sorry i admit i do not know that much about islam as you know. but i would be surprised if this was not the excuse against homosexuality, and one muslim member here said that he only heard about homosexuality in the koran in reference to a society with widespread rape and other behavior considered decadent.


Yes, I believe that on occasion it does.
yes, clearly the key word here is on occasion. i am sure some of the posters think about it as a duty for muslims to kill apostate wherever they are.

[Queercommie Girl]

i agree with most of what you said, excpet that marxism is fundamentally atheist, it questions religion but it is not fundamentally atheist. and yes i would support those feminist, i just disagree that sexism and homophobia in iran is an argument to invade it because that is how stories in the press are used as propaganda against iran, to justify invasion, my main point what that the people here, EXAGERATE the oppression of woman and homosexuals in iran. and i have often said that you can come up with any crime statistics about poor ethnic minorities it wouldn't be racist unless you exagerate. truth is never racist. i have exagerated i admit, but some of their basis for criticizing iran is based on soft islamophobia. the main problem i have however on the religious issue are atheist comrade in islamic countries for example, i do not want to alienate them, just as much as i do not want to alienate religious comrade in the west or anywhere for that matter.


Actually orthodox Marxism is fundamentally atheist. That's a fact. Of course, no-one is forcing you to become an orthodox Marxist. There are many socialists who are also religious/spiritual in some ways. I don't really mind it personally as long as these religious/spiritual elements don't discriminate against anyone and don't apologise for any reactionary socio-economic/political structures.

But you are hitting a strawman. No-one here is arguing that homophobia and sexism in Iran justifies imperialist invasion. Such a line would be ridiculous anyway considering that in the US itself LGBT people still don't even have legal equality, let alone social equality.

And actually in some ways conditions for trans people are better in Iran than in the US. Statistically a trans person is less likely to get attacked in Iran for instance.

Having said this, the existence of sexism and homophobia in Iran just further validates the idea that socialists shouldn't support anyone in the ruling bloc, neither reactionary Islam nor pro-imperialism, but actually start to develop independent working class and grassroots political forces.

[Aurora]

the islamophobia from some in this thread is fucking disgusting.
A search shows that the only mention of 'islam' and 'muslims' in this thread is your post and people quoting you.
Somehow im reminded of zionists shouting about anti-semitism..

Anyway i think its pretty much as Led Zeppelin put it months ago, you can tell the colours of a communist from how they reacted during the protests, PSL and FRSO on one side,everybody else including all iranian communists on the other.

[Devrim]

but some of their basis for criticizing iran is based on soft islamophobia.

Most of the discussion on this thread is about whether or not the 'Green movement' was a tool of US imperialism or not.


but i would be surprised if this was not the excuse against homosexuality, and one muslim member here said that he only heard about homosexuality in the koran in reference to a society with widespread rape and other behavior considered decadent.

The references to homosexuality in the Koran come in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which although it has some different details, such as the fate of Lot's wife, is pretty similar to the one in the Christian Bible. Would people say that about Christians though?


yes, clearly the key word here is on occasion. i am sure some of the posters think about it as a duty for muslims to kill apostate wherever they are.

It is a duty for Muslims to do lots of things, just as it is the duty of Christians to do lots of things. Whether they do them or not is a different question. I am sure many of the posters on here have lots of funny ideas about Islam. Is the way to counter them by explaining what is true and what is not, or by accusing people of Islamophobia?

Devrim

[GreenCommunism]

Actually orthodox Marxism is fundamentally atheist. That's a fact. Of course, no-one is forcing you to become an orthodox Marxist. There are many socialists who are also religious/spiritual in some ways. I don't really mind it personally as long as these religious/spiritual elements don't discriminate against anyone and don't apologise for any reactionary socio-economic/political structures.

But you are hitting a strawman. No-one here is arguing that homophobia and sexism in Iran justifies imperialist invasion. Such a line would be ridiculous anyway considering that in the US itself LGBT people still don't even have legal equality, let alone social equality.

And actually in some ways conditions for trans people are better in Iran than in the US. Statistically a trans person is less likely to get attacked in Iran for instance.

Having said this, the existence of sexism and homophobia in Iran just further validates the idea that socialists shouldn't support anyone in the ruling bloc, neither reactionary Islam nor pro-imperialism, but actually start to develop independent working class and grassroots political forces.

the religion is the opiate of the masses i know, but how does that mean orthodox marxism is atheist, how can you say it was not because of the condition of that time, or opposition to organized religion?

no one here is arguing that it justify invasion, however, many are arguing this is a reason to oppose ahmadinejad while the opponents is just as bad. and yes it would be absurd to claim it is a good reason to do so, however, this propaganda is often shown on tv as a way to claim iran is an evil nation that deserves invasion.

A search shows that the only mention of 'islam' and 'muslims' in this thread is your post and people quoting you.
Somehow im reminded of zionists shouting about anti-semitism..

so if i mention racist things about israel i am not being anti-semitic.


Anyway i think its pretty much as Led Zeppelin put it months ago, you can tell the colours of a communist from how they reacted during the protests, PSL and FRSO on one side,everybody else including all iranian communists on the other.

you are right, taking moussavi's side is a good way to show the colors of those so-called revolutionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

Technically taking either side is wrong. Both are qualitatively reactionary. And frankly it's a can of worms to try to actually "calculate" which side is "quantitatively more reactionary".

I support completely independent working class political activism in Iran.

[Queercommie Girl]

The religion is the opiate of the masses i know, but how does that mean orthodox marxism is atheist, how can you say it was not because of the condition of that time, or opposition to organized religion?


Because Marxism is also scientific and affirms scientific logic.

Religions aren't only reactionary because they are oppressive, though for Marxists that's the primary reason, but also because they are superstitious and irrational. Religions can't be justified by science.

However, personally I think even in a socialist society there would probably still be some kind of "natural scientific spirituality" that is neither oppressive nor superstitious. But this is my personal view, not the orthodox Marxist view. (In this sense I'm also not a completely orthodox Marxist either)

[Tzadikim]

Technically taking either side is wrong. Both are qualitatively reactionary. And frankly it's a can of worms to try to actually "calculate" which side is "quantitatively more reactionary".

I support completely independent working class political activism in Iran.

This, so hard.

[Queercommie Girl]

This, so hard.

Well it is, but so was trying to develop an independent socialist force in Republican China, yet the Chinese Communists achieved that.

In practice being intrinsically independent doesn't mean one can't temporarily form political alliances. But then I think even if socialists are to ally with relatively progressive non-socialist forces in Iran, they should look at the population at large rather than support any wing in the ruling bloc.

[Soviet dude]

I support completely independent working class political activism in Iran

Again and again, the pseudo-Left comes up with this fantasy of talking about not supporting Mousavi, but some other, completely imaginary force in Iran, which they pretend somehow actually has an influence on the "Green" movement the US imperialist bourgeoisie is in love with.

Let me spell it out to you: there is no "independent" revolutionary anything in Iran that has any connection with the "Green" movement. To cheer-lead the Green movement, while pretending you are cheer-leading some other non-existent shit, is objectively cheer-leading color-revolution and US imperialism. Lots of Trots and other idiots cheer-leaded the fall of the USSR, all the while imagining "true socialism" was coming into being. It fucking wasn't, and any moron could see that. Your "reason" for supporting the 'Green' movement suggests you are either profoundly stupid, or a liar who supports US imperialism.

[GreenCommunism]

Because Marxism is also scientific and affirms scientific logic.

Religions aren't only reactionary because they are oppressive, though for Marxists that's the primary reason, but also because they are superstitious and irrational. Religions can't be justified by science.

However, personally I think even in a socialist society there would probably still be some kind of "natural scientific spirituality" that is neither oppressive nor superstitious. But this is my personal view, not the orthodox Marxist view. (In this sense I'm also not a completely orthodox Marxist either)

spirituality is superstitious. the view you have would work with agnosticism more than with atheism itself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Again and again, the pseudo-Left comes up with this fantasy of talking about not supporting Mousavi, but some other, completely imaginary force in Iran, which they pretend somehow actually has an influence on the "Green" movement the US imperialist bourgeoisie is in love with.

Let me spell it out to you: there is no "independent" revolutionary anything in Iran that has any connection with the "Green" movement. To cheer-lead the Green movement, while pretending you are cheer-leading some other non-existent shit, is objectively cheer-leading color-revolution and US imperialism. Lots of Trots and other idiots cheer-leaded the fall of the USSR, all the while imagining "true socialism" was coming into being. It fucking wasn't, and any moron could see that. Your "reason" for supporting the 'Green' movement suggests you are either profoundly stupid, or a liar who supports US imperialism.

When did I say I necessarily support the mainstream Green movement? Don't put words into my mouth.

I'm saying socialists need to develop their own forces. It doesn't really exist now, but so what? The CCP didn't exist in 1920. As the Chinese socialist writer Lu Xun said: "In the world there are no roads, roads emerge as people walk over them." Conditions can be created.

It's better than just passively "choose the lesser of the two evils" all the time. In the Western context you are like one of those people that constantly call for people to vote for the Labour Party because apparently it is slightly more progressive than the alternative - the Conservatives.

Also, socialists shouldn't imagine a theocratic bourgeois state like Iran today is anything fundamentally like a deformed or revisionist worker's state like the USSR was in the 1980s. Not every state that is anti-US is automatically a "worker's state". If you support Ahmadinejad like how you would have critically supported the Soviet Communist Party in the late 1980s, then I think your political analysis is wrong. Iran is not a worker's state by any means, not even a highly deformed one like the PRC is now.

[The Red Next Door]

Iran is an (1) oppressed former colonized and neo-colonized country, (2) independent of US imperialism and (3) has anti-imperialist leadership that is under attack by US imperialism. Meeting with the Iranian leader is a simple act of solidarity with the people of Iran.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iran is an (1) oppressed former colonized and neo-colonized country, (2) independent of US imperialism and (3) has anti-imperialist leadership that is under attack by US imperialism. Meeting with the Iranian leader is a simple act of solidarity with the people of Iran.

I don't necessarily oppose PSL's actions here in itself.

But to be frank, we shouldn't really think that just to critically support "the lesser of the two evils" - a theocratic bourgeois leader in a neo-colonial country who is I admit relatively speaking more progressive objectively, is really sufficient for building genuine socialism in Iran.

No real socialism can be constructed until independent socialist and proletarian movements are initiated. No matter how difficult the objective circumstances are, it must be done, even at the risk of death and torture. That's what the early Chinese communists did in Republican China.

While in a purely objective sense just to "fall back" to the minimalist position of critically supporting Ahmadinejad may indeed be the more "progressive" option, it isn't the best option. It is rather defeatist to say things like "serious socialist forces can never be build in Iran" before one even tries to do so. And I certainly don't see why building independent socialist forces in Iran necessarily implies that one has to be more anti-Ahmadinejad than anti-US in a relative sense, that simply doesn't follow at all. If this kind of logic follows, then the CCP would never have emerged in Republican China.

Frankly, it's like the PSL's analysis on contemporary China, stating that "there is no alternative political force to the ruling CCP", without even considering the radical Maoist and other communist forces in China that are opposed to the ruling bloc of the government to varying degrees. Just to always fall back to the minimalist defensive position of choosing "the lesser of the two evils" isn't always the best alternative.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't necessarily oppose PSL's actions here in itself.

But to be frank, we shouldn't really think that just to critically support "the lesser of the two evils" - a theocratic bourgeois leader in a neo-colonial country who is I admit relatively speaking more progressive objectively, is really sufficient for building genuine socialism in Iran.

No real socialism can be constructed until independent socialist and proletarian movements are initiated. No matter how difficult the objective circumstances are, it must be done, even at the risk of death and torture. That's what the early Chinese communists did in Republican China.

While in a purely objective sense just to "fall back" to the minimalist position of critically supporting Ahmadinejad may indeed be the more "progressive" option, it isn't the best option. It is rather defeatist to say things like "serious socialist forces can never be build in Iran" before one even tries to do so. And I certainly don't see why building independent socialist forces in Iran necessarily implies that one has to be more anti-Ahmadinejad than anti-US in a relative sense, that simply doesn't follow at all. If this kind of logic follows, then the CCP would never have emerged in Republican China.

Frankly, it's like the PSL's analysis on contemporary China, stating that "there is no alternative political force to the ruling CCP", without even considering the radical Maoist and other communist forces in China that are opposed to the ruling bloc of the government to varying degrees. Just to always fall back to the minimalist defensive position of choosing "the lesser of the two evils" isn't always the best alternative.

The PSL never said that. In fact, they've even correctly shown how there were various ex-members of the CPC that denounced "Market Socialism" & wanted the re-emergence of Mao-Zedong thought. Besides, these Maoists, to all of us, are new to our ears about their presence in China. You're the only one who made such news available to us.

[RadioRaheem84]

If I can interject for just a minute:

Just what do leftists of all stripes see in the Iranian leadership?

What does Hugo Chavez see that I do not see in the Iranian leadership?

How do they not see the utter repression in that nation? How do they not see that leftists are suppressed?

Just what is it that I am missing that can help me really see the Iranian leadership as some sort of benefit to global class struggle?

[Crux]

Again and again, the pseudo-Left comes up with this fantasy of talking about not supporting Mousavi, but some other, completely imaginary force in Iran, which they pretend somehow actually has an influence on the "Green" movement the US imperialist bourgeoisie is in love with.

Let me spell it out to you: there is no "independent" revolutionary anything in Iran that has any connection with the "Green" movement. To cheer-lead the Green movement, while pretending you are cheer-leading some other non-existent shit, is objectively cheer-leading color-revolution and US imperialism. Lots of Trots and other idiots cheer-leaded the fall of the USSR, all the while imagining "true socialism" was coming into being. It fucking wasn't, and any moron could see that. Your "reason" for supporting the 'Green' movement suggests you are either profoundly stupid, or a liar who supports US imperialism.
So, objectively, you don't believe in working class movements? And any moron can see you are an apologist for the regime, incapable of arguing with anyone attacking you from the left, desperately trying to strawman your way out. Let me spell it out for you, as far as any iranian leftist would be concerned you are the fucking fash.

[RadioRaheem84]

Majakovskij I can understand your point, but..... the green movement?

[Crux]

Majakovskij I can understand your point, but..... the green movement?
It became far more than the green movement, and quite quickly. The students and other activists murdered by the regime certainly didn't die for Mousavi. But this discussion is old. However, if it needs to be spelled out again, placing yourself in the camp of either wing of the iranian regime places you in another camp than the iranian working class, claimed workingclass support for Ahmadinejad not withstanding. The hatred for the regime is widespread, the greatest danger is that they might make the same mistake as last time and say "anything but this". That is why the worker's movement that exist in iran needs to be supported and strengthened,as well as the radical students.

[Soviet dude]

So, objectively, you don't believe in working class movements?

There is no working class movement in Iran being led by a vanguard party. That is a fact. Therefore, there is no revolutionary potential in the 'Green' movement. Again, this is basic Leninism.


And any moron can see you are an apologist for the regime, incapable of arguing with anyone attacking you from the left, desperately trying to strawman your way out.

Actually, I think anyone can see you and yours are basically racist, Islamophobes, tailing the liberal wing of the imperialist bourgeoisie, and making up imaginary entities to support a clearly US sponsored coup-attempt, one that is objectively based on a lie (Ahmadinejad beat Mousavi in a bourgeois electoral contest fair and square).

And one need only look at your Venezuela thread to see just how much you actually do capitulate to US imperialism. You are a liberal anti-communist pretending to be a Marxist. Neo-conservatism awaits you in your future, as that is where your brand of politics naturally leads.


Let me spell it out for you, as far as any iranian leftist would be concerned you are the fucking fash.

Pretty much every Iranian Leftist website I visited, with the possible exception of the Tudeh Party, openly acknowledged that the 'Green' movement was in complete control of Mousavi and backed by US imperialists. They advocated a position of trying to dislodge that leadership and make the Green movement into something revolutionary, but they didn't fundamentally disagree on what it was in the first place. They clearly failed in this, because the Iranian Left don't live in Iran. They are all in exile. There are almost no underground revolutionary organizations in Iran doing anything significant, let alone having any real impact on the 'Green' movement. It is sheer and utter fantasy to pretend otherwise. It is merely an excuse to line up with US imperialists and Israeli Zionists.

Your "third" position is imaginary bullshit, a mere excuse to ally yourself with US imperialist interests.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So, objectively, you don't believe in working class movements? And any moron can see you are an apologist for the regime, incapable of arguing with anyone attacking you from the left, desperately trying to strawman your way out. Let me spell it out for you, as far as any iranian leftist would be concerned you are the fucking fash.

:confused:

Where is he stating that he doesn't support any working class movement? Just because there's workers protesting against something, doesn't make it legitimate. We're not here to support all workers, because not all workers are supporters to our class struggle - e.g. the Police Force.

He's clearly just denouncing the counterrevolutionary color revolutions that are nothing more than populist movements doing the dirty work for imperialist actions. And if you're in support of such, then you're siding with the imperialists. Enough said.

[RadioRaheem84]

It became far more than the green movement, and quite quickly. The students and other activists murdered by the regime certainly didn't die for Mousavi. But this discussion is old. However, if it needs to be spelled out again, placing yourself in the camp of either wing of the iranian regime places you in another camp than the iranian working class, claimed workingclass support for Ahmadinejad not withstanding. The hatred for the regime is widespread, the greatest danger is that they might make the same mistake as last time and say "anything but this". That is why the worker's movement that exist in iran needs to be supported and strengthened,as well as the radical students.

Clearly though, the Green Movement was a liberal imperialist financed venture that was clearly using massive unrest and disapproval of the Iranian Regime to it's opportunity.

This isn't a Hitchean style situation where anything remotely to the "left" even liberal is a good thing over "theocracy". I am tired of playing that game.

The working class in Iran needs to be supported against Imperialism, period. Whether it comes in the form of a liberal movement using the people as a tool (like it did with Solidarity) or through military assault, it's not wanted.

[Crux]

There is no working class movement in Iran being led by a vanguard party. That is a fact. Therefore, there is no revolutionary potential in the 'Green' movement. Again, this is basic Leninism.
I must have missed the "let's back reactionary governments" part last time I read State and Revolution. There is a an underground worker's movement in iran. This is fact. Somehow I believe that has no consequence for your backing of the regime.




Actually, I think anyone can see you and yours are basically racist, Islamophobes, tailing the liberal wing of the imperialist bourgeoisie, and making up imaginary entities to support a clearly US sponsored coup-attempt, one that is objectively based on a lie (Ahmadinejad beat Mousavi in a bourgeois electoral contest fair and square).
Rah rah rah! You big baby. I am not the on running around in fantasy land.You have as much grasp on what I support as you have on, say, the situation in iran in general. Fair and square? Yeah, right.


And one need only look at your Venezuela thread to see just how much you actually do capitulate to US imperialism. You are a liberal anti-communist pretending to be a Marxist. Neo-conservatism awaits you in your future, as that is where your brand of politics naturally leads.I am sorry but I have no intention of going over to your camp, so no, no neo-conservatism for me. And yes please do look at the Venezuela thread. Not you, soviet_dude, I fear you have your blinders on so tight that actually reading anything I write becomes far to difficult for you, whereas making up my opinions is the only way you can cover your own reactionary and capitulationist standpoints.




Pretty much every Iranian Leftist website I visited, with the possible exception of the Tudeh Party, openly acknowledged that the 'Green' movement was in complete control of Mousavi and backed by US imperialists. They advocated a position of trying to dislodge that leadership and make the Green movement into something revolutionary, but they didn't fundamentally disagree on what it was in the first place. They clearly failed in this, because the Iranian Left don't live in Iran. They are all in exile. There are almost no underground revolutionary organizations in Iran doing anything significant, let alone having any real impact on the 'Green' movement. It is sheer and utter fantasy to pretend otherwise. It is merely an excuse to line up with US imperialists and Israeli Zionists.
Funny then, because the Tudeh party seems like the political grouping most similar to your own viewpoints. Another funny thing is you're the only one raah raahing about the green movement. Of course that's because with your blinders this tight on, it's wonder you've even heard there were any protests at all in the worker's utopia of the islamic republic of Iran.
I am not pretending and you keep dodging the fact that you are a supporter of a murderous anti-workingclass reactionary regime. So let's see what's next, there's no working class in Iran?



Your "third" position is imaginary bullshit, a mere excuse to ally yourself with US imperialist interests.
Your "Ahmadinejad has the support of the iranian working class" is imaganiary bullshit, a mere excuse for you to ally with the reactionary iranian regime and separete yourself from the iranian workingclass. All the while attacking anyone opposing the regime as "U.S imperialists". Hasn't the cry of reactionaries always to claim any opposition to a given regime is foreign in nature? Also, your straw manning,while slightly amusing, is getting tiresome. If you can't defend your position, then just say so.

[Crux]

Clearly though, the Green Movement was a liberal imperialist financed venture that was clearly using massive unrest and disapproval of the Iranian Regime to it's opportunity.

This isn't a Hitchean style situation where anything remotely to the "left" even liberal is a good thing over "theocracy". I am tired of playing that game.

The working class in Iran needs to be supported against Imperialism, period. Whether it comes in the form of a liberal movement using the people as a tool (like it did with Solidarity) or through military assault, it's not wanted.
You are standing on your head. The green movement was but a brief station, Mousavi was being dragged behind by the masses but now basically tossed aside. What is needed now is for the left to fill that vacuum. A supposed left that supports the present regime has no credibility whatsoever to fill that role. That would mean siding with the butchers.
Because it's been used as a strawman so many times before, no U.S intervention is not progressive, in all likelihood it would strengthen the current regime.

[Tzadikim]

Why is it that any attempt to seriously and earnestly discuss policy differences degenerates into labeling the opposition a conscious agent of reactionary elements? Quite probably neither Majakovskij nor Soviet dude are capitalists or the willing servants thereof. It is, however, possible that one of the two are advocating positions that would benefit the capitalists.

[Crux]

I think soviet_dude is a troll, not an agent of SAVAK. He freely admits to supporting the regime, claiming it has the support of the working class, denies the existence of underground working class organizations in iran and constantly try to claim I support Mousavi. That ought to be enough to show what a troll he is and on what side he stands.

[graymouser]

Mousavi was directly connected with murdering communists, while Ahmadinejad is not. The US has murdered millions of communist and communist sympathizers. Mousavi was their candidate. So if we wanna do a sheer calculation of who murdered more communists, Ahmadinejad still comes out ahead.
No Trotskyists that I'm aware of actually supported Mousavi during the uprising. Most did basically the same thing: calling upon the independent, working class forces in the Green Movement to break with the Mousavi leadership and form an independent revolutionary Marxist force. You can't do that if you're busy backing Ahmadinejad as an "anti-imperialist."


Asserting I would be hanged for my views is sheer Islamophobia. You should be above that.
I was marching in New York against Islamophobia a couple of weeks ago, so I think this card is the wrong one to play. The truth is, the Iranian regime has executed Marxists in the past and I do not imagine they'd be above it in the future.


This is fundamentally false. There is no revolutionary Left in Iran, let alone a powerful one. They're all in exile. They control nothing and do nothing, and without a powerful vanguard party, there is no possibility of anything revolutionary happening. This is basic Leninism: "We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc."
I find this kind of cynicism from some corners stunning. Father Gapon - an agent of the Russian state - led the march that started the 1905 Russian Revolution, because he was unleashing social forces that he could not control. It was pretty clear for a while that Mousavi was on the brink of moving some similar forces, which could well have gotten beyond his control. They would need leadership, but how can internationalists possibly help build that if they're busy admiring Ahmadinejad for his "anti-imperialist" credentials?

[Soviet dude]

Why the hell am I even bothering with someone who belongs to an organization that supported British imperialism in Falkland? You are literally an agent of Western imperialism.


I must have missed the "let's back reactionary governments" part last time I read State and Revolution.Did you read this part of Trotsky's "Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation," or is this not taught in your Trotskyite cult?



In order to understand correctly the nature of the coming events we must first of all reject ... the false ... theory that the coming war will be a war between fascism and "democracy." ... I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of that conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally -- in this case I will be on the side of "fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains in Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.

I've always said, Trotsky is often not even half as terrible as his bastard children.

I don't think anything more needs to be said, besides encouraging people to read your shit about Chavez and the Falklands, and what you are will become pretty clear, without needing me to explain it. Have fun at your anti-Iran rallies with supporters of the Shah and Zionists.

[Crux]

Why the hell am I even bothering with someone who belongs to an organization that supported British imperialism in Falkland? You are literally an agent of Western imperialism.

Did you read this part of Trotsky's "Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation," or is this not taught in your Trotskyite cult?



I've always said, Trotsky is often not even half as terrible as his bastard children.

I don't think anything more needs to be said, besides encouraging people to read your shit about Chavez and the Falklands, and what you are will become pretty clear, without needing me to explain it. Have fun at your anti-Iran rallies with supporters of the Shah and Zionists.
You must be really fucking desperate, seeing as you are unable to respond to...well, anything. When you fail at pinning Mousavi, or indeed some kind of pro-US view, on me (as a cheap attempt to defend your own reactionary position), you try jumping to the next fantasy argument. I am not expecting you will be able to respond at all though. Have fun shaking the hand of ahmadinejad. Be sure to wipe the blood off afterwards.

Do show me where Trotsky called vargas a progressive anti-imperialist. Unfathomable I know, but you don't need to be a capitulationist supporter of reactionary regimes to be an anti-imperialist. I support the defeat of the U.S in Afghanistan. That doesn't mean I praise the taliban. But for someone in denial about working class movements I guess that's the only way.


As for "supporters of the shah" and "zionists":
here I'll link a video showing left-wing activists, but knowing you you'd probably report them to SAVAK, "comrade". KI-Wcs2XVyM

[Devrim]

Actually, I think anyone can see you and yours are basically racist, Islamophobes, tailing the liberal wing of the imperialist bourgeoisie, and making up imaginary entities to support a clearly US sponsored coup-attempt, one that is objectively based on a lie (Ahmadinejad beat Mousavi in a bourgeois electoral contest fair and square).

It doesn't take long for this 'argument' to come in. It seems to be the stock in trade tool of many leftists.

I notice that Soviet dude didn't bother to answer this question:



Real power doesn't lie with the president in any society. The elections could be broadly viewed in the context of the comprador-bourgeoisie in alliance with Western imperialism, whose base of support was the petty-bourgeoisie on one side and the National-bourgeoisie and Iranian military on the other, with their support coming from the working class and poor of Iran.

Could you explain what you mean by these terms in the context of present day Iran giving examples of who is in which camp, please?

His failure to do so leads me to presume that he is just using a couple of meaningless buzzwords, and he has no idea of what he actually means by them.

Devrim

[Barry Lyndon]

What some people here seem to be engaging in here is a sort of inverted nationalism, which is an automatic, reflexive identification with any regime that happens to oppose Washington at the moment. Contorted acrobatics often ensue in order to make the regime 'progressive', or even somehow 'socialist'
It throws any class analysis out the window, and is very opportunistic, shortsighted politics to say the least. If they could get away with it, 'anti-imperialists' of this stripe would try to pass off the Taliban as socialist.

It is not 'Islamophobic' to say that the Iranian regime would probably kill people posting on this forum, since the Islamic Republic has, in fact, killed communists-thousands of them.

While trying to paint their opponents as racist, it is in fact these so-called 'leftists' who defend right-wing theocrats that are racist, with their unspoken presumption that the Iranian people are too backward, ignorant and primitive to deserve anything better then Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Iranian leftists are not 'all abroad'-they are most visible there, but there are underground political organizations linked to the trade unions and student groups. To simply say they don't exist is a bald-faced lie, made as a cover for opportunistic support to a regime that imprisons, tortures and murders leftists, women, trade unionists, and homosexuals.

I doubt Sovietdude and others like him actually know a damn thing about Iran.

[Devrim]

I don't necessarily oppose PSL's actions here in itself.

Is this the PSL doing this? Actually it doesn't surprise me. It does mean that I now have even less respect for them than I had previously if that is at all possibly.


Iran is an (1) oppressed former colonized and neo-colonized country, (2) independent of US imperialism and (3) has anti-imperialist leadership that is under attack by US imperialism. Meeting with the Iranian leader is a simple act of solidarity with the people of Iran.

Iran, like the rest of the world, is a society divided into classes. Meeeting with the representatives of the Iran bourgeoisie is not some act of solidarity with some amorphous 'Iranian people'.

Devrim

[GreenCommunism]

What some people here seem to be engaging in here is a sort of inverted nationalism, which is an automatic, reflexive identification with any regime that happens to oppose Washington at the moment. Contorted acrobatics often ensue in order to make the regime 'progressive', or even somehow 'socialist'
It throws any class analysis out the window, and is very opportunistic, shortsighted politics to say the least. If they could get away with it, 'anti-imperialists' of this stripe would try to pass off the Taliban as socialist.



While trying to paint their opponents as racist, it is in fact these so-called 'leftists' who defend right-wing theocrats that are racist, with their unspoken presumption that the Iranian people are too backward, ignorant and primitive to deserve anything better then Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Iranian leftists are not 'all abroad'-they are most visible there, but there are underground political organizations linked to the trade unions and student groups. To simply say they don't exist is a bald-faced lie, made as a cover for opportunistic support to a regime that imprisons, tortures and murders leftists, women, trade unionists, and homosexuals.


the problem is that, we who defend ahmadinejad accuse you of supporting moussavi and vice versa. it seems that you defend western propaganda, as opposed that i believe we take a nuanced view. i tend to excuse human right by telling myself i do not know the exact detail. i do not know if sakineh killed her husband or not, i do not know how bad was repression, how many protesters were there, i do not know if the election results was legitimate or not, i do not know if some protesters were raped,i don't know how many stoning were there ( i think it stopped in 2007).

[Devrim]

the problem is that, we who defend ahmadinejad accuse you of supporting moussavi and vice versa.

There is a difference. The Trotskyists on here who you accuse of defending Mousavi claim that they don't, while those is support of the Iranian state are shamelessly open about defending it.

They don't need to accuse you of supporting Ahmadinejed because you openly admit to it.

Devrim

[Devrim]

i tend to excuse human right by telling myself i do not know the exact detail. i do not know if sakineh killed her husband or not, i do not know how bad was repression, how many protesters were there, i do not know if the election results was legitimate or not, i do not know if some protesters were raped,i don't know how many stoning were there ( i think it stopped in 2007).

This argument is really beyond belief.

Devrim

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I don't see how the People's Mojahedin of Iran count as 'communists', they are puppets of US imperialism, they advocate the destruction of the Islamic Republic by America.

And there's also a very good argument that the underground groups in Iran are on the payroll of the CIA.

[GreenCommunism]

They don't need to accuse you of supporting Ahmadinejed because you openly admit to it.

no we don't , the way i framed it was to explain my point of view. we are simply sick of people bashing ahmadinejad then claiming not to support moussavi.


This argument is really beyond belief.

do you take everything about iran in the news without criticism? we tend to excuse more as propaganda, you tend to excuse less. that is my viewpoint

[Crux]

I don't see how the People's Mojahedin of Iran count as 'communists', they are puppets of US imperialism, they advocate the destruction of the Islamic Republic by America.

And there's also a very good argument that the underground groups in Iran are on the payroll of the CIA.
Yes, I don't see that either, but please show me where anyone has mentioned that? And no, the video is not showing People's Mojahedin supporters, if that is what you thought.

Then there's a good argument for Lenin being a german spie as well.

[Crux]

no we don't , the way i framed it was to explain my point of view. we are simply sick of people bashing ahmadinejad then claiming not to support moussavi.
Apparently that's a too confusing a subject for you to grasp, but next I expect you'll accuse me of being pro-republican for opposing Obama.


do you take everything about iran in the news without criticism? we tend to excuse more as propaganda, you tend to excuse less. that is my viewpointYou tend to excuse different propaganda, I tend to have iranian contacts. That is my viewpoint.

[Queercommie Girl]

If I can interject for just a minute:

Just what do leftists of all stripes see in the Iranian leadership?

What does Hugo Chavez see that I do not see in the Iranian leadership?

How do they not see the utter repression in that nation? How do they not see that leftists are suppressed?

Just what is it that I am missing that can help me really see the Iranian leadership as some sort of benefit to global class struggle?

It is a fundamental mistake for socialists to conflate Iran with Cuba and Venezuela.

Chavez is partially/relatively progressive, Ahmad is just the "lesser of the two evils".

Ahmad is slightly more pro-poor than his opponent and more independent of US imperialism. As for his oppressive policies in Iran, well you can bet that despite the "progressive rhetoric" used by Moussavi, if he actually gets into power we certainly will not see any real concrete improvements in terms of sexism and homophobia etc at all. In this sense he is not really different from Obama himself in the US.

That said, I think it is mistaken to call Ahmad "relatively progressive", as if he is somehow on the same level as a genuine left reformist leader like Chavez. Ahmad is merely the "lesser of the two evils", nothing more.

[Devrim]

no we don't , the way i framed it was to explain my point of view. we are simply sick of people bashing ahmadinejad then claiming not to support moussavi.

What you said was 'we who defend ahmadinejad'. Are you trying to claim there is some subtle difference between defend and support now?

Of course the only two choices are not two bourgeois politicians. It iş a bit like saying if you don't support the democrats, then you must support the republicans.


do you take everything about iran in the news without criticism? we tend to excuse more as propaganda, you tend to excuse less. that is my viewpoint

No, I don't, but that doesn't mean that Iran is not a viscously anti-working class state.

Devrim

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I would put Ahmadinejad on the same level as Nasser or other anti-imperialist leaders in the region. Nasser banned the Communist Party too, but he still was a great fighter against Zionist and American imperialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

The PSL never said that. In fact, they've even correctly shown how there were various ex-members of the CPC that denounced "Market Socialism" & wanted the re-emergence of Mao-Zedong thought. Besides, these Maoists, to all of us, are new to our ears about their presence in China. You're the only one who made such news available to us.

Fair enough.

Well as I said I'm to the left of PSL, I won't join PSL because frankly they are not anti-revisionist enough, but I'm still a critical supporter.

That said, I'm also to the right of radical left Maoists like the MCPC and Western Trotskyist organisations. I've had contacts with the MCPC before and frankly I think their political line is somewhat ultra-leftist. My friend in the MCPC once literally accused me of being a "fake socialist" simply because I still don't completely write-off the PRC state and I don't completely reject Deng Xiaoping. The left Maoists in China today literally see Deng as "evil" like how some Trotskyists in the West literally see Stalin as "evil".

So I think while socialists should certainly be more radical when it comes to Chinese politics, I wouldn't call for people to give MCPC complete support. Their political line is often to the left of orthodox Trotskyism and too extreme.

You talked about "ex-CCP members", well even today I would only write-off the ruling bloc within the CCP that belongs to the bureaucratic capitalist class, not the grassroots layers of the CCP that are mostly working class and middle class, there are still many genuine socialists to varying degrees there.

[graymouser]

no we don't , the way i framed it was to explain my point of view. we are simply sick of people bashing ahmadinejad then claiming not to support moussavi.
I do not support either Ahmadinejad or Moussavi - as I've outlined earlier in this thread, the only positive thing that could come out of the events in Iran is that a revolutionary communist opposition develops within the anti-Ahmadinejad movement. This opposition would be against both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi - just as a revolutionary communist movement in the United States would be against both the Democrats and the Republicans. This is an utterly false flag to wave.

[Rafiq]

here I'll link a video showing left-wing activists, but knowing you you'd probably report them to SAVAK, "comrade". KI-Wcs2XVyM


You're a dumbass. Savak doesn't even exist anymore, it's VEVAK. SAVAK was Shah time agency.. .

Doesn't matter though, most of everything is in the hands of the Gaurd.


I say, for now, we should support the actions Iranian president says at UN speeches, interviews.

But we shouldn't support him and his regime domestically.

Plus, now really isn't the time for Revolution in Iran. Once the Imperialists are gone and imperialism against Iran is gone, then Revolution in Iran is good.

But for now, they are going to need a strong Military and a Hardline Leadership, for now.

[Rafiq]

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

Watch all four parts, as you can see, he is somewhat of a good speaker.

But the corruption in the Regime is no more corrupt than the US regime, which is pretty bad.

I am not supporting him, I am just pointing out he is a pretty smart guy when it comes to battling US imperialism.

[Barry Lyndon]

I would put Ahmadinejad on the same level as Nasser or other anti-imperialist leaders in the region. Nasser banned the Communist Party too, but he still was a great fighter against Zionist and American imperialism.

No No No that is such a fucking wrong analogy.......

[Barry Lyndon]

Plus, now really isn't the time for Revolution in Iran. Once the Imperialists are gone and imperialism against Iran is gone, then Revolution in Iran is good.

But for now, they are going to need a strong Military and a Hardline Leadership, for now.

What the hell is this SHIT? So until US imperialism ceases to exist, there can be no independent working-class Left in Iran?
A revival of the Left in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East is the only effective long-term strategy for fighting US imperialism.
Islamists are only half-heartedly opposed to US imperialism, because they also fear progressive forces in their own country and have been happy to collaborate with imperialism in order to crush their leftist rivals. Have you heard of the CIA-backed mujuhideen in Afghanistan? The secret arms deals the Islamic Republic of Iran made with the Reagan administration during Iran contra? The fact that even today the US military is trying to reach out to the 'good Taliban' factions in Pakistan?
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region in the last 30 years has a DIRECT relation to the destruction of the secular left there.

[The Red Next Door]

We should support the regime to the extend of making sure, The US would not invade them. but like people on here said; we should support the working class and fuck Leader A and Leader M. We should not support the regime but that doesn't mean letting Amerikka fuck them up. Do you think the working class and revolutionaries in Iran would be even better off with leader M or the US in power, in that county?

As you can see President Uncle Tom is oppressing leftists here in the USA, and they can continued the same practice of murdering leftists in Iran.

In short we support the Iran government from being attack only, but we can support the underground at the same time.

Correct me if I am wrong.:blushing:

[Soviet dude]

No Trotskyists that I'm aware of actually supported Mousavi during the uprising. Most did basically the same thing: calling upon the independent, working class forces in the Green Movement to break with the Mousavi leadership and form an independent revolutionary Marxist force. You can't do that if you're busy backing Ahmadinejad as an "anti-imperialist."Simply put, this is a pipe-dream. And most Trotskyist organizations very clearly did/do support the Green movement, but take this sort of ridiculous line as a defense when people point out they are supporting US sponsored color revolution. It's doublespeak.


The truth is, the Iranian regime has executed Marxists in the past and I do not imagine they'd be above it in the future.Pretty much all governments have killed self-proclaimed Marxists. What happened 40 years ago in Iran isn't as pertinent as what back-handed support of US color-revolution means today.


I find this kind of cynicism from some corners stunning.There is no cynicism. No one said anything about the possibility of a resurgence of the Iranian Left, but that doesn't happen because the pro-West section of the regime organizes some people in the streets. There is no short-cut to revolution for a communist organization, and it's simply a fact the Iranian Left have no ability to drive the 'Green' movement in the direction they want it. The US government has a far greater ability to do this than they do.


Father Gapon - an agent of the Russian state - led the march that started the 1905 Russian Revolution, because he was unleashing social forces that he could not control.And? Did a socialist revolution take place in 1905? No.


It was pretty clear for a while that Mousavi was on the brink of moving some similar forces, which could well have gotten beyond his control.That is not clear at all. That is a fantasy Leftists told themselves to justify lining up with their own imperialists. It is a common fantasy, one the Left should be extremely familiar with since at least 1989.


They would need leadership, but how can internationalists possibly help build that if they're busy admiring Ahmadinejad for his "anti-imperialist" credentialsIt doesn't have anything to do with admiring Ahmadinejad, but opposing our own imperialists.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am just wary of any Iranian Movement that does no explicitly say they're socialist or communist. I've had too many close calls supporting Exiled Monarchist Fronts that disguised their organizations as "Student" support groups.

The other thing is that the US is trying to create another Color Revolution and a Solidarity campaign ala Poland. What ever leader it supports would be another Lech Walesa. It should take all your muster to oppose such movements no matter how much of an apologist of the regime people call you. I remember Christopher Hitchens talking praise of Adam Michnik and he turned out to be a fervent supporter of shock therapy in Eastern Europe!

The Left has been severely marginalized in Iran so there is no major leftist movement that can rival the regime, but there is one (liberal) that has a lot of working class people and the younger generation motivated and that is the Green Movement. We know it's an arm of US Imperialism

This is a tricky situation, but I would rather be called an apologist for the regime (even though I fully oppose it) and defend them against US Imperialism, than support any liberal US Imperialist movement just because it has a large number of popular support.

[RadioRaheem84]

It doesn't have anything to do with admiring Ahmadinejad, but opposing our own imperialists.

I thought this much was clear on Revleft.

[graymouser]

Simply put, this is a pipe-dream. And most Trotskyist organizations very clearly did/do support the Green movement, but take this sort of ridiculous line as a defense when people point out they are supporting US sponsored color revolution. It's doublespeak.
So your line is that, since it's a "pipe-dream" to have a popular movement advance beyond the limitations of its leaders, we should support its being crushed in the name of "anti-imperialism"? That's what I mean by cynicism - Trotskyists, by tendency, are revolutionary optimists and we see the potential of such movements to overrun the limitations placed on them by their misleaders, but only if a leadership can be constructed to do so.


Pretty much all governments have killed self-proclaimed Marxists. What happened 40 years ago in Iran isn't as pertinent as what back-handed support of US color-revolution means today.
It was 22 years ago that thousands of Iranian communists were murdered, not 40 (which would put you back before the 1979 revolution). You can say it's not "pertinent" but it's the damn truth. And the "color-revolution" idea may have a kernel of truth in it but does not capture the full range of what was going on in Iran last year, and continues to simmer there.


There is no cynicism. No one said anything about the possibility of a resurgence of the Iranian Left, but that doesn't happen because the pro-West section of the regime organizes some people in the streets. There is no short-cut to revolution for a communist organization, and its s a simply fact the Iranian Left have no ability to drive the 'Green' movement in the direction they want it. The US government has a far greater ability to do this than they do.
Yet the Iranian left cannot be reborn if every act of dissent is brutally crushed by the regime. The chance is there for the left to make a comeback - this is how the contradictions of society work. Large movements of people are never as simple as you make them out to be.


And? Did a socialist revolution take place in 1905? No.
This displays a tremendously impoverished view of what actually did occur in 1905, or its crucial importance in paving the way for 1917. The fact that the revolution of 1905 didn't succeed doesn't mean that it didn't have a tremendous impact both in Russia and throughout the world.


It doesn't have anything to do with admiring Ahmadinejad, but opposing our own imperialists.
Hey, I have nothing against opposing "our own" imperialism - my main practical work is antiwar, into which we try to inject some anti-imperialist sentiment. And one of our coalition's main slogans is "Hands Off Iran." But I don't believe that the way to do this is to repeat the line of the Iranian regime - as the anti-"Green" posters here have been doing. We should tell the truth: both sides are anti-working class, and only a workers' revolution can bring freedom and liberate Iran from imperialism. What we can't do is allow Ahmadinejad to hold up the flag of "anti-imperialism" which in his case is a threadbare one at best.

[Devrim]

Correct me if I am wrong.:blushing:

Yes, you are so wrong, really so wrong.


In short we support the Iran government from being attack only

What does it mean to "support the Iran[ian] government from being attack[ed] only"? Of course all socialists oppose imperialist intervention in other countries particularly when the imperialist power in question is their own country. It is the duyy of socialists in the West to oppose military intervention by 'their' states not only in Iran, but throughout the world. There is no doubt about that and those who oppose this are, in my opinion, not socialists.

But what does it mean to 'support'. Different leftist groups take different positions on this. In one way they are all the positions of impotence. Small or even medium sized leftist groups can not stop wars. Only the working class can do that. However, there are those who take the position of opposing their 'own' states policy to the point of supporting other states. There are even leftist groups who have come out openly in the past and said that workers in Iran should defend the state and that it is wrong to strike. This is a betrayal of all working class principles.

Barry Lyndon puts it well here:


What some people here seem to be engaging in here is a sort of inverted nationalism, which is an automatic, reflexive identification with any regime that happens to oppose Washington at the moment. Contorted acrobatics often ensue in order to make the regime 'progressive', or even somehow 'socialist'
It throws any class analysis out the window, and is very opportunistic, shortsighted politics to say the least. If they could get away with it, 'anti-imperialists' of this stripe would try to pass off the Taliban as socialist.

Basically these people take the idea that not only should they oppose the militaristic policies of their own states, but that they should activly support the states opposed to them.

The interesting point that Barry makes is the way that these sort of groups feel a need to dress these states up in some sort of "'progressive', or even somehow 'socialist'" clothing.

There is nothing at all socialist about Iran. It is a viscious anti-working class state, which openly attacks the working class. There are some people on this board, the Israeli Trotskyist Yehuda Stern spring to mind, who at least have arguments that deserve intellectual respect even though you disagree with them. Yehuda's group supports HAMAS. They know that HAMAS is a reactionary anti-working class organisation. Yet they support it because they think that the 'anti-imperialist struggle' has the potential to develop into a socialist struggle. I disagree with them, but their argument is much more honest than that of those who because they would feel uncomfortable supporting such anti-working class state/organisations, try to paint them in some progressive light.

There is nothing at all progressive about the current Iranian state.


but we can support the underground at the same time.

I am not quite sure what you mean by 'underground', but the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian socialists would be disgusted by anyone supporting the Iranian state. A recent example of this would be the Iranian section of the IMT leaving due to Woods and the IMT's cuddling up to Chavez, who as is well known is a 'good friend' of Ahmadinejad.

Nor, am I sure what you mean by support. What does it mean to support the left in Iran? I imagine that the majority of people on here support the left in Iran like some 10 year-old kid who lives in Montana and has never been to New York in his life supports the Yankees.

Of course there are exceptions to this. Anybody who is a member of an organisation which has a section in Iran almost certainly contributes in some way however small to supporting left wing organisations in Iran merely by paying their dues.

We don't have a section in Iran. Nevertheless, we are in contact with people in Iran, have Iranian comrades in other sections so we manage to publish some things in Farsi on the internet, and I know that Turkish ICC leaflets have been translated and distributed in cities in Northern Iran. Other organisations must be in a similar position.

Of course there must also be some individual exceptions too, but I would imagine that when most people on here says they support the left in Iran it means exactly nothing.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It is not 'Islamophobic' to say that the Iranian regime would probably kill people posting on this forum, since the Islamic Republic has, in fact, killed communists-thousands of them.

While trying to paint their opponents as racist, it is in fact these so-called 'leftists' who defend right-wing theocrats that are racist, with their unspoken presumption that the Iranian people are too backward, ignorant and primitive to deserve anything better then Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.


I agree with the first point expressed here, and even while I have some sympathy with the second I think it is not a correct argument to put forward. I don't think that accusations and counter accusations of racism can in any way help a discussion.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The Left has been severely marginalized in Iran so there is no major leftist movement that can rival the regime, but there is one (liberal) that has a lot of working class people and the younger generation motivated and that is the Green Movement. We know it's an arm of US Imperialism

I don't think that the 'Green movement' is an arm of US imperialism, and I think the idea that it is represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on in Iran.

There is absolutely no doubt that the US would try to support the 'Green movement'. It will support virtually any opposition to the Iranian state, which in the past has even included groups that it itself has described as terrorists (for their actions in other countries) whilst arming the same groups in Iran. The fact that the US supports it though does not make the 'Green movement' an 'arm of US imperialism.

In my opinion the 'Green movement' represents a part of the Iranian bourgeoisie which is in opposition to the current state policy. It is, however, an opposition within the Iranian state. Basically the struggle that is going on within Iran is a struggle within the Iranian state to determine the policies of that state.

Mousavi's organisation 'the Green path of Hope' is not some anti-state radical movement. Alongside Mousavi its leaders such as Mohammad Khatami, and Mehdi Karroubi are all people who have held important positions within the state in the past. All of them have family ties to the current leaders including Mousavi who is related to the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

Now these differences in policy have lead to often violent differences, but Mousavi and the 'Green movement' still see themselves as a movement within the Iranian state. As he says "You can't follow some parts of the constitution and throw the rest into a bin".

Mousavi was disturbed very much by the mass protests that happened last year and sees his role as bringing any opposition back within the system that for a moment it threatened to break out of.

Could Mousavi be used by US imperialism in the future? Of course he could.

Is the 'Green path of Hope' an arm of US imperialism? I don't think it is.

Does it have anything to offer the working class? Absolutely not, which leads to the next point...

Devrim

[Rafiq]

What the hell is this SHIT? So until US imperialism ceases to exist, there can be no independent working-class Left in Iran?
A revival of the Left in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East is the only effective long-term strategy for fighting US imperialism.
Islamists are only half-heartedly opposed to US imperialism, because they also fear progressive forces in their own country and have been happy to collaborate with imperialism in order to crush their leftist rivals. Have you heard of the CIA-backed mujuhideen in Afghanistan? The secret arms deals the Islamic Republic of Iran made with the Reagan administration during Iran contra? The fact that even today the US military is trying to reach out to the 'good Taliban' factions in Pakistan?
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region in the last 30 years has a DIRECT relation to the destruction of the secular left there.



Their isn't really a strong, working class left in Iran, though. There ceases to be a movement that falls under your Trotskyist standards.

So until then, maybe you should support it, ONLY internationally and not domestically.

And Iran is the biggest threat to US imperialism today, that's pretty much all they focus on these days.

I like what Soviet Dude said. Stop trying to make some fantasy that their is even a slightly powerful with influential support, Leftist Workers movement, in Iran.


Support the Islamists actions against Military Imperialism. Afterwords, that is when you start driving the masses for world revolution. Why should you have to start with Iran?

Once a workers revolution takes place in the US, than it will be clear for Iran's, non-imperialist Workers Revolution.


That's not to say, if some huge Revolutionary Left movement floods the streets of Iran and gathers majority of support from people, if it's that case, by all means we should support it against regime.


But, that doesn''t exist currently.

[RadioRaheem84]

What I meant was that it was influenced enough and can be influenced more to the West's advantage. Not something I want to be a part of.

[Devrim]

I support completely independent working class political activism in Iran Again and again, the pseudo-Left comes up with this fantasy of talking about not supporting Mousavi, but some other, completely imaginary force in Iran, which they pretend somehow actually has an influence on the "Green" movement the US imperialist bourgeoisie is in love with.

Let me spell it out to you: there is no "independent" revolutionary anything in Iran that has any connection with the "Green" movement. To cheer-lead the Green movement, while pretending you are cheer-leading some other non-existent shit, is objectively cheer-leading color-revolution and US imperialism.

There is a working class in Iran and it struggles for its own interests. As we wrote in an article about the events at the time:


The working class struggle in Iran has been especially militant in the past few years, especially with the 100,000 strong unofficial teachers strike which took place in March 2007, which thousands of factory workers joined in solidarity. 1,000 were arrested during this strike. This was the largest recorded workers' struggle in Iran since 1979. The strike was followed in the next months by struggles involving thousands of workers in sugar-cane, tyre, automotive and textile industries.

The green movement was never a workers' movement although many workers took part as individuals. Our organisation was completely clear on this:


That the Green movement is a completely bourgeois movement with nothing to offer workers seems to us very clear.

However, there was a moment where there seemed to be a possibility, and only a possibility, of the working class intervening on its own terms. Especially after the attacks upon the first demonstrations by the Basij, who are particularly hated in working class areas:


After the repression used by the police against demonstrators in Tehran, workers at the massive Khodro car factory walked out on a twenty four hour strike, not in support of either candidate in the election, but against the violence used by the state.

It was only a moment though:


But apart from a few statements from the bus drivers' union, this was the limit of workers' participation in the movement as workers. Yes, of course there were many workers involved in the protests, but they were there as isolated individuals, not as a collective force. In these situations, in a cross-class movement, which all of the various reports coming out of Iran from different leftist groups seem to agree that it was, without acting as a collective force, workers can only be submerged in the great mass of ‘the people', a mass that is being used by other class forces to further their own interests.

We concluded our analysis by going back to what we wrote in 1979:


What the ICC wrote in 1979 commenting on the Iranian revolution still rings true today. In fact the absence of the working class from the struggles of the last year confirms it: "For all the talk of people in the streets overthrowing the regime, what was clear in 1979 was that the strikes of the Iranian workers were the major, political element leading to the overthrow of the Shah's regime. Despite the mass mobilisations, when the ‘popular' movement - regrouping almost all the oppressed strata in Iran - began to exhaust itself, the entry into the struggle of the Iranian proletariat at the beginning of October 1978, most notably in the oil sector, not only refuelled the agitation, but posed a virtually insolvable problem for the national capital, in the absence of a replacement being found for the old governmental team. Repression was enough to cause the retreat of the small merchants, the students and those without work, but it proved a powerless weapon of the bourgeoisie when confronted with the economic paralysis provoked by the strikes of the workers."

It is likely that the Mousavi movement will slowly fade away, possibly with some of their demands being incorporated into state policy. Iran is not on the verge of any revolution. The coming months will see the death of the ‘Green Movement', not that of the regime. This could be a very bloody process, but unless workers can enter the struggle in their own interests, not those of bickering politicians, it is what inevitably must happen.


Devrim

[Devrim]

What the hell is this SHIT? So until US imperialism ceases to exist, there can be no independent working-class Left in Iran?
A revival of the Left in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East is the only effective long-term strategy for fighting US imperialism.
Islamists are only half-heartedly opposed to US imperialism, because they also fear progressive forces in their own country and have been happy to collaborate with imperialism in order to crush their leftist rivals. Have you heard of the CIA-backed mujuhideen in Afghanistan? The secret arms deals the Islamic Republic of Iran made with the Reagan administration during Iran contra? The fact that even today the US military is trying to reach out to the 'good Taliban' factions in Pakistan?
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region in the last 30 years has a DIRECT relation to the destruction of the secular left there.

There are also some good points here too.

Barry is correct when he says that the rise of Islamicism is directly connected to the destruction of the left. We can see that in the big struggles that took place about thirty years ago, where the Islamicits destroyed the old left, the Iranian revolution from 1979, the events in Afghanistan from 1979, the military coup in Turkey in 1980, the rise of Hezbollah and the eclipse of Amal from 1981...

The other important point is the idea that seems to be suggested by some people that first we must destroy US imperialism, and only then can there be a revolutions in the Middle East. This is totally wrong, or as Barry so subtlety puts it, "SHIT".

Revolutions are not made in nice easy periods. By very necessity they are made under the worst circumstances.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

How was this by any means an act of being moronic? They discussed with the Iranian president about Capitalism & the global wars taking place today. The FRSO does not see the Iranian President as Socialist whatsoever, but we do see him as being anti-imperialist, & is a major ally because of such. If you're not against imperialism over independent countries, then you're not a Communist.
He's an ally who kills communists and trade unionists?


Yes, because leaders of a capitalist country can't speak out against Capitalism (http://www.moonbattery.com/hugo-chavez-fist.jpg). :rolleyes:
Okay, so he is opportunistic and dishonest.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Okay, so he is opportunistic and dishonest.

Are you calling Chavez opportunistic & dishonest?

[Barry Lyndon]

I am not quite sure what you mean by 'underground', but the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian socialists would be disgusted by anyone supporting the Iranian state. A recent example of this would be the Iranian section of the IMT leaving due to Woods and the IMT's cuddling up to Chavez, who as is well known is a 'good friend' of Ahmadinejad.

As someone who is very supportive of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, this is one of the things I find most disappointing and frustrating about Chavez-his friendly relations with the Islamic Republic, as well as Russia, China, Belarus, and Zimbabwe. He is making the same logical fallacy that many people on this thread are making, of equating 'anti-imperialist' with progressive.
It's not that I entirely blame him for allying with any opponent of US imperialism that he can with Washington breathing down his neck. Or that he distrusts reports of human rights abuses in Iran and other countries, given the US media's long record of lying about conditions in Venezuela.
But he seriously does the people of these countries no favors by praising their leaders and giving these ugly regimes legitimacy.

[Rafiq]

If the Media, is willing to lie about Fidel Castro's words, Venezuala's conditions, then why wouldn't they lie about Ahmadinejad's words, and his nation's conditions?

Just curious.

[Barry Lyndon]

And Iran is the biggest threat to US imperialism today, that's pretty much all they focus on these days.

Rhetorically, perhaps. But in reality, no. Not by a long shot.
You seem to be forgetting about two other countries that Washington might be a little more worried about:

http://diplomacide.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/russia_parade.jpg
Russia
Tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, invaded a country outside its borders for the first time since 1991(Georgia), major oil and gas power, building alliances in Latin America......

http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/BeijingInfo/NewsUpdate/OlympicNews/W020081212375988570680.jpg
China
Has United States deeply in debt to it, nuclear power, huge standing army, extending economic tentacles into Africa....

Iran, by contrast, just makes a lot of noise.

[The Vegan Marxist]

As someone who is very supportive of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, this is one of the things I find most disappointing and frustrating about Chavez-his friendly relations with the Islamic Republic, as well as Russia, China, Belarus, and Zimbabwe. He is making the same logical fallacy that many people on this thread are making, of equating 'anti-imperialist' with progressive.


What's wrong with Hu Jintao (leader of China, when he's the only person, along with the left-wing section of the CPC, who's shown support in the worker strikes taking place in the SEZs), with Belarus (who'e economic conditions are similar to those of the Soviet Union, given that it's been called the last Soviet Republic left), & Zimbabwe (who's leader is fairly progressive as he's recently re-distributed land to peasants & brought 90% of Zimbabwe's economic wealth to the hands of Zimbabweans instead of white Euro-Africans supported by foreign private corporations)?

[Queercommie Girl]

As someone who is very supportive of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, this is one of the things I find most disappointing and frustrating about Chavez-his friendly relations with the Islamic Republic, as well as Russia, China, Belarus, and Zimbabwe. He is making the same logical fallacy that many people on this thread are making, of equating 'anti-imperialist' with progressive.
It's not that I entirely blame him for allying with any opponent of US imperialism that he can with Washington breathing down his neck. Or that he distrusts reports of human rights abuses in Iran and other countries, given the US media's long record of lying about conditions in Venezuela.
But he seriously does the people of these countries no favors by praising their leaders and giving these ugly regimes legitimacy.

It's a diplomatic necessity, to be frank.

In politics, one must be both highly principled and strategically flexible, not just the former.

Pure dogmatism tends to lead to failure.

Also, Chavez is certainly not "perfect", I would only label him as "partially progressive". He isn't another Lenin or even Mao for that matter.

[Dean]

It's a diplomatic necessity, to be frank.

In politics, one must be both highly principled and strategically flexible, not just the former.

Pure dogmatism tends to lead to failure.

Also, Chavez is certainly not "perfect", I would only label him as "partially progressive". He isn't another Lenin or even Mao for that matter.

Why do you feel the need to assert certain policy models - and therefore justifications for them - on a leader you only view as "partially progressive"?

What reason do we have to think that he is only being pragmatic?

Why shouldn't the same criticism be levied against all the capitalist heads-of-state when they commit the same errors?

[Barry Lyndon]

What's wrong with Hu Jintao (leader of China, when he's the only person, along with the left-wing section of the CPC, who's shown support in the worker strikes taking place in the SEZs), with Belarus (who'e economic conditions are similar to those of the Soviet Union, given that it's been called the last Soviet Republic left), & Zimbabwe (who's leader is fairly progressive as he's recently re-distributed land to peasants & brought 90% of Zimbabwe's economic wealth to the hands of Zimbabweans instead of white Euro-Africans supported by foreign private corporations)?

The CCP is putting on a show of sympathy for the strikers who walk out on foreign-owned plants as a way of stirring up Chinese nationalism. They are trying to make it an issue of the devil foreigners exploiting Chinese workers, rather then it being a result of a corrupt alliance between the farcical 'Communist' party and foreign capitalists. What you fail to ask yourself is, who set up these SEZ's in the first place? The very same business-suit 'market-socialists' that Hu Jintao represents.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider multinational sweatshops to be what socialism is all about. I don't consider allowing your people to rot from starvation and disease while you live in a palace and use 'land reform' to enrich your friends, like Mugabe does, to be what socialism is all about.
Venezuela has seen the mass empowerment and building of autonomous working class power. Nothing resembling that can be seen in the countries you mentioned.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why do you feel the need to assert certain policy models - and therefore justifications for them - on a leader you only view as "partially progressive"?

What reason do we have to think that he is only being pragmatic?

Why shouldn't the same criticism be levied against all the capitalist heads-of-state when they commit the same errors?

Being partially biased towards Chavez due to his partially progressive status, I tend to give him more benefit of the doubt than to most bourgeois leaders, unless evidence clearly points in the opposite direction.

Venezuela is technically still a capitalist state, but Chavez is a genuine left-reformist at least.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The CCP is putting on a show of sympathy for the strikers who walk out on foreign-owned plants as a way of stirring up Chinese nationalism. They are trying to make it an issue of the devil foreigners exploiting Chinese workers, rather then it being a result of a corrupt alliance between the farcical 'Communist' party and foreign capitalists. What you fail to ask yourself is, who set up these SEZ's in the first place? The very same business-suit 'market-socialists' that Hu Jintao represents.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider multinational sweatshops to be what socialism is all about. I don't consider allowing your people to rot from starvation and disease while you live in a palace and use 'land reform' to enrich your friends, like Mugabe does, to be what socialism is all about.
Venezuela has seen the mass empowerment and building of autonomous working class power. Nothing resembling that can be seen in the countries you mentioned.

Stirring up nationalism? The worker's strikes are always successful! Decreasing profit & increasing wages for the workers. The SEZs were created through "market-socialism", in which the vast majority of the CPC support. Though, Hu Jintao & the Left wing section are practically the only ones opposing such. Problem is that they're of the minority within the CPC. The sweatshops are present in the private sector of China - the SEZs, not the State-owned sector.

And no one here is stating people like Mugabe are socialists whatsoever, but he is fairly progressive & is ruling an independent nation against the US domination. This is why people like Chavez, Castro, etc., are in support of such. And I would actually argue that Belarus is still socialist, though I have worries on why they don't uphold the banner of such. They hold the traits of Socialism (for now), but I haven't kept myself updated as much as I'd like to about Belarus & what's happened of the private-sector (whether it's increased or decreased).

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I haven't read the entire thread. Both Achmanijad and Moussavi are shit. Mousasavi killed 30,000 leftists in 1987. Achmanijad is hanging student leaders of last year's protests.Both men and their factions are solidly products of the mullahocrcy. The way forward lies in the independence of the Iranian working class. That's Marxism 101. It is destructive for non-Iranian leftists to give any form of support to Achmanijad.

There is a small, underground but feisty Iranian left. They see Western leftist support for Achmanijad, whether implicit or explicit, as spitting on their struggles.Louis Proyect highlighted their debate.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/mrzine-drunk-on-its-own-rotgut-ideology/

Undoubtedly the CIA/Soros, etc. is aiding Moussavi. So? The color revolutions , relying on small comprador elites, were by definition superficial, or at least could not come anywhere near solving the problems and contradiction in their societies. Not supporting Achmanijad does not equal support for US imperialism. Indeed the best weapon against imperialism is the Iranian working class. Achmanijad is something of a right wing wing populist. He is constrained by his own class interests from an effective anti-imperialist struggle.

The Spanish Revolution is instructive in this regard. The CP discouraged collectivization, worker management, etc. The revolution was demoralized. in politics, as in anything else in life the best defense is a good offense, not class collaborationism.

[HEAD ICE]

My brain shuts down when I read the phrase "critical support" or any variation of the kind.


Their isn't really a strong, working class left in Iran, though.

Iran has more industrial workers than many "first world" European countries.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Stirring up nationalism? The worker's strikes are always successful! Decreasing profit & increasing wages for the workers. The SEZs were created through "market-socialism", in which the vast majority of the CPC support. Though, Hu Jintao & the Left wing section are practically the only ones opposing such. Problem is that they're of the minority within the CPC. The sweatshops are present in the private sector of China - the SEZs, not the State-owned sector.

And no one here is stating people like Mugabe are socialists whatsoever, but he is fairly progressive & is ruling an independent nation against the US domination. This is why people like Chavez, Castro, etc., are in support of such. And I would actually argue that Belarus is still socialist, though I have worries on why they don't uphold the banner of such. They hold the traits of Socialism (for now), but I haven't kept myself updated as much as I'd like to about Belarus & what's happened of the private-sector (whether it's increased or decreased).

Lukashenko got some popularity though slowing down neo-liberalism. He did support privatization, the working class in Belarus was hurt like everywhere else. He's a hack.

Conditions in the state sector in China are much better than the private but the state sector has been rapidly shrinking. I don't have the stats but its share of the economy is small.

Mugabe is a thug.Land redistribution certainly was needed but he destroyed his country. I don't understand how anyone can uphold him.

Possibly the Shanghai Cooperation Council movement, if it actually takes off, can provide another pole away from US hegemony and provide some openings for worker's movements. I would not hold my breath on this though.

[Devrim]

There is a small, underground but feisty Iranian left.

I presume you live in the US. My impression, and I have spent time in both countries and follow politics in both countries is that the Iranian left is bigger than the left in the US, and the working class more militant.

To go back a few posts I mentioned a teachers strike:


The working class struggle in Iran has been especially militant in the past few years, especially with the 100,000 strong unofficial teachers strike which took place in March 2007, which thousands of factory workers joined in solidarity.

When was there last a strike of over 100,000 workers in the US, let alone the 400,000 that would be comparable by scaling up the population?

My impressions of Iran are that the working class is stronger, the left is bigger, in absolute not comparative terms, and certainly the Iranian left is much more politically interesting than the US left.

It has been a continual point in this thread that the Iranian left is tiny, and yes it is. Socialists are a tiny minority today everywhere, but compared to the US left it is thriving.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Iran has more industrial workers than many "first world" European countries.

This is also true. I would advise some people to check their CIA fact-books. Tehran is a massive city with, in my opinion, a really proletarian character.

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

Lukashenko got some popularity though slowing down neo-liberalism. He did support privatization, the working class in Belarus was hurt like everywhere else. He's a hack.

That may be so, but can I get some links for this? Possibly 2010 ones determining whether this is still true or not?


Conditions in the state sector in China are much better than the private but the state sector has been rapidly shrinking. I don't have the stats but its share of the economy is small.

http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/

This is the Chinese statistical yearbook. Though, to warn you, if you're using anything other than Internet Explorer, you won't be able to access this site for some weird reason. So before you click this, make sure it's through Internet Explorer. What this shows is where the Chinese people work. As you can clearly see, the biggest single category is the township and village enterprises, which are definitely socialist enterprises.


Mugabe is a thug.Land redistribution certainly was needed but he destroyed his country. I don't understand how anyone can uphold him.

Links please?

[RadioRaheem84]

The Iranian Leadership represents right wing anti-imperialist populism.

Would we really support the likes of Pat Buchanan because he is largely populist and anti-free trade? He is mostly an economic nationalist and supporter of protectionist policies. He is slightly anti-imperialist too in that he is usually against the US's imperial ambitions in the Mid East.

Buchanan is also anti-semitic, a religious nutcase and a conservative zealot!

This is how I look at the Iranian leadership from a US context.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iran isn't a country like the US. The US is an imperialist developed country. Iran is an impoverished developing neo-colonial country.

You need to analyse international as well as domestic factors. Not all nations are equal.

[Chimurenga.]

Mugabe is a thug.Land redistribution certainly was needed but he destroyed his country. I don't understand how anyone can uphold him.

Really? Let me help you out. Four words; "Ian Smith and Rhodesia". I'll give you a hint.... they don't exist anymore.


lan Smith promised the whites who elected him Prime Minister of Rhodesia in 1982 that he would keep Rhodesia white, at any cost. To stop the black guerrilla fighters trying to overthrow his regime, Smith rationed food for Africans whom he believed were feeding the guerrillas. This cruel measure only served to starve the already undernourished black population. Studies found that over 90% of Rhodesia's black children were malnourished and nutritional deficiencies were the major cause of infant death. Smith rounded up blacks into concentration camps he called "protective" villages. Believing that ignorant people were less likely to revolt, he cut funding for black education, spending $5 on each black child compared to $80 on each white child. His all white Parliament passed a law protecting officials who took actions for the suppression of "terrorism", enabling the police and military to commit atrocities. An international trade boycott against Rhodesia arose, but while the US publicly condemned the government, it continued to do business there. In 1971, President Nixon lifted the chrome embargo against Rhodesia at a time when there was a surplus of chrome in the US. Blacks were eventually given the right to vote for some officials, but the opposition to Smith's government grew so strong that he was ultimately forced to give up some power to blacks. In 1979, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, a country primarily ruled by blacks.

You want to know what prompted that turn from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe? ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union) under the leadership of Robert Mugabe was elected to leadership by the Zimbabweian people in 1980. Before that they were the largest opposition force against the White Nationalist Smith regime and were engaged in a guerrilla war.*

Zimbabwe is, to my knowledge and off of the top of my head at least, the only independent nation in Africa. By independent, I mean in terms of not doing business with imperialist forces. At the same time, by being independent, they have been subjected to serious sanctions** by the US and heavily funded (by the US and England mostly) forces within Zimbabwe whose goal was to seize power to open the country up to imperialist interests.

Land redistribution has been carried out except not in full. I'm not too well read on specifics relating to that issue. However, I would point you in the direction to this lecture which I found to be quite informative by Omowale Clay (from Workers World, I believe?) called "The issue is still land in Zimbabwe":

http://www.workersdaily.org/podcast/audio/oc041307.mp3

Hope that helps.


*http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C4561B4284B26AC8 (Documentary from 1979 on Robert Mugabe and ZANU.)
**http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/us-senator-comes-clean-on-zimbabwe-sanctions/

[Lenina Rosenweg]

That may be so, but can I get some links for this? Possibly 2010 ones determining whether this is still true or not?
Links please?

this was the policy from '94 to the present.

http://socialistworld.net/eng/2007/07/04belarus.html

http://socialistworld.net/doc/4515

There's a good article which I believe is on Counterpunch, I can't find it though.The CWI articles give the basic context. Basically Lukashenko slowed down privatization but did not end it. There's a Belarussian bourgeois class allied with him.

I don't love Indymedia but this article is interesting.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2007/12/387315.html


Acting as a propaganda machine for the state ideology, the state-owned newspapers censure the policies of major powers, corporations and neo-liberal institutions in the state newspapers. At the same time the regime cooperates with IMF, World Bank and multinational corporations. For instance, the great role, played by such institutions as the European Union and the International Organisation for Migration in the formation of the Belarusian migration policy illustrates the overall dependence of the country on the general logics of neoliberal globalization. Belarus is situated at the crossroads of the flows of goods, labor force and capital from Russia and Asian region to Europe and vice versa. Its common border with the EU offers a convenient place for temporary settlement to the migrants on their long way to Europe. The wastelands, contaminated by radiation in the result of the Chernobyl disaster are at stake in the interactions between the regime and such institutions, such as the World Bank, IMF and international nuclear corporation. The latter support the revision of these wastelands’ status as unsuitable for settlement and agriculture, and provide loans for their exploitation. In a country which suffered from radioactive contamination, the potential risks of a project of building a nuclear power plant are not being discussed anymore. It's a question of when, not if.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Just so i won't be accused of over relying on the CWI.

http://www.marxist.com/robert-mugabes-zimbabwe-30-years-after-independence.htm



Mugabe introduced one of the most stringent economic structural adjustment programmes (ESAP) under the direction of the IMF and the World Bank. This “Economic Suffering for African People” as locals jokingly called ESAP destroyed the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA), most other parastatals and Zimbabwe’s food security. Zimbabwe borrowed massively at the outset, figuring that repayments -- which required 16% of export earnings in 1983 -- would “decline sharply until we estimate it will be about 4% within the next few years”.


This will make Devrim happy
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/315/zimbabwe


Its amazing what a little googling can do.

[RadioRaheem84]

I had no idea we were defending Mugabe now. His inflationary policies have left thousands of citizens using gold instead of cash to buy goods.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I presume you live in the US. My impression, and I have spent time in both countries and follow politics in both countries is that the Iranian left is bigger than the left in the US, and the working class more militant.

When was there last a strike of over 100,000 workers in the US, let alone the 400,000 that would be comparable by scaling up the population?

Socialists are a tiny minority today everywhere, but compared to the US left it is thriving.

Devrim

Touche. I admit I don't know much about Iran. I am familiar with these sites which publicize labor struggles in Iran

http://iranlaborreport.com/?p=668

http://www.hamsayeh.net/index.htm

the first one is better.

Is it possible to say what organizations are active in Iran? My understanding is that the Iranian left is European based and exile oriented, I could be wrong. There are two Hekmatist groups. As I understand Hekmat himself was anti-nationalist but his organizations have essentially become Kurdish nationalist outfits. I could be wrong. Its important to publicize struggles but organizing can be extremely dangerous.

[KC]

And no one here is stating people like Mugabe are socialists whatsoever, but he is fairly progressive & is ruling an independent nation against the US domination.

I don't really understand how on earth you could say this and be serious. The US is China's largest export market (http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html). If I remember correctly, the US is the source of the most FDI going into China.

To say that China is "independent" is absolutely absurd and really shows how hollow your analysis is; when you attempt to pigeonhole every country into either "imperialist," "imperialized," or "independent" this is what you get.


Iran has more industrial workers than many "first world" European countries.

Indeed, one reason that the democracy movement failed was because it didn't attract the Iranian oil workers, one of the most influential and well-organized sections of workers in the country.



Conditions in the state sector in China are much better than the private but the state sector has been rapidly shrinking. I don't have the stats but its share of the economy is small.

"Throughout the next two decades China would see a large amount of reforms aimed at dismantling the socialist planned economy and promoting private investment. It must be noted here, though, that this reintroduction of capitalism took on a vastly different character than it did in the Soviet Union when capitalism was restored there. In the Soviet Union state enterprises were actually sold off, which led to a very hasty restoration of capitalism. In China something much different happened; State Owned Enterprises (SOE's) were actually in most cases maintained, albeit with some very profound restructuring, while the private economy was permitted to grow independent of them.

This meant that, while SOE's were still state owned, their share of the economy dwindled as private investment soared. The implications of this permeated every layer of Chinese society; most notably, this mix of private capitalism and state socialism can be seen in the Chinese Communist Party itself. The party is now filled with what are known as “Red Capitalists” - communist party members who themselves are private owners of business or private investors."


Iran isn't a country like the US. The US is an imperialist developed country. Iran is an impoverished developing neo-colonial country.

How is it impoverished or "developing"?



Is it possible to say what organizations are active in Iran?


Parties/organizations supporting this movement:

Committee for a Workers' International (http://www.anonym.to/?http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/06/1601.html) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Party of Australia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1959) (Trotskyist)
Left Socialist Party of Belgium (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialisme.be/lsp/) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Party of Ireland (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/news/international/198-where-now-for-the-iranian-revolution.html) (Trotskyist)
Offensive (http://www.anonym.to/?http://offensief.socialisten.net/index.php/20090701567/Internationaal/Solidariteitsbetoging-aan-de-Iraanse-ambassade-in-Brussel.-Fotoreportage.html) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Alternative (US) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=1101) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Justice Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://offensiv.socialisterna.org/sv/856/internationellt/4468/) (Trotskyist)
International Marxist Tendency (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxist.com/iran-monster-demonstration-uprising-continues.htm) (Trotskyist)
Spark (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.vonk.org/200906292447/piket-voor-iraanse-ambassade.htm) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Appeal (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/750/72/) (Trotskyist)
Fight Back (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/463/1/) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Workers Party (UK) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18229) (Trotskyist)
International Socialists (http://www.anonym.to/?http://is-nieuws.blogspot.com/2009/06/vrijdagavond-wake-uit-solidariteit-met.html) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.swp.ie/index.php?page=201&dept=News) (Trotskyist)
Socialist Alternative (Australia) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2040&Itemid=125) (Trotskyist)
International Socialist Organization (New Zealand) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.iso.org.nz/news/23/447-between-revolt-and-repression-in-iran.html) (Trotskyist)
League for the Fifth International (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/iran-protests-need-new-direction-%E2%80%93-general-strike-now) (Trotskyist)
International Socialist Organization (US) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/15/iran-boils-over) (Trotskyist)
Internationalist Socialist League (Israel) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1484427&postcount=94) (Trotskyist)
International Communist Current (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/6/iran) (Left-Communist)
International Bureau for the Revolutionary party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2009-06-18/iran-at-the-crossroads) (Left-Communist)
Kasama Project (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/) (Multi-Tendency)
Hands Off the People of Iran (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.hopoi.org/articles/elections%20June%202009.html) (Multi-Tendency)
Rødt (http://www.anonym.to/?http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://roedt.no/nyheter/2009/06/oppr%C3%B8ret-i-iran-truer-b%C3%A5de-et-ahmadinejad-og-et-mousavi-styre/) (Multi-Tendency)
Workers Party in America (http://www.anonym.to/?http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/2009/06/21/wpa-election-result-provokes-popular-uprising-in-iran/) (Multi-Tendency)
Socialist Party USA (http://www.anonym.to/?http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/iran0609.html) (Multi-Tendency)
Workers Party of New Zealand (http://www.anonym.to/?http://workersparty.org.nz/2009/07/04/unrest-in-iran/) (Multi-Tendency)
Worker's Solidarity Movement (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.wsm.ie/story/5660) (Anarchist)
Anarchist Federation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/international/99-the-situation-in-iran.html) (Anarchist)
Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.anonym.to/?http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-election-2009.html) (Marxist)
Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (http://www.anonym.to/?http://kommunisten.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=461:tudeh-partei-staatsstreich-gegen-die-bevoelkerung-vereiteln&catid=44:internationales&Itemid=92) (Marxist-Leninist)
Workers Party of Belgium (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.pvda.be/weekblad/artikel/iran-overwinning-voor-uittredend-president-ahmadinejad.html) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Greece (http://www.anonym.to/?http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/2009-06-iran) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Canada (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.communist-party.ca/news/Statements/2009/Iranflyer.pdf) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Sudan (http://www.anonym.to/?http://links.org.au/node/1134) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Australia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2009/1417/19-message-of-solidarity.html) (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Ireland (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2009/1417/19-message-of-solidarity.html) (Marxist-Leninist)
News and Letters Committees (http://www.anonym.to/?http://newsandletters.org/issues/2009/Jun-Jul/leadJunJul_09.asp) (Marxist-Humanist)
International Trade Union Confederation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article3951) (Union)
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Association (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=6015&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1) (Union)
International Transport Workers' Federation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.itfglobal.org/news-online/index.cfm/newsdetail/3445) (Union)


Parties/organizations opposing this movement:

Workers World Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.workers.org/2009/editorials/iran_0625/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12365&news_iv_ctrl=1261) (Marxist-Leninist)
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.fightbacknews.org/2009/06/imperialism-and-irans-elections.htm) (Marxist-Leninist)

And just for a bit of fun, the Iranian parties for and against:

Iranian parties/organizations supporting this movement:

Worker-Communist Party of Iran - Hekmatist (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.hekmatist.com/) (Marxist/Hekmatist)
Worker-Communist Party of Iran (http://www.anonym.to/?http://worker-communistpartyofiran.blogspot.com/2009/06/long-live-revolution-against-islamic_15.html) (Marxist/Hekmatist)
Fedaian Majority (Aksaryat (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.fadai.org/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Fedaian Minority (Aghaliat) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.fadaian-minority.org/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrilla's (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.siahkal.com/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Tudeh (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.tudehpartyiran.org/) (Marxist-Leninist)
Toufan (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.toufan.org/) (Hoxhaist)
Komala (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.komala.org/) (Marxist)
Azady-Baraby (Freedom - Equality) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.azady-barabary.com/) (Marxist)
Communist Party of Iran - MLM (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/iranian-maoists-to-regime-you-wanted-a-fight-let%E2%80%99s-fight/) (Maoist)
Union of Iranian Communists (Sarbedaran) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sarbedaran.org/) (Maoist)
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.iran.mojahedin.org/pages/index.aspx) (Islamic Socialist)
Vahed Corp Workers Syndicate in Iran (http://www.anonym.to/?http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/demands/vahed-corp-workers-syndicatefree-union-of-workers-of-iran-demands/) (Union)
Free Union of Workers of Iran (http://www.anonym.to/?http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/demands/vahed-corp-workers-syndicatefree-union-of-workers-of-iran-demands/) (Union)
Khodro Automobile Company in Iran (http://www.anonym.to/?http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/demands/khodro-automobile-company-in-iran-declaration-of-strike-and-support/) (Union)

Iranian parties/organizations opposing this movement:

None.

There's some. From here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parties-and-organizations-t111281/index.html?t=111281).

[Chimurenga.]

There's some. From here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parties-and-organizations-t111281/index.html?t=111281).

At best, that's a collection of organizations/parties all over the world who supported imperialism at that time. I can only hope a good number of them have learned from their mistakes.

[HEAD ICE]

At best, that's a collection of organizations/parties all over the world who supported imperialism at that time. I can only hope a good number of them have learned from their mistakes.

I would like to know what you and what other people in this thread defending an open enemy of the working class and a David Duke fistbumper mean by 'anti-imperialism'. Is it merely "support anything against the USA" ? Because that is what it appears to be.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This thread is enough to make Hekmat roll in his grave. :rolleyes:

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would like to know what you and what other people in this thread defending an open enemy of the working class and a David Duke fistbumper mean by 'anti-imperialism'. Is it merely "support anything against the USA" ? Because that is what it appears to be.

It is to support any country that is threatened by any imperialist power. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, & so it must be opposed by all means.

[Chimurenga.]

I would like to know what you and what other people in this thread defending an open enemy of the working class

Well, unfortunately for your arguments, he was voted by 24.5 million Iranians, 62%. Clearly he has more working class support than you or most people in this thread think.


Is it merely "support anything against the USA" ?

LOL. Why is this always the reoccurring response?

I don't want to see Iran be forcibly opened up to US business relations and turned into a cheap labor haven like El Salvador, South Korea, or Taiwan. The current regime IS reactionary but they are also against US imperialism and were voted in by the majority which includes the working class and peasants.


Threads like this only reveal how floppy the "Left" really is on the question of Anti-Imperialism. It's sad to see but given my time on here, it doesn't surprise me.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well, unfortunately for your arguments, he was voted by 24.5 million Iranians, 62%. Clearly he has more working class support than you or most people in this thread think.


.

Its the overwhelming opinion of almost everyone, including the Iranian people, that the election was blatantly stolen.

So you uphold a guy who's a holocaust denier, says homosexuality does not exist in his country, and is viscously anti-union.

BTW, have you ever heard of Mokarrameh Ebrahimi?
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17408

Its inconceivable how anyone could give any support whatsoever to this reactionary filth.

Thanks for the negrep.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Its the overwhelming opinion of almost everyone, including the Iranian people, that the election was blatantly stolen.

So you uphold a guy who's a holocaust denier, says homosexuality does not exist in his country, and is viscously anti-union.

BTW, have you ever heard of Mokarrameh Ebrahimi?
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17408

Its inconceivable how anyone could give any support whatsoever to this reactionary filth.

Thanks for the negrep.

Apparently only this forum believes so, not the Iranian people. I find it odd how people like you side with people like Kenneth Timmerman. A neo-con who even stated himself just a day before the 2009 elections that "there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” & also that “..the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions … Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.”

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12639&news_iv_ctrl=1261

So please excuse me if I don't side with the majority view of this forum on the 2009 elections, & rather side with the majority Iranians who voted for a legitimate government with a legitimate, democratically elected leader.

[Chimurenga.]

Its the overwhelming opinion of almost everyone, including the Iranian people, that the election was blatantly stolen.

So you uphold a guy who's a holocaust denier, says homosexuality does not exist in his country, and is viscously anti-union.

BTW, have you ever heard of Mokarrameh Ebrahimi?
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17408

Its inconceivable how anyone could give any support whatsoever to this reactionary filth.

Thanks for the negrep.

Welp, hate to burst your bubble but there is little airtight evidence that points to the elections actually being rigged.

I said that the regime is reactionary and those, if they are even true, are reactionary positions.

Honestly, I don't really give a shit about Amnesty International (who have directly aided US Imperialism in the past and continues to do so) so I'm obviously not inclined to click that. And for the record, I'm not familiar with Mokarrameh Ebrahimi.

You're welcome.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Mokarrameh Ebrahimi & her son were charged in Iran for adultery & were sentenced to be stoned as punishment. Though, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't her & her son released in 2008 with all charges dropped? Though, as proletarianrevolution has stated, Iran is a reactionary state. We're not doubting that. But our position is not to support them being reactionary, rather to merely support their independence away from imperialism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Last August the Nation magazine had an article which very persuasively made the case that the election was stolen. Yes, the Nation is a pro-DP liberal rag but that should not discount the massive evidence of electoral fraud.

We could argue over numbers endlessly. The point for anyone professing to be a revolutionary socialist is that the Islamic Republic is an illegitimate regime and is widely regarded as an illegitimate regime.Three million people demonstrated in Tehran. Was this a sign of support? If a man is judged to be homosexual, well, he gets a rope around his neck.Union activists are routinely killed. You can go to jail for listening to heavy metal or hip hop. Women are severely repressed, the repression is unreal. Until recently women were stoned for adultery. There's a case right now.This is truly sickening.

The regime is shit. There are labor struggles on a mass scale. Have you read the articles on Louis Proyect? The Iranian left knows that WW/PSL support Achmanijad. They see this as spitting in their face.

I am a fierce opponent of US imperialism. The only way forward is to unconditionaly support the independent struggle of Iranian workers. No exceptions.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I meant Sakineh Mohammedi

http://www.facebook.com/savesakineh

[Devrim]

Is it possible to say what organizations are active in Iran?

It is difficult.


My understanding is that the Iranian left is European based and exile oriented, I could be wrong.

Most of the Iranian left that you come across is 'European based and exile oriented'. The Hekmatists particularly so. I think that virtually all of these groups have people in Iran. How much activity they have is very difficult to say. You are right about them being exile orientated. The whole Iranian left in Europe has a massive exile mentality.


There are two Hekmatist groups.

You are behind the times on this. There are now three.


As I understand Hekmat himself was anti-nationalist but his organizations have essentially become Kurdish nationalist outfits. I could be wrong.

Kurdish nationalism was always there from the start. Komala was a party of the Communist Party of Iran when the founded it in 1983.

Devrim

[Devrim]

LOL. Why is this always the reoccurring response?

Because that is pretty much how your positions come across to people.

Devrim

[KC]

At best, that's a collection of organizations/parties all over the world who supported imperialism at that time. I can only hope a good number of them have learned from their mistakes.

Yeah, and every single Iranian organization came out "in support of imperialism" as well. I only hope they have learned from this mistake and have decided to start supporting the Ayatollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). :rolleyes:


Well, unfortunately for your arguments, he was voted by 24.5 million Iranians, 62%. Clearly he has more working class support than you or most people in this thread think.

LOL

1. Many workers voted for Obama. How do you feel about that?
2. The election was won through fraud. This is very obvious.



I don't want to see Iran be forcibly opened up to US business relations and turned into a cheap labor haven like El Salvador, South Korea, or Taiwan.

Then why are you supporting Ahmedinejad/Khamenei who want to privatize most of the economy and open the country up to foreign capital?



Threads like this only reveal how floppy the "Left" really is on the question of Anti-Imperialism.

Yes, it really does, especially your posts.


Most of the Iranian left that you come across is 'European based and exile oriented'. The Hekmatists particularly so. I think that virtually all of these groups have people in Iran. How much activity they have is very difficult to say. You are right about them being exile orientated. The whole Iranian left in Europe has a massive exile mentality.


From what we experienced in attempting to contact these groups they exist but they are extremely secretive, for valid and obvious reasons. The Fedaian's exile section didn't even want to talk to us.

[Devrim]

From what we experienced in attempting to contact these groups they exist but they are extremely secretive, for valid and obvious reasons. The Fedaian's exile section didn't even want to talk to us.

I am not sure who 'we' are in this sentence. Many of them are extremely secretive. Part of it of course comes from the terrible repression that the 79 generation experienced.

I think that another part of it comes from the strange sort of attitude that exists in much of the Middle Eastern left. It is difficult to explain, but it is a sort of idea that the communists in the Middle East are the real revolutionaries, and by implication that the Western left is made up of dilettantes. I am not sure that I am communicating this very well, possibly because I have never really tried to put it into words before. People in, or familiar with, left wing politics in the Middle East know exactly what you mean when you say it though. The Fedai probably didn't take you seriously.

As an example of this we could look at the Turkish left where there are whole traditions that don't have any reflection outside of Turkey, and of course the Turkish diaspora in Europe. To a certain extent these groups don't look for international contacts even.

We have contacts with Iranian groups. Not that we are more deserving of seriousness than 'you', but probably because our tradition stresses internationalism more than Marxist-Leninist groups like the Fedai. Nevertheless relations can be extremely difficult.

Devrim

[KC]

No I know exactly what you mean. "We" is riseoftheiranianpeople.com. We were trying to get into contact with groups for information as well as to try to get some stuff distributed. One of us comes from a family of Iranian exiles and tried joining the Fedaian (Majority) I believe, but they were all weird with him then, as well. Same thing happened when we tried contacting them later.

Most of my dad's side of the family is in that region; his grandfather (if I remember correctly) and family fled from there to the US around WW1. I probably have an entire family over there that I've never met.

[Queercommie Girl]

How is it impoverished or "developing"?


GDP per capita, among other things. But then trying to explain the theory of anti-imperialism to someone like you who doesn't even recognise the existence of imperialism is like trying to teach the finer points of musical theory to an ox.

[Soviet dude]

Last August the Nation magazine had an article which very persuasively made the case that the election was stolen. Yes, the Nation is a pro-DP liberal rag but that should not discount the massive evidence of electoral fraud.

The Nation is a terrible shit, liberal-Left paper. Western polling data, done months after the elections, conclusively prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority of Iranians viewed the elections as legitimate and supported Ahmadinejad. Again, here are the links you need to read/watch:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb10/IranElection_Feb10_quaire.pdf

http://www.raceforiran.com/live-stream-what-does-the-iranian-public-really-think

Your claims to electoral fraud, and that the majority of Iranian people believe the election was stolen, is blatantly false and has been demonstrated false for a long time now. That you would suggest the opposite is the case shows you don't base your positions on any sort of factual analysis. The Western pre-polling data should have been enough to put pseudo-Left supporters of imperialism in their place, but I guess all the pseudo-Left can do now is ignore all polling evidence which conclusively shows the whole basis of the 'Green' movement is a lie.


We could argue over numbers endlessly. The point for anyone professing to be a revolutionary socialist is that the Islamic Republic is an illegitimate regime and is widely regarded as an illegitimate regime.Three million people demonstrated in Tehran. Was this a sign of support? If a man is judged to be homosexual, well, he gets a rope around his neck.Union activists are routinely killed. You can go to jail for listening to heavy metal or hip hop. Women are severely repressed, the repression is unreal. Until recently women were stoned for adultery. There's a case right now.This is truly sickening.

This whole paragraph is a pile of racist exaggerations and lies, that looks like it could have came from Stormfront, or the State Department.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The IRI is not as severely repressive as it was in the 80s but but is still repressive.Technically there is the death penalty for homosexuality. I don't know to what extent this is enforced but it is on the books and according to sources I've read thousands of people have been executed for this.Stoning to death is a mandated punishment for adultery. It is not currently enforced but throughout the 1980s several hundred women were killed this way. There are cases which can result in stoning currently pending.

Sexes are segregated. A man and woman cannot be together in public without proof that they're married.Women must cover up.The extent to which this is enforced differs widely. as I understand in Qom a woman must wear a chador but in Tehran a head scarf is sufficient.

The regime is viscously anti-union. Leftists, union activists and even liberal protest leaders are killed.The religious police, the basiji, are sadistic, misogynist thugs.

My understanding is that this repression has eased somewhat in the 90s due to popular pressure.

Its not racist or Islamophobic to point all this out. It is racist to ignore the oppression in another country. "Well, that's Iran, you can't judge them by our Western standards" That's racism.

Pointing out repression in another country if done on a class basis is not aiding imperialism. Quite the opposite.

This isn't "Free Tibet" or "Aid Darfur", this is expressing solidarity with oppressed workers, you know, socialist internationalism?

[gorillafuck]

Are you calling Chavez opportunistic & dishonest?
No, I'm calling Ahmadinejad opportunistic and dishonest. Which he is if he was speaking out against capitalism.

[Crux]

It is to support any country that is threatened by any imperialist power. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, & so it must be opposed by all means.
There's so many facepalm-moments in this thread already, so let me pose this question to you, and the other apologists of the iranian regime on here, if Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism why do you implictly (and sometimes not so) condone the murder of people struggling against capitalism? Because, to me at least, that seems to just be a an extremely-U.S centered sham "anti-imperialism" that in reality is just aiding imperialism. China (yes under the great leader of the CCP "left" Hu Jintao) is an imperialist country. I thought that needed to be said as well.

[Dimentio]

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

Discuss?

I think it's very, um, awkward to say the least, when socialists line up to talk shop with a leader who presides over a regime that is so homophobic and misogynist. Don't they execute communists over there?

Also, it was weird to hear Ahmadinejad say he's against capitalism, considering he presides over a... capitalist regime.

American progressives seem to have resorted to basically cow-tow to anything perceived as remotely Anti-American. If you openly hate your own country, how could you ever turn its population?

[Queercommie Girl]

There's so many facepalm-moments in this thread already, so let me pose this question to you, and the other apologists of the iranian regime on here, if Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism why do you implictly (and sometimes not so) condone the murder of people struggling against capitalism? Because, to me at least, that seems to just be a an extremely-U.S centered sham "anti-imperialism" that in reality is just aiding imperialism. China (yes under the great leader of the CCP "left" Hu Jintao) is an imperialist country. I thought that needed to be said as well.

Chinese imperialism today isn't on the same level objectively as US or even British imperialism. It cannot be denied that US imperialism is indeed the most reactionary force in the world today, however, this doesn't imply actual support for Ahmad of Iran, merely to consider him as "the lesser of the two evils" relative to Moussavi for being slightly more pro-poor and more independent from US imperialism.

I'd hope Western socialists don't have any kind of illusions in Moussavi at all. If he gets into power, there will be no improvement in the severe oppression against women, gays and leftists in general that currently exists in Iran. Moussavi actually has a record of killing tens of thousands of socialists in the past as well.

[gorillafuck]

Being an apologist for a government that murders communists and leftists is okay, as long as it's in a middle eastern anti-imperialist country, right? I guess Arab communists don't matter as much to some people.

[Dimentio]

Being an apologist for a government that murders communists and leftists is okay, as long as it's in a middle eastern anti-imperialist country, right? I guess Arab communists don't matter as much to some people.

Not for glorious anti-imperialism.

[Crux]

Chinese imperialism today isn't on the same level objectively as US or even British imperialism. It cannot be denied that US imperialism is indeed the most reactionary force in the world today, however, this doesn't imply actual support for Ahmad of Iran, merely to consider him as "the lesser of the two evils" relative to Moussavi for being slightly more pro-poor and more independent from US imperialism.

I'd hope Western socialists don't have any kind of illusions in Moussavi at all. If he gets into power, there will be no improvement in the severe oppression against women, gays and leftists in general that currently exists in Iran. Moussavi actually has a record of killing tens of thousands of socialists in the past as well.
As I have said quite plainly before, I, and we, do not support either Mousavi nor Ahmadinejad. I am well aware of Mousavi's record. I do not consider either to be a lesser evil, even in global context, and no that does not mean I do not oppose U.S imperialist ambitions in any country. I really hope I had made as much clear already.

[Queercommie Girl]

As I have said quite plainly before, I, and we, do not support either Mousavi nor Ahmadinejad. I am well aware of Mousavi's record. I do not consider either to be a lesser evil, even in global context, and no that does not mean I do not oppose U.S imperialist ambitions in any country. I really hope I had made as much clear already.

To be frank, you are not qualified to speak for all Western socialists. You can speak for the CWI perhaps, which has a relatively consistent working class position on issues, but I do think those with illusions in Moussavi exist among those Western socialists to the right of the CWI politically and economically.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Chinese imperialism today isn't on the same level objectively as US or even British imperialism. It cannot be denied that US imperialism is indeed the most reactionary force in the world today, however, this doesn't imply actual support for Ahmad of Iran, merely to consider him as "the lesser of the two evils" relative to Moussavi for being slightly more pro-poor and more independent from US imperialism.

I'd hope Western socialists don't have any kind of illusions in Moussavi at all. If he gets into power, there will be no improvement in the severe oppression against women, gays and leftists in general that currently exists in Iran. Moussavi actually has a record of killing tens of thousands of socialists in the past as well.

In addition, he's more likely to privatize stuff, despite his past "socialist" record. There are too many cases of past "socialists" doing this kind of thing.

[HEAD ICE]

Well, unfortunately for your arguments, he was voted by 24.5 million Iranians, 62%. Clearly he has more working class support than you or most people in this thread think

That isn't relevant to what I said. I am talking about the Iranian regime's repressive policies against leftists, striking workers and what have you.

Also, how cynical must you be to give me the results of an election as any kind of proof that Ahmadinejad is pro-working class (which is what you are arguing, because my argument is that he is openly anti-working class).




LOL. Why is this always the reoccurring response?

Because that is what you argue.


I don't want to see Iran be forcibly opened up to US business relations and turned into a cheap labor haven like El Salvador, South Korea, or Taiwan. The current regime IS reactionary but they are also against US imperialism and were voted in by the majority which includes the working class and peasants.

OK, you don't want Iran to be opened up for US business to exploit labor. The Iranian bourgeoisie does that just fine, whom Ahmadinejad is 100% in the service of. Oh but he got elected in a bourgeois election what am I talking about :rolleyes:.


It is to support any country that is threatened by any imperialist power. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, & so it must be opposed by all means.

This is a frightening post. I am an anti-imperialist as well. Any marxist has to be an anti-imperialist. The question then is, how do you fight imperialism? You and proletarianrevolution are arguing to come to the defense of an anti-worker repressive state. The real victims of imperialism is always the proletariat. You are defending Ahmadinejad, not the Iranian working class.

And that is what is incredibly frustrating here as well. It has been established in this thread already that Iran has a larger proletarian character than most "first world" nations, and the information given by Devrim shows that the Iranian working class is amongst the most class conscious. The opportunity of supporting a workers movement in Iran should make you excited.

I hate to use hypothetical questions, but lets say America or Israel ends up attacking Iran. Would you support or oppose a mass strike in Iran that would bring their military and economic apparatus to a halt?

[Soviet dude]

The pseudo-Left (or more accurately, the pro-imperialist Left) apparently has never heard a little thing Lenin liked to call the right of nations to self-determination. All this blathering bullshit about supporting Leftists or the working class in Iran is just a cover for lining up on the same side with Western imperialism and Zionism.

No one here doesn't support the Iranian Left or 'independent' working class movements in Iran. That isn't the issue, despite the hand-waving of the pro-imperialist Left. The issue is whether or not we, as Western radicals, should support Western attempts to topple foreign governments to install Western-friendly regimes. That is actually the issue. That is actually what the 'Green' movement is, which is a fact basically acknowledged even by the Iranian exile-Left.

That is actually the issue. Despite whatever mealy-mouthed bullshit some deranged Trotskyites are spewing, that is the real political choice here: to support Western color-revolution or not.

[Chimurenga.]

Because that is pretty much how your positions come across to people.

Devrim

I guess that only proves their idiocy.


Yeah, and every single Iranian organization came out "in support of imperialism" as well. I only hope they have learned from this mistake and have decided to start supporting the Ayatollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). :rolleyes:

Ultimately, they did. Had power been taken away from Ahmadinejad, Iran would become a cheap labor haven and they would be worse off than they are now.


LOL

1. Many workers voted for Obama. How do you feel about that?
2. The election was won through fraud. This is very obvious.

1. Is Obama the leader of a third world country resisting becoming a puppet state to the largest empire in the world? No, he's not.

2. As Sovietdude pointed out, they were not won through fraud. Little solid evidence pointing to that conclusion actually exists.


Then why are you supporting Ahmedinejad/Khamenei who want to privatize most of the economy and open the country up to foreign capital?

Iran has the right to their own self-determination. The Iranian working class and peasant people voted in Ahmedinejad whether you or anyone in this thread likes it or not.


Yes, it really does, especially your posts.

Really? Because I'm one of the FEW posters on this god forsaken forum that doesn't regurgitate liberal bullshit and practices a consistent anti-Imperialist stance.


China (yes under the great leader of the CCP "left" Hu Jintao) is an imperialist country.

Yeah except they're not.

[Red Commissar]

So, um, what exactly came out of this meeting? Has any group produced what they discussed? Personally I'm puzzled why self-declared progressive any would want to meet with him, but it would be nice to see what exactly they were discussing. I'm thinking US foreign policy, but I can't say for sure.

[M-26-7]

I can understand the anti-imperialist crowd insofar as I agree that an Iraq-style war against and occupation of Iran would be at least as disastrous an outcome for the Iranian working class as would the continued existence of the current government. In my estimation, an Iraq-style war would be an even worse outcome.

However, what I would like to just once see addressed by the anti-imperialist side of this debate, is the fact that Ahmadinejad's "anti-imperialist" rhetoric - which provides absolutely no material benefit to the Iranian working class - increases the likelihood of an Iraq-style outcome, by giving the U.S. war hawks an excuse to sharpen their focus on Iran, ratchet up their own rhetoric, and win over public opinion in their favor (if not by winning over a majority in support of war against Iran, at least by making people apathetic about it and drastically reducing the firm opposition to such a war).

If an Iraq-style outcome of war and occupation is so bad (and I agree that it is), why would one not criticize Ahmadinejad for his rather significant contribution to making such an outcome more likely? I suspect the answer will be something pat such as, "If the U.S. bourgeoisie/political class wants war, it will get it, and it doesn't need Ahmadinejad's help in getting it." But that is not a satisfactory answer. If world public opinion really saw the U.S. as the unequivocal aggressor in the U.S.-Iran conflict, it would make things much harder for the U.S.

[Soviet dude]

Where the oppressed nations are concerned, the separate organisation of the proletariat as an independent party sometimes leads to such a bitter struggle against local nationalism that the perspective becomes distorted and the nationalism of the oppressor nation is lost sight of.

The issue with the Iranian Left participating in the demonstrations against the government is not too terribly difficult to understand. There are primary and secondary contradictions at work in the world. The first and foremost contradiction in the world today is between US imperialism and the Middle East. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries on either side of Iran, and the US's support of the Zionist regime in Israel demonstrates this to millions on a daily basis. US imperialist ambitions must be as strongly opposed as possible, and literally millions of people are depending on the US Left to play their part in this effort for the very survival of them and their families.

The secondary contradiction is between the people and the governments over them. It is often easy for communists being oppressed by a government to lose site of what is primary and secondary, the consequences of which can be disastrous. The perfect example is the Iraqi Communist Party and the various radical parties in Afghanistan welcoming the US invasion of their country. The communist-Left in both of these countries will be discredited for at least a generation. Because of their rabid hostility to their own government, they will never successfully be able to lead the working class to socialist revolution.

The Iranian Left had basically two choices before them; participate or sit on the sidelines. A comparable situation for the Left in America would be, say, if Obama lost the 2012 election, where there was widespread (if dubious) claims of fraud. I think we would be obliged to participate and push the masses as far as we possibly could. It would be an error to sit on the sidelines and say "Obama is Bush in Black-face" or something. This seems to me, more or less, how the Iranian Left saw what was going on. I don't particularly fault them for the choice they made, but as with Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a real danger is not realizing the struggle between them and the regime in Iran is, ultimately, of secondary importance to the struggle between Iran and US imperialism. If the 'Green' revolution had succeeded, Mousavi would be in power, Iran would be on the fast track to becoming another Egypt, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, and violence against the revolutionary Left would almost certainly intensify (due to a whole host of factors, not the least of which would be the betrayal felt by the Iranian Left and probably their new sense of boldness in opposing the government). It would have been a disaster for the Iranian Left, the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. The only winners would have been the US, Israel, and probably the EU.

[Homo Songun]

I'm not sure you've understood what Stalin is talking about there, marxistn00b. You've bolded the principle he raises but seemed to have ignored the concrete application of that principle, which is to oppose Tsarism as the "most dangerous enemy" of the peoples of Europe and the revolutionary process. Today, the main enemy of the people of the world is is Imperialism, particularly US imperialism. For Marxists to apply the principle to the current situation entails not giving support to the Tibetan independence movement, various NATO frankenstein monsters in the Balkans, etc. It certainly does not entail support for the Green movement in Iran either way.

[Soviet dude]

It is not a color revolution if Iran never claimed to be a socialist country. Also, read what Stalin wrote:

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole. In the forties of the last century Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the South Slavs were then "reactionary peoples," "Russian outposts" in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were "revolutionary peoples," fighting against absolutism. Because support of the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs was at that time equivalent to indirect support for tsarism, the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1

Good stuff. Stalin would completely agree: we don't support movements that strengthen imperialism, nor does the 'Green' movement in any fashion help the international proletarian movement.

[Devrim]

US imperialist ambitions must be as strongly opposed as possible, and literally millions of people are depending on the US Left to play their part in this effort for the very survival of them and their families.

I have never, in my whole life, heard anybody say that they are depending on the US left.

The US left is not going to stop US intervention in the Middle East.

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

I have never, in my whole life, heard anybody say that they are depending on the US left.

The US left is not going to stop US intervention in the Middle East.

Devrim

Like when thousands upon thousands of leftist activists & US veterans refused to serve the imperialist wars in Vietnam & rioted on the streets, some killed, some badly injured, to give a message of opposition against the Vietnam war, in which led to the defeat the US? We all play roles in this struggle. It is up to not just us to oppose our own country's imperialist actions, but also up to those within the country being invaded to stand up against them. We're all in this struggle together.

[KC]

To be frank, you are not qualified to speak for all Western socialists. You can speak for the CWI perhaps, which has a relatively consistent working class position on issues, but I do think those with illusions in Moussavi exist among those Western socialists to the right of the CWI politically and economically.

Like whom?


Ultimately, they did. Had power been taken away from Ahmadinejad, Iran would become a cheap labor haven and they would be worse off than they are now.

Then why would you support the privatization and opening up of Iran to foreign capital investment? I see that you didn't even address that comment in your "response" to when I said that earlier:


Iran has the right to their own self-determination. The Iranian working class and peasant people voted in Ahmedinejad whether you or anyone in this thread likes it or not.


1. Is Obama the leader of a third world country resisting becoming a puppet state to the largest empire in the world? No, he's not.

Okay, so as long as the country is against US interests then the elections are a clear representation of working class consciousness. Right. :rolleyes:



2. As Sovietdude pointed out, they were not won through fraud. Little solid evidence pointing to that conclusion actually exists.

It's pretty much blatantly obvious at this point, aside from those conspiracists like Soviet Dude who attempt to legitimize their opinions by constructing alternate realities.


Iran has the right to their own self-determination. The Iranian working class and peasant people voted in Ahmedinejad whether you or anyone in this thread likes it or not.

This isn't an argument...


Really? Because I'm one of the FEW posters on this god forsaken forum that doesn't regurgitate liberal bullshit and practices a consistent anti-Imperialist stance.

Your anti-imperialist stance is what has gotten millions of communists/worker activists murdered historically. Ultimately your position, and that of Soviet Dude, and of the PSL/WWP/FRSO is absolutely delusional. Whenever the line is drawn, you have consistently been shown to come out in support of the destruction of working class movements worldwide, in the name of a perverted interpretation of "anti-imperialist struggle".

[Devrim]

I would like to know what you and what other people in this thread defending an open enemy of the working class and a David Duke fistbumper mean by 'anti-imperialism'. Is it merely "support anything against the USA" ? Because that is what it appears to be.
LOL. Why is this always the reoccurring response?

Because that is pretty much how your positions come across to people.


Because that is pretty much how your positions come across to people.I guess that only proves their idiocy.

You know, if people constantly thought things about my organisation, which I believed were wrong, I would wonder why. I would try to understand how this misunderstanding was occurring, and why people had this perception.

I certainly don't think that calling people idiots will really improve people's perceptions of you.

Devrim

[zimmerwald1915]

The first and foremost contradiction in the world today is between US imperialism and the Middle East...Because of their rabid hostility to their own government, they will never successfully be able to lead the working class to socialist revolution...I don't particularly fault them for the choice they made, but as with Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a real danger is not realizing the struggle between them and the regime in Iran is, ultimately, of secondary importance to the struggle between Iran and US imperialism.
Really, this is a very important post, even in this abridged form. It outlines the key logic of "anti-imperialism" today. The foremost contradiction is between strong states and weak states, and weak states deserve support from "leftists". The secondary contradiction is between the people and the governments over them. "The people" - the working class qua the working class never makes an appearence - should line up behind their state if it is one of the weaker ones, a 'victim' of a stronger state, even and especially if this means embracing nationalism and an alliance with the bourgeoisie in the name of national independence. After all, an anti-national, internationalist socialism can never take hold among the working class, particularly in countries that are victims of imperialism. The path to socialism lies through national struggle against the imperialist invader. Class struggle must be subordinated to the needs of the state.

[Devrim]

Like when thousands upon thousands of leftist activists & US veterans refused to serve the imperialist wars in Vietnam & rioted on the streets, some killed, some badly injured, to give a message of opposition against the Vietnam war, in which led to the defeat the US?

The working class can stop wars. It has shown so in the past. However the tiny fragmented US left is not the working class, can not substitute itself for it, and at the moment has no possibility of stopping the wars. This could change of course, but at the moment it is not going to happen, and certainly nobody in the Middle East is depending on the US left.


We all play roles in this struggle. It is up to not just us to oppose our own country's imperialist actions, but also up to those within the country being invaded to stand up against them. We're all in this struggle together.

No, we are not. I don't think there is any common ground between socialists and people who urge the working class to die on behalf of 'their own' states.

Devrim

[KC]

Really, this is a very important post, even in this abridged form. It outlines the key logic of "anti-imperialism" today. The foremost contradiction is between strong states and weak states, and weak states deserve support from "leftists". The secondary contradiction is between the people and the governments over them. "The people" - the working class qua the working class never makes an appearence - should line up behind their state if it is one of the weaker ones, a 'victim' of a stronger state, even and especially if this means embracing nationalism and an alliance with the bourgeoisie in the name of national independence. After all, an anti-national, internationalist socialism can never take hold among the working class, particularly in countries that are victims of imperialism. The path to socialism lies through national struggle against the imperialist invader. Class struggle must be subordinated to the needs of the state.As I've said in the past, this is due to a very rightist interpretation of Lenin's pamphlet on imperialism, as well as Stalin's writings which follow from that interpretation. One of the biggest problems with Lenin's pamphlet (which IMO is more due to the fact that Lenin was writing a pamphlet and not fleshing out a complete theory of Imperialism as it is generally treated by most "anti-imperialists") is that he glosses over the relation between class and state. In fact, throughout most of the pamphlet, he uses the terms interchangeably, as if the state is the direct representative of domestic monopoly capital, when this isn't the case in reality. But again, I attribute this more to him not actually attempting to flesh out a theory than actually being incorrect (in other words, he made certain presumptions that he did not specify which have caused confusion).

In this interpretation, national relations can be substituted for class relations, and in this sense we see rightist interpretations of Imperialism theory coming out saying that national political relations takes precedence over class relations (the extreme conclusion being that anti-imperialist struggle must first take place and only then can class struggle resume within the independent state). It is not only a whitewashing of imperialism theory, but also an implicit rejection of class relations within the system through its subordination to national interests. The conflict is no longer between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" but rather "imperialist" and "imperialized".

The fight against imperialism therefore becomes the fight of the "imperialized" states against the "imperialist" states and, taken to its logical conclusion (as so many that adhere to this interpretation have in this thread - particularly explicitly TheVeganMarxist) means that in the global struggle the struggle of "imperialized" states against the imperialists is in their eyes the struggle against capitalism. That is why they are so able to easily compare Ahmedinejad to Chavez, for example, or why they can so easily choose to subordinate themselves to Hamas or even in some cases the Talib'an.

Now according to them me saying this basically reads as if I'm some kind of Left Communist, which obviously isn't the case. I think in many ways Left Communists take it to the other extreme, basically putting class analysis forward and rejecting (either implicitly or explicitly) the role that imperialism plays in these struggles (for example, the idea that all states are imperialist).

Anyways, I've been accused of "rejecting" imperialism theory itself for my criticisms which I've outlined here (although there are many other issues I have, with Lenin's pamphlet at least), but that isn't really the case. I really think that we not only need to develop a new understanding of imperialism theory and a more complete exposition as it was up to WW2, but I also think that we need a new analysis put forward to explain the developments that happened since the end of WW2. It's not so much that imperialism theory is wrong, but rather that it is outdated. Unfortunately most of the left is too bogged down in dogma to even recognize this or to start building towards a new theory of the realization of capitalism.

[Homo Songun]

Really, this is a very important post, even in this abridged form. It outlines the key logic of "anti-imperialism" today. The foremost contradiction is between strong states and weak states, and weak states deserve support from "leftists". The secondary contradiction is between the people and the governments over them. "The people" - the working class qua the working class never makes an appearence - should line up behind their state if it is one of the weaker ones, a 'victim' of a stronger state, even and especially if this means embracing nationalism and an alliance with the bourgeoisie in the name of national independence. After all, an anti-national, internationalist socialism can never take hold among the working class, particularly in countries that are victims of imperialism. The path to socialism lies through national struggle against the imperialist invader. Class struggle must be subordinated to the needs of the state.

Hey big bad wolf, this is fun, got any more straw houses to knock down?

[graymouser]

Really, this is a very important post, even in this abridged form. It outlines the key logic of "anti-imperialism" today. The foremost contradiction is between strong states and weak states, and weak states deserve support from "leftists". The secondary contradiction is between the people and the governments over them. "The people" - the working class qua the working class never makes an appearence - should line up behind their state if it is one of the weaker ones, a 'victim' of a stronger state, even and especially if this means embracing nationalism and an alliance with the bourgeoisie in the name of national independence. After all, an anti-national, internationalist socialism can never take hold among the working class, particularly in countries that are victims of imperialism. The path to socialism lies through national struggle against the imperialist invader. Class struggle must be subordinated to the needs of the state.
This is a completely un-Marxist travesty of analysis. Imperialism by its very nature breaks in the points where it is weakest, and we should be expecting revolutions from the working class of "weak" countries. Saying that these workers should shut up and "line up behind their state" is disgusting. Lenin's theory of self-determination was precisely about achieving national liberation in order to remove a stumbling block for the socialist revolution. In today's imperialism that means overthrowing pro-imperialist governments - for instance, the government of the Shah of Iran 31 years ago. That revolution failed to solve the democratic problems of breaking free of imperialism (this is linked to Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution) and turned backward into a theocratic, reactionary state. It is precisely that workers in the "weak" countries need to overthrow "their own" governments in order to cut out bulwarks of exploitation in the third world, and in so doing move closer to the prospects of an international revolution.

When class struggle is subordinated to the needs of the "anti-imperialist" state, what that means is that precisely those countries where capitalism is at its weakest are those where socialist revolution is purposefully taken off the agenda by mis-leaders of the left. The reality is that what is needed is a permanent revolution, where the world revolutionary process travels from countries like Iran throughout the world and makes "normal" life untenable in the capitalist centers, which will then have their own revolutions. The viewpoint you are assuming is one of capitulation to what will ultimately mean global capitalist exploitation in the hopes that "anti-imperialist" forces will get stronger.

[Soviet dude]

I have never, in my whole life, heard anybody say that they are depending on the US left.

I have. I've read letters from powerful resistance movements who fight and die resisting US imperialism and their puppets who view the role of resistance in the US as absolutely critical to them, and they are grateful for even the little things we can do to help them.


The US left is not going to stop US intervention in the Middle East.I agree. US imperialism will be stopped by the heroic people under US occupation. But I specifically said that they are depending on the "US Left to play their part." We most certainly do have a role, a significant role, in breaking down the will of the ruling class via agitation of the masses to oppose their imperialist war. The ruling class still screams about the "Vietnam Syndrome" today, and largely blames us, even though the true credit goes to the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese people.


It's pretty much blatantly obvious at this point, aside from those conspiracists like Soviet Dude who attempt to legitimize their opinions by constructing alternate realities.The only one absolutely delusional is you. You actually think the 'Green' movement is some sort of working class movement.

I doubt you could even bring yourself to click on the evidence I presented, but to be brief, basically the only conclusive evidence that points toward electoral fraud anywhere is how the elections match up with polling data. The US ruling class knows weeks before who is going to win the US presidential elections. It was a forgone conclusion by October Obama would win. His win was announced the very second it was legally able to be announced (12:00 the night of the election), before polls even closed on the West coast. Polling data gave the US ruling class ammunition against the Ukrainian elections in 2004. It is the basis for why people believe the 2000 and 2004 US elections were fraudulent. Polling data is the ultimate determining factor in judging whether an election was stolen or not.

Before the release of the only reliable pre-election polling data, the mass media was making the same claims as they did for the Ukraine; the 'independent' polling data didn't match up with the electoral results. Then a few days into it, this claim couldn't be made anymore, as the most legitimate independent polling data had Ahmadinejad winning in a landslide. Independent, Western polling data conducted months later (and what I referenced in this thread) show the exact same thing. There is only a slight decline in the support of Ahmadinejad, and the overall confidence of Iranian people in the election is staggeringly high.

The fact is, by the only relevant yardstick that is used to determine whether the outcome an election represents the will of the majority, polling data, Ahmadinejad won hands-down. The various red-herrings brought up by liberal-rags like The Nation are generally easily explained (like more than 100% voting in a given location is possible because Iran is more lax about allowing people to vote outside of their pre-determined precinct).

The fact that Trotskyites like KC still cling to the foundational lie of the 'Green' movement shows that they will line up with their own imperialists, regardless of the facts. This is why I say the "third" position is imaginary bullshit; it is literally a cover for supporting the favored candidate of imperialism.

[KC]

This is a completely un-Marxist travesty of analysis. Imperialism by its very nature breaks in the points where it is weakest, and we should be expecting revolutions from the working class of "weak" countries. Saying that these workers should shut up and "line up behind their state" is disgusting. Lenin's theory of self-determination was precisely about achieving national liberation in order to remove a stumbling block for the socialist revolution. In today's imperialism that means overthrowing pro-imperialist governments - for instance, the government of the Shah of Iran 31 years ago. That revolution failed to solve the democratic problems of breaking free of imperialism (this is linked to Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution) and turned backward into a theocratic, reactionary state. It is precisely that workers in the "weak" countries need to overthrow "their own" governments in order to cut out bulwarks of exploitation in the third world, and in so doing move closer to the prospects of an international revolution.

When class struggle is subordinated to the needs of the "anti-imperialist" state, what that means is that precisely those countries where capitalism is at its weakest are those where socialist revolution is purposefully taken off the agenda by mis-leaders of the left. The reality is that what is needed is a permanent revolution, where the world revolutionary process travels from countries like Iran throughout the world and makes "normal" life untenable in the capitalist centers, which will then have their own revolutions. The viewpoint you are assuming is one of capitulation to what will ultimately mean global capitalist exploitation in the hopes that "anti-imperialist" forces will get stronger.

Correct, although I think Zimmerwald1915 was outlining the theory as put forward by those in this thread, and doesn't actually believe it him/herself.

[graymouser]

Correct, although I think Zimmerwald1915 was outlining the theory as put forward by those in this thread, and doesn't actually believe it him/herself.
Yeah, looking back I agree and I do not mean my post as an attack on him/her but on this concept of "anti-imperialism."

[Devrim]

The viewpoint you are assuming is one of capitulation to what will ultimately mean global capitalist exploitation in the hopes that "anti-imperialist" forces will get stronger.

I think you should read that post again. He is not putting forward that viewpoint, but characterising the views of others.

Devrim

[graymouser]

I think you should read that post again. He is not putting forward that viewpoint, but characterising the views of others.
See the post above mine acknowledging this.

[Barry Lyndon]

I stand in the middle here. I think that it is a good thing in certain circumstances for the workers to fight in defense of the state-if it is a state that they have something to gain from defending. If Colombia were to attack Venezuela, for instance, at the behest of US imperialism, I would support the workers of Venezuela defending the PSUV government, since I consider the governing party of Venezuela the PSUV(for all its contradictions and deficiencies) to have advanced the cause of the workers there and won real gains. A victory of US imperialism, Colombia and the Venezuelan right-wing(who would operate as a fifth column in such a scenario no doubt), would be a tremendous defeat for the workers.

Iran, though, is a different situation for the Iranian workers. The Islamic Republic does not, by any stretch of the imagination, protect the cause of the workers. An attack by US imperialism or one of its proxies(Israel) on Iran could have three outcomes- the strengthening of the Islamic Republic(through increased nationalism in the face of imperialist attack), the subjugation of Iran to American imperialism, or a third force-the Iranian working class, using the disruption of the situation to unseat the Islamic Republic. I believe it is the third option leftists, to the best of our ability, should support.

Now all the 'anti-imperialists' will start screaming that the third course would 'objectively' aid imperialism. They ignore the fact that the great revolutions of the past have occurred when the working class has taken advantage of contradictions between rival ruling classes. The Russian Revolution was borne of the workers of Moscow and Petrograd rising up amidst the war between the Czarist regime and German imperialism. The Chinese Revolution occured with the Communists forging an alternative to the fuedal Kuomintang and Japanese/Western imperialism. The workers did not rise in the midst of war and invasion because they were traitorous, but because(among many other reasons) they recognized that the only real defense against imperialism was the overthrow of the old order that had failed to defend them from imperialism in the first place!

I am all for temporary tactical alliances without sacrificing political independence(like Mao made with the KMT), but to demand that the workers of Iran subordinate their interests and their initiative to the clerics of the Islamic Republic is beyond reprehensible and unbecoming of a leftist.

[Devrim]

See the post above mine acknowledging this.

Yes, I replied when reading down without reaching the bottom, and then saw your post after replying, sorry.

Devrim

[Soviet dude]

There is a lot of garbage to respond to, but I have somewhere to go and things to do, so I will be brief.


I am all for temporary tactical alliances without sacrificing political independence(like Mao made with the KMT), but to demand that the workers of Iran subordinate their interests and their initiative to the clerics of the Islamic Republic is beyond reprehensible and unbecoming of a leftist.No one has "demanded" any such thing. This is a pure invention of people who want to desperately justify supporting US color-revolution. The Green-movement is not a working class movement. It is not being lead by communists, anarchists, Trots, primitivists, "Left" communists, or even class conscious workers. It is a movement led by a wing of the Iranian government that wants to come to a rapprochement with US imperialism. There is no fucking possibility of the 'Green' movement doing anything revolutionary, because the Iranian Left that isn't in exile doesn't have a fucking prayer of leading it in any direction whatsoever.

Once again, the choice is supporting color-revolution or not. Mealy-mouthed bullshit from deranged Trotskyites doesn't change the reality of what supporting the 'Green' movement objectively means.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I've said in the past, this is due to a very rightist interpretation of Lenin's pamphlet on imperialism, as well as Stalin's writings which follow from that interpretation. One of the biggest problems with Lenin's pamphlet (which IMO is more due to the fact that Lenin was writing a pamphlet and not fleshing out a complete theory of Imperialism as it is generally treated by most "anti-imperialists") is that he glosses over the relation between class and state. In fact, throughout most of the pamphlet, he uses the terms interchangeably, as if the state is the direct representative of domestic monopoly capital, when this isn't the case in reality. But again, I attribute this more to him not actually attempting to flesh out a theory than actually being incorrect (in other words, he made certain presumptions that he did not specify which have caused confusion).

In this interpretation, national relations can be substituted for class relations, and in this sense we see rightist interpretations of Imperialism theory coming out saying that national political relations takes precedence over class relations (the extreme conclusion being that anti-imperialist struggle must first take place and only then can class struggle resume within the independent state). It is not only a whitewashing of imperialism theory, but also an implicit rejection of class relations within the system through its subordination to national interests. The conflict is no longer between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" but rather "imperialist" and "imperialized".

The fight against imperialism therefore becomes the fight of the "imperialized" states against the "imperialist" states and, taken to its logical conclusion (as so many that adhere to this interpretation have in this thread - particularly explicitly TheVeganMarxist) means that in the global struggle the struggle of "imperialized" states against the imperialists is in their eyes the struggle against capitalism. That is why they are so able to easily compare Ahmedinejad to Chavez, for example, or why they can so easily choose to subordinate themselves to Hamas or even in some cases the Talib'an.

Now according to them me saying this basically reads as if I'm some kind of Left Communist, which obviously isn't the case. I think in many ways Left Communists take it to the other extreme, basically putting class analysis forward and rejecting (either implicitly or explicitly) the role that imperialism plays in these struggles (for example, the idea that all states are imperialist).

Anyways, I've been accused of "rejecting" imperialism theory itself for my criticisms which I've outlined here (although there are many other issues I have, with Lenin's pamphlet at least), but that isn't really the case. I really think that we not only need to develop a new understanding of imperialism theory and a more complete exposition as it was up to WW2, but I also think that we need a new analysis put forward to explain the developments that happened since the end of WW2. It's not so much that imperialism theory is wrong, but rather that it is outdated. Unfortunately most of the left is too bogged down in dogma to even recognize this or to start building towards a new theory of the realization of capitalism.

This is very good. Its along the lines I think but I don't yet have the ability to express it this well.

[Queercommie Girl]

I stand in the middle here. I think that it is a good thing in certain circumstances for the workers to fight in defense of the state-if it is a state that they have something to gain from defending. If Colombia were to attack Venezuela, for instance, at the behest of US imperialism, I would support the workers of Venezuela defending the PSUV government, since I consider the governing party of Venezuela the PSUV(for all its contradictions and deficiencies) to have advanced the cause of the workers there and won real gains. A victory of US imperialism, Colombia and the Venezuelan right-wing(who would operate as a fifth column in such a scenario no doubt), would be a tremendous defeat for the workers.

Iran, though, is a different situation for the Iranian workers. The Islamic Republic does not, by any stretch of the imagination, protect the cause of the workers. An attack by US imperialism or one of its proxies(Israel) on Iran could have three outcomes- the strengthening of the Islamic Republic(through increased nationalism in the face of imperialist attack), the subjugation of Iran to American imperialism, or a third force-the Iranian working class, using the disruption of the situation to unseat the Islamic Republic. I believe it is the third option leftists, to the best of our ability, should support.

Now all the 'anti-imperialists' will start screaming that the third course would 'objectively' aid imperialism. They ignore the fact that the great revolutions of the past have occurred when the working class has taken advantage of contradictions between rival ruling classes. The Russian Revolution was borne of the workers of Moscow and Petrograd rising up amidst the war between the Czarist regime and German imperialism. The Chinese Revolution occured with the Communists forging an alternative to the fuedal Kuomintang and Japanese/Western imperialism. The workers did not rise in the midst of war and invasion because they were traitorous, but because(among many other reasons) they recognized that the only real defense against imperialism was the overthrow of the old order that had failed to defend them from imperialism in the first place!

I am all for temporary tactical alliances without sacrificing political independence(like Mao made with the KMT), but to demand that the workers of Iran subordinate their interests and their initiative to the clerics of the Islamic Republic is beyond reprehensible and unbecoming of a leftist.

Well said. :thumbup1: I basically agree with your point here.

[Rafiq]

Rhetorically, perhaps. But in reality, no. Not by a long shot.
You seem to be forgetting about two other countries that Washington might be a little more worried about:

http://diplomacide.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/russia_parade.jpg
Russia
Tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, invaded a country outside its borders for the first time since 1991(Georgia), major oil and gas power, building alliances in Latin America......

http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/BeijingInfo/NewsUpdate/OlympicNews/W020081212375988570680.jpg
China
Has United States deeply in debt to it, nuclear power, huge standing army, extending economic tentacles into Africa....

Iran, by contrast, just makes a lot of noise.


"Just makes a lot of noise"?

How about killing US troops in Iraq, Israeli troops in Lebanon and Gaza.

YOu don't understand, Iran is the most influential Nation in the Mid-east.

The US is in competition with China and Russia...


But who cares? Their real focus right now IS Iran.

They would much rather invade Iran then Russia.

' Iran is the biggest threat to US interests right now. They fund almost every Anti-American militia out there.

Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Even Saudi(Shia minoritys) Egypt (Shia Minoritys) even in Africa, (Nigeria) Senegal, Friends with Syria.. Ect. Ect.


They are corrupt, but they have a lot of influence.

The whole focus of America right now, is IRAN internationally.

[Rafiq]

My brain shuts down when I read the phrase "critical support" or any variation of the kind.



Iran has more industrial workers than many "first world" European countries.



Okay...?


Their isn't a strong or powerful revolutionary left working class movement in Iran....

I like how you jump on everything I say and twist my words, as if you didn't know what I meant.


You're pathetic.

[M-26-7]

I doubt you could even bring yourself to click on the evidence I presented, but to be brief, basically the only conclusive evidence that points toward electoral fraud anywhere is how the elections match up with polling data. The US ruling class knows weeks before who is going to win the US presidential elections. It was a forgone conclusion by October Obama would win. His win was announced the very second it was legally able to be announced (12:00 the night of the election), before polls even closed on the West coast. Polling data gave the US ruling class ammunition against the Ukrainian elections in 2004. It is the basis for why people believe the 2000 and 2004 US elections were fraudulent. Polling data is the ultimate determining factor in judging whether an election was stolen or not.

I don't know from where you are getting this assertion that there are people in the political establishment who "know weeks before" who is going to win a US presidential election, but your assertion that this alleged crystal ball is what they base their election night projections on is wrong. Election night projections are based on exit polling. I.e., polling done as people leave the voting booth, asking them for whom they voted. Opinion polls and exit polls are two different things, and they ask about two different kinds of information (an opinion poll asks people who they think they will vote for, an exit poll asks who they did just vote for). If you are asserting that opinion polls are the method by which the ruling class "knows weeks before" who will win, then that is demonstrably false as well. Exit polls nearly always match final election tallies ("Dewey Defeats Truman!" being a famous exception to this rule), but this is not so with exit polls and opinion polls, which frequently don't match up. Opinion polls from just days before an election frequently do not match the exit poll/final election tally results. Furthermore, opinion polls often show the candidates so close that the margin of victory needed falls well within the margin of error of the poll. In these cases they cannot even make a prediction about who the winner will be.

I don't know as much about the last Iranian elections as some others on here might know, but your idea of how polling works (in the U.S. and in general) is totally off base. Making assertions that some secret cabal of ruling class people "knows weeks before" sounds more like an Alex Jones-type analysis of the US political system than it does like a serious leftist analysis.

[Rafiq]

Its the overwhelming opinion of almost everyone, including the Iranian people, that the election was blatantly stolen.

So you uphold a guy who's a holocaust denier, says homosexuality does not exist in his country, and is viscously anti-union.

BTW, have you ever heard of Mokarrameh Ebrahimi?
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17408

Its inconceivable how anyone could give any support whatsoever to this reactionary filth.

Thanks for the negrep.'




STFU

He is reactionary, but he does NOT deny the holocaust.

I will not stand here and let these lies flood around, especially on a leftist website.


Do you speak Persian? Maybe you should watch his speech WITHOUT the subtitles.

Disgusting.

He never denied anything at all about the holocaust.

If US media is willing to lie about Communism, and it's followers, then I can promise you they will lie about Iran.

[Homo Songun]

Sorry, but this is a complete distortion. Stalin stood for the proletarian movement. When the anti-imperialist movement comes in conflict with the proletarian movement, he sides with the proletarian movement. So, the Iranian left is to be supported here, not anyone else.

You are missing the forest for the trees. In Stalin's view there is no "anti-imperialist movement" to counterpoise against the proletarian movement. I don't know what else to say; this is virtually idée fixe in Stalinist theory. Maybe its different in the alternate universe you come from?

[Rafiq]

Being an apologist for a government that murders communists and leftists is okay, as long as it's in a middle eastern anti-imperialist country, right? I guess Arab communists don't matter as much to some people.


Except Iran isn't Arab... At All


Maybe you need to research more about that particular country.

[Reznov]

This is pointless. The "progressives" will achieve nothing by doing this.

And when and if they do start gaining support, the media will use this against them to make them look bad.

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is pointless. The "progressives" will achieve nothing by doing this.

And when and if they do start gaining support, the media will use this against them to make them look bad.

The media are going to do this regardless. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? Hell fucking no!

[Crux]

The media are going to do this regardless. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? Hell fucking no!
"Looking bad" in the media isn't the worst part of shaking Ahmadinejads hand. Trying to wash all that blood from your hand is.

Also, regarding the whole "what did stalin say"-debate. Does it really matter what he said?

[black magick hustla]

well atleast the iraanian head of state takes the psl, wwp, and frso seriously enough to meet with them. i bet it was a leftist wet dream. fortunately nobody in the us outside the activist ghetto gives a three shits about any of them. its interesting because a lot of leftist grouplets, with illusions of relevance, attach their rhetoric to some sort of important politician or mainstream political movement, all in the desire of being relevant. the problem is that they are still not very relevant at all

[Queercommie Girl]

Also, regarding the whole "what did stalin say"-debate. Does it really matter what he said?

Well let's not reject him 100%, that's rather ultra-leftist IMO.

Much of that is actually positive in Stalin's writings is basically straight from Leninism, while much of that is negative in his writings are actually his own inventions.

Stalin never was an original theorist anyway.

[Amphictyonis]

Every time I hear the work progressive now I think of Glen Beck telling some Nazi Germany story. They listen to that show at work, I've sabotaged the radio. With a cup of water.

[Crux]

Well let's not reject him 100%, that's rather ultra-leftist IMO.

Much of that is actually positive in Stalin's writings is basically straight from Leninism, while much of that is negative in his writings are actually his own inventions.

Stalin never was an original theorist anyway.
Which is why I reject Stalin, not Lenin. It's interesting that you got thanks from the Stalinists.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Which is why I reject Stalin, not Lenin. It's interesting that you got thanks from the Stalinists.

We all criticize what's needing to be criticized about Stalin, so seriously, STFU!

[gorillafuck]

Like when thousands upon thousands of leftist activists & US veterans refused to serve the imperialist wars in Vietnam & rioted on the streets, some killed, some badly injured, to give a message of opposition against the Vietnam war, in which led to the defeat the US?
The Vietnam war was stopped by the Vietcong, with a bit of help by G.I. resistance. Not by a message.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Vietnam war was stopped by the Vietcong, with a bit of help by G.I. resistance. Not by a message.

The left in the US played their role too. You can't deny that whatsoever.

[gorillafuck]

The left in the US played their role too. You can't deny that whatsoever.
Those who actually aided the Vietcong and those who organized for large amounts of people not to go to war did help a bit, yeah. But it was ended by the Vietcong.


Except Iran isn't Arab... At All

Maybe you need to research more about that particular country.
My mistake. Iranian communists don't matter as much to some people. I guess should do more research, thanks.

[Crux]

We all criticize what's needing to be criticized about Stalin, so seriously, STFU!
Hahahaha. Right. I suppose Hu Jintao made some brilliant contributions as well.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hahahaha. Right. I suppose Hu Jintao made some brilliant contributions as well.

Tell me, do you enjoy being a troll, or does your idiocy rule over you? I fail to understand the relevance of Hu Jintao with Stalin.

[Crux]

Tell me, do you enjoy being a troll, or does your idiocy rule over you? I fail to understand the relevance of Hu Jintao with Stalin.
I fail to understand their relevance at all.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Which is why I reject Stalin, not Lenin. It's interesting that you got thanks from the Stalinists.
How can you reject Stalin, but not Lenin? The only people who would do that are ultra-leftist Westerners who don't want to defend communism against the lies of the bourgeois, I'm guessing right that if you get into a conversation with someone about politics and come to the point of you being a 'communist', you would be like 'Oh no, I support Lenin but not Stalin' so you fit in right?

Fact is, Stalin finished what Lenin started, Stalin was only finishing what Lenin wrote about, regarding the industrialization of the cities and collectivization in the countryside. Stalin built socialism in the five-year plans. Which is more than the ultra-left critics in the West ever did (you know, except for sprouting the bourgeois lines to build up propaganda for imperialism, like against Iran).

[zimmerwald1915]

Fact is, Stalin finished what Lenin started...
The only thing Stalin finished was the Russian counter-revolution. Then again, this isn't a Stalin thread, and I'm sure the thread rails feel lonely without a train on them.

[Devrim]

I have never, in my whole life, heard anybody say that they are depending on the US left. I have. I've read letters from powerful resistance movements who fight and die resisting US imperialism and their puppets who view the role of resistance in the US as absolutely critical to them, and they are grateful for even the little things we can do to help them.

I think, to be honest, that this is rather like the thank you letters that a friend of mine in her 40s sends to her grandmother who annually, on her birthday, receives a 5TL note from her grandmother, which is nowadays just about enough to buy a packet of cigarettes if you smoke the cheap ones.

I conducted a very quick and obviously not representational survey on this at work. Of the twenty people I asked none of them thought that the US left would do anything to stop the wars in the Middle East, but 7 of them did seem to express genuine surprise that there was a US left.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The Vietnam war was stopped by the Vietcong, with a bit of help by G.I. resistance. Not by a message.


The left in the US played their role too. You can't deny that whatsoever.

I would say that Z is right and the biggest 'internal' effect on the US war effort came from the resistance within the military itself. I wouldn't say that the peace movement was completely non-influential, but its role was not central and shouldn't be exaggerated, and also the events need to be placed in the context of their time, which was widespread workers' struggle.

Devrim

[bricolage]

On the subject of resistance with the US to the Vietnam war here's a quote I took from a post on libcom a while ago:


The reality is that in a war which was probably the most popular war that America took part in, workers in fact, if not in their minds or in theory, said that given the choice between supporting the war or supporting our interests and class struggle, we take class struggle.

In the Vietnam war, for example, the picture most people have is of middle-class radicals, the new left, fighting against the war and the hard-hats supporting it and beating up the anti-war students. Yet, more war production was stopped by workers carrying on ordinary strikes in the course of their lives in the plants, than by the whole antiwar movement put together.

There were strikes at Olin-Matheson, which made munitions, at Mcdonnell-Douglas, on the Missouri Pacific railroad and in a couple of instances the strike lasted a couple of weeks and the shortage of planes and war material reached the point where the Johnson government was getting ready to take over the plants to stop the strikes.

It was not because the workers were anti-war: some probably were, some weren't. What the workers were doing was trying to live as human beings in the process of production.

One of the problems is, that the general analysis tends to lead in the hands of most analysts or historians or sociologists or radicals, to saying that that's interesting, workers are militant but what does it all mean? They support capitalism, they're racist, they're sexist, they're divided by skill; skilled workers against unskilled, older workers against younger. That's part of the reality. As long as capitalism exists, that's an inevitable part of the reality, unless one believes you can go around and convince everybody with some abstract definition of solidarity to all become good socialists together and we take over the society.

Marx says a revolution is necessary, not simply because you can't overthrow bourgeois society in any other way, but because without it, you cannot transform human beings to create the kind of society a future society can be. You do not create Communists and then make a revolution. You make the revolution, and that, in his phrase, gets rid of all the crap of centuries.

[bricolage]

Zimbabwe is, to my knowledge and off of the top of my head at least, the only independent nation in Africa. By independent, I mean in terms of not doing business with imperialist forces.
I don't think that's true at all. A quick glance indicates that 4.2% of imports come from China and 4.93% of exports go to the UK. Of course these are low figures but it rather stands in the way of the idea that it is 'not doing business with imperialist forces'. Additionally 13.39% of exports go to South Africa from where 62.24% of imports come from. You could call it sub-imperialism if you want but South Africa clearly acts in an expansionary and imperialist with the South African sub-region. At the side of this though is that being exploited by those from your own country as opposed to those from another country doesn't really change the fact that you are still being exploited.

[Chimurenga.]

I don't think that's true at all. A quick glance indicates that 4.2% of imports come from China and 4.93% of exports go to the UK. Of course these are low figures but it rather stands in the way of the idea that it is 'not doing business with imperialist forces'. Additionally 13.39% of exports go to South Africa from where 62.24% of imports come from. You could call it sub-imperialism if you want but South Africa clearly acts in an expansionary and imperialist with the South African sub-region. At the side of this though is that being exploited by those from your own country as opposed to those from another country doesn't really change the fact that you are still being exploited.

China is not imperialist. How can Zimbabwe have constant trading with the UK when the EU, whom the UK is apart of, imposes sanctions on Zimbabwe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8518160.stm)? And I, admittedly, don't know enough about South Africa to comment.

[bricolage]

China is not imperialist. How can Zimbabwe have constant trading with the UK when the EU, whom the UK is apart of, imposes sanctions on Zimbabwe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8518160.stm)? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8518160.stm%29?) And I, admittedly, don't know enough about South Africa to comment.
China is most certainly an imperial power, as for South Africa I would say the same, it has emerged into a dominant regional power with financial tentacles extending far into neighbouring countries.

I don't know about the UK, I read it on the CIA world factbook; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html
Of course being the CIA it's worth being careful with these figures but then I don't see what they would gain from insinuating UK-Zimbabwe links that don't exist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

China is most certainly an imperial power, as for South Africa I would say the same, it has emerged into a dominant regional power with financial tentacles extending far into neighbouring countries.

I don't know about the UK, I read it on the CIA world factbook; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html
Of course being the CIA it's worth being careful with these figures but then I don't see what they would gain from insinuating UK-Zimbabwe links that don't exist.

You're full of yourself. China is by no means an imperialist nation. They do trade relations with other countries & send resources, doctors, etc. For this to be an imperialist action, there needs to be an act of aggression, an act of force, for this to be considered an imperialist act by China. In which, in fact, is not the case.

[bailey_187]

You're full of yourself. China is by no means an imperialist nation. They do trade relations with other countries & send resources, doctors, etc. For this to be an imperialist action, there needs to be an act of aggression, an act of force, for this to be considered an imperialist act by China. In which, in fact, is not the case.

No there doesnt.

[bricolage]

You're full of yourself. China is by no means an imperialist nation. They do trade relations with other countries & send resources, doctors, etc. For this to be an imperialist action, there needs to be an act of aggression, an act of force, for this to be considered an imperialist act by China. In which, in fact, is not the case.
Absolutely not. Imperialism is about finance capital, about capital accumulation, about the extension of capitalist social relations to a world system. I admit I am not very well versed in the various theories but noone Bukharin to Lenin to Luxemburg or any communist, socialist or anarchist since has ever conceived imperialism as 'an act of aggression'.

[Queercommie Girl]

Absolutely not. Imperialism is about finance capital, about capital accumulation, about the extension of capitalist social relations to a world system. I admit I am not very well versed in the various theories but noone Bukharin to Lenin to Luxemburg or any communist, socialist or anarchist since has ever conceived imperialism as 'an act of aggression'.

Not all imperialist nations are equal however. Just like there are "big and small capitalists", there are also "big and small imperialist nations".

China today is at most only a local power, its ability to project its influence is very limited. Chinese imperialism is certainly not on the same level as US imperialism, or even European and Japanese imperialism.

China still has a very low GDP per capita, technically it is still a developing country.

[bricolage]

China still has a very low GDP per capita, technically it is still a developing country.
Indeed. But as countries develop so too develops their capacity for imperialist expansion. Imperialism is a world system but that does not mean every state holds an equal position within it, what can be said though is that the relative positions of each state are far from static and are constantly changing. You are of course right that China is not on the same level as the US or Europe but to say it is not imperialist is a lie. Referring back to the idea of developing capacity of imperialist expansion this can be seen very clearly in China as it has moved from exerting this in its geographic locality to, most prominently, several countries in Africa - most obvious in land grabbing but of course still very prominent in capital investment.

[Queercommie Girl]

Indeed. But as countries develop so too develops their capacity for imperialist expansion. Imperialism is a world system but that does not mean every state holds an equal position within it, what can be said though is that the relative positions of each state are far from static and are constantly changing. You are of course right that China is not on the same level as the US or Europe but to say it is not imperialist is a lie. Referring back to the idea of developing capacity of imperialist expansion this can be seen very clearly in China as it has moved from exerting this in its geographic locality to, most prominently, several countries in Africa - most obvious in land grabbing but of course still very prominent in capital investment.

Perhaps, but you would be wrong if you ignore the fact that stronger imperialist states like the US are also exploiting China itself.

It's a system of multiple layers of oppression and exploitation.

[zimmerwald1915]

Perhaps, but you would be wrong if you ignore the fact that stronger imperialist states like the US are also exploiting China itself.

It's a system of multiple layers of oppression and exploitation.
Of course it is. What it is not, however, is a system which a few countries maintain for their benefit. It is a system that organizes the relations between countries, in which all countries must and do compete.

[bricolage]

Perhaps, but you would be wrong if you ignore the fact that stronger imperialist states like the US are also exploiting China itself.
Well I don't see countries as homogenous blocks that can be exploited but yes you would be right that the working class in China are exploited by foreign capital. This does not mean the ruling class of China is not also responsible for the exploitation of the poor and working classes in other less developed countries.

It's a system of multiple layers of oppression and exploitation.
But of course.

[Crux]

How can you reject Stalin, but not Lenin? The only people who would do that are ultra-leftist Westerners who don't want to defend communism against the lies of the bourgeois, I'm guessing right that if you get into a conversation with someone about politics and come to the point of you being a 'communist', you would be like 'Oh no, I support Lenin but not Stalin' so you fit in right?

Fact is, Stalin finished what Lenin started, Stalin was only finishing what Lenin wrote about, regarding the industrialization of the cities and collectivization in the countryside. Stalin built socialism in the five-year plans. Which is more than the ultra-left critics in the West ever did (you know, except for sprouting the bourgeois lines to build up propaganda for imperialism, like against Iran).
Communists in Iran spread "imperialist lies" about that oppressing regime as much as Stalin was a continuation of Lenin. That is not at all. But it is telling that a friend of stalin such as yourself would defend the reactionary regime in Iran against critique from the left and working class and disguise it as "anti-imperialism". Only an "anti-imperialist" such as yourself would find it conceivable that a marxist criticism of a reactionary regime would entail supporting a U.S intervention. That says precisely all we need to know about your skewed perspectives.

[GreenCommunism]

every movement that act as a fifth column against a nation will be used by the imperialist.

who is talking about imperialist lies anyway? at least you admit there are no such thing as anti-imperialist lies. do you care about double-standard at all? i think this is the point of most of the people who don't get a boner bashing ahmadinejad

[Crux]

every movement that act as a fifth column against a nation will be used by the imperialist.

who is talking about imperialist lies anyway? at least you admit there are no such thing as anti-imperialist lies. do you care about double-standard at all? i think this is the point of most of the people who don't get a boner bashing ahmadinejad
I don't get a "Boner" bashing ahmadinejad, unlike you perhaps my boner does not define my political orientation.
There are however fake-anti-imperialists, like those willingly backing ahmadinejad, trying to paint him as some kind of progressive. I am sure that feels awesome for some kind of U.S "progressive" to give the finger to U.S establishment that way. Less awesome for those communists executed by the government yearly, those women oppressed by the regime and those worker's being denied even their most basic right's to organize.

[Rafiq]

I don't get a "Boner" bashing ahmadinejad, unlike you perhaps my boner does not define my political orientation.
There are however fake-anti-imperialists, like those willingly backing ahmadinejad, trying to paint him as some kind of progressive. I am sure that feels awesome for some kind of U.S "progressive" to give the finger to U.S establishment that way. Less awesome for those communists executed by the government yearly, those women oppressed by the regime and those worker's being denied even their most basic right's to organize.


Ahmadinejad does not have a lot of power.

It isn't his descision whether Communists should be executed.

Women's rights has improved under him, including the banning of Stoning, recently, the media stated a women was to be stoned for cheating on her husband, this is not the case, in fact, first off, a ruling has not been made and Stoning is not one of the options, secondly, she is charged with murdering her husband.

Perhaps she murdered him because he abused her, or maybe she is crazy, who knows.

I don't think she should be executed, however. Especially in a barbaric way such as Hanging.


But it is not up to Ahmadinejad to make those descisoins.


He is surrounded by a very corrupt system....



You do get a Boner from Bashing Ahmadinejad.

You don't have an open mind either.

I support him 100% Internationally.
Domestically, no, of course not, it is a reactionary regime. But it is better off under him then Mousavi, the puppet dog who is in a mob buisness with Rasfanjani the pig who should be shot

[Crux]

Ahmadinejad does not have a lot of power.

It isn't his descision whether Communists should be executed.

Women's rights has improved under him, including the banning of Stoning, recently, the media stated a women was to be stoned for cheating on her husband, this is not the case, in fact, first off, a ruling has not been made and Stoning is not one of the options, secondly, she is charged with murdering her husband.

Perhaps she murdered him because he abused her, or maybe she is crazy, who knows.

I don't think she should be executed, however. Especially in a barbaric way such as Hanging.


But it is not up to Ahmadinejad to make those descisoins.


He is surrounded by a very corrupt system....



You do get a Boner from Bashing Ahmadinejad.

You don't have an open mind either.

I support him 100% Internationally.
Domestically, no, of course not, it is a reactionary regime. But it is better off under him then Mousavi, the puppet dog who is in a mob buisness with Rasfanjani the pig who should be shot
You obviously support him domestically as well since you are going quite some ways to make excuses for that reactionary. How "radical" and "anti-imperialist" of you. I am sure that upset your parents. It isn't his decision if communists should be executed? That's an amusing statement in an absolutely sickening way. And finally who gives a fuck about Mousavi? the only one's that's been talking about Mousavi are those such as yourself, making excuses for Ahmadinejad. But I guess you're going for that edgy "anti-Mousavi" position. Because your "anti-imperialism" lacks any substance, but making excuses for the iranian regime.

[KC]

You're full of yourself. China is by no means an imperialist nation. They do trade relations with other countries & send resources, doctors, etc. For this to be an imperialist action, there needs to be an act of aggression, an act of force, for this to be considered an imperialist act by China. In which, in fact, is not the case.

The funny/sad thing is that the theory of imperialism that you dogmatically cling to actually asserts that rising militarism is not only a necessary outcome of imperialist development, but also that such militarism is between imperialist states for the "redivision and repartition" of the world, and not between imperialist and imperialized countries for their exploitation, which has existed before the imperialist stage of capitalism.

[Red Brigade]

I don't think it's bad for leftist and progressives to meet with an anti-imperialism force.

[gorillafuck]

Ahmadinejad does not have a lot of power.

It isn't his descision whether Communists should be executed.
And Reagan didn't personally decide who his death squads in South America killed. He was complicit, though.

Ahmadenijad is complicit with the murders of communists and working class militants in Iran. Just because Moussavi would also be a terrible head of a communist-mudering reactionary state doesn't excuse this. I think it's sickening that progressives would meet with the leader of a regime that kills those who struggle for working class liberation.

Wanna know why communists aren't a mass force in Iran? Because they're locked up or killed. But apparently when a country hunts down and destroys the socialist movement in it, that's reason to give up on the socialist movement within it and support the government that actually caused the destruction of the countries socialist movement.

[Rafiq]

You obviously support him domestically as well since you are going quite some ways to make excuses for that reactionary. How "radical" and "anti-imperialist" of you. I am sure that upset your parents. It isn't his decision if communists should be executed? That's an amusing statement in an absolutely sickening way. And finally who gives a fuck about Mousavi? the only one's that's been talking about Mousavi are those such as yourself, making excuses for Ahmadinejad. But I guess you're going for that edgy "anti-Mousavi" position. Because your "anti-imperialism" lacks any substance, but making excuses for the iranian regime.



Yup, you sure caught me. You busted me, *Hands Go Up* yup, you're right, I am a defender of the Reactionary Regime! I support Ahmadinejad and the Regime domestically! Because that is exactly what I said!

You are so right! How did you figure it out? You are so smart!

[GreenCommunism]

Wanna know why communists aren't a mass force in Iran? Because they're locked up or killed. But apparently when a country hunts down and destroys the socialist movement in it, that's reason to give up on the socialist movement within it and support the government that actually caused the destruction of the countries socialist movement.why would it be different for the iranian working class than for the european working class, barring france there isn't much communism force.

and yes i agree, in fact i don't think anyone respects ahmadinejad, it is just like north korea for me, let's try not to feed in desinformation.

[Devrim]

I support him 100% Internationally.
Domestically, no, of course not, it is a reactionary regime. But it is better off under him then Mousavi, the puppet dog who is in a mob buisness with Rasfanjani the pig who should be shot

This is an absurd position. You either support him or you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I don't think it's bad for leftist and progressives to meet with an anti-imperialism force.

I don't think the PSL are in any way 'progressive' nor is the Iranian state 'anti-imperialist'.

Devrim

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I hardly see how petite-bourgeois private school kids staging riots for the benefit of a foreign audience is in any way 'revolutionary'. They were just like the red-shirt protests in Thailand with there slogans like 'peaceful protesters not terrorists' designed to appeal to liberal Western audiences. Same as in Iran with 'where is my vote' and all that, it was directly staged to appeal to the Americans. The protests didn't even look legitimate to me, and they obviously only had the support of a small portion of the population, just the same people coming out again and again like upstarts and not realizing that no one inside the country supports them.

How can a 'genuine communist movement' come from a movement which at it's heart has a bourgeois character?

[Devrim]

How can a 'genuine communist movement' come from a movement which at it's heart has a bourgeois character?

The Green movement was a cross class movement. Of course it won't transform itself into a communist movement.

However, I don't agree with your other comments about it.


I hardly see how petite-bourgeois private school kids staging riots for the benefit of a foreign audience is in any way 'revolutionary'.

I don't think that was the make up of the demonstrations at all. All of the things I read or heard coming out of Iran seemed to suggest that the participation of the Middle Classes seemed to drop off dramatically when the violence started.


Same as in Iran with 'where is my vote' and all that, it was directly staged to appeal to the Americans. The protests didn't even look legitimate to me, and they obviously only had the support of a small portion of the population, just the same people coming out again and again like upstarts and not realizing that no one inside the country supports them.

The protests were massive. The highest reports I saw of figures for one demonstration was 1,000,000. Even if it is exaggerated somewhat, you don't get numbers like that with no support. Think about demonstrations in your own country that have been that big.

Also to me it didn't seem staged at all. I don't think they were even capable of staging something so massive.

Devrim

[Crux]

Yup, you sure caught me. You busted me, *Hands Go Up* yup, you're right, I am a defender of the Reactionary Regime! I support Ahmadinejad and the Regime domestically! Because that is exactly what I said!

You are so right! How did you figure it out? You are so smart!
Because you're so obviously making excuses for the regime and oppose the worker's movement in Iran. Of course you'd rather discuss the green movement because you seem to lack even the faintest grasp on what the worker's movement is. Surely you don't need me to quote what you just said, what I was responding to? I assume you are aware of what you yourself write, even though, perhaps, you're unaware of the consequences of your statements. But I guess it's too much to expect from the same breed of "anti-imperialists" who would've acted as cheerleaders for the Mullahs in '79 as well.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't think the PSL are in any way 'progressive' nor is the Iranian state 'anti-imperialist'.

Devrim

How do you not see the PSL as at least being progressive? That's an absurd assertion.

[Devrim]

How do you not see the PSL as at least being progressive? That's an absurd assertion.

I don't think organisations that support capitalist states in any way are 'progressive'. I think they are reactionary and anti-working class.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

This is an absurd position. You either support him or you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Devrim

I didnt know. You were in charge of my level of sympathy with the Iranian president.. it is completely possible to support him internationally and not domestically!

[Crux]

I didnt know. You were in charge of my level of sympathy with the Iranian president.. it is completely possible to support him internationally and not domestically!
Except you support him dmestically. I am curious though, just how do you separate his supposed "anti-imperialist" international politics from his utterly reactionary domestic ones, policy's which you, or possibly soviet_dude, I can barely tell one stalintroll from the other, claimed garnered him the "support of the working class and the poor" in the election?

[Rafiq]

Except you support him dmestically. I am curious though, just how do you separate his supposed "anti-imperialist" international politics from his utterly reactionary domestic ones, policy's which you, or possibly soviet_dude, I can barely tell one stalintroll from the other, claimed garnered him the "support of the working class and the poor" in the election?


"Except you support him Domestically" - Majakovsi, delusional prick


So what do I do now? No matter what I say, you are going to say I support him domestically.

You don't even know me, the only thing you know about me is what I type on these forums, and I recall typing that I dont support him Domestically.

"Nope you do I just know it"

Just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up