How the Chavez "Solidarity" with "Anti-Imperialist" Regimes Are Viewed...

[Kiev Communard]

...by the Middle Eastern Left (Inspired by this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chavez-supports-gaddafi-t150670/index.html)):




Self-determination and the fight for a socialist state

The Communist Party of Iran is an ex-Maoist organisation, which now states it is 'closer to Trotskyism'. On his recent trip to Iraqi Kurdistan, Rozh Ahmad visited the camp run by Komalah, the CPI grouping in Kurdistan, and spoke to Hassan Rahman Panah, a member of its central committee


What are the aims of Komalah?

We are a Marxist organisation, and our maximum programme is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a workers’ state in Iran. Our socialist demands are the same as those in the CPI’s programme. However, as there is national oppression in Kurdistan, ending this is one of our prime goals. We are fighting for people’s judicial power in Kurdistan, which was agreed upon at our latest congress.

Our party believes that the Iranian state is run by a theocratic, dictatorial regime. It has created a barrier which denies people their basic democratic rights, and so the destruction of this theocratic regime and its replacement by a democratic government through mass workers’ participation is the only way to guarantee the democratic rights of the people of Iran.

Of course, socialism is what we are aiming for and we do not think of it as a distant goal. However, socialism cannot be achieved through a single political party: it needs the mass of workers to be organised. But a mass, conscious proletariat could only come through the collapse of the theocratic dictatorship in Iran.

...Komalah-CPI publications are full of references to internationalism. How do you view Hugo Chávez’s call to build a fifth international?

We do not even consider Chávez to be a socialist. He supports Ahmadinejad, one of the biggest capitalist murderers in Middle East, so how could people trust him to build socialism? He supports a government which murders youth, women and political prisoners.

This region has had many examples of people claiming to be anti-imperialist. Saddam Hussein Iraq was another one - like Ahmadinejad he was fond of so-called ‘anti-imperialist’ slogans. But he carried out mass atrocities against the Kurds here, gassed Halabja town in 1988 and destroyed many villages in Operation Anfal, the attempt by the former regime in Iraq to ethnically cleanse the Kurds in 1987-88. Yet he was labelled a socialist by some.

We think Chávez came to power as a result of US oppression in Latin America and America’s long war against freedom lovers in that entire continent. We do not consider his administration to be a socialist government built by workers and the poor from below. Power is not in the hands of the Venezuelan working class.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004290






Marxists Must Stand Firm Against Ahmadinejad

By Maziar Razi - London Progressive Journal, July 12th 2009

Open letter to the workers of Venezuela on Hugo Chávez's support for Ahmadinejad.

Honourable workers of Venezuela,

The Revolutionary Marxists of Iran are aware of your achievements as part of the Bolivarian Movement and have always supported this movement against the widespread lies and the open and covert interference of imperialism. In order to defend your invaluable movement and to confront the attacks and interference of US imperialism in Venezuela, labour and student activists in Iran have set up the ‘Hands Off Venezuela' campaign in Iran and during the past few years have stood together with you in confronting the imperialist attacks. It is obvious that your achievements were gained under the leadership of Hugo Chávez and, for this reason, you reserve deep respect for him.

In terms of his foreign policy, however, Chávez has made a mistake. With his support for Ahmadinejad he has ignored the solidarity of the workers and students of Iran with your revolution, and in a word, made it look worthless. Most are aware that two weeks ago Ahmadinejad, with the direct support of Khamenei, committed the biggest fraud in the history of presidential elections in Iran and then, with great ferocity, spilt the blood of those protesting against this fraud. You just have to take notice of the international media reports to be aware of the depths of this tragedy. All over the world millions of workers and students, and also those of Marxist and revolutionary tendencies (which mostly are the supporters of the Bolivarian revolution), protested against these attacks.

In of spite this, Chávez was one of the first people to support Ahmadinejad. In his weekly TV speech he said: "Ahmadinejad's triumph is a total victory. They're trying to stain Ahmadinejad's victory, and by doing so they aim to weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they won't be able to do it." And that "We ask the world for respect." These rash and baseless remarks from your President are a great and direct insult to the millions of youth who in recent days rose up against tyranny. Some of them even lost their lives. Many of these youths came out on the streets spontaneously and without becoming infected with the regime's internal disputes, or becoming aligned with the policy that US imperialism is following for taking over the movement. In addition, the remarks of your President are an insult to millions of workers in Iran. Workers whose leaders are today being tortured in the prisons of the Ahmadinejad government and some of them are even believed to be being punished with flogging. Workers who were brutally repressed by the mercenaries of the Ahmadinejad government for commemorating May Day in Tehran this year are still in prison.

So far Chávez has travelled to Iran seven times and each time he has hugged one of the most hated people in this country and called him his "brother". He does not realise that the economic, social and political situations of Venezuela and Iran are going in opposite directions. Although both countries have seen a similarly significant boost to their oil (and gas) revenues the contrast between the ways in which this extra money has been used by the two governments could not be more marked. In Venezuela this income is used for building hospitals, schools, universities and other infrastructure of the country, but in Iran it is used for lining the pockets of just a few parasitic capitalists.

On the one hand, in Venezuela, we have seen the nationalisation of an increasing number of companies and factories, the free provision of healthcare, education, civil liberties and so on. By contrast in Iran privatisation is on the government's agenda, even at the cost of trampling on Article 44 of the Constitution of the country and using the excuse of inefficiency and low productivity of state companies and factories. All these advances of the workers and the poor in Venezuela have given them greater control over the way they work and the way they live. Most importantly, the expropriation of factories and the encouragement of workers' control and participation have transformed the character of the workers' movement in Venezuela, advancing it by many stages. The Bolivarian movement and the policies of the government have brought about a huge shift in the balance of class forces in Venezuela in favour of the working class. Not only has the government encouraged the Venezuelan workers to build the Unión Nacional de los Trabajadores as an alternative to the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), but the workers have become involved in running and managing factories and other enterprises. The whole world knows that your government has even drawn up a list of 1,149 closed-down factories and given their owners an ultimatum: re-open them under workers' control or the government will expropriate them.

In Iran, on the other hand, on top of the lack of many basic democratic rights, the workers are also without any independent trade union rights. Today the workers of Iran do not even have a confederation like the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela. All they have are the Labour House, the Islamic Labour Councils and other anti-working class bodies tied to the state.

But this has not always been so: the overthrow of the Shah brought about many freedoms for workers including, in some cases, control over production and even distribution. Then, however, through repression the Islamic hierarchy managed to take back all the workers' gains. The leaders that your President hugs killed thousands of workers, destroyed the workers' movement and pushed it back by several decades. In Iranian society even the ‘yellow' pro-boss unions - that the Shah had tolerated - became and remain illegal. Even a CTV-style trade union confederation is illegal in Iran.

In Iran the official (and underestimated) unemployment rate stands at 10.85 per cent, with unemployment among the youth (15-24 year-olds) standing at 22.35 per cent. Even when workers are employed they are often not paid - in many cases for more than a year. Even those who get their wages face an impossible task in paying for the basic necessities of life, because their wage is not enough for living costs. For example, with the rent for a two-bedroom flat at $422 a month, a civil servant on $120 wages, or a teacher on $180, or even a doctor on $600 a month struggle to survive. It is no wonder that some 90 per cent of the population live below the poverty line.

The capitalist government of Iran has no fundamental disagreements or contradictions with US imperialism. It is in a ‘cold war' with America and when it receives enough concessions, it will quickly enter into political dealings with the US and will turn its back on you. Indeed, the Iran regime has already helped the Americans in their military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq - and installing the puppet regimes of Karzai and Maliki through significant trade, security and other deals. The capitalist government of Iran, despite the current apparent differences, is busy in close negotiations with the Obama government on resolving the problems of Afghanistan. This government, despite the "anti-imperialist" rhetoric, is heading towards re-establishing old links with the US. Ahmadinejad's selection demonstrates the final turn of the regime towards resolving its problems with imperialism. Despite all the "enmity" and "anti-imperialist" gestures the regime is ready to resolve all its differences with America. The government of Iran wants to turn Iran into a society like Colombia (in Colombia thousands of trade unionists have been killed so that multinational companies can exploit workers and plunder the country's natural resources without any obstacles). It is not without reason that the Iranian government has been implementing the bankrupt neo-liberal prescriptions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and counting the minutes until it joins the World Trade Organisation.

The close and regular links of your leader, Chávez, with the leaders of this regime will eventually make the Iranian masses turn their back on the great lessons of the revolutionary process in Venezuela. Winning the hearts and minds of the masses in Iran and similar countries is the best long-term solution to breaking Washington's stranglehold on Latin America. Your leader's closeness with the capitalist government of Iran, a government that has the blood of thousands of workers and youth on its hands, shows that his anti-imperialist foreign policy has a major flaw. Being close to reactionary regimes will never be able to bring the anti-imperialist foreign policy to a successful conclusion. Only the unity of the real representatives of the workers and toilers can confront imperialism.

Stand together with the Iranian workers and condemn the foreign policy of your leaders. Support for Ahmadinejad means support for the repression of Iranian workers and youth. Challenge the flawed positions of Chávez and reject them. Support for the government of Ahmadinejad, especially after the recent events, is at worst an open betrayal of the toilers of Iran and at best a political blunder in foreign policy.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4618

[Crimson Commissar]

I don't think this means we need to oppose Venezuela though... Venezuela is still a socialist country, or at least progressing towards socialism. Their opinion on Iran is pretty much irrelevant. They wouldn't be able to stop a socialist revolution in Iran if one was to happen. They'd probably support it if it succeeded, actually.

[Property Is Robbery]

Yeah the PSL supports Iran but only from an anti-imperialist stand point. I think Hugo Chavez is the same. The CPI are probably blind to this because they live under Ahmadinejad.

[Crimson Commissar]

Yeah the PSL supports Iran but only from an anti-imperialist stand point. I think Hugo Chavez is the same. The CPI are probably blind to this because they live under Ahmadinejad.
We shouldn't be supporting Iran at all. But regardless, like I said before, that doesn't make Chavez any less of a socialist.

[Devrim]

Yeah the PSL supports Iran but only from an anti-imperialist stand point. I think Hugo Chavez is the same. The CPI are probably blind to this because they live under Ahmadinejad.

Funny that, isn't it? You would expect the CPI to open their eyes and see that the PSL are obviously right and support their own state. Obviously people in countries like Iran, where the mass strike is in living memory, and there is an intense level of class struggle are so stupid that they can't see what a party in another continent is telling them about their own country. Perhaps they should go out for dinner with Ahamedinejad, as the the leadership of the PSL did, and he could explain to them why 'anti-imperialists' should be supporting the Iranian state, or maybe they won't be invited.

The PSL is a deeply 'American' organisation whose international viewpoint basically consists of supporting states who are in opposition to the US. It is an organisation without any international presence outside its own country. This is probably a good thing because any organisation in Iran, which adopted the PSL's politics, would be 'national defencist' and openly chauvinist.

Interestingly the IMT's section in Iran quit over Alan Woods gallivanting around Chavez, somebody who openly supports the Iranian state.

Of course Hugo Chavez is only supporting Iran on an 'anti-imperialist basis'. What sort of people could suggest that Chavez is a bourgeois leader of a capitalist state, and that his support for Iran, and also Libya, has got nothing at all to do with socialism, the working class, or 'anti-imperialism', but is in fact deeply connected to oil prices, alliances in OPEC, and international geo-politics?

Gee I don't know, communists perhaps?

Devrim

[HEAD ICE]

If a German under Wilhelm or a Frenchman under Clemenceau says, “It is my right and duty as a socialist to defend my country if it is invaded by an enemy”, lie argues not like a socialist, not like an internationalist, not like a revolutionary proletarian, but like a petty-bourgeois nationalist. Because this argument ignores the revolutionary class struggle of the workers against capital, it ignores the appraisal of the war as a whole from the point of view of the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat, that is, it ignores internationalism, and all that remains is miserable and narrow-minded nationalism. My country is being wronged, that is all I care about-that is what this argument amounts to, and that is where its petty-bourgeois, nationalist narrow-mindedness lies. […] The Frenchman, German or Italian who says: “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations, therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded”, betrays socialism and internationalism, because such a man sees only his own “country”, he puts “his own” ... bourgeoisie above everything else and does not give a thought to the international connections which make the war an imperialist war and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain
of imperialist plunder. […]

The socialist, the revolutionary proletarian, the internationalist, argues differently. He says: “The character of the war (whether it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on who the attacker was, or in whose country the 'enemy' is stationed; it depends on what class is waging the war, and on what politics this war is a continuation of. If the war is a reactionary, imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world slaughter. I must argue, not from the point of view of 'my' country (for that is the argument of a wretched, stupid, petty-bourgeois nationalist who does not realise that he is only a plaything in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie), but from the point of view of my share in the preparation, in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution.”

That is what internationalism means, and that is the duty of the internationalist, the revolutionary worker, the genuine socialist.Lenin on internationalism. Though he is talking about World War I, what he says can easily apply to what masquerades on this forum and amongst the "left" as "anti-imperialism" (which mostly resides in the USA, which is basically taking the opposing side of the Cold War map, against the USA. Basically inversed American exceptionalism).

[Rafiq]

The Iranian regime tends to tell the unsatisfied masses of worker's "Well, we know you guys have it bad, but so does America!"

I can imagine some of the Iranian bourgeoisie saying God gave them the right to own the means of production or something stupid like that.

[manic expression]

Funny that, isn't it? You would expect the CPI to open their eyes and see that the PSL are obviously right and support their own state.
Perhaps if you took the time to digest what the PSL says about the issue, you wouldn't make such foolish statements. The PSL doesn't call for Iranian communists to give unwavering support to the Iranian state, the PSL opposes American imperialist ambitions in Iran and the surrounding region. This is lost on you, though, because you're more eager to slander communists than to do anything else.


Lenin on internationalism. Though he is talking about World War I, what he says can easily apply to what masquerades on this forum and amongst the "left" as "anti-imperialism" (which mostly resides in the USA, which is basically taking the opposing side of the Cold War map, against the USA. Basically inversed American exceptionalism)One of Lenin's key positions on WWI was that all communists in imperialist countries should seek to frustrate and defeat the ambitions of their own regimes. That means French communists try to stop French imperialism, German communists try to stop German imperialism and Russian communists try to stop Russian imperialism first and foremost. When American communists do the same when American imperialism is menacing Iran...they get attacked for it. As an aside, it's hardly a surprise that it's from the same quarters that attacked Lenin way back when.

[AmericanSocialist]

I love Hugo Chavez. I dont understand the persons argument. Hugo Chavez has done trade with Iran. That doesn't mean he supports them. He was asked by a Fox news reporter about the crimes of Iran president, but he didnt condone it but instead criticized the US roles in murders across the globe in particular Iraq. Chavez may not be perfect but he is pretty damn awesome to be truly trying to transform his nation into a socialist state. I love him as much as I love Fidel Castro, Che, Mao, Lennin, and each and every true bolshevik.

[Omsk]

Mao
He does not quite fit in that litle group.

and each and every true bolshevik.
Not too much people than.

[AmericanSocialist]

Maybe not to you Erich, but everybody is entitled to their opinion. You are still a comrade of mine.

[pranabjyoti]

Well, even USSR under Lenin have commercial relations with imperialist countries and Lenin himself was very much eager to import machinery and technology from them. If he was alive today, I am sure that he too would surely be "stamped" by "leftists(!)".

[Omsk]

@AmericanSocialist:Of course,we all after all have the same cause,extinction of capitalism/imperialism.
I did not mean anything negative.

[Crux]

Perhaps if you took the time to digest what the PSL says about the issue, you wouldn't make such foolish statements. The PSL doesn't call for Iranian communists to give unwavering support to the Iranian state, the PSL opposes American imperialist ambitions in Iran and the surrounding region. This is lost on you, though, because you're more eager to slander communists than to do anything else.

One of Lenin's key positions on WWI was that all communists in imperialist countries should seek to frustrate and defeat the ambitions of their own regimes. That means French communists try to stop French imperialism, German communists try to stop German imperialism and Russian communists try to stop Russian imperialism first and foremost. When American communists do the same when American imperialism is menacing Iran...they get attacked for it. As an aside, it's hardly a surprise that it's from the same quarters that attacked Lenin way back when. What a farce. Ironically it echoes well of those "socialists" who defended their own regimes during WW1, in the name of anti-imperialism and socialism.

[manic expression]

What a farce. Ironically it echoes well of those "socialists" who defended their own regimes during WW1, in the name of anti-imperialism and socialism.
That is a lie, or else a product of pure delusion. American communist parties, including my own, have been forthright, outspoken and exceedingly consistent in their denunciation of American imperialism. How is that, in any way, something that echoes those "socialists"? I'll help you out a bit: it doesn't. At all. It's the opposite. Perhaps you should try to find some new species of slander.

[Crux]

That is a lie, or else a product of pure delusion. American communist parties, including my own, have been forthright, outspoken and exceedingly consistent in their denunciation of American imperialism. How is that, in any way, something that echoes those "socialists"? I'll help you out a bit: it doesn't. At all. It's the opposite. Perhaps you should try to find some new species of slander.
A hint: The german marxists did not speak well of the Russian Czar, even though he was certainly a bulwark against german imperialism.
Because that would be the other side of the coin of the "social-patriots" position.

[Dimmu]

Chavez should drop hes support for the despotic regimes.. Its just that easy.. Enemy of my enemy is my friend is a typical imperialist doctrine which should have no place in a socialist country.

[gorillafuck]

Yeah the PSL supports Iran but only from an anti-imperialist stand point. I think Hugo Chavez is the same. The CPI are probably blind to this because they live under Ahmadinejad.They're blind to it because they experience firsthand what they're talking about?

You should tell them that. I bet they really respect when American socialists tell them things like that.

[manic expression]

A hint: The german marxists did not speak well of the Russian Czar, even though he was certainly a bulwark against german imperialism.
Because that would be the other side of the coin of the "social-patriots" position.
A real hint: German "social patriots" wanted German imperialism to be victorious. American revolutionaries are unwavering in their dedication to frustrating and defeating imperialism. Those are opposite positions, in case you didn't notice. So your comparison is as absurd as it is slanderous. Better luck next time.

[Crux]

A real hint: German "social patriots" wanted German imperialism to be victorious. American revolutionaries are unwavering in their dedication to frustrating and defeating imperialism. Those are opposite positions, in case you didn't notice. So your comparison is as absurd as it is slanderous. Better luck next time.
Say hi to Ahmadinejad for me next time you go and visit. Remember to wipe the blood off your hands after you shake his.

[manic expression]

Say hi to Ahmadinejad for me next time you go and visit. Remember to wipe the blood off your hands after you shake his.
Cute comment. Good thing the Bolsheviks never associated with or met with German capitalists. Oh, wait...they did multiple times in order to pursue revolutionary defeatism. Like I said...cute.

[The Grey Blur]

...what?

[Illuminati]

I love Hugo Chavez. I dont understand the persons argument. Hugo Chavez has done trade with Iran. That doesn't mean he supports them. He was asked by a Fox news reporter about the crimes of Iran president, but he didnt condone it but instead criticized the US roles in murders across the globe in particular Iraq. Chavez may not be perfect but he is pretty damn awesome to be truly trying to transform his nation into a socialist state. I love him as much as I love Fidel Castro, Che, Mao, Lennin, and each and every true bolshevik.

I was about to post something very similar and then I saw this :thumbup1:

[HalPhilipWalker]

I think we should also look at the limitations which Chavez has been placed under. Chavez has been subject to hostile imperialist action since he came into power. While he has been trying to move his country toward socialism, he has also been forced to search for allies in a world with few other leaders who are ideologically pure. So he has been forced to compromise when it comes to his choice of allies. It should be important to acknowledge the genuine criticism that Chavez has established good relations with imperialist powers, but that shouldn't cause socialists to immediately withdraw their own support for what in most respects is a remarkably good regime. Instead we should try to look at the broad picture of what this means for the whole socialist movement, which is in dire need of positive state role models to ally themselves with.

[gorillafuck]

Cute comment. Good thing the Bolsheviks never associated with or met with German capitalists. Oh, wait...they did multiple times in order to pursue revolutionary defeatism. Like I said...cute.Honestly when you compare yourself to the bolsheviks while calling others cute, it makes you sound like the snottiest, most arrogant, pretentious person on the planet.

[Crux]

Cute comment. Good thing the Bolsheviks never associated with or met with German capitalists. Oh, wait...they did multiple times in order to pursue revolutionary defeatism. Like I said...cute.
And they sang the praise of Anti-Imperialist Germany too, we all remember it well.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

And they sang the praise of Anti-Imperialist Germany too, we all remember it well.

Yah, Lenin palled around with the Kaiser. :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

And they sang the praise of Anti-Imperialist Germany too, we all remember it well.
Find me some lyrics to these supposed songs of praise, and maybe you won't look like a slanderous joker.


Honestly when you compare yourself to the bolsheviks while calling others cute, it makes you sound like the snottiest, most arrogant, pretentious person on the planet.
The comparison is valid. If you think that's "snotty", well, OK.


Yah, Lenin palled around with the Kaiser. :rolleyes:
Um, he accepted aid from the German state in order to defeat Russian imperialism (my original point)...but don't let facts stop you from trying to be clever.

[gorillafuck]

Find me some lyrics to these supposed songs of praise, and maybe you won't look like a slanderous joker.Your description of him as a joker is pretty accurate given that that was an obvious joke. The Bolsheviks never sang praises of the Kaiser.


The comparison is valid. If you think that's "snotty", well, OK.I'm not so sure it is, and also that's not the reason why it was snotty and arrogant.


Um, he accepted aid from the German state in order to defeat Russian imperialism (my original point)...but don't let facts stop you from trying to be clever.How much money did the PSL get from Iran and what revolutionary activity has it been used for? Answer in a PM if you can't disclose that information publicly.

[manic expression]

Your description of him as a joker is pretty accurate given that that was an obvious joke. The Bolsheviks never sang praises of the Kaiser.
Precisely. Now if he can find the PSL "singing the praises" of the Iranian state (beyond its resistance to imperialism), then maybe he'll have an argument instead of a collection of clumsy and slanderous comparisons. Somehow, though, I doubt it. Liars and slander-artists usually don't do too well on that front.


I'm not so sure it is, and also that's not the reason why it was snotty and arrogant.Calling it names doesn't take away from its relevancy.


How much money did the PSL get from Iran and what has it been used for? Answer in a PM if you can't disclose that information.:rolleyes: It's quite simple: the Bolsheviks weren't above taking aid from the German state. The PSL was in the same room with representatives of the Iranian state. How is one A-OK and the other horrifyingly reactionary?

[gorillafuck]

Precisely. Now if he can find the PSL "singing the praises" of the Iranian state (beyond its resistance to imperialism), then maybe he'll have an argument instead of a collection of clumsy and slanderous comparisons. Somehow, though, I doubt it. Liars and slander-artists usually don't do too well on that front.I was told by whoever ran the PSL table in Boston at a rally in October of 2009 that the PSL supports Iran. Is that not true?


:rolleyes: It's quite simple: the Bolsheviks weren't above taking aid from the German state. The PSL was in the same room with representatives of the Iranian state. How is one A-OK and the other horrifyingly reactionary?You're right, they accepted aid from Germany for pragmatic reasons to do with fighting the Czar. They did not express solidarity with the Kaiser though.

What pragmatic reasons did the PSL meet with Ahmadinejad for? If none, then was it purely out of solidarity? And if not for solidarity with him or for pragmatic reasons like the Bolsheviks did, then what?

[manic expression]

I was told by whoever ran the PSL table in Boston at a rally in October of 2009 that the PSL supports Iran. Is that not true?
It means the PSL supports Iran in its struggle against imperialist aggression. Every progressive should do so: imperialist victory in Iran would be a crushing blow to the workers of the region and the world. That position, however, doesn't mean anything beyond fulfilling our obligation as communists to frustrating and defeating American imperialism. It certainly doesn't signify any full support for the state, and to assert as much would be to ignore the nuances of the position.


What pragmatic reasons did the PSL meet with Ahmadinejad for? If none, then was it purely out of solidarity? And if not for solidarity with him, then what?IIRC, it was an event for discussion on the situation facing the region. That's not "purely out of solidarity". Just because you're in the same room as someone else doesn't mean you throw your support behind them.

[gorillafuck]

It means the PSL supports Iran in its struggle against imperialist aggression. Every progressive should do so: imperialist victory in Iran would be a crushing blow to the workers of the region and the world. That position, however, doesn't mean anything beyond fulfilling our obligation as communists to frustrating and defeating American imperialism.If a radical worker in Iran was to take the position of "supporting Iran against imperialism" then what should that radical worker do in regards to the class struggle in Iran and in regards to struggles against the Iranian ruling class?

Also, just so you're aware, there's someone in your party who claimed to me that the PSL supports Iran because the working class of Iran elected Ahmadinejad and the opposition was from the middle class. Maybe your Boston branch could consider not letting her run the table?:laugh:


IIRC, it was an event for discussion on the situation facing the region. That's not "purely out of solidarity". Just because you're in the same room as someone else doesn't mean you throw your support behind them.Can we have insight as to what occurred at the meeting, what was discussed, what was agreed upon, etc.?

And so you'd say there were no pragmatic reasons behind it?

[L.A.P.]

We shouldn't be supporting Iran at all. But regardless, like I said before, that doesn't make Chavez any less of a socialist.

If NATO was to invade Iran tomorrow ,despite how oppressive the state is, I would support Iran. Chavez is allied with places like Iran and Libya out of necessity and there not being much help for a government like the one governing Venezuela and I have no doubt that Chavez is aware of how oppressive Iran is but what can he do?

[manic expression]

If a radical worker in Iran was to take the position of "supporting Iran against imperialism" then what should that radical worker do in regards to the class struggle in Iran and in regards to struggles against the Iranian ruling class?
Organize genuinely independent working-class organizations, make connections with the workers of surrounding countries, go to where the workers are with a progressive platform.


Can we have insight as to what occurred at the meeting, what was discussed, what was agreed upon, etc.?I wasn't there, but from what I've read it wasn't more than an event for discussion.


And so you'd say there were no pragmatic reasons behind it?Discussion has its own benefits, I'd say.

[gorillafuck]

Organize genuinely independent working-class organizations, make connections with the workers of surrounding countries, go to where the workers are with a progressive platform.Workers were at the protests in 2009. Is it your opinion that workers should have participated in the protests while putting forth a working class platform?

What if there is a workers strike that makes Iran vulnerable to imperialism? Should it be put down to fight imperialism or should it be supported as part of the class struggle?


I wasn't there, but from what I've read it wasn't more than an event for discussion.What organizations and what political leaders attended?


Discussion has its own benefits, I'd say.How did it harm American imperialism, or how did the PSL benefit from it?

[manic expression]

Workers were at the protests in 2009. Is it your opinion that workers should have participated in the protests with a working class platform?
There were workers at the demonstrations in support of the state, too. The question is about the leadership and character of the protests. The "Green Movement" is backed by the richest man in Iran, and its figurehead is a politician who wants to move Iran "closer" to American imperialism. It represented a step to the right. That's not progressive, that's not working-class.


What if there is a workers strike that makes Iran vulnerable to imperialism? Should it be put down to fight imperialism or should it be supported as part of the class struggle?
It's hard, if not impossible, to comment on that hypothetical, it's all in the details.


What organizations and what political leaders attended?
Not sure. Look it up if you want.


How did it harm American imperialism, or how did the PSL benefit from it?
I didn't hear the discussion so I can't say exactly.

[gorillafuck]

There were workers at the demonstrations in support of the state, too. The question is about the leadership and character of the protests. The "Green Movement" is backed by the richest man in Iran, and its figurehead is a politician who wants to move Iran "closer" to American imperialism. It represented a step to the right. That's not progressive, that's not working-class.Alright. So do you think that communists should have gone towards the more radical segments of the demonstrations, which were indisputably there?


It's hard, if not impossible, to comment on that hypothetical, it's all in the details.It should not be for someone who supports class struggle. Clearly, if you support Iran against imperialism then the side to take would be the side of the state against the striking workers, and if you support the class struggle in Iran then you should support the striking workers against the state.

Just out of curiosity, aside from obvious situations like some kind of far right fascist strike, what details would sway this situation?


I didn't hear the discussion so I can't say exactly.I ask because I have serious doubts that it accomplished anything except piss off radical workers in Iran.

[Crux]

The "Green Movement" =/= all the people protesting. But we've been over this. I think Komalah's opinion on Iran is far more credible than the PSL's.

And how about this characterization of the Iranian regime:
The imperialists’ problem with the Iranian regime is that it will not go to them to ask about the "chances and possibilities for Iran." Following the 1979 revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed Shah, Iran has ventured outside the bounds that the imperialists deem permissible for oppressed nations. It has made great strides in industry and agriculture and pursued an independent economic path. As a result, Iran has become a significant force in the region and a source of support for mass struggle against U.S.-Israeli occupation and aggression.
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/06-08-29-imperialists-threaten-iran-with.html

Or those massive demonstrations of working class support for the Iranian regime we all should not forget about:
In contrast, in Iran, on many occasions, millions of predominantly working-class people have demonstrated in support of the Islamic Republic.

Right after the June 12, 2009 elections, even during the peak of large Green demonstrations, there were marches and rallies in support of President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei, including the June 17 “unity” rally in Tehran and the June 19 Friday Prayers at Tehran University, each attended by hundreds of thousands. So, while in Egypt and Tunisia it is close to the absolute majority of the people on one side and the state on the other, in Iran there have been two groups of people demonstrating, one for and one against the regime.



On Feb. 11, 2010, on the 31st anniversary of the revolution, the pro-revolution turnout of millions dwarfed the peak turnout of the opposition in June 2009. In addition to accounts of eyewitnesses and reporters, helicopter shots showed a crowd stretching for several miles and into Azadi (Freedom) Square. On Feb. 11 of this year, like all previous years, people demonstrated in support of the revolution in cities across Iran. In Tehran alone, despite rain and snow, hundreds of thousands of people converged on Azadi Square where Ahmadinejad gave a rousing speech, drawing parallels between the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the Egyptian revolution. Mubarak fell 32 years to the day of the victory of the Iranian revolution. The fall of the U.S. client Shah and that of the U.S. client Mubarak: that is an apt comparison.
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/iran-green-movement-vs-egypt-revolution.html

And while that article does have the pretense of using class analysis can you tell me what is obviously missing in the following description?

But the plunder of Iran’s resources ended in 1979.
Mass uprisings led to a revolution that overthrew the Shah and drove out his U.S. masters. The U.S. and other foreign oil companies were ousted.
Iranian oil has been owned by Iranians ever since.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/07-07-24-suffocating-iran-regime-change.html

[maskerade]

Guys seriously, being a real leftist means that you uncritically support everything the Bolsheviks ever did and use their experience from the beginning of the 20th century to justify positions which make no sense.

I mean, the world definitely hasn't changed, so why should socialists?

[Crux]

Feel free to contrast PSL's views on the protests with those of iranian communists: http://komalah.org/english/statements/3012.html

[Geiseric]

Guys seriously, being a real leftist means that you uncritically support everything the Bolsheviks ever did and use their experience from the beginning of the 20th century to justify positions which make no sense.

I mean, the world definitely hasn't changed, so why should socialists?

I don't support everything the bolsheviks did, however I regognise they had to be done. Like I wouldn't support the Cheka, but I would tolerate them as a necessary evil. Another example, I support Trotsky's ideals but don't support him saying that there needs to be military discipline in the workplace during a revolution, but I know that in those times that kind of thing has to be done. Same with making examples of deserters by execution, I totally don't support that, but it kinda had to be done to forge the red army.

[manic expression]

Alright. So do you think that communists should have gone towards the more radical segments of the demonstrations, which were indisputably there?
The "radical segments" were insignificant in the larger picture. The leadership and main of the protests were comparably right-wing. That much is undeniable. You can wave about those "radical segments" all you like...you're not dealing with the real issue.


It should not be for someone who supports class struggle. Clearly, if you support Iran against imperialism then the side to take would be the side of the state against the striking workers, and if you support the class struggle in Iran then you should support the striking workers against the state.Not under any and all circumstances. If I had a crystal ball, I'd tell you what I'd support and what I wouldn't. However, I don't so I can't.


Just out of curiosity, aside from obvious situations like some kind of far right fascist strike, what details would sway this situation?The involvement of Iranian capitalists (a lock-out masquerading as a strike, ala Venezuela in 2002) is what I'd be concerned about the most.


I ask because I have serious doubts that it accomplished anything except piss off radical workers in Iran.They should be more understanding of communists' tasks.


The "Green Movement" =/= all the people protesting. But we've been over this. I think Komalah's opinion on Iran is far more credible than the PSL's.
And yet you are entirely incapable of figuring out what the PSL is saying, not to mention the plain facts on the ground. The leadership of the protests, the so-called "Green Movement", is undoubtedly to the right of the present Iranian state. Mousavi encourages greater cooperation and friendship with US imperialism, and his backer Rafsanjani is among the richest men in Iran and a right-wing capitalist through-and-through. And yet you want us to ignore this and support the protests even though its leadership is reactionary! This is not only willful ignorance (not surprising coming from someone who's a cheap slander-artist), but anti-materialist. IF the demonstration was under the leadership of those who wished to turn over the keys of Iran to imperialism, they represented nothing but an anti-progressive step backwards for the workers of Iran and the workers of the world.

But who cares about the interests of workers when you have your moral purity to uphold? Make sure to wipe the imperialist BS from your hands when you finish typing.


Feel free to contrast PSL's views on the protests with those of iranian communists:Feel free to actually comprehend what the PSL's statement means. I doubt you will, though, because so far you've made it clear that you can't.

[Dimmu]

Its scary that there are leftist who support the Iranian regime..Sure its against the US etc.. But that does not mean that you should support it..

The green movement protests were not backed by anyone, they were organised on the internet. People went out on the streets because of the phoney elections and were shot in cold blood by religious wackos which Basij are..

How can anyone support that?

[Devrim]

And yet you are entirely incapable of figuring out what the PSL is saying, not to mention the plain facts on the ground.
...
Feel free to actually comprehend what the PSL's statement means. I doubt you will, though, because so far you've made it clear that you can't.

Ah that must be it. The PSL doesn't support Iran at all. It is just that all of these people on this board are too stupid to understand what you are saying, and that when you say "we support Iran", it doesn't actually mean that you support Iran.

Really I feel so embarrassed about how I could be so foolish. I am sure others feel the same.

Seriously though, you do realise that many posters on here, (CWI) Trotskyists, anarchists, left communists, people I have never seen united on the same issue, find your politics completely repugnant. It is not just that they have minor, or even major political differences with your analysis. People really are disgusted that anybody who evens calls themselves a socialist could even come out with stuff like this.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Ah that must be it. The PSL doesn't support Iran at all. It is just that all of these people on this board are too stupid to understand what you are saying, and that when you say "we support Iran", it doesn't actually mean that you support Iran.
It means there is "support" in a very specific context, the context of resisting imperialist aggression. That does not inherently involve complete support for the Iranian state, that only means we oppose all efforts of imperialist intervention in the region, and hold that frustrating imperialist ambitions is a progressive victory for the workers of the world...as all communists (should) do.


Seriously though, you do realise that many posters on here, (CWI) Trotskyists, anarchists, left communists, people I have never seen united on the same issue, find your politics completely repugnant. It is not just that they have minor, or even major political differences with your analysis. People really are disgusted that anybody who evens calls themselves a socialist could even come out with stuff like this.
CWI Trotskyists, anarchists and left communists find these politics repugnant? Is that supposed to be bad news? :lol: But seriously, you can find it "repugnant" all you like, but your own personal aversion is hardly an argument worth taking seriously. The protests were by and large for a move to the right and did not represent a potential step forward for the workers. Your characterization of my politics does little to prove otherwise.

[Chambered Word]

I think Trotskyists are disgusted by Marcyite politics without much dissent across tendencies. But don't mind us, we're part of the anti-Soviet Zinovievite fascist bloc after all. :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

What if there is a workers strike that makes Iran vulnerable to imperialism? Should it be put down to fight imperialism or should it be supported as part of the class struggle?


It's hard, if not impossible, to comment on that hypothetical, it's all in the details.


It should not be for someone who supports class struggle. Clearly, if you support Iran against imperialism then the side to take would be the side of the state against the striking workers, and if you support the class struggle in Iran then you should support the striking workers against the state.

Other parts of the anti-working class left are at least more honest when it comes to condemning workers strikes:


We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime

...it would be wrong to strike...

Socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort.

Devrim

[manic expression]

I think Trotskyists are disgusted by Marcyite politics without much dissent across tendencies. But don't mind us, we're part of the anti-Soviet Zinovievite fascist bloc after all. :rolleyes:
You're not anti-Soviet?


Other parts of the anti-working class left are at least more honest when it comes to condemning workers strikes:
How could I be "honest" about a badly-explained hypothetical that doesn't at all exist? Oh, I remember, ultra-lefts like yourself only work in your overactive imagination, not in the real world. Makes sense that you can't see the difference.

[Chambered Word]

You're not anti-Soviet?

Are you questioning my credentials? I'll have you know I goosestep to Nazi marches and burn photos of Lenin on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to keep this up, neither reason nor sarcasm is going to make any sense to somebody who appears to be willfully ignorant and/or is totally committed to defending their ideologically bankrupt politics with point dodging and gems like these:


How could I be "honest" about a badly-explained hypothetical that doesn't at all exist? Oh, I remember, ultra-lefts like yourself only work in your overactive imagination, not in the real world. Makes sense that you can't see the difference.

[Threetune]

Devrim :Just for the record, have you got the full text of that Socialist Worker article from 1987?

[Crux]

And yet you are entirely incapable of figuring out what the PSL is saying, not to mention the plain facts on the ground.
That the regime has the support of the working class, the oil is owned by "the people" and anyone who protests against the regime is obviously a mousavite US imperialist bourgeoisie? Did I miss anything?


But who cares about the interests of workers when you have your moral purity to uphold? Make sure to wipe the imperialist BS from your hands when you finish typing.The irony of this is monumental. Have you ever wondered why none, and I mean none, of the working class and socialist organizations in iran share your position? A hint: Because it is reactionary backing of a brutal regime and phony anti-imperialism. But I guess thing's get too complicated for you when a regime that's verbally opposing the U.S can be...anti-working class reactionary scum? "But, but the U.S press are demonizing these people, they must be the good guys! Nevermind facts or what marxists in those actual countries think!"


Feel free to actually comprehend what the PSL's statement means. I doubt you will, though, because so far you've made it clear that you can't.While your positions sometimes appear incomprehensibel to most people no doubt, what's with the cheap cop-out? Maybe it is you who have a hard time comprehending them and what they actually mean?

[Crux]

And in case you were to lazy to read what Komalah thinks, my bolds:
Workers, liberated people of Iran
The regime of Islamic Republic is facing one of its most extensive political, economical crises of its 30 years existence. The extent and dimensions of this crisis has clearly manifested itself in: inflation and unbearable high costs, unemployment in millions, successive bankruptcies of production centers and industrial firms, international isolation, growth of social movements and mass protests, an intensification of differences amongst the ruling class.
By augmenting the position of Pasdaran Corps within the state, the dominant faction is aiming to by pass this crisis through a harsh military dictatorship, and thus guaranteeing the survival of Islamic Republic. In pursuit of this goal, by utilizing and organizing military-security forces, by playing a behindthe- scene role in the election scenario, the regime once again pulled out Ahmadinejad from the boxes. At the moment the dominant faction is going through the last scene of the election scenario; with the aid of Martial Law and assistance of various government sectors, public television and radio, and other publications and media outlets, it is turning the presence of those very social strata it draw to ballot boxes to a reserve for their own suppression.



Now, social strata and groups disillusioned and regretful from participating in the election are next to folks who have always been disgusted by the regime’s existence in its totality, turning streets of Tehran and other major cities of Iran into a space for protest against Pasdaran Corps’ electoral coupe. Security forces are beastly attacking protesting, angry masses. Universities, streets and various squares in Tehran and other cities in Iran have turned into stages of an unequal conflict between empty handed masses, and the regime’s security forces armed to teeth.
The people who went to ballot boxes influenced by: demagogy and deceitful campaign commercials of regimes leaders, government reformers, Western press, and that section of bourgeois opposition supporting the regime, shall not repeat their historical mistake in another form by following Mussavy, Korubi, or Khatami. These executives of the regime have always been a constant pillar of Islamic Republic’s 30 years of existence, and have participated in every crime committed by the regime against the people. Now that Mir Hossain Mussavy advises people to chant “Allah o Akbar” at night from their rooftops, people should know that for 30 years bat-wielding thugs of Ansar Hezbollah have been attacking protesting workers, women, students, and the revolutionary movement in Kurdistan while chanting “Allah o Akbar,” under the guidance of these very same gentlemen. The chant of “Allah o Akbar” is a symbol of theocratic state and as such a manifestation of utter lack of most basic human rights for Iranian people.
Government reformers have never had the inclination, credentials, or the ability to lead Iranian people’s just struggle, and they never will. Masses shall not be turned into a reserve force for settling accounts by candidates that lost to Ahmadinejad. Masses shall not follow their reactionary slogans.
It is imperative for the people to participate in the struggle with their own slogans and demands; demands which stem from their real everyday lives and needs. They should choose such slogans and demands which, if implemented, will jolt pillars of the state and function as a genuine prospect in people’s lives.
The people shall turn the demands for; separation of religion from state, unconditional political freedom, freedom for all political prisoners, guaranteeing of complete equality between women and men in every single aspect of social life, abolition of forced covering for women, freedom to create workers’ organizations, cost of living adjustment, guaranteeing of personal freedom, elimination of national oppression, abolition of death penalty… into slogans for their struggles and protests.
Labor movement and other vanguard social movements should organize their ranks through struggles for attainment of these demands. Overthrowing of Islamic Republic and actualization of social revolution goes through this path. Party activists socialist vanguards are required to actively engage in the current situation and take these orientations into the midst of people’s protests.


Down with Islamic Republic



Long live Freedom, Equality, Workers State



Long live Socialism 3/25/1388



6/15/2009

[Devrim]

Devrim :Just for the record, have you got the full text of that Socialist Worker article from 1987?

No, I haven't. It is quoted from a piece I wrote in a UK magazine, Wildcat, at the time. It was the days before the internet and everyone having computers and I certainly didn't keep all those old leftist papers. I copied it from Libcom where I presume someone who had kept that magazine, but not the AW as those were the quotes I used.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Are you questioning my credentials? I'll have you know I goosestep to Nazi marches and burn photos of Lenin on a regular basis. :rolleyes:
As I thought...unwilling or unable to give a straight answer.


I'm not going to keep this up, neither reason nor sarcasm is going to make any sense to somebody who appears to be willfully ignorant and/or is totally committed to defending their ideologically bankrupt politics with point dodging and gems like these:
Let me know when you're capable of answering a simple yes-or-no question.


That the regime has the support of the working class, the oil is owned by "the people" and anyone who protests against the regime is obviously a mousavite US imperialist bourgeoisie? Did I miss anything?
You missed the fact that pro-Mousavi protests are to the right of the Iranian state. Try to remember that one next time.


The irony of this is monumental. Have you ever wondered why none, and I mean none, of the working class and socialist organizations in iran share your position? A hint: Because it is reactionary backing of a brutal regime and phony anti-imperialism. But I guess thing's get too complicated for you when a regime that's verbally opposing the U.S can be...anti-working class reactionary scum? "But, but the U.S press are demonizing these people, they must be the good guys! Nevermind facts or what marxists in those actual countries think!"
A hint: because the tasks of revolutionaries in Iran and revolutionaries in the United States have immediate differences. For instance, it is the responsibility of Iranian communists to propagate a working-class message even in Mousavi's reactionary movement. It is the responsibility of American communists to work for the frustration and defeat of American imperialism. That is likely where the misunderstanding comes from.

The regime that's opposing the US in far more than verbal arenas is certainly not a working-class state...but it still represents a step forward from the imperialist-enforced colonization that US imperialism seeks. But the idea that not all capitalist states are exactly the same is probably too complicated for your simplistic mindset.


While your positions sometimes appear incomprehensibel to most people no doubt, what's with the cheap cop-out? Maybe it is you who have a hard time comprehending them and what they actually mean?
You've shown that you don't actually understand what the PSL's position on this is. You think it's about throwing one's full support behind Iran, which is cheap slander. You think it's about pro-imperialist "social patriotism", which is even cheaper slander. When you're able to do better than that, do let me know.

[gorillafuck]

The "radical segments" were insignificant in the larger picture. The leadership and main of the protests were comparably right-wing. That much is undeniable. You can wave about those "radical segments" all you like...you're not dealing with the real issue.Yes, but at a time of unrest obviously leftists should capitalize and form their own independent segments which put forward class politics. These "insignificant" (going by the US media) segments were valuable to the class struggle for class positions.


Not under any and all circumstances. If I had a crystal ball, I'd tell you what I'd support and what I wouldn't. However, I don't so I can't.When workers strike against the capitalist state, you think there are situations when putting down the strike is okay?:confused:

Give me one example of a situation where you would side with the capitalist state against the workers in a non-right wing strike. Just one will suffice.


The involvement of Iranian capitalists (a lock-out masquerading as a strike, ala Venezuela in 2002) is what I'd be concerned about the most.I don't see why that's relevant, because that is not a strike. That's a bourgeois lock-out.


They should be more understanding of communists' tasks.I don't see how it is a communists task to meet with a head of state who massacres workers for absolutely no gain to the class struggle. You still haven't explained how the class struggle benefited from this action, and how it should be interpreted as anything other than offensive to radical Iranian workers.

http://www.workers.org/2010/us/iran_1007/

This to me sounds like they spoke to the Iranian president about the plight of people in the US, as if he cares or is a representative of anything other than the Iranian bourgeois. After they spoke, they then listened to him speak about how he sought justice for the oppressed people of the world. Am I incorrect in thinking that?

[manic expression]

Yes, but at a time of unrest obviously leftists should capitalize and form their own independent segments which put forward class politics. These "insignificant" (going by the US media) segments were valuable to the class struggle for class positions.
I applaud those segments, but I recognize the plain and obvious fact that they were not in leadership positions in the pro-Mousavi protests. As I've said many times, the PSL analyzed the "Green Movement" as it was, not as it could possibly have been under different circumstances.


When workers strike against the capitalist state, you think there are situations when putting down the strike is okay?:confused:

Give me one example of a situation where you would side with the capitalist state against the workers in a non-right wing strike. Just one will suffice.
So you concede that there's such a thing as a right-wing strike? That's exactly the hypothetical I'm speaking of, and it's why it's a question that can't reasonably be answered.


I don't see why that's relevant, because that is not a strike. That's a bourgeois lock-out.
The fog of war extends to class warfare as well. I doubt that the imperialist media would tell us that there's a "bourgeois lock-out" going on in Iran; such an event would assuredly be portrayed as a strike, and the only thing to do at that point would be to toss aside terminology for the time being and get down to analyzing the class composition of the demonstrations.


I don't see how it is a communists task to meet with a head of state who massacres workers for absolutely no gain to the class struggle. You still haven't explained how the class struggle benefited from this action, and how it should be interpreted as anything other than offensive to radical Iranian workers.
You're forgetting the comparably progressive aspect of the Iranian state: it is resisting imperialism in the region. Class struggle benefits from this because it denies the imperialists a new country to plunder and colonize, because it provides a check (however small) against imperialist aggression in the surrounding area, because it shows the workers of the world that imperialism does not have to pillage their homes.

If you do not see the benefits to Iran not being a new US colony, you should reconsider what's at stake.


This to me sounds like they spoke to the Iranian president about the plight of people in the US, as if he cares or is a representative of anything other than the Iranian bourgeois. After they spoke, they then listened to him speak about how he sought justice for the oppressed people of the world. Am I incorrect in thinking that?
No idea. I didn't hear what was said.

[Blackscare]

If a radical worker in Iran was to take the position of "supporting Iran against imperialism" then what should that radical worker do in regards to the class struggle in Iran and in regards to struggles against the Iranian ruling class?

When did anyone say anything about denouncing proletarian resistance to their own government Iran? Why do you think the PSL would be against that? There is a huge difference between that and opposing US invasion and occupation, or undermining Iran as a nation for generations through neoliberal and imperialist debt.



Will you go to any length to obscure the PSL's position? You're not an idiot, so I have to assume that this is malicious and slander.

[Crux]

And who is "speaking well" of the leaders of Iran? I regret the PSL leadership's choice in visiting with them and such, but you're either intentionally ignoring the political points the PSL makes to score cheap points, or you have reading comprehension problems.
Consider reading the quotes from PSL's paper I put up.



You missed the fact that pro-Mousavi protests are to the right of the Iranian state. Try to remember that one next time.
As I said, in your worldview it was all bougie pro-mousavi protest against some supposed worker based pro-regime protests. Reality paints quite another picture. Consider what the Iranian communists. If you are uncomfortable with lapsed maoists, you can take your pick. All the radical iranian groups had similar positions, some took an opportunist stand towards the green movement, but significantly no one backed the so-called by the PSL working class pro-regime protests, in reality these were about as much orchestrated bythe regime as the pro-Mubarak one's. So when will you consider the fact that the iranian communists might be right, the PSL is wrong and the PSL's phrases, thrown in with as much honesty as the US suddenly favoring democracy in Egypt, about supposedly supporting socialism in Iran while in fact backing theegime are empty and meaningless?

[Crux]

When did anyone say anything about denouncing proletarian resistance to their own government Iran? Why do you think the PSL would be against that?
Because they take an, at best weak and reformist position at worst openly praising the regimes of Iran, China, Libya and many more as the quotes I presented from Liberation clearly shows. Challenge the quotes if you think you can.

[gorillafuck]

I applaud those segments, but I recognize the plain and obvious fact that they were not in leadership positions in the pro-Mousavi protests. As I've said many times, the PSL analyzed the "Green Movement" as it was, not as it could possibly have been under different circumstances.Radicals intervene in situations to put forward working class platforms. This should have been done in the radical segments of the demonstrations no matter how small or irrelevant it is. After all, on the national scale ANSWER is quite irrelevant but no doubt you believe in participating in it's cause?


So you concede that there's such a thing as a right-wing strike? That's exactly the hypothetical I'm speaking of, and it's why it's a question that can't reasonably be answered.I already conceded that. But is there a situation where you would not support non-right wing strikes in Iran?


The fog of war extends to class warfare as well. I doubt that the imperialist media would tell us that there's a "bourgeois lock-out" going on in Iran; such an event would assuredly be portrayed as a strike, and the only thing to do at that point would be to toss aside terminology for the time being and get down to analyzing the class composition of the demonstrations.We're talking about a hypothetical situation so what the bourgeois media would say about it is completely irrelevant to this, because we're assuming that this hypothetical situation isn't a bourgeois fabrication. Why would we be discussing it was if we were considering that possibility?


You're forgetting the comparably progressive aspect of the Iranian state: it is resisting imperialism in the region. Class struggle benefits from this because it denies the imperialists a new country to plunder and colonize, because it provides a check (however small) against imperialist aggression in the surrounding area, because it shows the workers of the world that imperialism does not have to pillage their homes.The Swedish Social Democratic parties rise to power also marked the beginning of a time that was better for workers. Is that not still bourgeois rule, and therefore workers should be supported in their struggles against it, regardless of whether it's better or worse than American rule?

Anyway, this is related to my question about the second thing in your post that I quoted.


If you do not see the benefits to Iran not being a new US colony, you should reconsider what's at stake.I don't know why you just mentioned this.


No idea. I didn't hear what was said.If the WWP article on it is accurate then that's exactly what happened and I 100% sympathize with radical Iranians who were offended.


When did anyone say anything about denouncing proletarian resistance to their own government Iran? Why do you think the PSL would be against that? There is a huge difference between that and opposing US invasion and occupation, or undermining Iran as a nation for generations through neoliberal and imperialist debt.

Will you go to any length to obscure the PSL's position? You're not an idiot, so I have to assume that this is malicious and slander.We're discussing the validity of any support for Iran in any way. How can you be supporting them if you support strikes that weaken their ruling class?

And thanks for calling me not an idiot, that makes me feel awesome. I'd appreciate if you didn't accuse me of slander though since if you read this thread it becomes blindingly obvious that that's not what I'm doing, and if you can't respond to questions without resorting to accusing me of slander then I don't know why I should deal with you.

[manic expression]

As I said, in your worldview it was all bougie pro-mousavi protest against some supposed worker based pro-regime protests. Reality paints quite another picture. Consider what the Iranian communists. If you are uncomfortable with lapsed maoists, you can take your pick. All the radical iranian groups had similar positions, some took an opportunist stand towards the green movement, but significantly no one backed the so-called by the PSL working class pro-regime protests, in reality these were about as much orchestrated bythe regime as the pro-Mubarak one's. So when will you consider the fact that the iranian communists might be right, the PSL is wrong and the PSL's phrases, thrown in with as much honesty as the US suddenly favoring democracy in Egypt, about supposedly supporting socialism in Iran while in fact backing theegime are empty and meaningless?
And as I've said many times, you continue to display a gaping inability to comprehend what the PSL's position actually means. Communists and other leftists may have been part of the protests, but they weren't anywhere near the leadership, and their progressive and positive presence was not significant; the protests were not bourgeois because top-hat-wearing capitalists were all marching, they were bourgeois because they had the firm backing and leadership of the right-wing of the Iranian bourgeoisie. Until you deal with what the protests were, instead of looking to marginalized progressives within them, you'll persist in your muddled view of the events.

Further, you show an extraordinary inability to look at the relationship of the Iranian and Egyptian demonstrations to imperialism. The Iranian protests were for a candidate who stood for closer, friendlier relations with imperialist powers in contrast to the anti-imperialist policy of the Iranian state; the Egyptian uprising was against a known US puppet. That you compare them again underlines your obliviousness to material conditions.

Let me know when you finally get around to comprehending the PSL's position. If you're still having trouble, I'll try to see if there's a version of our statements in coloring book form.

[Crux]

A hint: because the tasks of revolutionaries in Iran and revolutionaries in the United States have immediate differences. For instance, it is the responsibility of Iranian communists to propagate a working-class message even in Mousavi's reactionary movement. It is the responsibility of American communists to work for the frustration and defeat of American imperialism. That is likely where the misunderstanding comes from.
No, it is the responsibility of anyone who considers themselves marxists to hold a internationalist, not a narrow U.S-centered stand-point tailing reactionary regimes abroad. Likewise I would be critical of those on the iranian left who take an emotional rather than materialist response to Chavez supporting the iranian regime.


The regime that's opposing the US in far more than verbal arenas is certainly not a working-class state...but it still represents a step forward from the imperialist-enforced colonization that US imperialism seeks. But the idea that not all capitalist states are exactly the same is probably too complicated for your simplistic mindset.
Not at all. Iran is a reactionary dictatorship that is in conflict with the U.S, under no circmustance can marxists support U.S intervention and under no circumstance can they act as the regimes mouthpieces.



You've shown that you don't actually understand what the PSL's position on this is. You think it's about throwing one's full support behind Iran, which is cheap slander. You think it's about pro-imperialist "social patriotism", which is even cheaper slander. When you're able to do better than that, do let me know.
Then counter the quotes I put up. Counter the position of Komalah, which significantly differs from yours.

[Crux]

The Iranian protests were for a candidate who stood for closer, friendlier relations with imperialist powers in contrast to the anti-imperialist policy of the Iranian state; the Egyptian uprising was against a known US puppet.
As you would know if you had any idea of how the protests evolved on the ground most of the protesters in all likelihood did not vote for any of the regimes candidates. The differences between the regime approved candidates were hardly that great, Mousavi and the rest of the so called "reform" wing were forced into opposition by the protests. The significance of this is probably lost on you, who speaks of working class pro-regime protests as if that would be anything resembling a marxist analysis of the situation.

[Blackscare]

And thanks for calling me not an idiot, that makes me feel awesome. I'd appreciate if you didn't accuse me of slander though since if you read this thread it becomes blindingly obvious that that's not what I'm doing, and if you can't respond to questions without resorting to accusing me of slander then I don't know why I should deal with you.

I accuse you of slander because you extrapolate, inaccurately, the PSL's position on the issue of US/European intervention and assert that the PSL would be against proletarian revolution, resistance, or left-wing political movements/strikes. This is not true, this has never been claimed, this is entirely from your imagination and it is slanderous when you assert that it is true.

Listen, I'm against a lot of what the PSL has done in relation to Iran, but I prefer to work with what they actually say they stand for than create outrageous hypotheticals (and then to blindly insist that the PSL does in fact support what you say it does, when a PSL member in this thread has repeatedly said that it is not the case).



You are going out of your way to obscure the PSL's position and "put words in their mouths". There's plenty of fertile ground to critique their position without resorting to slander and baseless assertions about hypothetical scenarios.




Also, the argument could be turned around on you. Since you seem to think that any strike action undertaken by left wing workers in Iran would lead to US intervention (you MUST think this, since you stated that the PSL would have to oppose such an action on an "anti-imperialist" basis, because it weakens the state), then, again assuming (it's fun to do, isn't it!) that any sort of left wing strike action would result in imperialist meddling and intervention, you would support this interference and the decades of damage it would cause.

[Crux]

Since you seem to think that any strike action undertaken by left wing workers in Iran would lead to US intervention (you MUST think this, since you stated that the PSL would have to oppose such an action on an "anti-imperialist" basis, because it weakens the state)
Unless you see PSL's position not as actually anti-imperialist but faux-anti-imperialist and covering for the regime. No worries though I think iranian worker's moving into action would think twice about accepting the support of someone who backs the regime, just as the old Moscow-loyal party lost all credibility when they sold out to the Mullahs.

[manic expression]

Radicals intervene in situations to put forward working class platforms. This should have been done in the radical segments of the demonstrations no matter how small or irrelevant it is. After all, on the national scale ANSWER is quite irrelevant but no doubt you believe in participating in it's cause?
Sure, but they didn't define the character or leadership of the protests. That's precisely the point.

ANSWER is hardly irrelevant, it's the most important anti-war organization in the country, and that's without mentioning what it does on other working-class issues.


I already conceded that. But is there a situation where you would not support non-right wing strikes in Iran?You mean strikes by genuinely independent working-class organizations with applied platforms to the left of the Iranian state? No, I can't think of a situation where I wouldn't support such a strike.


We're talking about a hypothetical situation so what the bourgeois media would say about it is completely irrelevant to this, because we're assuming that this hypothetical situation isn't a bourgeois fabrication. Why would we be discussing it was if we were considering that possibility?It's important because it affects the discourse on the hypothetical event. If everyone and their mother says it's a strike when it's a lockout, American communists have to challenge those assertions. It's not like communists in the US can sit around in a dark room happy to know the truth...bourgeois rhetoric must be confronted and exposed. That means possibly opposing something that's widely called a strike (when it's really not)...not unlike what happened in Venezuela, or Bolivia, or Ecuador.


The Swedish Social Democratic parties rise to power also marked the beginning of a time that was better for workers. Is that not still bourgeois rule, and therefore workers should be supported in their struggles against it, regardless of whether it's better or worse than American rule?First, Sweden had not been under imperialist domination before that point; second, the Social Democrats were solid allies of imperialism (providing apartheid with warplanes, joining the capitalist speculation party, willingly collaborating with the Nazis with their wartime shipments and troop movements, etc.). That's why that comparison falls flat.


I don't know why you just mentioned this.Because it's precisely what's at stake. Mousavi wanted to open the gates to imperialism. That would have been a crushing blow to the workers and a victory for imperialism.


If the WWP article on it is accurate then that's exactly what happened and I 100% sympathize with radical Iranians who were offended.OK. Again, I wasn't there and didn't hear the discussion so I can't reasonably comment on it.

[gorillafuck]

Show me where I misrepresented the PSL, make assertations that the PSL is against proletarian revolution, and where I've created outrageous hypothetical situations, put words in their mouths. You need to give examples because you really sound like you're talking out of your ass, which i suspect you are.


Also, the argument could be turned around on you. Since you seem to think that any strike action undertaken by left wing workers in Iran would lead to US intervention (you MUST think this, since you stated that the PSL would have to oppose such an action on an "anti-imperialist" basis, because it weakens the state) then, again assuming (it's fun to do, isn't it!) that any sort of left wing strike action would result in imperialist meddling and intervention, you would support this interference and the decades of damage it would cause.Any sort of strike action would lead to US involvement. Are you going to deny that? Because if so, you're irrational. But my point is that the possibility of US involvement isn't reason to give any less support to class struggle, and that is why it's crucial to have an opposition to imperialism that stems directly from an Iranian workers movement that fights against Iran and the US. Also, I accused the PSL of nothing here. I was asking questions to manic expression, which he has been answering calmly, as opposed to you.

I was being polite to avoid outbursts but I guess that can't be expected on this site. Another person to scream at me. Great.

[gorillafuck]

Sure, but they didn't define the character or leadership of the protests. That's precisely the point.I'm not arguing for the green movement, I'm arguing for capitalization on the unrest it caused as a period of time where class politics can best be spread.


ANSWER is hardly irrelevant, it's the most important anti-war organization in the country, and that's without mentioning what it does on other working-class issues.We won't get into that here.


You mean strikes by genuinely independent working-class organizations with applied platforms to the left of the Iranian state? No, I can't think of a situation where I wouldn't support such a strike.Good. Even if it would weaken Iran and make it vulnerable?


It's important because it affects the discourse on the hypothetical event. If everyone and their mother says it's a strike when it's a lockout, American communists have to challenge those assertions. It's not like communists in the US can sit around in a dark room happy to know the truth...bourgeois rhetoric must be confronted and exposed. That means possibly opposing something that's widely called a strike (when it's really not)...not unlike what happened in Venezuela, or Bolivia, or Ecuador.Okay. But assuming we knew it was a strike is the hypothetical situation. Because this is a question to do with support for concrete things, not to do with finding out what those things are, that's what should be done but it's not what's being discussed. Ya dig?


First, Sweden had not been under imperialist domination before that point; second, the Social Democrats were solid allies of imperialism (providing apartheid with warplanes, joining the capitalist speculation party, willingly collaborating with the Nazis with their wartime shipments and troop movements, etc.). That's why that comparison falls flat.Fair enough.


Because it's precisely what's at stake. Mousavi wanted to open the gates to imperialism. That would have been a crushing blow to the workers and a victory for imperialism.I didn't argue for radicals going to pro-mousavi demonstrations, I argued for radicals trying to strengthen radical segments. Which is why I am confused why it's relevant. Do you believe the unrest should have been capitalized on?

Manic, what I'm still confused about (if you said it then i missed it, my apologies) is what does "support against imperialism" effect what Iranian radical workers should do as far as action?

[Crux]

Manic, what I'm still confused about (if you said it then i missed it, my apologies) is what does "support against imperialism" effect what Iranian radical workers should do as far as action?
Sit and wait for PSL to defeat american imperialism.

[manic expression]

I'm not arguing for the green movement, I'm arguing for capitalization on the unrest it caused as a period of time where class politics can best be spread.
Yes, but that doesn't change the leadership of the protests, or their objectives. That must be confronted.


Good. Even if it would weaken Iran and make it vulnerable?
Well if the US actually invaded, then I think it would move the situation into an immediate struggle for national liberation, and so I would expect those working-class organizations to participate fully in the struggle against imperialist aggression; anything else would be unacceptable IMO. Outside of that, I think a genuinely revolutionary working-class movement would be in fact a great threat to imperialism instead of a boon: it would most certainly complicate matters for the imperialists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suffice to say this wasn't the case in the pro-Mousavi protests.


Okay. But assuming we knew it was a strike is the hypothetical situation. Because this is a question to do with support for concrete things, not to do with finding out what those things are, that's what should be done but it's not what's being discussed. Ya dig?
Granted, but in some ways, perception counts as much as anything else. This is especially true when you're trying to explain positions to a working class that's been force-fed bourgeois propaganda.


I didn't argue for radicals going to pro-mousavi demonstrations, I argued for radicals trying to strengthen radical segments. Which is why I am confused why it's relevant. Do you believe the unrest should have been capitalized on?
Yes, and I'm fine with that. However, it doesn't change the demonstrations from anything but what they were. The PSL pinpointed the character of the demonstrations, the presence of radical segments doesn't significantly alter that fact. On your other point, I think that unrest or not communists should go to where the workers are, even if they're in reactionary circles. As such, I don't believe I've ever criticized Iranian communists for their work during the protests, and I won't now.

[gorillafuck]

Well if the US actually invaded, then I think it would move the situation into an immediate struggle for national liberation, and so I would expect those working-class organizations to participate fully in the struggle against imperialist aggression; anything else would be unacceptable IMO. Outside of that, I think a genuinely revolutionary working-class movement would be in fact a great threat to imperialism instead of a boon: it would most certainly complicate matters for the imperialists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suffice to say this wasn't the case in the pro-Mousavi protests.
I would hope that the radical workers try to organize against the domestic bourgeois and against the invaders.


Yes, and I'm fine with that. However, it doesn't change the demonstrations from anything but what they were. The PSL pinpointed the character of the demonstrations, the presence of radical segments doesn't significantly alter that fact. On your other point, I think that unrest or not communists should go to where the workers are, even if they're in reactionary circles. As such, I don't believe I've ever criticized Iranian communists for their work during the protests, and I won't now.I think the ICC pinpointed the character of the demonstrations.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/1/iran

[manic expression]

As you would know if you had any idea of how the protests evolved on the ground most of the protesters in all likelihood did not vote for any of the regimes candidates. The differences between the regime approved candidates were hardly that great, Mousavi and the rest of the so called "reform" wing were forced into opposition by the protests. The significance of this is probably lost on you, who speaks of working class pro-regime protests as if that would be anything resembling a marxist analysis of the situation.
Oh, right. Mousavi had absolutely nothing to do with it, and he was never in favor of friendlier relations with imperialist powers until the protests forced him to the right. :rolleyes:


No, it is the responsibility of anyone who considers themselves marxists to hold a internationalist, not a narrow U.S-centered stand-point tailing reactionary regimes abroad. Likewise I would be critical of those on the iranian left who take an emotional rather than materialist response to Chavez supporting the iranian regime.
Revolutionary defeatism IS internationalist. Promoting the frustration and defeat of one's own imperialist bourgeoisie is and will always be a fundamentally internationalist position...and yet you're falling over yourself to oppose exactly that. Further, perhaps you could apply a non-emotional analysis to the situation, and take into account your friend Mousavi's position of friendship toward the US. Try your best, I know it's probably tough.


Not at all. Iran is a reactionary dictatorship that is in conflict with the U.S, under no circmustance can marxists support U.S intervention and under no circumstance can they act as the regimes mouthpieces.
Ah, and here we see the dovetailing with bourgeois rhetoric in place of materialism. Is Iran an imperialist state? Answer that question and maybe you'll get somewhere.


Then counter the quotes I put up. Counter the position of Komalah, which significantly differs from yours.
I will only have reason to do so when you show the slightest understanding of the PSL's position. Until you demonstrate this, there's little to be accomplished in moving on to a second position when you have no conception of what it is to be compared to. So, again, go back and figure out what the PSL says on the issue. Let's see if you can get it through your head this time.


I would hope that the radical workers try to organize against the domestic bourgeois and against the invaders.
Yes and no, IMO. Recent events have shown us that a portion of the Iranian bourgeoisie wants to collaborate with imperialism, while the state presently opposes it quite firmly. I would anticipate such a national liberation struggle to place different class interests and ideologies on the side of Iranian independence, and I don't think anyone should fault working-class organizations for cooperating with non-working-class forces in a time when the sovereignty of Iran itself is in immediate danger. I suppose this is mostly nitpicking, however.


I think the ICC pinpointed the character of the demonstrations.I think they unintentionally pinpointed its character in the title: Mousavi is not a friend of the workers. So why are we supposed to support protests in favor of this same figure?

Of course not all of this can be put down to support for Mousavi. Many people are simply dissatisfied with the regime, and have used the anger resulting from the state's obvious rigging of the election results to express that dissatisfaction.

Unfortunately, "many people...dissatisfied with the regime" don't define the protests and don't comprise its leadership. Tiptoeing around the leaders and cause of the movement in order to support it makes little sense.

[Crux]

Oh, right. Mousavi had absolutely nothing to do with it, and he was never in favor of friendlier relations with imperialist powers until the protests forced him to the right. :rolleyes:
Are you purposfully misreading what I wrote or are you just clueless?
He, as an approved candidate of the regime and as a repr4esentative of the regime was obviously not in opposition to the regime. Only someone having "progressive" illusions in the regime could be blind to that. The Iranian regime is obviously not in opposition to the U.S because they are more "progressive".



Revolutionary defeatism IS internationalist. Promoting the frustration and defeat of one's own imperialist bourgeoisie is and will always be a fundamentally internationalist position...and yet you're falling over yourself to oppose exactly that. Further, perhaps you could apply a non-emotional analysis to the situation, and take into account your friend Mousavi's position of friendship toward the US. Try your best, I know it's probably tough.
No I am not. I am however presenting the absurdity of your own position and how it is in no way internationalist, but likely borne out of a U.S-centered world-view.
So when will youy counter Komalah's position? And you calling me a "friend of Mousavi" just shows how lost and clueless you are. I support no wing of the iranian regime, unlike you.



Ah, and here we see the dovetailing with bourgeois rhetoric in place of materialism. Is Iran an imperialist state? Answer that question and maybe you'll get somewhere.
Ah and here we see a bastardization of anti-imperialism. Iran plays it's part in internarnational politics and acts out their own national interests, in this instance they are opposed to the U.S, a fact that is worth keeping in mind, but does not make them progressive, particualraly not for those, that unlike, you happily living in the US, have to live under. I stand with the working class no matter which country they are in.



I will only have reason to do so when you show the slightest understanding of the PSL's position. Until you demonstrate this, there's little to be accomplished in moving on to a second position when you have no conception of what it is to be compared to. So, again, go back and figure out what the PSL says on the issue. Let's see if you can get it through your head this time.
I see you can not explain or defend the quotes I presented. I understand, you are unable to defend yourself. How sad.

[manic expression]

Are you purposfully misreading what I wrote or are you just clueless?
He, as an approved candidate of the regime and as a repr4esentative of the regime was obviously not in opposition to the regime. Only someone having "progressive" illusions in the regime could be blind to that. The Iranian regime is obviously not in opposition to the U.S because they are more "progressive".
Again, you're ignoring what Mousavi's positions are. He represents a step right to the present government in that he seeks friendly relations with imperialism. That he was approved by the regime as a candidate only underlines how his "movement" is anything but progressive.


No I am not. I am however presenting the absurdity of your own position and how it is in no way internationalist, but likely borne out of a U.S-centered world-view.:lol: So seeking the defeat of one's own imperialist bourgeoisie in the interests of the workers of the world isn't internationalist but nationalist. Obviously you aren't connecting the dots...or you're just a slander-artist with no regard for basic logic.


So when will youy counter Komalah's position? And you calling me a "friend of Mousavi" just shows how lost and clueless you are. I support no wing of the iranian regime, unlike you.Then perhaps you can stop supporting protests that promoted a right-wing bourgeois candidate. And I'll address a second position when you show an elementary understanding of the first.


Ah and here we see a bastardization of anti-imperialism. Iran plays it's part in internarnational politics and acts out their own national interests, in this instance they are opposed to the U.S, a fact that is worth keeping in mind, but does not make them progressive, particualraly not for those, that unlike, you happily living in the US, have to live under. I stand with the working class no matter which country they are in.So you "stand with the working class" by supporting protests in favor of pro-imperialist bourgeois candidates? That's a funny way of standing with workers. Your favored candidate Mousavi, once again, represented a step to the right and nowhere else...and you're sitting here pretending that you have a pro-worker position. In addition, you say that my opinion doesn't carry water because I come from the US. I guess that's what your brand of internationalism is. At any rate, the Iranian state presently represents a step forward from imperialist colonization...do you deny this?

So to summarize, you think supporting pro-imperialist bourgeois candidates is pro-worker, you think that insulting someone's politics because of the country they're from is internationalist, and you think imperialist colonization isn't reactionary. Nice.


I see you can not explain or defend the quotes I presented. I understand, you are unable to defend yourself. How sad.I'm still waiting for you to show you can comprehend what the PSL said. I can wait more, and I probably will. Back to the drawing board with you.

[Crux]

Again, you're ignoring what Mousavi's positions are. He represents a step right to the present government in that he seeks friendly relations with imperialism. That he was approved by the regime as a candidate only underlines how his "movement" is anything but progressive.
Unsurprisingly this gives you no new understanding of what the iranian regime is.


:lol: So seeking the defeat of one's own imperialist bourgeoisie in the interests of the workers of the world isn't internationalist but nationalist. Obviously you aren't connecting the dots...or you're just a slander-artist with no regard for basic logic.I am not criticizing you for seeking the defeat of "your own" imperialist bourgeoisie, I am critisizing you for supporting the bourguisie abroad and using your own as an excuse, i e a U.S centered worldview.


Then perhaps you can stop supporting protests that promoted a right-wing bourgeois candidate. And I'll address a second position when you show an elementary understanding of the first.Only your Ahmadinejad influenced view of what the protests were is contradicted by every organization that actually has a presence in Iran. And no I do not support Mousavi nor the "green movement". It never occured to you that the U.S media and your pro-regime sources might have a vested interest in portraying the protests only as such?


So you "stand with the working class" by supporting protests in favor of pro-imperialist bourgeois candidates? That's a funny way of standing with workers. Your favored candidate Mousavi, once again, represented a step to the right and nowhere else...and you're sitting here pretending that you have a pro-worker position. In addition, you say that my opinion doesn't carry water because I come from the US. I guess that's what your brand of internationalism is. At any rate, the Iranian state presently represents a step forward from imperialist colonization...do you deny this?The American Revolution, freeing the U.S from Brittain had some progressive features, do you deny this? No? Then why are you not all over the U.S government? Or do you favour re-colonization by the Crown?
See how funny your false-dilemmas can be when they get turned on you. The rest of what you wrote is quite simply lies, plain for anyone to see.

Just one more thing on the Iranian revolution. The Mullahs slaughter and imprisonment of thousands of left-wing activists and destruction of the Shoras represented a reactionary not progressive movement. But I see how you might have gotten those two mixed up.


So to summarize, you think supporting pro-imperialist bourgeois candidates is pro-worker, you think that insulting someone's politics because of the country they're from is internationalist, and you think imperialist colonization isn't reactionary. Nice.So to summarize, you think opposing the regime in Iran means you support the U.S, you think regime orchestrated protests infested with Basij and the secret police are "working class" and you have to resort to lies at every single turn. Nice. Show me where I support Mousavi or imperialist intervention. Oh wait. You can't.


I'm still waiting for you to show you can comprehend what the PSL said. I can wait more, and I probably will. Back to the drawing board with you.:laugh: You mean dishonesty and lies? Come on. At least defend what your own paper wrote. Criticize the iranian communists for not adopting your "marxist" approach. Please.

[neosyndic]

x

[manic expression]

Unsurprisingly this gives you no new understanding of what the iranian regime is.
Well, by your words, we now know that you support its right wing.


I am not criticizing you for seeking the defeat of "your own" imperialist bourgeoisie, I am critisizing you for supporting the bourguisie abroad and using your own as an excuse, i e a U.S centered worldview.
If it's at all US-centered that's only because imperialism is US-centered. Further, it is the duty of all communists to seek the defeat of their own imperialist bourgeoisie first and foremost...which means we look to do so to the US bourgeoisie. That's internationalist. That's what we do.


Only your Ahmadinejad influenced view of what the protests were is contradicted by every organization that actually has a presence in Iran. And no I do not support Mousavi nor the "green movement". It never occured to you that the U.S media and your pro-regime sources might have a vested interest in portraying the protests only as such?
Wait, so I'm simultaneously promoting Ahmadinejad's view and the US media's view? That's essentially impossible. I'll wait until you figure out what you're trying to say.

And at any rate, you are supporting the pro-Mousavi protests. Does that not make you an indirect supporter of Mousavi? If you really believe Mousavi had nothing to do with the protests, or that Rafsanjani was completely aloof to the situation, then that's really the problem right there. You need to take into account all factors, not just the ones you find most convenient.


The American Revolution, freeing the U.S from Brittain had some progressive features, do you deny this? No? Then why are you not all over the U.S government? Or do you favour re-colonization by the Crown?
See how funny your false-dilemmas can be when they get turned on you. The rest of what you wrote is quite simply lies, plain for anyone to see.
The American Revolution remains a progressive event. However, Britain is not menacing "the colonies" with re-colonization, as US imperialism most assuredly is against Iran. Try to find another comparison that doesn't fall apart as soon as we look at it.


Just one more thing on the Iranian revolution. The Mullahs slaughter and imprisonment of thousands of left-wing activists and destruction of the Shoras represented a reactionary not progressive movement. But I see how you might have gotten those two mixed up.
An event can contain progressive and reactionary aspects, and contradictory revolutions such as the Iranian Revolution are usually awash in such nuances. The suppression of the Iranian left does not mean communists shouldn't defend Iran against imperialist aggression, for that would be a defeat for the workers.


So to summarize, you think opposing the regime in Iran means you support the U.S, you think regime orchestrated protests infested with Basij and the secret police are "working class" and you have to resort to lies at every single turn. Nice. Show me where I support Mousavi or imperialist intervention. Oh wait. You can't.
Once again, you fall prey to your own incapacity for understanding political positions. When you "oppose the regime in Iran" by supporting protests in favor of a step to the right...that is indeed opposition, but it is right-wing opposition. When you support protests in favor of a candidate who wants to promote friendly relations with imperialism, you are at the very least indirectly supporting that very candidate and his pro-imperialist platform. When you characterize Iranians who disagree with you as a "Basij infestation" (paraphrased), you are blindly disregarding the reality on the ground and showing no appreciation for the subtleties of the situation. When you act like imperialist re-colonization of Iran doesn't really matter and that you'd like to see the Iranian state fall by any means (even if it means supporting its own right wing), you're exposing yourself as someone who hasn't much of a care for the interests of the workers of the world.


:laugh: You mean dishonesty and lies? Come on. At least defend what your own paper wrote. Criticize the iranian communists for not adopting your "marxist" approach. Please.
I've said all that needs to be said on the actions of Iranian communists. Their immediate tasks were not the same as those of communists in the US.

[RED DAVE]

I don't think this means we need to oppose Venezuela though... Venezuela is still a socialist countryGet that out of your head! It is not a socialist country.


or at least progressing towards socialism.[/quot4e]Get that out of your head as well. A national progressing towards socialism would have experienced a workers revolution and the workers would have seized control of production, be restructuring society and fomenting revolution elsewhere.

[QUOTE=Crimson Commissar;2033459]Their opinion on Iran is pretty much irrelevant. They wouldn't be able to stop a socialist revolution in Iran if one was to happen. They'd probably support it if it succeeded, actually.The people of Venezuela, especially the workers, would hail such a revolution. Chavez and Co. would probably shit his pants.

RED DAVE

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

These sorts of things make a lot more sense when you realize that Chavez is the executive of a capitalist state and is acting as such, regardless of the rhetoric.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Jeez, the harshest criticism I've seen of Gadafi is from the Communist Party of Venezuela! I wish they, and not the PSUV ran the country (even if they have some strange anti-masonic theory-neosyndic I'd love if you explained why they had that theory)

Anyhow, Chavez still isn't running a Socialist country. It's more an anti-Imperialism amalgam of various capitalist, militarist, statist and socialist ideologies.

[Crux]

I've said all that needs to be said on the actions of Iranian communists. Their immediate tasks were not the same as those of communists in the US.
Certainly, the task of iranian comunists is fighting a capitalist and opressive regime, yours is acting as it's foreign cheerleaders, trying to paint it progressive. You really have no understanding at all of the situation in Iran, nor what the protests represent. here you see is where U.S media and the mullahs propaganda converge, both wish to portray the protests as carried through simply as a reaction to the election result and simply by supporters of Mousavi. This, of course, is not true and recognizing this does not mean I change my view on either side of the regime. Your position is the same as those who would condemn Lenin as a german spy.

[manic expression]

Certainly, the task of iranian comunists is fighting a capitalist and opressive regime, yours is acting as it's foreign cheerleaders, trying to paint it progressive. You really have no understanding at all of the situation in Iran, nor what the protests represent. here you see is where U.S media and the mullahs propaganda converge, both wish to portray the protests as carried through simply as a reaction to the election result and simply by supporters of Mousavi. This, of course, is not true and recognizing this does not mean I change my view on either side of the regime. Your position is the same as those who would condemn Lenin as a german spy.
I don't criticize Iranian communists for propagating a progressive platform within right-wing demonstrations...that's part of their immediate tasks, as I said. The immediate tasks of communists in America include opposing the US imperialist bourgeoisie first and foremost, seeking its frustration and defeat, and that's exactly what the PSL did.

The problem with your position is that you refuse to recognize that the defeat and ejection of imperialism from Iran wasn't at all progressive, that it wasn't at all a victory for the workers. You refuse to recognize this plain fact because if you did, it would be obvious that such a progressive step must be defended from imperialist re-colonization by all communists. The "Green Movement" represented a step to the right that would have, upon enacting its goals, given the keys to imperialism. That is far from progressive, it is the opposite of progressive. And yet you continue to support these protests blindly and without regard for their character, without regard for consequence, without any feasible argument as to how it was in the interests of the workers to do so. Your position fundamentally flies in the face of the reality of the situation.

And keep the delusional comparisons coming...you're acquiring quite a collection. One minute it's the American Revolution, and now it's Lenin arriving in Finland Station! :lol:

[Crux]

I don't criticize Iranian communists for propagating a progressive platform within right-wing demonstrations...that's part of their immediate tasks, as I said. The immediate tasks of communists in America include opposing the US imperialist bourgeoisie first and foremost, seeking its frustration and defeat, and that's exactly what the PSL did.

The problem with your position is that you refuse to recognize that the defeat and ejection of imperialism from Iran wasn't at all progressive, that it wasn't at all a victory for the workers. You refuse to recognize this plain fact because if you did, it would be obvious that such a progressive step must be defended from imperialist re-colonization by all communists. The "Green Movement" represented a step to the right that would have, upon enacting its goals, given the keys to imperialism. That is far from progressive, it is the opposite of progressive. And yet you continue to support these protests blindly and without regard for their character, without regard for consequence, without any feasible argument as to how it was in the interests of the workers to do so. Your position fundamentally flies in the face of the reality of the situation.

And keep the delusional comparisons coming...you're acquiring quite a collection. One minute it's the American Revolution, and now it's Lenin arriving in Finland Station! :lol:
You do, my position is the same as the iranian communists, i e we do not try to paint either wing of the regime as progressive. The task of communists is to fight for socialist revolution. Your task however might be different.

The coming to power of the mullahs was thouroughly reactionary and drenched the iranian revolution in blood.
"By all communists"? How strange is it then that those communists in best position to defend this progressive anti-imperialist regime do not agree with you? Because they understand the character of the protests, you do not, because you defend the regime. This leads you to your absurd descrpitions and your apologism.

Because, even if you are too dishonest to admit it, your position is squarely in opposition to the iranian revolutionary left.
What would you say to someone defending the U.S on the basis of the american revolution? Assuming there would be a threat of re-colonization by Brittain, would it be defensible to try and paint the U.S governemnt as progressive? Of course this question might confuse you, as you seem to base whetever somethiong is progressive or not solely on how it relates to U.S foreign politics, not on class.

[manic expression]

You do, my position is the same as the iranian communists, i e we do not try to paint either wing of the regime as progressive. The task of communists is to fight for socialist revolution. Your task however might be different.

The coming to power of the mullahs was thouroughly reactionary and drenched the iranian revolution in blood.
"By all communists"? How strange is it then that those communists in best position to defend this progressive anti-imperialist regime do not agree with you? Because they understand the character of the protests, you do not, because you defend the regime. This leads you to your absurd descrpitions and your apologism.

Because, even if you are too dishonest to admit it, your position is squarely in opposition to the iranian revolutionary left.
What would you say to someone defending the U.S on the basis of the american revolution? Assuming there would be a threat of re-colonization by Brittain, would it be defensible to try and paint the U.S governemnt as progressive? Of course this question might confuse you, as you seem to base whetever somethiong is progressive or not solely on how it relates to U.S foreign politics, not on class.
And yet you're refusing to consider that the tasks of communists in the US for working-class revolution were not the exact same as communists in Iran; this is just as the immediate tasks of German communists was not the same as that of Irish communists during WWI. Of course, you seem to get all hot and bothered when American communists dedicate themselves to fighting American imperialism, so it's natural that this would upset you.

And yet the power of the mullahs did not represent imperialist re-colonization of Iran. That much has to be defended by all progressives. If you refuse to do so, you are working against that step of progress and thus against the interests of the workers of the world. Your choice.

Yes, by all communists. That being said, the communists of Iran were in a unique position to propagate revolutionary politics among the right-wing protests, and so I refuse to criticize them for their actions. I've explained this many times, but you're unable to get it through your head so far.

That may be so, but I've explained why this is. Immediate tasks differ, and so perspectives differ. Further, we cannot expect to get to the bottom of two positions when you so flagrantly misunderstand the first.

I would say that the US became an imperialist power since the American Revolution, and thus the relationship of the proletariat (which didn't actually exist in 1776) has changed dramatically to the US government. Further, there is absolutely no threat of re-colonization by Britain. Iran, on the other hand, has not become imperialist, and is menaced daily by imperialist aggression. Not quite the same situation. Better luck next time.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

And yet the power of the mullahs did not represent imperialist re-colonization of Iran. That much has to be defended by all progressives. If you refuse to do so, you are working against that step of progress and thus against the interests of the workers of the world. Your choice.

Why do you feel that fighting American imperialism legitimates attending a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

[manic expression]

Why do you feel that fighting American imperialism legitimates attending a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
There was a discussion held with a prominent anti-imperialist figure. Some US communist parties attended, for they are keenly interested in the struggle to defeat US imperialism. This was done on the principle of revolutionary defeatism, which is both in the interests of workers and internationalist. That does not mean they support that figure and state completely, however.

[Crux]

Yes, by all communists. That being said, the communists of Iran were in a unique position to propagate revolutionary politics among the right-wing protests, and so I refuse to criticize them for their actions. I've explained this many times, but you're unable to get it through your head so far.
Yes, you do, by your characterzation of the protests and your support of the regime, describing it in many ways as progressive. Do tell me in your analysis are all countries that are not imperliast super-powers progressive? The irony of course being the PSL's position on China is even more supportive than of Iran.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

There was a discussion held with a prominent anti-imperialist figure. Some US communist parties attended, for they are keenly interested in the struggle to defeat US imperialism.

It's a shame that you have to hold a friendly get-together with a man who murders Iranian communists in order to promote your oppositon to imperialism.

Do you also want to hold a friendly chat with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Maybe a cocktail party with Saddam's ex-Ba'athists?

Why not a little coffee klatsch with al-Qaeda?


This was done on the principle of revolutionary defeatism, which is both in the interests of workers and internationalist. That does not mean they support that figure and state completely, however.

Revolutionary defeatism is a Bolshevik term that you're co-opting. It was devised to get the workers to lay down their arms during the slaughter and turn against their own imperialists instead. It never called for communists to sit in at a meeting with the head of a reactionary ruling class.

The world has changed a lot since World War I, so there is no longer any clear-cut parallel between the Bolsheviks and what you're doing. In fact, if anything, your situation is more analogous to some weird scenario in which Lenin, in 1915, tells the world communist movement:

"I had a schnapps the other day with the German High Command. I don't fully support the Central Powers, but it's so important to join forces in combatting Nicholas, a far more menacing imperialist."

How does this actually advance the workers' struggle?

[pranabjyoti]

Certainly, the task of iranian comunists is fighting a capitalist and opressive regime,
Yeah, while at the same time avoiding to throw Iran in the grasp of US imperialism too. Probably Ahmedinejad was better than an US puppet(s) in the chair of President of Iran.

[MellowViper]

I don't think this means we need to oppose Venezuela though... Venezuela is still a socialist country, or at least progressing towards socialism. Their opinion on Iran is pretty much irrelevant. They wouldn't be able to stop a socialist revolution in Iran if one was to happen. They'd probably support it if it succeeded, actually.

Yah, because they're sidelined for being branded as an enemy, they don't have very many options in trading partners, so they have to trade with all the other countries on the terrorist list, even if they're not all that democratic. They don't deal with North Korea though. Nobody does.

[manic expression]

Yes, you do, by your characterzation of the protests and your support of the regime, describing it in many ways as progressive. Do tell me in your analysis are all countries that are not imperliast super-powers progressive? The irony of course being the PSL's position on China is even more supportive than of Iran.
Of course the regime has progressive aspects. Are you denying that Iran not being re-colonized is a progressive step? You are plainly avoiding the issue because your arguments fly in the face of any material analysis. Further, it's funny to see you drag the PRC into this, which is natural for someone who's desperate to change the subject.


It's a shame that you have to hold a friendly get-together with a man who murders Iranian communists in order to promote your oppositon to imperialism.

Do you also want to hold a friendly chat with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Maybe a cocktail party with Saddam's ex-Ba'athists?

Why not a little coffee klatsch with al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda has never done anything progressive for the workers of the world, and is just a US puppet gone mad. The Iranian state has made progress by freeing Iran from imperialism. What actual reason do you have to compare the two other than they're both influenced by Islam?


Revolutionary defeatism is a Bolshevik term that you're co-opting. It was devised to get the workers to lay down their arms during the slaughter and turn against their own imperialists instead. It never called for communists to sit in at a meeting with the head of a reactionary ruling class.

The world has changed a lot since World War I, so there is no longer any clear-cut parallel between the Bolsheviks and what you're doing. In fact, if anything, your situation is more analogous to some weird scenario in which Lenin, in 1915, tells the world communist movement:

"I had a schnapps the other day with the German High Command. I don't fully support the Central Powers, but it's so important to join forces in combatting Nicholas, a far more menacing imperialist."

How does this actually advance the workers' struggle?
Don't be silly. Imperialism has not significantly changed since WWI in its aims, motives or methods. The struggle of the workers must still grapple with this force, which means revolutionary defeatism in the Bolshevik sense is entirely applicable to the present day. In this case, just as the communists of the Russian Empire fought for the frustration and defeat of Russian imperialism first and foremost (even using aid from German imperialists to do so), communists of the US must fight for the frustration and defeat of American imperialism as among their most pressing priorities. Meeting with a figure who is defying imperialism and thus preserving the anti-imperialist progress of the Iranian people is in line with this.

You pretend as though Lenin was entirely against joining with non-working-class forces. History, though, proves you wrong. When James Connolly united with anti-imperialist bourgeois groups in the Easter Rising, Lenin defended him from ultra-left criticism. Again, it's no surprise that the exact same quarters that condemned Lenin and his allies in WWI are slinging mud at the PSL today for following the exact same principles.

[Devrim]

Again, it's no surprise that the exact same quarters that condemned Lenin and his allies in WWI are slinging mud at the PSL today for following the exact same principles.

First, its not the same people who condemned Lenin during the First World War. The people criticising you now are Left communists, anarchist, and Trotskyists. The people who condemned Lenin were social democrats. Trotsky, and people who later became left communists were, of course, at the Zimmerwald meeting.

Second Lenin didn't say support the other side:


Present-day democracy will remain true to itself only if it joins neither one nor the other imperialist bourgeoisie, only if it says that the two sides are equally bad, and if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie in every country. Any other decision will, in reality, be national-liberal and have nothing in common with genuine internationalism.

Of course Iran is a part of the imperialist system, and an imperialist power albeit a very minor one when compared to the US. At no point does Lenin argue that you should support the weaker bourgeois state.


Of course the regime has progressive aspects. Are you denying that Iran not being re-colonized is a progressive step? You are plainly avoiding the issue because your arguments fly in the face of any material analysis. Further, it's funny to see you drag the PRC into this, which is natural for someone who's desperate to change the subject.

It is interesting that the PRC does come into it, as of course Chinese capital is making heavy investments in Iran. Of course the PSL doesn't think that China is an imperialist country either though.

Devrim

[manic expression]

First, its not the same people who condemned Lenin during the First World War. The people criticising you now are Left communists, anarchist, and Trotskyists. The people who condemned Lenin were social democrats. Trotsky, and people who later became left communists were, of course, at the Zimmerwald meeting.
So those who later became left communists were in full support of the Easter Rising?


Second Lenin didn't say support the other side:
...the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie in every country.

Iran is not imperialist.


Of course Iran is a part of the imperialist system, and an imperialist power albeit a very minor one when compared to the US. At no point does Lenin argue that you should support the weaker bourgeois state.
Anti-materialist blather. Please justify the assertion that Iran is imperialist, and do so through the accepted Marxist analysis of imperialism:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

The thing is you won't, because you can't. Materialism always trumps mysticism.


It is interesting that the PRC does come into it, as of course Chinese capital is making heavy investments in Iran. Of course the PSL doesn't think that China is an imperialist country either though.
See previous answer.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think you could make a good case for Iran developing a unique version of Imperialism in accordance with traditional Shiite values as reinterpreted by Khomeini and Khameni. There have been many interesting (and depressing) developments from the Iranian state since the death of Khomeini.

(a) the accumulation of financial and industrial capital in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps#Economic_activit y

(b) the accumulation of foreign policy power and local political clout by the property-holding Revolutionary Guard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps#Political

(c) large scale privatization schemes for state economic assets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Iran

(d) the financing and use of Shiite cultural institutions and religiously-motivated groups to accumulate "Spiritual Capital" and cultural respect from the Islamic world for Iran

(e) the attempt to challenge US-dependent regimes and replace them with Iranian-dependent regimes, and the use of their substantial financial clout to back various friendly movements around the area.

Perhaps its in an early stage of its development as an Imperialist power, or even a proto-Imperialist power, and definitely an "unconventional" one at that. If it's not imperialist, then whatever it is actually really isn't preferable (Chose between getting exploited by a western bourgeois or an iranian bourgeois who puts me in prison and tortures me for being a bahai or a communist or an independence-minded kurd? I'd rather chose actual communism, which is neither of those options).


See previous answer. Really? Iran is one thing, but China has many of the traits. It seems China has entered the Imperialist economy with great gusto since Deng "opened up" the economy. They're not building pipelines in the Sudan because they're nice people, they're doing it to perpetuate and reinforce their semi-state monopolies and preferred private firms and ensure the perpetual delivery of raw materials to their constantly growing industrial base. A planned imperialist economy is still an imperialist economy. It is also interesting to see how China or microimperialist states like Libya have been purchasing swathes of land from governments in corrupt countries, displacing local peasants and building farms to make up for the agricultural production gaps in their own countries.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Of course the regime has progressive aspects. Are you denying that Iran not being re-colonized is a progressive step? You are plainly avoiding the issue because your arguments fly in the face of any material analysis. Further, it's funny to see you drag the PRC into this, which is natural for someone who's desperate to change the subject.

I don't think he is saying anything about Iran not being re-colonized as not progressive. And I do think that there is a rather clear line between opposing imperialism and meeting Ahmadinejad.


Al-Qaeda has never done anything progressive for the workers of the world, and is just a US puppet gone mad. . . What actual reason do you have to compare the two other than they're both influenced by Islam?

Isn't the anti-communist al-Qaeda also against American imperialism, just like the anti-communist Iran? Didn't the anti-communist Saddam Hussein also oppose US imperialism?

But heck, why bother to attempt to shed a light on such nuances or facts? Oh yes, it must be all about the Islam. :rolleyes:


The Iranian state has made progress by freeing Iran from imperialism.

Iran was freed from imperialism not by its present-day reactionary theocratic state, but by the popular revolution against the US-backed Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979.

That revolution was partly secular and partly religious, but the Ayatollah's fundamentalists killed off the secular elements after they created a right-wing Islamic state.

I'm certainly against imperialism, but it's as clear as day that the regime in place there since has not been progressive.



The Iranian revolution marked the end of a phase of 'benign neglect' on the part of the United States in the region. . . In 1983, for instance, the CIA passed to the Khomeini regime an extensive list of Iranian communists and leftists working in the Iranian government. As the official Tower Commission inquiry into the Iran-contra scandal dispassionately observed, 'Using this information, the Khomeini government took measures, including mass executions, that virtually eliminated the pro-Soviet infrastructure in Iran.'

Joel Beinin & Joe Stork (eds.) Political Islam: Essays from the Middle East Report. Introduction, pp 3-28. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. http://books.google.com/books?id=6H7tYLVwVFkC; emphasis mine.

The Iranian government has an acknowledged record of killing communists and leftists, and has been praised in the US for doing so in cooperation with the CIA.


Don't be silly. Imperialism has not significantly changed since WWI in its aims, motives or methods. The struggle of the workers must still grapple with this force, which means revolutionary defeatism in the Bolshevik sense is entirely applicable to the present day. In this case, just as the communists of the Russian Empire fought for the frustration and defeat of Russian imperialism first and foremost (even using aid from German imperialists to do so), communists of the US must fight for the frustration and defeat of American imperialism as among their most pressing priorities. Meeting with a figure who is defying imperialism and thus preserving the anti-imperialist progress of the Iranian people is in line with this.

Not trying to offend you, but. . . you keep on harping on about "aid from German imperialists" like a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool reactionary.

Lenin did not receive "aid from German imperialists" - he simply was allowed to take a ride through Germany in a sealed train in order to return to Russia during a revolution.

The fact that you are saying that it was analogous to showing solidarity with a reactionary government utterly discredits you.


You pretend as though Lenin was entirely against joining with non-working-class forces. History, though, proves you wrong. When James Connolly united with anti-imperialist bourgeois groups in the Easter Rising, Lenin defended him from ultra-left criticism.

Yes, I should certainly doubt that the Iranian regime is representative of the kind of non-working class forces that Lenin would have thought about supporting.


Again, it's no surprise that the exact same quarters that condemned Lenin and his allies in WWI are slinging mud at the PSL today for following the exact same principles.

You really want to tell me that the pro-war social democrats are the "exact same quarters" as the revolutionary socialists opposed to Ahmadinehad? You really must be living in some sort of bubble.

At any rate, I would again ask you to elaborate on how the anti-imperialist struggle and the PSL have actually benefitted from the little meeting with Ahmadinehad, but you've been so candid as to indirectly tell us that you do not know:


I didn't hear the discussion so I can't say exactly.

[manic expression]

I think you could make a good case for Iran developing a unique version of Imperialism in accordance with traditional Shiite values as reinterpreted by Khomeini and Khameni. There have been many interesting (and depressing) developments from the Iranian state since the death of Khomeini.
I respect that you approached the points I made directly, but I must take exception to how you did so. Privatization, on its own, does not signify imperialism. It is not my position that Iran is not capitalist, but let us remember that not all capitalist societies are imperialist. If we look back at the quote, we see that it's not just about privatization (which was nothing new in the early 20th Century) or capitalist forces having political power (again, nothing new), but about the development of capitalism along the lines of "gigantic usury". The centralization of capital to monopoly firms and banks (especially speculation), and a dependence on the military arm of the capitalist state for the forcible acquisition of markets...that is much of what makes imperialism.

Basically, "A unique version of Imperialism" is another way of saying un-imperialist.


Perhaps its in an early stage of its development as an Imperialist power, or even a proto-Imperialist power, and definitely an "unconventional" one at that. If it's not imperialist, then whatever it is actually really isn't preferable (Chose between getting exploited by a western bourgeois or an iranian bourgeois who puts me in prison and tortures me for being a bahai or a communist or an independence-minded kurd? I'd rather chose actual communism, which is neither of those options).
Granted, but I wouldn't call it preferable, either. But Iran remains progressive compared to imperialist colonization. That, and no further, is as far as my "support" extends. That's why I support genuinely revolutionary forces in Iran.


Really? Iran is one thing, but China has many of the traits. It seems China has entered the Imperialist economy with great gusto since Deng "opened up" the economy. They're not building pipelines in the Sudan because they're nice people, they're doing it to perpetuate and reinforce their semi-state monopolies and preferred private firms and ensure the perpetual delivery of raw materials to their constantly growing industrial base. A planned imperialist economy is still an imperialist economy. It is also interesting to see how China or microimperialist states like Libya have been purchasing swathes of land from governments in corrupt countries, displacing local peasants and building farms to make up for the agricultural production gaps in their own countries.
All I'm going to say on this is that the present political structure of the PRC makes imperialism an impossibility. At any rate, this is neither the time nor the place for this issue. I understand the spirit of your argument, and I appreciate that you put time into your response here, but I don't want to take this more off-topic than it already is.

[manic expression]

I don't think he is saying anything about Iran not being re-colonized as not progressive. And I do think that there is a rather clear line between opposing imperialism and meeting Ahmadinejad.
I understand that, but the logical conclusion of that (Iran not being re-colonized is progressive) is that the Iranian state does have a progressive dimension. Also, meeting with Ahmadeinejad is connected to opposing imperialism, as he is an enemy of that same force. Again, my "support" for the Iranian state only extends as far as it's a breakwater for imperialism in the region, and that is beneficial to the workers of the world.


Isn't the anti-communist al-Qaeda also against American imperialism, just like the anti-communist Iran? Didn't the anti-communist Saddam Hussein also oppose US imperialism?

But heck, why bother to attempt to shed a light on such nuances or facts? Oh yes, it must be all about the Islam. :rolleyes:
Completely different. Both al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were allies and assets of American imperialism. In the former, the asset turned on its master; in the latter, the master turned on the asset. However, these are not anti-imperialist forces but products of imperialism. In that specific regard they are essentially the opposite of the Iranian state.


Iran was freed from imperialism not by its present-day reactionary theocratic state, but by the popular revolution against the US-backed Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979.

That revolution was partly secular and partly religious, but the Ayatollah's fundamentalists killed off the secular elements after they created a right-wing Islamic state.

I'm certainly against imperialism, but it's as clear as day that the regime in place there since has not been progressive.
I agree; however, I hold that the Iranian state is progressive insofar as it fights imperialist ambitions in the region.


The Iranian government has an acknowledged record of killing communists and leftists, and has been praised in the US for doing so in cooperation with the CIA.
Yes, capitalist states act in such a way. I oppose that.


Not trying to offend you, but. . . you keep on harping on about "aid from German imperialists" like a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool reactionary.

Lenin did not receive "aid from German imperialists" - he simply was allowed to take a ride through Germany in a sealed train in order to return to Russia during a revolution.

The fact that you are saying that it was analogous to showing solidarity with a reactionary government utterly discredits you.
The reason I keep bringing it up is because people have this conception that communists keep themselves in monastic isolation from bourgeois forces. This is false. Communists are able to advance the cause of the workers by non-working-class forces in some cases (Lenin being allowed a sealed train, Connolly fighting and dying with bourgeois-nationalists in Ireland, etc.). The example is merely to dispel some myth that sitting in the same room as Ahmedinejad is an unforgivable sin. It isn't, and it was done because progressives in the US wanted to discuss matters with a prominent anti-imperialist figure. That's really all there is to it.


Yes, I should certainly doubt that the Iranian regime is representative of the kind of non-working class forces that Lenin would have thought about supporting.
Why? Because they're Muslim?


You really want to tell me that the pro-war social democrats are the "exact same quarters" as the revolutionary socialists opposed to Ahmadinehad? You really must be living in some sort of bubble.
I am, of course, talking of ultra-lefts who became anti-Bolshevik.


At any rate, I would again ask you to elaborate on how the anti-imperialist struggle and the PSL have actually benefitted from the little meeting with Ahmadinehad, but you've been so candid as to indirectly tell us that you do not know:
It was a discussion that progressives in the US wanted to hold. Such a discussion is simply a reflection of the fact that US progressives and the Iranian state both oppose the same thing and are interested in the issues affecting the region in question. If discussions offend you so, then perhaps that will save me some time.

[Crux]

Of course the regime has progressive aspects. Are you denying that Iran not being re-colonized is a progressive step? You are plainly avoiding the issue because your arguments fly in the face of any material analysis. Further, it's funny to see you drag the PRC into this, which is natural for someone who's desperate to change the subject.
Not at all a change of subject, in fact it just drives the point home just how empty your so called "anti-imperialism" is. Your clutching for the anti-imperialist straw to try and defend your utter apologism for an anti-workingclass regime in iran is utterly discredited by your support for imperialist china. The regime of iran is acting out their nationl-interests on neighbouring countries, they are directly repressing the workingclass in iran, directly monitoring worker's and supressing all worker's rights. So do tell me what is progressive about the regime, other than them not being pro-US?

[Crux]

Granted, but I wouldn't call it preferable, either. But Iran remains progressive compared to imperialist colonization. That, and no further, is as far as my "support" extends. That's why I support genuinely revolutionary forces in Iran.
Oh I think it's plainly obvious that you do not. How elese would you explain your progressive description of the regime? And especially those pesky little quotes from Liberation. This is just you being dishonest. And please, since you've been avoiding it so far, explain why you think all groups actually in Iran does not share your opinion.

[manic expression]

Not at all a change of subject, in fact it just drives the point home just how empty your so called "anti-imperialism" is. Your clutching for the anti-imperialist straw to try and defend your utter apologism for an anti-workingclass regime in iran is utterly discredited by your support for imperialist china. The regime of iran is acting out their nationl-interests on neighbouring countries, they are directly repressing the workingclass in iran, directly monitoring worker's and supressing all worker's rights. So do tell me what is progressive about the regime, other than them not being pro-US?
It is very much an attempt to change the subject, which makes sense since you have no understanding of the subject at hand. The PRC is not imperialist, and any materialist analysis of the issue will yield this conclusion. But since when did slander-artists like yourself care about facts?


Oh I think it's plainly obvious that you do not. How elese would you explain your progressive description of the regime? And especially those pesky little quotes from Liberation. This is just you being dishonest. And please, since you've been avoiding it so far, explain why you think all groups actually in Iran does not share your opinion.
It is plainly obvious that you have no argument other than your obsessive dislike for revolutionary politics. What is also plainly obvious is that you show no ability to comprehend the PSL's line on Iran. I've already explained the progressive aspect of the Iranian state, as well as why it is understandable that communists in Iran would have a different emphasis on their analysis. Please go back and read what I wrote, and then maybe you'll be able to make a valid point. Thanks a bunch.

[Crux]

It is very much an attempt to change the subject, which makes sense since you have no understanding of the subject at hand. The PRC is not imperialist, and any materialist analysis of the issue will yield this conclusion. But since when did slander-artists like yourself care about facts?


It is plainly obvious that you have no argument other than your obsessive dislike for revolutionary politics. What is also plainly obvious is that you show no ability to comprehend the PSL's line on Iran. I've already explained the progressive aspect of the Iranian state, as well as why it is understandable that communists in Iran would have a different emphasis on their analysis. Please go back and read what I wrote, and then maybe you'll be able to make a valid point. Thanks a bunch.
I could see why spomeone as dishonest as yourself would want to dodge ou of this debate. Here's a hint, the iranian lefts analysis versus yoursof the irnian regime is not about emphasis but about essence. One is deduced from direct experience, basic marxism and class struggle, the other is deduced from pro-regime sources faux-anti imperialism and, in rare occasions, coupled with empty phrases about socialism.

Please show me where in the quotes I have taken from your paper I am slandering or misrepresenting. Or does direct quotes from Liberation now count as slander? If that is the case, from where do you suggest I get the correct information about PSL's line?

Also given China's endevours in Latin America and especially Africa, what makes it non-imperialist? It's actions are identical to the imperialist countries in the form of econonomic and political exploitatiotion and extortion.

[manic expression]

I could see why spomeone as dishonest as yourself would want to dodge ou of this debate. Here's a hint, the iranian lefts analysis versus yoursof the irnian regime is not about emphasis but about essence. One is deduced from direct experience, basic marxism and class struggle, the other is deduced from pro-regime sources faux-anti imperialism and, in rare occasions, coupled with empty phrases about socialism.
This, coming from the person who wants to make this about the PRC. Your desperation to change the subject aside, it is certainly about emphasis. The Iranian communists get no criticism from me for propagating within reactionary circles; that is the task of communists in such a situation. The task of communists in the US, however, requires a different emphasis. Perhaps if you took the time to understand the situation, you wouldn't need to have this explained to you for the tenth time.


Please show me where in the quotes I have taken from your paper I am slandering or misrepresenting. Or does direct quotes from Liberation now count as slander? If that is the case, from where do you suggest I get the correct information about PSL's line?The issue is that you never addressed them. You scream that the PSL supports the Iranian state but you fail to recognize the most important portions of the PSL's argument. As I've said before, go back and read the articles that you cited and maybe you'll be able to say something worth saying on the matter.


Also given China's endevours in Latin America and especially Africa, what makes it non-imperialist? It's actions are identical to the imperialist countries in the form of econonomic and political exploitatiotion and extortion.And here, we find yet another anti-materialist piece of nonsense. The PRC is not controlled by a capitalist class, it is controlled by the CPC. All state power rests in that vanguard party. Further, its actions are not identical to imperialist countries...one look at the past 10 years will confirm that in a hurry. Unfortunately, though, you lack the capacity to do even that.

[Crux]

This, coming from the person who wants to make this about the PRC. Your desperation to change the subject aside, it is certainly about emphasis. The Iranian communists get no criticism from me for propagating within reactionary circles; that is the task of communists in such a situation. The task of communists in the US, however, requires a different emphasis. Perhaps if you took the time to understand the situation, you wouldn't need to have this explained to you for the tenth time.

The issue is that you never addressed them. You scream that the PSL supports the Iranian state but you fail to recognize the most important portions of the PSL's argument. As I've said before, go back and read the articles that you cited and maybe you'll be able to say something worth saying on the matter.

And here, we find yet another anti-materialist piece of nonsense. The PRC is not controlled by a capitalist class, it is controlled by the CPC. All state power rests in that vanguard party. Further, its actions are not identical to imperialist countries...one look at the past 10 years will confirm that in a hurry. Unfortunately, though, you lack the capacity to do even that.
So you do not even yourself grasp your own psoition on Iran? Look at what your paper actually writes, look at what iranian marxists write. It is not about emphazis, or your own geographical position, it is about essence and understanding the character of a regime that PSL allegedes i "progressive". Again the quotes show that this is not merely about opposing american intervention, something any socialist would, but about supporting and giving credibility to the regime itself as "progressive".
Until you aknowledge that it will be hard to debate the PSL's position.

A vanguard party that is full of the capitalist class. This is material fact. So the question is of course vanguard party for which class. Your sloppy reference to "one look at the last 10 years" tells more about your view on what anti-imperialism is than the character of China.

[neosyndic]

x

[Devrim]

China has helped Venezuela develop its space program and develop a modern railway system. China has helped Ecuador modernise its oil refineries and energy grid. China has helped Cuba develop light and medium industrial projects, aimed at diversification. The Chinese have helped the development of modern information technology infrastructure in Brasil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba. The Chinese work with Nicaragua enhancing ALBA development projects. These are clearly not the actions of an ''imperialist'' state.

Who built the railways in India?

Devrim

[manic expression]

So you do not even yourself grasp your own psoition on Iran? Look at what your paper actually writes, look at what iranian marxists write. It is not about emphazis, or your own geographical position, it is about essence and understanding the character of a regime that PSL allegedes i "progressive". Again the quotes show that this is not merely about opposing american intervention, something any socialist would, but about supporting and giving credibility to the regime itself as "progressive".
Until you aknowledge that it will be hard to debate the PSL's position.

A vanguard party that is full of the capitalist class. This is material fact. So the question is of course vanguard party for which class. Your sloppy reference to "one look at the last 10 years" tells more about your view on what anti-imperialism is than the character of China.
Yes, I have looked quite a bit at what my party actually writes. What you fail to grasp is that it is written from the perspective of communists in America, where revolutionary defeatism against US imperialism is the most immediate and pressing task of all progressives. It is certainly about emphasis owing to varying material circumstances.

The Iranian state does represent progress for the workers of Iran and of the world. This has been explained dozens of times, and I ask you to read only one of those explanations.

A vanguard party that is full of contradictions and nuance. IIRC, the rank-and-file of the CPC is overwhelmingly working-class, and to toss all of them into the "pro-capitalist" pot is as lazy as it is mistaken. Further, your apparent lack of concern for the lives of workers slaughtered by US imperialism is noted.


Who built the railways in India?
Um...the British during their colonization of India. Care to point out exactly where Chinese troops are stationed in Venezuela? And perhaps while you're at it you can tell us who's the acting Chinese viceroy.

[Crux]

Yes, I have looked quite a bit at what my party actually writes. What you fail to grasp is that it is written from the perspective of communists in America, where revolutionary defeatism against US imperialism is the most immediate and pressing task of all progressives. It is certainly about emphasis owing to varying material circumstances.
So in Iran it is okay to be truthful about the regime but not in the U.S? Why? Are you afraid that a truthfull description of the iranian regime will turn your own sympathizers and emmebers pro-american?


The Iranian state does represent progress for the workers of Iran and of the world. This has been explained dozens of times, and I ask you to read only one of those explanations.
By actively supressing worker's right, putting money into their own pockets and murdering and imprionong left wing activists. Do you dispute this or just chose to ignore it?


A vanguard party that is full of contradictions and nuance. IIRC, the rank-and-file of the CPC is overwhelmingly working-class, and to toss all of them into the "pro-capitalist" pot is as lazy as it is mistaken. Further, your apparent lack of concern for the lives of workers slaughtered by US imperialism is noted.
Yes, you are correct that was a lazy wording. The leadership is overwhelmingly pro-capitalist and not only that but bureacrats who have made themselfes rich from exploiting their psotion for capitalist ventures and people coming directly from the CEO rooms of teh private sector now dominates the leadership and the bureacracy of the CCP. Their politics is defined by these class interests in combination with the interests of teh bureacracy. This is of course not without some contradictions, but looking at chinese economic imperialism the picture becomes more clear.

[manic expression]

So in Iran it is okay to be truthful about the regime but not in the U.S? Why? Are you afraid that a truthfull description of the iranian regime will turn your own sympathizers and emmebers pro-american?
In Iran it is possible and expected to propagate socialism in reactionary circles. In the US this is a bit more difficult, and therefore it is necessary to recognize that such circles are reactionary and to denounce imperialism's attempt to use said circles.


By actively supressing worker's right, putting money into their own pockets and murdering and imprionong left wing activists. Do you dispute this or just chose to ignore it?
I do neither. I put it into context, something you should try sometime.


Yes, you are correct that was a lazy wording. The leadership is overwhelmingly pro-capitalist and not only that but bureacrats who have made themselfes rich from exploiting their psotion for capitalist ventures and people coming directly from the CEO rooms of teh private sector now dominates the leadership and the bureacracy of the CCP. Their politics is defined by these class interests in combination with the interests of teh bureacracy. This is of course not without some contradictions, but looking at chinese economic imperialism the picture becomes more clear.
In short, you have no idea what imperialism is. I wonder how many more of Lenin's principles you're going to trample on your run from genuinely revolutionary politics?

[Devrim]

A vanguard party that is full of contradictions and nuance. IIRC, the rank-and-file of the CPC is overwhelmingly working-class, and to toss all of them into the "pro-capitalist" pot is as lazy as it is mistaken.

The rank and file of virtually every political party in the world is overwhelmingly working class, including I would imagine the US Republican Party. So What?

Devrim

[Crux]

In Iran it is possible and expected to propagate socialism in reactionary circles. In the US this is a bit more difficult, and therefore it is necessary to recognize that such circles are reactionary and to denounce imperialism's attempt to use said circles.
Are all circles opposed to the "progressive" regime reactionary?
Are the underground unions reactionary?
If the regime is progressive shouldn't the left be propagating towards the regime itself?




In short, you have no idea what imperialism is. I wonder how many more of Lenin's principles you're going to trample on your run from genuinely revolutionary politics?Oh right. Because all imperialism is excersized with direct intervention.

[manic expression]

The rank and file of virtually every political party in the world is overwhelmingly working class, including I would imagine the US Republican Party. So What?
The Republican Party isn't in any way structurally comparable to the CPC.


Are all circles opposed to the "progressive" regime reactionary?
Are the underground unions reactionary?
If the regime is progressive shouldn't the left be propagating towards the regime itself?No.
You'll have to be more specific than that.
You mean within pro-state groups? Yes.


Oh right. Because all imperialism is excersized with direct intervention.It almost always involves it. But more on topic, imperialism is about monopoly capital, about "gigantic usury". You're trying to use a mystical understanding of "imperialism" (as in a powerful country) instead of a materialist understanding of the term.

[neosyndic]

x

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Wow ... did you just suggest British Communists had penis envy? wtf? are we 15 years old?

Anyhow, that argument doesn't make sense. There's nothing "sinophobic" or "islamophobic" with disliking China's treatment of tibetans/turks/other minorities or Iran's treatment of women/gays/bahai. Likewise, there's nothing Islamophobic with saying Gaddhafi is a dictator and a tyrant, and that Chavez was a fool not to condemn Gaddhafi's killing of his own people as Chavez would have condemned it if it were America doing the killing.

[KC]

I think this entire discussion, as well as the positions taken on these various demonstrations, shows the utter stupidity and political bankruptcy of the various "anti-imperialist" groups, as well as a complete failure of the left in general to understand imperialism theory.

[neosyndic]

x

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Point taken. But consider this from a social and ideological point of view In the case of the English-speaking left, consider that Anglo-American culture, for the most part, is still the most affluent per capita in the world. Even though most don't make it large, the amount of wealth held by Capital in the anglophone world is disproportionately high. As such, it's that much harder for leftists to argue against the status quo, because more people here have "won" under the status quo than in places like Venezuela.

My personal view is that Leftism will become more successful in the Anglophone world as globalization continues and wages continue to stagnate. The loss at Madison Wisconsin was a travesty, but one must consider that over 60% of Americans were against the law even though the greatest propaganda machine in the US was behind the bill (Fox), and that the defeat will be used to organize future conflicts Anyhow, it's not only the anglophone world, it's western europe and japan too. Social Democracy in the west was successful at diminishing the spread of Communism in the whole NATO block. The US now has social security, medicare, and other egalitarian policies, thanks to the campaigning of various Leftist and socialist orgs, as social democrats "borrowed" many ideas from Leftists.

I didn't accuse China of Imperializing Venezuela myself, maybe another poster did I don't know. I accused them of Imperializing places like Vietnam, Africa and Burma. My beef with Venezuela is purely ideological, and has nothing to do with economics. They can trade with Iran all they like, I just don't like Iran being called "revolutionary" while it executes gays and religious minorities.

[Property Is Robbery]

Funny that, isn't it? You would expect the CPI to open their eyes and see that the PSL are obviously right and support their own state.

I'm not saying they're not aware of their own situation. I'm saying they can't begin to see Chavez's point of view. And if you analyze Ahmadinejad's regime versus his opposition it's obvious who is on the side of Iranians and who's on the side of America. Obviously Ahmadinejad's government is oppressive but that's a given when it comes to an Islamic government. Also look at almost every other country in the Middle East. Most have, at one point or another, been invaded by the U.S. Iran is right in between Iraq and Afghanistan..

[neosyndic]

x

[Crux]

And if you analyze Ahmadinejad's regime versus his opposition it's obvious who is on the side of Iranians and who's on the side of America.
So why does the communist's (of any persuation) on the ground disagree with you? If your analysis is so "obvious". It's funny that you divide it with "pro-iranian" (Ahmadinejad's wing of the regime) And "pro-american"(Mousavis wing of the regime + all those other people who protested Ahmadinejad and eventually against the regime itself).

[Thirsty Crow]

And if you analyze Ahmadinejad's regime versus his opposition it's obvious who is on the side of Iranians and who's on the side of America. Obviously Ahmadinejad's government is oppressive but that's a given when it comes to an Islamic government. Also look at almost every other country in the Middle East. Most have, at one point or another, been invaded by the U.S. Iran is right in between Iraq and Afghanistan..
I think that the most important question is the following: on which basis should we, as communists and anarchists, analyze Ahmadinejad's regime?
Judging by your assessment, class analysis is something which you're not familiar with.
And if you are, then there's obviously some reason why you prefer to eschew it in favor of national(ist) aspect.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

then they need to start thinking outside the box and come up with new language and new tactics. clearly the theories and tactics of the past have not worked. one thing is that people might be under the illusion that they "won more" and another the objective reality. the incidence of hunger, homelessness, unemployment, foreclosures, etc has increased this side of the 2008 crash. now there is a problem with gas prices. the policies of "quantitative easing" are only making things worst because they are generating massive structural inflation and increasing the size of the "strategic deficit". there is a need for a Far Left critique of ''Quantitavie Easing'' (not just its domestic but global impact) and a Far Left critique of the Fiat Currency regime. In Venezuela there is talk of linking the value of the Bolivar Fuerte to a mixed standard measure invoving industiral production volumes, strategic oil reserves and gold. Furthermore, in context of the SUCRE monetary union there are initiatives from Ecuador to create a common value standard for trade among the ALBA states.


Internationally speaking, i can see why you'd think that, but from a local perspective, it's an uphill battle to educate a country which has become mostly Petit Bourgeois. Even in terms of purchasing power, Americans make more money as a median income than any other large country. Jobs in America just pay better than jobs in Venezuela. Instead, the US hires migrant workers or exports low-wage jobs to keep inflation low and living standards rising. People don't take Communism seriously anymore here because the flaws of Capitalism have been hidden "South of the border" or in migrant worker cities in the US, and the benefits of Capitalism have come in. But as the "business cycle" depresses again as it has now and it might again soon, it will be easier for Socialists to make their case. You must remember, the victory in the Cold War effected the psyche of the West, as people came to blame it on the "failures" of the Communist system and the "successes" of Capitalism. Before then, you had Communism associated with a dangerous "Other", and the nature of Cold War competition made it hard for Communists not to seem like possible "Traitors".

Didn't Lenin have a theory about how Revolution was less likely in upper income countries?

The real failure isn't the inability of people to make Communism a politically viable movement in America, it's the utter failure of Russian Communism to rise after the fall of the USSR despite the horrible economic problems Russia has had. They were in power for 80 years, but left a system so ideologically decayed that it was utterly unable to pose a serious critique of Capitalism as Statism was collapsing around it. Last I heard, the remnants of the CP there had become rabidly homophobic and anti-immigrant.



The West also works with Burma. Vietnam ''went Gaddafi'' years ago; they work with the United States. In Africa, China has extended technology and industrial transfers in exchange for leases on land to grow food.
That's just because Vietnam and Burma are cheap dates and will sell out to anyone, America or China. As for Africa, they have extended technology and industrial transfers with the governments, not with the local people who actually live on and farm that land. China doesn't give a shit what happens to those guys. Some if they are lucky might find work on the new fancy Chinese farm I suppose, others will need to become migrant workers.



The problem is precisely in focusing on "ideological" issues (i.e looking for theoretical purity) instead of looking at objective and tangible economic outcomes of the China-Venezuela relationship: the chinese industrial and technological transfers to Venezuela, Cuba, Brasil and Ecuador have helped these countries develop an industrial base, in the case of Venezuela a space program. These advances have worked to undermine USA domination in Latin America and have contributed to regional economic growth and tangible economic development. Iranian tractors in Bolivia and Venezuela are deployed in mandated agricultural projects that have resulted in very tangible hunger and poverty reduction.

I have never claimed that Iran is "socialist" or "revolutionary", I have claimed that Iran has helped the ALBA States in the process of achieving economic independence from the United States. That in this context its foreign and commercial policy has had an anti-imperialist impact.I agree with the economic issues you raise, but there does need to be some recognition of ideology. If Chavez wants to trade with Iran, I have no problem with that at all. Its an industrial power and there is room for mutual benefit. However, Venezuela uses its media, and the public statements of its leader, to give some ideological backing to these leaders.

For instance, the level in Telesur's journalism of the Libyan uprising is questionable to horrible in quality. Venezuela gets no economic benefit from that at all.

[neosyndic]

x

[Thirsty Crow]

Maybe he did; however Karl Marx was clear that for socialist revolution to happen it needed to start in the developed industial countries since it was in these that there existed an Industrial Proletariat. A social revolutionary movement aiming to replace capitalism with Socialism in a given political-economic situation requires the existence of a developed industrial base and an organised Industrial Working Class councious of its historical tasks in the given political economic situation.

However, Marx didn't witness the historical development of capitalism which produced changes in labour structures. And neither did any working class, revolutionary organization prior to WW 2, for that matter. What should we make of the rise in tertiary sector? Should we consider industrial workers the "vanguard" of sorts when it comes to contemporary working class?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

i do not share the premise that the West "won" the cold war. there was no military confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. to the contrary, the west simply usurped global leadership and took advantage of the dissolution of the USSR (which was not its ''fall'', as western propaganda claims), in order to impose neo-liberal economic dogmas on the world. i agree that in the measure that the contradictions inherent to capitalism become magnified by economic crisis and social decay there will be more opportunities to organise against capitalism. Ultimately, the solution to the problem of imperialism is for the Far Left in North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand to organise working class led social opposition to capitalism.


Well, the Cold War was in a certain way an economic war, and one can argue the west "won" it through a number of actions that exacerbated the stagnation of the soviet economy while going into debt to give new life to their own (Reaganomics). But certainly, the internal contradictions of the USSR helped bring it down. Even if the west didn't win, most Americans, W europeans and Brits certainly think it did.



Maybe he did; however Karl Marx was clear that for socialist revolution to happen it needed to start in the developed industial countries since it was in these that there existed an Industrial Proletariat. A social revolutionary movement aiming to replace capitalism with Socialism in a given political-economic situation requires the existence of a developed industrial base and an organised Industrial Working Class councious of its historical tasks in the given political economic situation.
I don't know if Marx was 100% correct in this. The first major revolutions of the 20th century, the Mexican and Russian, both happened in societies with a small proletariat. There's not been a revolution in a major Industrial country, though some have come close, precisely because in these Industrial countries it appears that capitalism works. I agree with the economics of it, that the existence of industry makes socialism easier to build, but practically speaking as long as the proletariat fears becoming peasants, a proletarian revolution seems to become impractical. And as menocchio said, the economy of 2010 is much different, and the class situation far more complicated than in the 1870s



The failure lies in the inability of the Far Left in the developed western countries to lead a socialist revolution against its own capitalist oligarchies. Russia was not meant to be the centre of world revolution in the first place, as far as Karl Marx was concerned it was to be England. As far as Lenin was concerned it was suppossed to be Germany. The Failure of the British and German Communists to lead the British and German working classes to power ''back in the day'' is ultimately the reason we are in the hell hole we find ourselves in.
Not only are the remnants of the CPSU homophobic and anti-immigrant, they are virulently anti-semitic. The current upsurge of the electoral Far Right in the West (Tea Party, French National Front, EDL, Folkfront, ad nauseam) parallels the wave of revolt sweeping north Africa and the Middle East. Both are the product of global capitalist crisis.
It's certainly a seeming contradiction from a Marxist POV that all domestically produced Communist governments have arisen in underdeveloped countries.



The Technology and Industrial transfers have a verifiable aggregate economic impact in the medium to long term in size-comparable Latin American economies (such as ecuador, nicaragua and bolivia) . Overall they will aid to economic growth, hence contibuting to poverty and hunger reduction. The issue of corruption in Africa predates the involvement of the Chinese, it is actually part of the legacy of Western colonialism. The west has never done anything for Africa other than to colonise and exploit it for centuries. China has never organised anything remotely close to the slave trade carried out by Portuguese and British, for example. Burma is a disgrace in any case; but that Vietnam chose to follow the path of Gaddafi towards an alliance with the West is absolutely abhorrent, given the history of the Vietnam War. The Vietnamise government has BETRAYED its own people.
That's my problem with Chinese imperialism though. The best you can say about it is that it's not "as bad" as American and European (Americans said their form of Imperialism was "less bad" than the Europeans, which was certainly true in many regards, but no small consolation to the victims of its Empire). And there's no indication that it wouldn't become worse over time as its interests become established and if its socialist aspects erode even further.

As for Vietnam having "betrayed" the war, I don't know if that's how the Vietnamese people see it. Anyhow, China invaded them too in 1979, though the invasion wasn't nearly as bad as the war against America, so no matter who they trade with they're going to trade with a nation that is a traditional enemy. The problem with China is that they have simply given too many rights, IE the right to mine Bauxite regardless of the ecological impact.



"Ideology" out of historical context and looked at from a purely aesthetic and fetishist stand point is THE PROBLEM. Karl Marx called it ''false counciousness'' for a very good reason. but i grant you that Theory purged of aesthetics and placed within proper time-place context is useful in certain situations (such as in context of agit-prop), if it aims to rationalise upon policial-economic objectivity as a means to the end of supporting movement towards a progressive end. the same applies to religion; in its social conservative form it is definitely ''the opium of the masses'' as it ultimately works to create support for capitalism and in some cases becomes the catalyst for neo-fascist movements (as is the case with the Religious Right in the USA); Yet, progressive ''narratives of spirit'' can be useful as a means to an end if they encourage anti-capitalism or have an anti-imperialist impact. Two concrete examples: 1) Variables of Liberation Theology in Colombia which motivate the anti-capitalist guerrilla struggle of the ELN against the pro-imperialist Narco-State; and 2) Variables of the Afghan insurgency against NATO which inspire themselves in Islam but have an anti-imperialist impact insofar as they deliver a bloody nose to the NATO criminals.
I'm more than happy to support progressive, anti-Imperial spiritual movements. I always liked Liberation Theology as a standpoint, and Islamic Socialism in theory has some strong points.

What you say brings me to Marx's point about how philosophy should be oriented towards changing the world, not interpreting it. I think this is true only to an extent. If you create a correct theory, it can revolutionize the world. Marx read Hegel's idealism, which inspired him to write what he saw as the description of our practical existence. In some respects, theorizing properly does change the world, and practice in turn alters our theory. Even those with a fetishistic approach to reason who create practically false theories come across this and need to update their approach when their contradictions become apparent (i like how francis fukuyama had to admit that it wasn't really the end of history and revise his theories :P)



what is questionable is the western media coverage of the lybia crisis. it turns out that the western media LIED about Gaddafi ''fleeing'' to Venezuela and Nicaragua, and that it lied about Gaddafi utilising his airforce to staff demonstators. The Pentagon came out saying during recent congressional hearings about the possibility of setting up a no-fly zone that these reports where after all unconfirmed. It is thanks to the work of the multipolar media: Telesur, Al-Jazzera, Democracy Now!, VTV, Correo del Orinoco, Pravda.ru, Granma, Press TV, Voz del Sandinismo, RT and CCTV that one can break out from Western media perception management. I am not required to agree with everything Telesur or Al Jazzera report; but it is liberating to be able to CHOOSE to not watch Western Media. :cool:

Both groups of media sources were dishonest-one reported any claim against Gadhafi's forces without question, while the other parroted the line of Gadafi's military and government. I was annoyed to see that the "leftwing press" of Latin America didn't send a single reporter to Benghazi. And every story I read from VTV or Telesur (translated on google translate, my spanish aint so good :P) seemed annoyingly soft on the government.

For me, Al Jazeera and the BBC are the two organizations which have provided the most thorough reporting on the conflict. It should be noted too that an al jazeera cameraman was just killed, possibly by a Gadafi agent, in the East (presumably there are still government loyalists there in hiding).


On this one I give credit to the Western Far Left: the various press organs of the global north socialist and communist sects are invaluable in terms of obtaining perspectives about the Lybia crisis, even if they disagree with each other over doctrinal issues and have an objective record of failure in terms of revolutionary outcomes. Had I not been exposed to the analysis in World Socialist Website, Socialist Worker, In Defense of Marxism, and Weekly Worker I would not have been able to make sense of anything that is going on in Lybia. :thumbup1:

It is a dialectic paradox.Hah, say what you will about the inability of western socialists to overthrow governments, they do tend to give good analysis :P

[neosyndic]

x