Iranian "Revolutionary" government battles real revolutionary Kurds

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/iran/3486.html

(1) Is the Iranian government not Imperialist on a small scale when we consider the fact that the Parsi ethnic group inhabits only a fraction of Iran's territory, but they use the Iranian state to extend their control of Capital over Kurdish, Arab, Balochi etc regions and then use state violence to counter resistance.

(2) Why don't many Leftists support Kurdish nationalism at least as strongly as Palestinian nationalism?

(3) How can people support the Iranian government when it uses its socioeconomic and military advantage to repress and exploit ethnic areas?

(4) To what degree did modern Iran internalize and preserve aspects of the Imperialist and chauvinist ideologies regarding ethnic minorities and other groups?

[gorillafuck]

(2) Why don't many Leftists support Kurdish nationalism at least as strongly as Palestinian nationalism?I dunno about ML's and I don't support Palestinian nationalism but I focus on Israeli crimes more because the occupation of Palestine is the doings of the ruling class of the country where I live, whereas the ruling class in the US actually has funded Kurdish national liberation in the form of the Kurdistan Workers Party.

[Spartacus.]

whereas the ruling class in the US actually has funded Kurdish national liberation in the form of the Kurdistan Workers Party.


Last time I checked, they did this only in Iraq for opportunist purposes in order to weaken Sadam's power. It is true that PKK in Turkey has some silly idea of US imperialism being some kind of positive influence in the middle east, but I don't remember that US ruling class ever gave their support to Kurdish separatism in Turkey. PKK is on US list of "terrorist" organizations and US is giving massive financial and military support to Turkey that is used to carry ethnic cleansing of Kurdish-populated areas. So your statement is only partially true. :)

[Spartacus.]

(1) Is the Iranian government not Imperialist on a small scale when we consider the fact that the Parsi ethnic group inhabits only a fraction of Iran's territory, but they use the Iranian state to extend their control of Capital over Kurdish, Arab, Balochi etc regions and then use state violence to counter resistance.



No, Iran is not imperialist, considering the fact they don't invade other countries in order to boost profits of their corporations and extend their imperial power. In the worst case, what they are doing could be described as national chauvinism, meaning that they are preventing other ethnic minorities from enjoying their rights. That is fundamentally differrent from US imperialism. Besides, the things are way more complicated than US propaganda wants you to believe. The state of Iran has been around for about 2500 years and during that time it mostly had full control over its present borders, so it is little hard to question its authority over their territory. I agree that Iranian government should give more rights to ethnic minorities, but the US is at present using ethnic diversity of Iran in order to weaken the country's government and subdue it. And I can't suppot that. :)


(2) Why don't many Leftists support Kurdish nationalism at least as strongly as Palestinian nationalism?


I support the freedom-fighters of PKK in Turkey, but I can't support Kurdish separatism in Iran because it is being used as a tool by a US imperialism. After the US is forced out of middle east, I will support a more just solution for ethnic oppression in Iran. Until then... :)


(3) How can people support the Iranian government when it uses its socioeconomic and military advantage to repress and exploit ethnic areas?

Because US imperialism is the main enemy of today's humanity and everything that weakens US imperialist elite is contributing to the decline of world capitalism. You don't have to love Iranian government, but you have to support their right to resist and their right on self-determination. :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No, Iran is not imperialist, considering the fact they don't invade other countries in order to boost profits of their corporations and extend their imperial power. In the worst case, what they are doing could be described as national chauvinism, meaning that they are preventing other ethnic minorities from enjoying their rights. That is fundamentally differrent from US imperialism.

So after the British annexed India, their Imperialism was OK because it became national chauvinism? Repressing a foreign nationality which wants to govern itself by military force for economic exploitation is imperialism, regardless of what lines are drawn on a map.


Besides, the things are way more complicated than US propaganda wants you to believe. The state of Iran has been around for about 2500 years and during that time it mostly had full control over its present borders, so it is little hard to question its authority over their territory. I agree that Iranian government should give more rights to ethnic minorities, but the US is at present using ethnic diversity of Iran in order to weaken the country's government and subdue it. And I can't suppot that. :)
If the British empire had occupied India for 2500 years, would they have been justified in controlling it forever? Also, the modern Iranian state is very different from "Persia." Persian Farsi speakers only inhabit half of the country.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg)
The US is "using" the ethnic diversity in Iran to divide it? More like the US is "using" the internal contradictions inherent in Iranian society to destabilize it. The Iranian government is at fault for those contradictions, the USA is just being an opportunist as any empire would be. I think the Kurds deserve the support of the Left more than the Iranian government does!



I support the freedom-fighters of PKK in Turkey, but I can't support Kurdish separatism in Iran because it is being used as a tool by a US imperialism. After the US is forced out of middle east, I will support a more just solution for ethnic oppression in Iran. Until then... :)
So countering US imperialism trumps the actual worker's struggle of Kurds?


Because US imperialism is the main enemy of today's humanity and everything that weakens US imperialist elite is contributing to the decline of world capitalism. You don't have to love Iranian government, but you have to support their right to resist and their right on self-determination. :) I disagree with the idea that the US is the main enemy of humanity, the global business and military elites are. The US is just the biggest nation state organized alongside the interests of those elites. If the US was gone but global capitalism still existed, another world power or group of powers would take its place. Would you have supported Japan against "American Imperialism"?

[Chambered Word]

I support the freedom-fighters of PKK in Turkey, but I can't support Kurdish separatism in Iran because it is being used as a tool by a US imperialism. After the US is forced out of middle east, I will support a more just solution for ethnic oppression in Iran. Until then... :)

So we mustn't support movements because they could weaken a capitalist state that just so happens to be a target of US imperialism? Sounds like an ultra-left line to me.

What do you mean by 'after the US is forced out of [the] middle east'?


Because US imperialism is the main enemy of today's humanity and everything that weakens US imperialist elite is contributing to the decline of world capitalism. You don't have to love Iranian government, but you have to support their right to resist and their right on self-determination. :)

I think there is more to class struggle than cheerleading for regimes that claim to stand against the USA's interests. Don't you also see the hipocrisy in supporting their right to self-determination while declaring nothing of the sort for the Kurds?

[Dimmu]

Iran is just as imperialistic as US.. The only difference is that USA can actually do something to expand.

Iran spreads its imperialism everywhere in the Middle-East.. Look at Iraq, Lebanon, Syria etc.. If that is not imperialism then i dont know what it is.

Also like Chambered Lord wrote.. I dont like the ultra-left line of supporting every single opressive regime because that regime is an enemy of the USA/Israel.

[Spartacus.]

So after the British annexed India, their Imperialism was OK because it became national chauvinism? Repressing a foreign nationality which wants to govern itself by military force for economic exploitation is imperialism, regardless of what lines are drawn on a map.


I don't think you are aware what is imperialism. :) Maybe you should check what Lenin said about it. There is a great difference beetwen national oppression and outright invasion. By your definition US is being imperialist power even inside its national borders because it is repressing minorities like Afro-Americans and Latino-Americans. That is totally failed definition of imperialism. :)



If the British empire had occupied India for 2500 years, would they have been justified in controlling it forever? Also, the modern Iranian state is very different from "Persia." Persian Farsi speakers only inhabit half of the country.


They have never done it, so we will never know. :) Besides the comparision is totally failed. There are great ethno-linguistic, cultural and religious differences beetwen British and Indian people so you would never succeed in preventing Indian secession. On the other hand, the majority of the people on the map you put have very close links with the dominant ethnic group and are linked with 2500 years of joint history of living in the state of Iran. If you actually investigate a little further into a question instead of putting some CIA-made maps, you would see that only the Kurds and Baluchis have armed separatist movement. The other ethnic groups are not so staunchly opposed to Iranian government.



The US is "using" the ethnic diversity in Iran to divide it? More like the US is "using" the internal contradictions inherent in Iranian society to destabilize it. The Iranian government is at fault for those contradictions, the USA is just being an opportunist as any empire would be.


Every country has its internal contradictions. Even the US. That doesn't mean we have to support imperialism because of that. Believe it or not, but when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, one of the reasons that was used by Nazi propaganda to justify invasion was the (real) fact that Polish state was oppressing national minorities that were living in it. Also, during WWII, in order to destabilize Britain, Germany made contacts with rebels in N. Ireland trying to "free" themselves from British domination. Would you also support these "national liberation" movements if you were living in that time? The same story is happening today...



So countering US imperialism trumps the actual worker's struggle of Kurds?


There is no any significant worker's struggle among the Iranian Kurds. The fact that PJAK is calling itself a Marxist group does not mean anything if they are not putting in practice the idea of worker's revolution. Which they are not doing. They are nothing more than a seccessionist nacionalist movement with red paint working in the interest of US imperialism. That movement is similar to the MPLA, FRELIMO, FRETILIN etc; meaning they are a national liberation movement working in the interest of the national buorgeouse while using a pro-worker's rhetoric in other to gather a mass support. Do you really believe that independent Kurdistan is going to become some kind of "socialist" state? If you want an answer, just look at Angola, Mozambique and East Timor. :)



I disagree with the idea that the US is the main enemy of humanity, the global business and military elites are. The US is just the biggest nation state organized alongside the interests of those elites.


I never said that the US is the main enemy of humanity, but that US imperialism is a global threat. Please, don't take my words out of their context. Someone might wrongly understand my beliefs and ideas. :)



If the US was gone but global capitalism still existed, another world power or group of powers would take its place.


Neither China or Russia has military/economic potential to replace the US/EU alliance grouped in NATO. At least not in any substantial way. Can they upkeep hundreds of thousands of troops spread in hundreds of bases all over the world. No, they can't. So their "imperialism" is not dangerous on a global, but only on a regional scale. If the US empire collapses, that would create a power wacuum, allowing smaller countries to regain their independence and make their own, independent policies. It would also shatter global capitalism, creating possibilities for sucessfull revolutions to be carried out. Or do you really deny that the US has a role of global guardian of capitalist system?

[Crux]

Who's supporting PJAK? And you won't back marxist Kurds in Iran but you'll back the nationalist and social democratic PKK in Turkey?
As for the right of self-determination for opressed minorities in the U.S well it's certainly not an unheard of idea.

In any case, you defend anti-kurdish opression in Iran because you think Iran is progressive? I think I see a contradiction there.

[bricolage]

The Palestinian-Kurdish comparison is an interesting one. As has been said the difference seems to arise from the fact that Israel is supported by America and various Western European states whereas the countries that are oppressive towards Kurds, Turkey, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein were rhetorically opposed to 'the West'. It's interesting because when individuals try to put across a class analysis of the Palestinian situation they are normally greeted with 'so you just want them to carry on suffering?!?! don't you care about human lives?!?!' or something like that... when the Kurdish situation comes into play it becomes apparent that it has nothing to do with human dignity but everything to do with reductionist West vs. Rest conceptions of imperialism... Rosa Luxemburg must be turning in her grave, if she ever got put in one...

It eventually goes full swing where you get those who are most vocal in their support for Palestinian liberation actively supporting those states who are oppressing Kurdish populations, one example that springs to mind in George Galloway. His friendly relationship with Saddam Hussein is well know as is the fact he works for Press TV(*). Here is also a comment he made in the papers this weekend;

GG: I welcome the imminent victory of the Islamic movements in Egypt and Tunisia, which I think will provide very good governments on the Turkish model.

* Here's one of his finest moments; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkZce9QVKNc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkZce9QVKNc]this.)

[Spartacus.]

Interesting text for all those who think that US imperialist class is genuinely interested in welfare of Kurdish people and that offers a vision of what will happen to those poor, naive Kurds in Iran who actually believe that US is fighting for their independence and rights.





39. Iraq 1972-1975
Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
Into the land of ancient Mesopotamia reached the long atm of the CIA, and the
Kurdish people of the Zagros and Taurus mountains, but a few decades removed from the
life of nomads, joined the Agency's list of clients.
In May of 1972, President Richard Nixon and his National Security Affairs adviser,
Henry Kissinger, went to the Soviet Union to meet their Russian counterparts. Afterward,
Kissinger told a press conference in Moscow that the two nations had agreed to defuse the
tensions in the Middle East and "to contribute what they can to bringing about a genetal
settlement... such a settlement would also contribute to a relaxation of the armaments tace
in that atea. ... Speaking for our side," he added, "I can say we will attempt to implement

these principles in the spirit in which they wete promulgated."

1

Kissinger and Nixon were moved by the spirit fot perhaps 24 hours. On theit way
home, they stopped in Teheran to visit their friend, the Shah of Iran. It seems that Iran and
Iraq were embroiled once again in their perennial feud—a border dispute and the like—and
the Shah asked his pal Richatd for a little favor. Could he help arm the Kurds in Iraq who
were fighting for autonomy? Just generally heat things up so as to sap the Iraqi resources
and distract them from Iran?


2

Anything for a friend and loyal ally, said Richard Milhous, two weeks before the
Watergate burglary and stil! on top of the world.
The Shah was quite capable of arming the Kurds himself, and in fact was doing so to
some extent, but the Kurds didn't ttust him. They trusted the United States and wanted to
be atmed by them. Several years later, the congressional committee known as the Pike
Committee, which investigated various CIA operations, put it thusly: "The U.S. acted in
effect as a guarantor that the Kurds would not be summarily dropped by the Shah."


3

Before long, the CIA was reaching into its warehouses and a range of Soviet and Chinese
small arms and rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition were on their way to the Kurdish
rebels, the Communist origin of the weapons being a standard means of ensuring the standard
"plausible denial". Ultimately, the military aid was to total some $16 million.
The Kurds are a distinct ethnic gtoup, Muslim but, unlike most othet Iraqis, not Arab.
Their people are to be found primarily in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. For decades, the
Iraqi Kurds had been engaged in intermittent warfare against the govetnment in pursuance
of a goal of "autonomy", a concept not terribly well-defined by them, it being cleat only
that it feil short of being an independent state, perhaps.
The political histoty of the Iraqi Kurds in their recent past was a baffling piece of
patchwotk. Ten yeats earlier, they had been in close alliance with the Iraqi Communist
Party, such that when the ruling Ba'ath party began to persecute the Communists, they took
refuge amongst the Kurds. The Kutdish leadet, Mustafa al-Batzani, a man in his seventies,
had spent a dozen years in the Soviet Union and spoke Russian. Now, in 1972, the
Communists were allies of the Ba'aths in an attempt to suppress the "imperialist agent
Barzani", and Kurdish propaganda emphasized Soviet military support of the Iraqi government,
including claims that Russians were flying bombing missions against the Kurds. At
the same time the Kurds painted themselves as "social democrats" of the European variety,
going so far as to apply for membership in the Socialist International.


4 Nonetheless, Batzani

stated frequently that "he ttusted no other major power" than the United States and assert-
ed that if his cause were successful, the Kutds were "ready to become the 51st state".


5 All

this on top of desiring to establish a Muslim society.
In October 1973, when the Yom Kippur surprise attack on Israel took place, and Iraq
was preoccupied as an ally of Egypt and Syria, the Kurds were willing to launch a major
attack, at Israel's suggestion, that might have been very beneficial to their own cause as well
as taking some pressure off Israel by tying down the Iraqi army. But Kissinger refused to let
the Kurds move. On 16 October he had the CIA send them a cable which read: "We do not
repeat not consider it advisable for you to undertake the offensive military actions that
Israel has suggested to you." The Kurds obeyed.


s

The Pike Report regarded this incident as an example of the apparent "no win" policy
of the United States and Iran, The committee stated:
The progressively deteriorating position of the Kurds reflected the fact that none of the nations
who were aiding them seriously desired that they realize their objective of an autonomous state.
A CIA memo of March 22, 1974 states Iran's and the United States' position clearly: "We would
think that Iran would not look with favor on the establishment of a formalized autonomous government.
Iran, like ourselves, has seen benefit in a stalemate situation ... in which Iraq is intrinsically
weakened by the Kurds' refusal to relinquish [their] semi-autonomy. Neither Iran nor ourselves
wish to see the matter resolved one way or the other."''
"This policy," said the report, "was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged
to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise,"


8

The day after the CIA memo referred to above, 23 March 1974, Soviet Defense
Minister Andrei Grechko, who had befriended Barzani when the latter lived in the Soviet
Union, arrived in Iraq to help the government reach a settlement with the Kutds. On the
advice of Iran and the United States, however, Barzani refused to come to any terms.


s

Earlier that month, the Iraqi government had actually passed a law offering a limited
amount of autonomy to the Kurds, but they had rejected that as well, whether or not at the
request of their "allies" is not knowu.
The congressional committee discovered that "The CIA had early information which
suggested that the Shah would abandon the Kurds the minute he came to an agreement with
Iraq over border disputes." Agency documents charactetized the Shah's view of the Kurds
as "a card to play" in this dispute with Iraq. And a CIA memo characterized the Kurds as
"a uniquely useful tool for weakening Iraq's potential for international adventurism".


10

The last may have been a reference to Iraq signing a pact of Friendship and
Cooperation with the Soviet Union in April 1972, under which it received military aid and
granted the Soviet Navy certain port privileges. Then, in June, super oil-rich Iraq had
nationalized the Western-owned consortium, the Itaq Petroleum Company (23.75 percent
US), a move warmly applauded by the Soviets, aftet which the two countries proceeded to
conclude a trade and economic accord.


11

As it was, it was oil that brought Iran and Iraq together. In 1973, the Shah wanted to
strengthen Iran's position with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC),
and a crucial part of the inducement to Itaq and other Arab neighbors was Iran's willingness
to double-cross the troublesome Kurds.


12 None of these countries wanted their own

minorities to be getting any ideas from a Kurdish success.
It was not until March 1975 that the Shah was ready to make his move. Events moved
swiftly then. The Shah met with the vice-president of Iraq and, by agreement, the Shah cut
off all supplies ro the Kurds, including the American part. The next day the Iraqis unleashed
their biggest offensive ever. Several days later the stunned Kurds sent a desperate message to

the CIA: "There is confusion and dismay among our people and forces. Our people's fate in
unprecedented danger. Complete destruction hanging over our head. No explanation for all
this. We appeal you and USG [United States government] intervene according to your
promises .,."


13

The same day, the Kurds appealed to Kissinger as well:
Your Excellency, having always believed in the peaceful solution of disputes including those
between Iran and Iraq, we are pleased to see that their two countries have come to some agreement
... However, our hearts bleed to see that an immediate byproduct of their agreement is the
destruction of our defenseless people ... Our movement and people are being destroyed in an
unbelievable way with silence from everyone. We feel your Excellency that the United States has
a moral and political responsibility towards our people who have committed themselves to your
Country's policy."
The hapless Kurds received no response to their pleas, from either the CIA or Henry
Kissinger. By the end of the month their forces had been decimated. Several hundred
Kurdish leaders were executed.
In conclusion, the Pike report noted:
Over 200,000 refugees managed to escape into Iran. Once there, however, neither the United
States nor Iran extended adequate humanitarian assistance. In fact, Iran was later to forcibly
return over 40,000 of the refugees and the United States government refused to admit even one
refugee into the United States by way of political asylum even though they qualified for such
admittance.^
When Henry Kissinger was intetviewed by the staff of the Pike Committee about the
United States' role in this melodrama, he responded with his now-famous remark: "Covert
action should not be confused with missionary work."ie


From: William Blum, Killing Hope, US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II.


So, go on and support Kurdish separatists in Iran... But, I suppose that you will also be the one that is going to take the responsibility for all the innocent victims that are going to die once the US decides that Kurds are no longer usefull and stabs them in the back as it has done so many times before. :rolleyes:



And you won't back marxist Kurds in Iran but you'll back the nationalist and social democratic PKK in Turkey?



Where do you see any real Marxist Kurds in Iran? They are just nationalist wearing red clothes...



In any case, you defend anti-kurdish opression in Iran because you think Iran is progressive? I think I see a contradiction there.


Iran is not progressive, but it is anti-imperialist! That, my friend, is a great difference! :) So there is no any contradiction there...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't think you are aware what is imperialism. :) Maybe you should check what Lenin said about it. There is a great difference beetwen national oppression and outright invasion. By your definition US is being imperialist power even inside its national borders because it is repressing minorities like Afro-Americans and Latino-Americans. That is totally failed definition of imperialism. :)Um, except the national oppression presupposes outright invasion at some point in history. How else do you think Persia came to occupy Kurdish, Arab, Balochi and Azeri areas?

The US is not being Imperialist in its oppression of African Americans, but it certainly is in its oppression of Native Americans.


They have never done it, so we will never know. :) Besides the comparision is totally failed. There are great ethno-linguistic, cultural and religious differences beetwen British and Indian people so you would never succeed in preventing Indian secession. On the other hand, the majority of the people on the map you put have very close links with the dominant ethnic group and are linked with 2500 years of joint history of living in the state of Iran. If you actually investigate a little further into a question instead of putting some CIA-made maps, you would see that only the Kurds and Baluchis have armed separatist movement. The other ethnic groups are not so staunchly opposed to Iranian government.
When are ethnic groups "sufficiently different"? Are you really saying Arabs are the same as Persians? There's a huge ethno-linguistic difference between Kurds, Arabs, Iranians, Balochis.... the Azeris and a few others are closely related to Iran, but even in those cases, those people have their own states and have had independence movements in the past (the USSR tried to back an independent Azeri state in northern Iran which was repressed by the Shah, as well as a Kurdish state)

Anyway, many sectors of the Indian population supported British rule, so the presence of local "sellouts" doesn't mean anything.


Every country has its internal contradictions. Even the US. That doesn't mean we have to support imperialism because of that. Believe it or not, but when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, one of the reasons that was used by Nazi propaganda to justify invasion was the (real) fact that Polish state was oppressing national minorities that were living in it. Also, during WWII, in order to destabilize Britain, Germany made contacts with rebels in N. Ireland trying to "free" themselves from British domination. Would you also support these "national liberation" movements if you were living in that time? The same story is happening today..I didn't say anything about supporting Imperialism. Where did you read that?

I do think these internally contradictory societies need revolution, however. Whether or not the Irish should have been supported v the British, the way the British treated the Irish was horrible and certainly needed to be "revolutionized" in some respect.


There is no any significant worker's struggle among the Iranian Kurds. The fact that PJAK is calling itself a Marxist group does not mean anything if they are not putting in practice the idea of worker's revolution. Which they are not doing. They are nothing more than a seccessionist nacionalist movement with red paint working in the interest of US imperialism. That movement is similar to the MPLA, FRELIMO, FRETILIN etc; meaning they are a national liberation movement working in the interest of the national buorgeouse while using a pro-worker's rhetoric in other to gather a mass support. Do you really believe that independent Kurdistan is going to become some kind of "socialist" state? If you want an answer, just look at Angola, Mozambique and East Timor. :)I don't know if independent Kurdistan will be "socialist" or not, but it certainly can't be any less socialist than the current Iranian government!!!

Anyhow, once the Kurds and these other national groups get rid of their external oppressors, IE the Iranians, it will leave only local class issues to resolve which are far easier. Certainly, the same arguments you use about how the American bourgeois is more overwhelming than the Iranian one applies to them; the Iranian bourgeois is far more threatening in nature than the Kurdish one!

Also, the Kurdish group according to the article i posted is associated with the broader Iranian communist movement.



Neither China or Russia has military/economic potential to replace the US/EU alliance grouped in NATO. At least not in any substantial way. Can they upkeep hundreds of thousands of troops spread in hundreds of bases all over the world. No, they can't. So their "imperialism" is not dangerous on a global, but only on a regional scale. If the US empire collapses, that would create a power wacuum, allowing smaller countries to regain their independence and make their own, independent policies. It would also shatter global capitalism, creating possibilities for sucessfull revolutions to be carried out. Or do you really deny that the US has a role of global guardian of capitalist system? If it wasn't for the US, the EU would dominate. If the EU collapsed, then Russia is growing as are China and India. Even if they are not ready now to "replace" the US, their economic growth rates indicate that they will soon. Those nations would make a huge windfall from the collapse of the US. Part of that windfall would surely be from their allies in Iran, whose Fundamentalist-Islamic Bourgeois would emerge as the sole real power in the Middle East.

[Rusty Shackleford]

From what i know, and im no expert, is that the Kurdish nationalist movement is split. in Iraq, they assisted the US. In Iran, they assist the US. in Turkey, they are "terrorists."

now, being a nationalist movement, i can see why they arent friendly to Iraq and Iran. i think they just followed the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea.

[Spartacus.]

Um, except the national oppression presupposes outright invasion at some point in history. How else do you think Persia came to occupy Kurdish, Arab, Balochi and Azeri areas?


Iran is not occupying Kurdish areas, they are part of state of Iran for the last 2500 years. There is hardly any state on this planet with such a long history of territorial integrity as Iran. By using your logic we may claim that 99% of multi-ethnic states are occupying forreign territory they had conquered in some war and you may ask for their dissolution. Why are you so much concentrated on Iran and not on India, Russia or any African multinational state? Am I wrong, or you are just subconsciencly repeating official US propaganda of Iran being the most oppressive state that exists on this world?



When are ethnic groups "sufficiently different"? Are you really saying Arabs are the same as Persians? There's a huge ethno-linguistic difference between Kurds, Arabs, Iranians, Balochis.... the Azeris and a few others are closely related to Iran, but even in those cases, those people have their own states and have had independence movements in the past (the USSR tried to back an independent Azeri state in northern Iran which was repressed by the Shah, as well as a Kurdish state)


When they don't share a common history, when they have not lived in a single state for hundred of years, when they don't have close ethno-linguistic and cultural ties... That is what makes British and Indian people aliens to each other and this is the reason I will not unconditionally support some US-backed separatist movement in Iran. The reason is the people of Iran have thousands of years of joint history and we can't allow US imperialists to be the one who will decide on the future of the region. I would support independence movements in Iran only after US imperial power in the middle east is broken and their people can decide on their destiny without foreign interference.



Anyway, many sectors of the Indian population supported British rule, so the presence of local "sellouts" doesn't mean anything.


Anyway, many sectors of the Iranian population supported American puppet "pro-independence" movements, so the presence of local "sellouts" doesn't mean anything.



I do think these internally contradictory societies need revolution, however. Whether or not the Irish should have been supported v the British, the way the British treated the Irish was horrible and certainly needed to be "revolutionized" in some respect.


Revolution means thorough structural changes in the society and the economy. Kurdish separatists in Iran are not fighting for that, but only for symbolic "independence" from Iran and creation of a puppet state subservient to US economic interests. The same way South Osssetia and Abkhazia gained their "freedom" in 2008... Do you really believe that a new Kurdish state is going to be free from oppression, or it is just going to change its master, from Iran to US? :)



I don't know if independent Kurdistan will be "socialist" or not, but it certainly can't be any less socialist than the current Iranian government!!!


The current Iranian government is certainly not socialist, but it is opponent of neo-liberal economic policies that are dominating and ravaging our world. It has an extensive state-owned sector in its economy, the greatest oil, gas and telecommunications companies are under public control, it has a heavy state intervention in its economy and it subsidizes basic consumer products like food and fuel. Despite its apalling human rights record (not that US is any better, though), economically looking, it is worth supporting as an viable alternative to the current neo-liberal model. And how would the economy of that US puppet Kurdish state look like? It would certainly remind us of any other neo-liberal hell-holes that US is supporting today; Mexico, Colombia, Peru, India come to my mind.



Anyhow, once the Kurds and these other national groups get rid of their external oppressors, IE the Iranians, it will leave only local class issues to resolve which are far easier.


And what about the new US oppressors that will step in the place of the Iranians? :lol:

[Devrim]

It is true that PKK in Turkey has some silly idea of US imperialism being some kind of positive influence in the middle east, but I don't remember that US ruling class ever gave their support to Kurdish separatism in Turkey. PKK is on US list of "terrorist" organizations and US is giving massive financial and military support to Turkey that is used to carry ethnic cleansing of Kurdish-populated areas.

PJAK in Iran is a part of the PKK. Until the election of Obama it was certainly receiving military aid from the US. Many US weapons, much to the annoyance of the Turkish state turned up in PKK hands in Turkey. Of course you can't arm one part of an organisation and hope that it won't use the guns in another part. Their are two alternatives, either the US genuinely didn't know that PJAK was part of the PKK, which is very hard to believe as it is common knowledge, or that they thought the possibility of guns ending up being used in Turkey was a reasonable price to pay to arm Iranian rebels.


I support the freedom-fighters of PKK in Turkey, but I can't support Kurdish separatism in Iran because it is being used as a tool by a US imperialism. After the US is forced out of middle east, I will support a more just solution for ethnic oppression in Iran. Until then... :)

But PJAK, who you can't support, and the PKK, who you do support, are the same organisation.


From what i know, and im no expert, is that the Kurdish nationalist movement is split. in Iraq, they assisted the US. In Iran, they assist the US. in Turkey, they are "terrorists."

now, being a nationalist movement, i can see why they arent friendly to Iraq and Iran. i think they just followed the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea.

There are many different currents within Kurdish nationalism. At one point or another between them they have allied with all of the regional and also the major international (US and in the past USSR) powers.

That is pretty much the nature of national liberation movements, the so-called anti-imperialists invariably become a tool in the hands of imperialist powers.

Devrim

[Q]

I don't think you are aware what is imperialism. :)

Nor do you for that matter.

Let me help you on your way (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism) to study the subject:


Imperialism

An advanced stage of capitalism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capitalism), attained by some nations in the 20th-century.

The epoch of imperialism opens when the expansion of colonialism has covered the globe and no new colonies can be acquired by the great powers except by taking them from each other, and the concentration of capital has grown to a point where finance capital becomes dominant over industrial capital. Lenin enumerated the following five features characteristic of the epoch 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 monopoly 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.

[Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22, p. 266-7.]

"The development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still "reigns" and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the "geniuses" of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit... the speculators." (p. 206-207)

The surplus capital (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/u.htm#surplus-value) of these corporations, which arose from the exploitation of Labour, is exported to less developed countries where capital is more scarce, the price of land lower, wages lower, and raw materials cheaper; all resulting in a widening of profit margins. Capitalists need to export capital because in the most developed countries capitalism has become "overripe", the working class consciousness too advanced for heavy exploitation (i.e. huge profit margins), and while finance capital has a breeding ground for growth, productive capital (computer and clothing factories, etc) can be much more profitable elsewhere.

Thus, the history of capitalism generally begins with free competition; i.e. petty-bourgeois (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#petty-bourgeois) production), which naturally progresses to a concentration of production (bourgeois (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeois) production), which continually strive towards monopolies (socialized production). Monopolies, being so contrary to the foundations of capitalism, are the greatest contradiction of capitalism, a contradiction rampant in the imperialist stage – for every business not only strives toward, but needs to dominate markets completely, to become a monopoly, while government must do everything it can to prevent this in order to survive, realising this social form of production ultimately destroys the capitalist system.

"[Imperialism] is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration [of production] has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits)... [throughout] the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations [now called multi-national conglomerates]. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations "divide" them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labor is monopolized, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured – railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialization of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialization.

"Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognized free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable." (p. 205)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Iran is not occupying Kurdish areas, they are part of state of Iran for the last 2500 years. There is hardly any state on this planet with such a long history of territorial integrity as Iran. By using your logic we may claim that 99% of multi-ethnic states are occupying forreign territory they had conquered in some war and you may ask for their dissolution. Why are you so much concentrated on Iran and not on India, Russia or any African multinational state? Am I wrong, or you are just subconsciencly repeating official US propaganda of Iran being the most oppressive state that exists on this world?


Except one could say that Iran has been occupying the Kurdish areas for 2500 years. :P And if it were only that simple. Persia has suffered from many territorial setbacks in the past two and a half thousand years, I don't get where you think that it has this territorial integrity. Certainly, the Kurdish areas once held far greater tribal autonomy than they do today.

Anyhow, India, Iran, Russia, African countries aren't the topic of conversation here. They have their own internal contradictions. There are other threads about India, Iran, Russia and african countries.



When they don't share a common history, when they have not lived in a single state for hundred of years, when they don't have close ethno-linguistic and cultural ties... That is what makes British and Indian people aliens to each other and this is the reason I will not unconditionally support some US-backed separatist movement in Iran. The reason is the people of Iran have thousands of years of joint history and we can't allow US imperialists to be the one who will decide on the future of the region. I would support independence movements in Iran only after US imperial power in the middle east is broken and their people can decide on their destiny without foreign interference.
Parts of India were under British occupation for hundreds of years too. There were a ton of cultural ties.

I don't care if its US backed or not, I care about whether they are struggling against an oppressive social system. The UK and US backed Tito and the French Partisans, it doesn't mean I'd support Nazi Germany against them!



Anyway, many sectors of the Iranian population supported American puppet "pro-independence" movements, so the presence of local "sellouts" doesn't mean anything.
What? There's a qualitative difference between taking guns from some CIA agent, and being given the legal right by the British government to oppress your fellow Indians and exploit their labour.



Revolution means thorough structural changes in the society and the economy. Kurdish separatists in Iran are not fighting for that, but only for symbolic "independence" from Iran and creation of a puppet state subservient to US economic interests. The same way South Osssetia and Abkhazia gained their "freedom" in 2008... Do you really believe that a new Kurdish state is going to be free from oppression, or it is just going to change its master, from Iran to US? :)
Just like the Taliban became the puppets of America in 1993 and they overthew Najibullah, right? They took guns from the CIA, but when push came to shove, that didn't mean shit.

As for whether or not they are calling for structural changes ... you seem to be making a huge assumption that they are not. They are clearly calling for a Marxist-Leninist economy, as splinter groups actually left their organization due to the fact that they refused to drop demands for a Socialist system.




The current Iranian government is certainly not socialist, but it is opponent of neo-liberal economic policies that are dominating and ravaging our world. It has an extensive state-owned sector in its economy, the greatest oil, gas and telecommunications companies are under public control, it has a heavy state intervention in its economy and it subsidizes basic consumer products like food and fuel. Despite its apalling human rights record (not that US is any better, though), economically looking, it is worth supporting as an viable alternative to the current neo-liberal model. And how would the economy of that US puppet Kurdish state look like? It would certainly remind us of any other neo-liberal hell-holes that US is supporting today; Mexico, Colombia, Peru, India come to my mind.
It is only an "opponent" of neo-liberal economic policies insofar as those neoliberal policies are currently working in favor of a foreign bourgeois and not their own.

It has heavy state intervention ... so? So did European Social Democracy. It still worked on behalf of Imperialism though.

As for "neoliberal hellholes", if you actually look at the details of its economy, its not necessarily any better than peru or mexico. This has been worsened by recent economic reforms, pushed in fact by Ahmadinejad (and these reforms are liberal capitalist in nature fyi). Mexico has a ton of economic problems, but there's no way that Iran's economic model is in any way more viable.



And what about the new US oppressors that will step in the place of the Iranians? :lol:Who says that they will?

[bailey_187]

Sounds like an ultra-left line to me

Its a bad line, but its not ultra-left

[Devrim]

So we mustn't support movements because they could weaken a capitalist state that just so happens to be a target of US imperialism? Sounds like an ultra-left line to me.


Its a bad line, but its not ultra-left

Bailey is right. Personally I think that 'ultra-left' is just an insult, but the 'ultra-left' line is no support for any capitalist states.

Devrim

[Spartacus.]

PJAK in Iran is a part of the PKK. Until the election of Obama it was certainly receiving military aid from the US. Many US weapons, much to the annoyance of the Turkish state turned up in PKK hands in Turkey. Of course you can't arm one part of an organisation and hope that it won't use the guns in another part. Their are two alternatives, either the US genuinely didn't know that PJAK was part of the PKK, which is very hard to believe as it is common knowledge, or that they thought the possibility of guns ending up being used in Turkey was a reasonable price to pay to arm Iranian rebels.


Thanks for information. I didn't know that. :)



But PJAK, who you can't support, and the PKK, who you do support, are the same organisation.


I don't see anything contradictory in that. PKK is fighting against Turkish regime which is a key ally of US imperialism in the middle east, receiving huge amounts of financial and military aid in order to supress PKK. Since it is working against the interests of the US ruling elite it has a positive role in a global struggle against imperialism. On the other hand, PJAK is contributing to the destabilization of anti-imperialist government of Iran and thus helping US secure its domination over the entire region. I can support progressive part of Kurdish movement in Turkey, while at the same time condemning pro-imperialist actions of PJAK. Btw; as a Turkish (I suppose) Communist, what is your opinion about PKK and their struggle? :)

[Spartacus.]

Nor do you for that matter.

Let me help you on your way to study the subject:


Instead of copying a bunch of text it would be better if you have instead explained how could that definition be applied to the Iranian government? I don't remember that they had ever invaded other country in the manner of the US in order to open the markets for favorable investment opportunities for Iranian multi-national corporations. Or perhaps I'm wrong? :confused:

[Spartacus.]

As for whether or not they are calling for structural changes ... you seem to be making a huge assumption that they are not. They are clearly calling for a Marxist-Leninist economy, as splinter groups actually left their organization due to the fact that they refused to drop demands for a Socialist system.


Are you certain in this? Do you have any source for this claims? It sounds interesting. :)



It is only an "opponent" of neo-liberal economic policies insofar as those neoliberal policies are currently working in favor of a foreign bourgeois and not their own.

It has heavy state intervention ... so? So did European Social Democracy. It still worked on behalf of Imperialism though.

As for "neoliberal hellholes", if you actually look at the details of its economy, its not necessarily any better than peru or mexico. This has been worsened by recent economic reforms, pushed in fact by Ahmadinejad (and these reforms are liberal capitalist in nature fyi). Mexico has a ton of economic problems, but there's no way that Iran's economic model is in any way more viable.


I don't see anything strange in Iranian capitalist elite upholding the economic order that is favouring their interests. That is the same thing that Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe and that is what makes him an anti-imperialist. No one is saying that Iranian government is progressive or anything like that. It just hurts US global economic hegemony and that is positive. :)

In relation to your view of Iranian economy and its "similarity" to Mexico and Peru, I'm copying the text of Marxist author Stephen Gowans called A sober view of Iran (I would put a link, but I can't until I reach 25 posts). It tells a little different story about why the US is so keen on removing the government of Iran and replacing it with some more appropriate one, while at the same time it doesn't have anything in mind against Mexican or Peruvian. :)




Second, we should be clear on what policies Mousavi favors, and how they differ from those advocated by Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, like the US State Department, Wall Street, and right-wing groups in the West, leans strongly toward free trade, free markets, and free enterprise. He is aligned with Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who won the approval of Western politicians and the Wall Street Journal for taking the first tentative steps toward dismantling Iran’s largely state-controlled economy. Rafsanjani is among the richest people in Iran.
While hardly a socialist, Ahmadinejad, who is opposed by the US State Department, Wall Street and right-wing groups in the West, has promoted economic policies that clash with the free market, pro-privatization and pro-foreign investment stances taken by the business elite, both in Iran and in the United States.
The commanding heights of Iran’s economy – the oil, gas, transportation, banking and telecommunications sectors – are state controlled. Private sector activity is limited “to small-scale workshops, farming, and services.” (6) This denies US banks and investors — and Iran’s business elite — major investment opportunities. Mousavi wants to dismantle Iran’s state-controlled economy, and the subsidies, tariffs and price controls that go along with it. Ahmadinejad tends to favour their retention, or at least, is in less of a hurry to get rid of them.
US capital despises Ahmadinejad for multiple reasons. He is opposed politically because he asserts Iran’s right to a self-reliant civilian nuclear power industry. The United States and Europe are willing to allow Iran to have nuclear energy for civilian use, so long as they control Iran’s access to the enriched uranium needed to power it. This would put the West in the position of being able to extract concessions from Iran by threatening to turn off the tap, and provide Western capital with a lucrative investment opportunity. From Iran’s perspective, the offer is unacceptable, because it would place Iran in a dependent position, and because Iran has its own rich sources of uranium it can exploit to its own advantage.
Ahmadinejad is also opposed politically because he backs Hamas and Hezbollah, opponents of Washington’s attack dog in the Middle East, Israel. Both organizations are portrayed as terrorist groups that threaten Israel’s existence, but neither are anywhere near large or strong enough or have sufficient backing to pose an existential military threat to Israel. They do, however, pose the threat of self-defense, which is to say they are capable of inflicting some retaliatory harm on Israel and are therefore seen as impediments to Israel’s free movement in asserting US interests on Washington’s behalf.
Economically, Ahmadinejad earns Wall Street’s disapproval for maintaining Iran’s “high tariff rates and non-tariff barriers,” failing to dismantle “import bans” and leaving “restrictive sanitary and phytosanitary regulations” in place. Neither does his “weak enforcement of intellectual property rights,” “resistance to privatization,” and insistence on keeping the oil sector entirely within state hands, earn him friends among Wall Street investors and bankers. [7]
In Wall Street’s view, Ahmadinejad’s sins against the profit-making interests of foreign banks and corporations are legion. He “halted tentative efforts to reform the state-dominated economy” — begun by Rafsanjani and favored by Mousavi — “and has greatly expanded government spending.” He maintains an income tax rate that, in Wall Street’s opinion, is too high, and controls “the prices of petroleum products, electricity, water and wheat for the production of bread,” provides “economic subsidies,” and influences “prices through regulation of Iran’s many state-owned enterprises.” [8]
Equally troubling to Wall Street is that on Ahmadinejad’s watch, foreign investment has faced “considerable hostility.” “The state remains the dominant factor in the economy.” That means US capital is denied profitable investment opportunities. “Foreign investment is restricted or banned in many activities, including banking, telecommunications, transport, oil and gas.” And when foreign investors are allowed in, ceilings are placed on their share of market. [9]
Banking is another sore spot for Wall Street’s deal-makers. The government keeps banks under tight rein and the insurance sector is dominated by five state-owned companies. Plus, under Ahmadinejad’s administration, Iranian workers have enjoyed considerable rights within their jobs. The state imposes strict limits on the number of hours an employee can work in a single week, and firing a worker isn’t left to the discretion of capital, to meet its profit-making needs. It “requires approval of the Islamic Labor Council.” [10]
With people like Ahmadinejad in power, how is US capital to roam the globe, fattening its bottom line?
The irony is that state-control of the commanding heights of the economy, price controls, strong workers’ rights, and industrial planning, are distant dreams for the US left. And yet parts of it are sympathetic to the Mousavi campaign, even though its aim is to dismantle the economic structures and policies the US left aspires to create for itself.




Who says that they will?


Look at Angola and Mozambique after they had "liberated" themself from Portuguese colonial domination. Did they managed to build a flourishing socialist system? :)



Its a bad line, but its not ultra-left


It's not a bad line, and I'm not ultra-left. :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Are you certain in this? Do you have any source for this claims? It sounds interesting. :)the initial article i posted discussed the divisions over the group's refusal to drop ML as part of the platform. There should be a link to it.


I don't see anything strange in Iranian capitalist elite upholding the economic order that is favouring their interests. That is the same thing that Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe and that is what makes him an anti-imperialist. No one is saying that Iranian government is progressive or anything like that. It just hurts US global economic hegemony and that is positive.the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend.


In relation to your view of Iranian economy and its "similarity" to Mexico and Peru, I'm copying the text of Marxist author Stephen Gowans called A sober view of Iran (I would put a link, but I can't until I reach 25 posts). It tells a little different story about why the US is so keen on removing the government of Iran and replacing it with some more appropriate one, while at the same time it doesn't have anything in mind against Mexican or Peruvian.I've read that Ahmadinejad has made some significant reforms in privatization, and I haven't heard anything about Mousavi being pro-Capital. He used to lead the more Leftist and labor-oriented forces in Iran for some time.

Rafsanjani is rich, and the article is right to point out that some of the opposition to Ahmadinejad is quite liberal. But that opposition is not as wealthy as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has also been enriched under Ahmadinejad's watch. It is an unaccountable militarized and ideological conglomeration of Capital which is dangerous in a way that US Capital isn't (we saw them beating and shooting protesters on the street to protect their economic and political power a year and a half ago)



Look at Angola and Mozambique after they had "liberated" themself from Portuguese colonial domination. Did they managed to build a flourishing socialist system? :)

To be fair, Angola and Mozambique rose after the USSR fell and so needed to find a different source of outside investment.

[Devrim]

I don't see anything contradictory in that. PKK is fighting against Turkish regime which is a key ally of US imperialism in the middle east, receiving huge amounts of financial and military aid in order to supress PKK. Since it is working against the interests of the US ruling elite it has a positive role in a global struggle against imperialism. On the other hand, PJAK is contributing to the destabilization of anti-imperialist government of Iran and thus helping US secure its domination over the entire region. I can support progressive part of Kurdish movement in Turkey, while at the same time condemning pro-imperialist actions of PJAK.

Yet they are the same organisation. What you seem to be saying is that you support them when they are on one side of the boarder, but when they cross some arbitrary line in the mountains you stop supporting them, or vice versa. I suppose you are well aware that the PKK was at one point pleading to become an American client.


Btw; as a Turkish (I suppose) Communist, what is your opinion about PKK and their struggle? :)

I am not a Türk, or a Kurd. I live here though. I think the PKK is a thoroughly reactionary anti-working class organisation well known for its anti-worker violence, for example its campaign of shooting school teachers. I think it plays it own small role, which is dwarfed by the barbarity of the Turkish state, in dividing the working class in this country.

Devrim

[Crux]

Where do you see any real Marxist Kurds in Iran? They are just nationalist wearing red clothes...
Communist party of Iran - Komalah, and they're certainly not nationalists, as you might have noticed if you had read the article in th OP.