Do you support Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programme?

[tir1944]

Do you support Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programme?
Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?

[L.A.P.]

I don't support Iran's creation of nuclear weapons especially considering they are an imperial power of that region. However, I find it very hypocritical that the United States is trying to stop them from doing so when they have the second-largest amount of nuclear weapons and the only state to actually use them. The United States forcing Iran to disarm would do more harm than good for the safety of the world.

[Caj]

I don't support nuclear weapons programs period. However, I have to agree with xx1994xx that the only country on Earth to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation shouldn't lecture Iran on the matter.

[Kitty_Paine]

I think anyone developing nuclear weapons is wrong. That being said I think anyone who has at all them is wrong too. All it's doing is making mutually assured destruction possible on a global scale. Every one wants to build them because everyone else has them and they're scared. But if everyone has them and someone decides to use them... well we're all dead anyway :glare: And the MAD strategy/theory has fufilled itself...

Why can't we just be happy killing eachother with swords and rifles?

[Per Levy]

Do you support Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programme?

no.


Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?

no.

a bit more substantial stuff: i dont support any nuclear weapons nor any programs that develops these weapons, no matter wich country has them or trys to get them.

[Fopeos]

I'm not entirely convinced there is a weapons program. I know that Iran has a growing population and a growing need for electricity. Their rulers would rather meet these needs without burning oil, which is their primary export. I think they should be free to use whatever energy systems they can develop if it means bringing electrification to folks who may otherwise be in the dark.
That being said, I may not be convinced of a nuclear weapons program but I'm not naiive either. I would expect Iran's rulers to use whatever means they could to defend their interests in the face of an ever-encroaching U.S. military presence

[ВАЛТЕР]

I doubt they have a nuclear weapons program going on. However, if they do then let it be. Nuclear weapons should not only be a privilege to some, in today's world the only way to ensure you aren't going to get bombed by NATO is if you are capable of blowing one of their countries to shit.

To sum it up, I am against ALL nuclear weapons and nuclear power. However, if one side can have nuclear weapons, then so can everyone else.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why isn't there a poll on this? :confused:

[Bardo]

Is there any evidence that they have a nuclear weapons program? I wouldn't support more nuclear weapons being created. It's bad enough that Pakistan is a nuclear power. :blink:

[Homo Songun]

Perhaps this should be phrased as, "Do you support Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programme, or would you rather see another land war in Asia?"

[A Marxist Historian]

Do you support Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programme?
Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?

At this point, it is probably less necessary than a few years ago, as the US and the Israelis are in a very poor position to threaten to attack Iran, as they were doing with great regularity until pretty recently.

So the Iranians might be better off saving their money and spending it on other things.

However, they should definitely keep a program going on the back burner, because who knows what the future may bring.

If the North Koreans had not developed a bomb, more than likely the US would have invaded at some point in the last decade.

And, of course, it is now obvious that when Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein ended their nuclear programs, that was a disastrous mistake.

If Saddam Hussein had really had nuclear weapons, the US would not have dared to invade, and the world in general and Iraq in particular would be far, far better places. That's what the whole "UN inspection" face was about, the US wanted it going long enough so that they could be sure he really didn't have any, so that an invasion would be safe.

Indeed, more than likely without a US threat to keep people from wanting to revolt, likely Hussein would have been overthrown by his own people by now.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

Certainly a prime target for the Arab Spring, an extant Hussein kingdom. I think their left was a lot less dead than elsewhere. And of course, without a U.S. invasion, Islamist reaction would not be as strong as it is in the area.

[maskerade]

Highly doubt they have a weapons programme. However I'm certain that they want the world to believe that they do.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, yes I support an anti-worker, dictatorial theocracy having weapons of mass destruction. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Having said that, there is an obvious hypocrisy in the USA lecturing anyone on WMDs (or, to be honest, lecturing anyone on anything).

[Princess Luna]

I thought the whole "Iran is building nuclear weapons!" was just bullshit the U.S. and Israel used as a excuse to sabotage Iran's attempts at nuclear power? Also I don't believe the U.S. should get to horde all the nuclear weapons in the world, and only let countries who do everything the U.S. tells them to do have some, so yes even if Iran was building nuclear weapons, I would support them.

[DarkPast]

Do you support Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programme?

In a word, no.


Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?

If I were a theocratic dictator, I'd probably get me some. Nuclear weapons would be a good deterrent against other imperialists encroaching on my territory, and thus allow me to exploit my working class more effectively.

But since I'm not, the answer is a resounding no. There are so many better uses for all those funds and resources.

[Ose]

In answer to the OP, no and no.
It's bad enough that Pakistan is a nuclear power. :blink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

How is Pakistan any worse than any of the others? :blink:

[PhoenixAsh]

The concentration of nuclear power is a backbone of modern imperialism....and directly used to usher the unspoken threat of annihilation to any disobedient state or state which does not conform to the will of the elite few nations which hold nuclear power.

Not incidentally those nuclear weapon holding powers are now limited to most of the worlds imperialist nations...or the ones who wish to be free from those aspirations.

Nuclear weapons form the ultimate deterence...not only for attack but also from defence.

[Susurrus]

I don't support Iran, why should we support religious oppressive tyrants getting nukes?

[piet11111]

The thing about nukes is that they are a political weapon you simply can not use them but it makes it nigh impossible to get invaded.

And if they keep out the americans then i would say go for it.
Also they will probably generate useable energy for the population along the way.

Just look at what happened to north korea after they detonated their first nuke the americans dropped their talk of war right away.

[CynicalIdealist]

I guess I'm neutral on this. It might have a chance to protect the Iranian public but it would also increase the chances of nuclear war by a little.

[eyeheartlenin]

Hasn't the Iranian regime consistently claimed that its nuclear research program is for exclusively peaceful purposes? Has imperialism presented any proof to the contrary?

Surely the US attacked Iraq precisely because Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The US eagerness for negotiations with North Korea convincingly shows that possession of nuclear weapons puts a small country in a much better position vis a vis (sp?) imperialism, and the US attack on (non-nuclear) Iraq confirms that. So it is US policy, specifically the US willingness to attack the defenseless, that is driving nuclear proliferation, which the US government claims to be opposed to.

Go figure.

[A Marxist Historian]

In a word, no.



If I were a theocratic dictator, I'd probably get me some. Nuclear weapons would be a good deterrent against other imperialists encroaching on my territory, and thus allow me to exploit my working class more effectively.

But since I'm not, the answer is a resounding no. There are so many better uses for all those funds and resources.

It's that "other imperialists" thing which is the problem with what you are saying. Ahmedinajad might *like* to be an imperialist and export Iranian capital to other Third World countries and suck out imperial superprofits, but then again he might also like to sprout wings and fly, and he probably has a better chance at that.

You might want to read Rosa Luxemburg's book about imperialism. Her economic analysis is a little off, but certainly her version of how imperialism works is, if anything, further from any idea that a country like Iran could be an imperialist country than Lenin's.

She was real clear that imperialism was a real problem and had to be fought, even if some of the imperialized countries have leaders as vile as those in Iran. You are not.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

It is of no real class interest for us to support the Iranian bourgeoisie doing this, however, should they achieve their atomic goals I will have no exclusive ethical criticism against Iran doing it, in regards to the rest of the Nuclear armed nations.

Short answer: No.

[Homo Songun]

Yes, yes I support an anti-worker, dictatorial theocracy having weapons of mass destruction. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



I don't support Iran, why should we support religious oppressive tyrants getting nukes?



It is of no real class interest for us to support the Iranian bourgeoisie doing this, however, should they achieve their atomic goals I will have no exclusive ethical criticism against Iran doing it, in regards to the rest of the Nuclear armed nations.

Short answer: No.


I don't know who "us" is in this context, but it is certainly in the class interest of the global proletariat for Iran's bourgeoisie to have a nuke or three in the final analysis. It'll be the only thing standing in the way of a massive persian graveyard as imperialism descends further into its death spiral. I mean, who do you think actually prosecutes war? Bankers?

Really, I'm touched by the tender naivete of those who balk at the scary mullahs having nukes. As as opposed to what? The crazy rabbis next door, who already have a couple hundred? Or the nutter christian dominionists in the US who have about 10,000?

From the perspective of realpolitik, the lesson of the oughties for countries somewhat outside of the imperialist orbit is quite clear: give in to the false rhetoric emanating from the imperialists about "disarmament" and "WMD", and face destruction. This is what happened to Iraq and now Libya. On the other hand, reply with a little science experiment, and you will be largely left alone, as is the case with the DPRK.

Consistent progressives have to admit the reality of this dynamic, even if they aren't happy with certain secondary characteristics of these regimes under attack by imperialism.

The main thing is that when imperialists use the word "disarmament", they are counting on the educated idiots who make up the bulwark of mainstream liberal opinion to mistake the basic, military, and unilateral sense of the term for their own paradigmatic ideological fantasies.

If the imperialists were really serious about disarmament, as they were for a brief moment in the 1970s, they'd start by halving their own nuclear stocks -- they'd still dwarf the inventory of the uppity third world nuclear powers (to say nothing of being able to glass the whole world several times over), while still giving a tremendous push to an actual disarmament movement. But they're not.

[CommieTroll]

I'm for nuclear power as a clean and efficient power source but sadly you'll always have weapons along with power programs

[black magick hustla]

it is pretty meaningless for a leftist group to talk about whether they support this or that nation state right for nuclear weapons. y'all have no modicrum of influence in the area, you might as well save those nice words for your friends than a fucking player in the imperialist arena. but we all know the talk of "principled anti-imperialism" of a state that has liters of communist blood in their hands.

[Homo Songun]

I'm sure grad students will get deferments when the US invades Iran and reinstates the draft, lol

[black magick hustla]

I'm sure grad students will get deferments when the US invades Iran and reinstates the draft, lol

i dont live in the us anymore lol

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't know who "us" is in this context, but it is certainly in the class interest of the global proletariat for Iran's bourgeoisie to have a nuke or three in the final analysis. It'll be the only thing standing in the way of a massive persian graveyard as imperialism descends further into its death spiral. I mean, who do you think actually prosecutes war? Bankers?

Really, I'm touched by the tender naivete of those who balk at the scary mullahs having nukes. As as opposed to what? The crazy rabbis next door, who already have a couple hundred? Or the nutter christian dominionists in the US who have about 10,000?

From the perspective of realpolitik, the lesson of the oughties for countries somewhat outside of the imperialist orbit is quite clear: give in to the false rhetoric emanating from the imperialists about "disarmament" and "WMD", and face destruction. This is what happened to Iraq and now Libya. On the other hand, reply with a little science experiment, and you will be largely left alone, as is the case with the DPRK.

Consistent progressives have to admit the reality of this dynamic, even if they aren't happy with certain secondary characteristics of these regimes under attack by imperialism.

The main thing is that when imperialists use the word "disarmament", they are counting on the educated idiots who make up the bulwark of mainstream liberal opinion to mistake the basic, military, and unilateral sense of the term for their own paradigmatic ideological fantasies.

If the imperialists were really serious about disarmament, as they were for a brief moment in the 1970s, they'd start by halving their own nuclear stocks -- they'd still dwarf the inventory of the uppity third world nuclear powers (to say nothing of being able to glass the whole world several times over), while still giving a tremendous push to an actual disarmament movement. But they're not.

Realpolitik clearly died with the likes of Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko.

As far as imperialism and its 'death throes' go, i'd rather it died in a world where nuclear weapons didn't exist. Nothing good can come of that. That the USA is imperialist and absolutely hypocritical on the issue of nukes does not justify supporting the nuclear armament of a bourgeois theocracy. It will not solve anything, for the working class. It is a classic, flawed, 'lesser of two evils'-realpolitik argument.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know who "us" is in this context, but it is certainly in the class interest of the global proletariat for Iran's bourgeoisie to have a nuke or three in the final analysis. It'll be the only thing standing in the way of a massive persian graveyard as imperialism descends further into its death spiral. I mean, who do you think actually prosecutes war? Bankers?

Really, I'm touched by the tender naivete of those who balk at the scary mullahs having nukes. As as opposed to what? The crazy rabbis next door, who already have a couple hundred? Or the nutter christian dominionists in the US who have about 10,000?

From the perspective of realpolitik, the lesson of the oughties for countries somewhat outside of the imperialist orbit is quite clear: give in to the false rhetoric emanating from the imperialists about "disarmament" and "WMD", and face destruction. This is what happened to Iraq and now Libya. On the other hand, reply with a little science experiment, and you will be largely left alone, as is the case with the DPRK.

Consistent progressives have to admit the reality of this dynamic, even if they aren't happy with certain secondary characteristics of these regimes under attack by imperialism.

The main thing is that when imperialists use the word "disarmament", they are counting on the educated idiots who make up the bulwark of mainstream liberal opinion to mistake the basic, military, and unilateral sense of the term for their own paradigmatic ideological fantasies.

If the imperialists were really serious about disarmament, as they were for a brief moment in the 1970s, they'd start by halving their own nuclear stocks -- they'd still dwarf the inventory of the uppity third world nuclear powers (to say nothing of being able to glass the whole world several times over), while still giving a tremendous push to an actual disarmament movement. But they're not.

It's not just current realpolitik that demands support for Iran's nuclear energy program and for a possible nuclear weapons program. Retaliatory proletarian deterrence (RPD) means less imperialist intervention against successful revolutionary events, and the more diversified the RPD is (nukes, electromagnetic warfare, cyberwarfare, etc.), the better.

[A Marxist Historian]

Realpolitik clearly died with the likes of Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko.

As far as imperialism and its 'death throes' go, i'd rather it died in a world where nuclear weapons didn't exist. Nothing good can come of that. That the USA is imperialist and absolutely hypocritical on the issue of nukes does not justify supporting the nuclear armament of a bourgeois theocracy. It will not solve anything, for the working class. It is a classic, flawed, 'lesser of two evils'-realpolitik argument.

Hm? If you think realpolitik died with the Soviet Union, you don't read the papers much. Lately, realpolitik is the *only* politics half the time.

And the essence of any kind of politics in the era of imperialism is fighting imperialism. Damn right you have to be practical about it and practice "realpolitik" where necessary.

Politics is all about power. When the working class comes to power, job one is making sure it has a nuclear deterrent handy.

And meanwhile, *any* Third World country that wants to stand up to imperialism to any degree whatsoever had better at least pretend to get itself some nukes, or it will end up like Iraq or Libya.

-M.H.-

[Le Socialiste]

No, I do not. Short and simple.

[freepalestine]

theyve said since day 1 they dont have nuclear weapons,nor would have.
why believe western govt propaganda.
also not much is mentioned that isreal HAS nuclear weapons,nor much is said of the high level of cancer rates within the area of the damona plant.
n.b. the cancer rates in southern westbank



Dimona Reactor… a Mystery Threatening Middle East
Thursday, 18 September 2003
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0309/S00228.htm
The Dimona Plutonium Nuclear Reactor
http://www.armagedon.org.il/dimona_english.htm
Dimona’s Buried Nuclear Waste Spreads Cancer and Sterility in Southern Hebron and Naqab
GAZA, July 6, 2004
http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/VISIE/dimona.html

[eric922]

Certainly a prime target for the Arab Spring, an extant Hussein kingdom. I think their left was a lot less dead than elsewhere. And of course, without a U.S. invasion, Islamist reaction would not be as strong as it is in the area.
I could be wrong, but didn't the Mullahs kill all the leftists when they took power during the Islamic Revolution? I know it was years ago, but I would think something like that would greatly weaken a movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Politics is all about power. When the working class comes to power, job one is making sure it has a nuclear deterrent handy.

So you're for some form of standing armed forces and socialized defense industry as well?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Just look at what happened to north korea after they detonated their first nuke the americans dropped their talk of war right away.

Was the US really that close to going to war with North Korea?

[Homo Songun]

Was the US really that close to going to war with North Korea?

The US is officially at war with DPRK, and has been since June 1950. They signed an ceasefire, not a peace treaty in 1953. From the Korean perspective, the US occupies the lower half of their country, with around 50,000 troops and many bases. Also, Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech named DPRK, Iran, and Iraq as the "Axis of Evil" and subsequently invaded 1/3 of that "Axis". Another third of the "Axis" (Iran) is surrounded on 3 sides by US troops.

[EvilRedGuy]

Nobody deserves weapons of mass destruction, only nuclear power.

So no, i don't support a imperialist, islamofundamentalist, fascist, theocratic, reactionary, oppressive state and neither should other revleft users, but they do because they are crazy "anti-imperialists" :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Hm? If you think realpolitik died with the Soviet Union, you don't read the papers much. Lately, realpolitik is the *only* politics half the time.

And the essence of any kind of politics in the era of imperialism is fighting imperialism. Damn right you have to be practical about it and practice "realpolitik" where necessary.

Politics is all about power. When the working class comes to power, job one is making sure it has a nuclear deterrent handy.

And meanwhile, *any* Third World country that wants to stand up to imperialism to any degree whatsoever had better at least pretend to get itself some nukes, or it will end up like Iraq or Libya.

-M.H.-

1) I meant in the sense of its effectiveness as a political strategy. The Brezhnev era showed that realpolitik and a lack of political ambition (in terms of continuing the class war) go hand in hand, in political terms.

2) The essence of our politics is fighting Capitalism, of which imperialism is only a manifestation thereof. If you lose sight of this, and end up viewing imperialism as the sole and most important enemy, then you end up moving from a class-based analysis of Capitalism, to a realpolitik, nation-based analysis of imperialism.

3) Politics, in our realm, is about class war; again, power is merely a manifestation thereof, with Capitalism itself and the Marxian theory of two classes dictating power of the ruler and power of the ruled. Just like Capitalism/imperialism, if you focus only on political power, you will lose sight of the class war and of the goal of self-emancipation of the working class; in short, such a situation would lead to the acceptance of power 'on behalf of the working class', rather than 'by the working class, for the working class', since your main focus will be power, not emancipation of the working class!

4) I don't really see how filling the world with nuclear weapons can be a good thing, or the aim of anybody but the nuttiest nutter out there. Maybe on some computer simulation game it might yield results, but in reality 'cold wars' have proven themselves to create a nasty superstructure and distance the leadership - the Brezhnevs of this world - from the followers, the working class. I don't know about you, but if my class were in power, i'd rather they set about alleviating the many social and economic ills of Capitalism, rather than going around provoking wars and bringing deadly weapons into the world.

[piet11111]

Was the US really that close to going to war with North Korea?

The Americans where very aggressive in their diplomatic statements and all of that changed the moment the north detonated their nuke.

[A Marxist Historian]

I could be wrong, but didn't the Mullahs kill all the leftists when they took power during the Islamic Revolution? I know it was years ago, but I would think something like that would greatly weaken a movement.

Too true. The Islamic Counterevolution destroyed the left in Iran, which has never recovered. Had the left not supported Khomeini, it could quite possibly have taken the power in Iran itself after the overthrow of the Shah, and the world would be a very different place. The Tudeh Party had the support of most of the Iranian working class, before it and the rest of the left threw itself onto Khomeini's bandwagon and got exterminated as a result.

That is why you had the total dominion of reaction in the Middle East for three decades until the Arab Spring, with the rejection of socialism and even left wing Arab nationalism and the rise of Islamic reaction, at first with the eager support of the CIA, as in Afghanistan. Until that blew up in Uncle Sam's face...

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

So you're for some form of standing armed forces and socialized defense industry as well?

Of course. Any Trotskyist would be. Trotsky was after all the commander of the Red Army.

The Soviet city where poison gas as a military technique was studied and experimented with was originally named "Trotsk."

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

1) I meant in the sense of its effectiveness as a political strategy. The Brezhnev era showed that realpolitik and a lack of political ambition (in terms of continuing the class war) go hand in hand, in political terms.

So you need to combine realpolitik with high levels of political ambition to wage the class war. Indeed, if you want to win the class war, as opposed to waging it and losing it, that is exactly what you need to do.

Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.


2) The essence of our politics is fighting Capitalism, of which imperialism is only a manifestation thereof. If you lose sight of this, and end up viewing imperialism as the sole and most important enemy, then you end up moving from a class-based analysis of Capitalism, to a realpolitik, nation-based analysis of imperialism.

Iperialism is the highest form of capitalism, and neocolonial flunkies like Ahmedinajad can only make a pretense of fighting imperialism, compromising with it at every opportunity. Why is that? Because they represent the comprador Iranian capitalist class. So the fight vs. imperialism *is* the fight vs. capitalism, and is also the fight vs. the national capitalist classes in countries that are victims of capitalist imperialist exploitation.

So we must expose them as sellouts, as insufficiently militant in the fight vs. imperialism. Opposing them arming themselves to the teeth vs. the imperialists puts you to their right, not to their left.

Nuclear weapons are not billy clubs and riot gear. They are not something the mullahs can use vs. the Iranian working class and peasantry. Their only use is to defend the country, or perhaps in minor local squabbles with other small countries--but not too useful there either.

A big imperial power like the USA can nuke Hiroshima without touching a hair on the head of any American. India and Pakistan, if they nuke each other, will devastate their own countries with radiation poisoning. So they are objectively far less of a threat than nukes in the hands of the USA.


3) Politics, in our realm, is about class war; again, power is merely a manifestation thereof, with Capitalism itself and the Marxian theory of two classes dictating power of the ruler and power of the ruled. Just like Capitalism/imperialism, if you focus only on political power, you will lose sight of the class war and of the goal of self-emancipation of the working class; in short, such a situation would lead to the acceptance of power 'on behalf of the working class', rather than 'by the working class, for the working class', since your main focus will be power, not emancipation of the working class!

Working class power *is* the emancipation of the working class. It's that simple. And Mao was quite right when he said that political power flows out of the barrel of a gun.

Just how do you think the class war is conducted? Through chatter on Revleft? Have you ever been on strike or walked a picket line?

In the class war between the bosses and the workers, whether simply economic in a strike or in higher forms of class war, it is always force and power that ultimately decides. The stronger force with the more economic power and military force wins. Like in Longview Washington right now with the longshoremen, where the reason the longshoremen have not been defeated is their willingness to kick ass and use whatever means necessary.


4) I don't really see how filling the world with nuclear weapons can be a good thing, or the aim of anybody but the nuttiest nutter out there. Maybe on some computer simulation game it might yield results, but in reality 'cold wars' have proven themselves to create a nasty superstructure and distance the leadership - the Brezhnevs of this world - from the followers, the working class. I don't know about you, but if my class were in power, i'd rather they set about alleviating the many social and economic ills of Capitalism, rather than going around provoking wars and bringing deadly weapons into the world.

Once our class is in power and the capitalists are defeated, why then we can get rid of nuclear weapons and guns in general too for that matter. But what do we do meanwhile?

The fact is that in the first half of this century, you had two world wars which killed tens of millions of people. If there had been a third world war between the USA and the USSR, with or without nuclear weapons, would human civilization have survived? Quite possibly not.

Why did this not happen? Because the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was the single most important factor in preserving the human race from destruction for half a century.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we are all in big trouble, that is why the world has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since. It is just fortunate that hostilities between the USA and its main rivals haven't yet reached the old murderous intensity leading to world war. Given the collapse of the world economy, that is only a matter of time however.

Fortunately, the USA is economically dependent on China, a noncapitalist and nonimperialist power, and China has nukes. Acting as a stabilizing factor slowing down the world's rapid descent into barbarism, despite the utterly rotten nature of the Chinese Communist Party.

-M.H.-

[Sir Comradical]

I don't support Iran's creation of nuclear weapons especially considering they are an imperial power of that region. However, I find it very hypocritical that the United States is trying to stop them from doing so when they have the second-largest amount of nuclear weapons and the only state to actually use them. The United States forcing Iran to disarm would do more harm than good for the safety of the world.

You're joking right?

[Homo Songun]

Iperialism is the highest form of capitalism, and neocolonial flunkies like Ahmedinajad can only make a pretense of fighting imperialism, compromising with it at every opportunity. Why is that? Because they represent the comprador Iranian capitalist class.

This was a very useful post M.H., but I heartily disagree that Ahmedinejad is a comprador or neocolonial in the main. That function is more the domain of his camp's chief rivals, personified by Mousavi.

Please, enlighten me on why you think Ahmedinejad is a comprador-bourgeois. It seems quite obvious to me that he is not. Just because somebody vacillates doesn't make it so.

[A Marxist Historian]

This was a very useful post M.H., but I heartily disagree that Ahmedinejad is a comprador or neocolonial in the main. That function is more the domain of his camp's chief rivals, personified by Mousavi.

Please, enlighten me on why you think Ahmedinejad is a comprador-bourgeois. It seems quite obvious to me that he is not. Just because somebody vacillates doesn't make it so.

Perhaps I threw in too many adjectives there, always a bad thing for a writer. He is a representative of the Iranian capitalist class, which is rather obvious. Is he less cooperative with foreign investors than that Mousavi fellow? Perhaps. But it doesn't really matter. We are in the era of imperialism, in which there *are no* independent national capitalist classes in Third World countries, they are all ultimately dependent on their imperialist masters.

Back when you had the Soviet Union, they could lean on the USSR for military and financial aid, so you had all sorts of Third World despots claiming to be "socialist" or even sometimes in Africa "Marxist-Leninist" while in fact the were just trying to create a local capitalist ruling class, if one didn't exist already.

And occasionally you have would-be Napoleon Bonapartes who try to lean a little bit on the working class and peasantry to be able to resist the imperialists a little, and throw them a few bones if they can afford that.

The classic example was Cardenas in Mexico in the 1930s. And now we have Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who can afford to spit in the US eye from time to time because the US is dependent on Venezuelan oil--and he can afford to carry out some reforms because of that same oil.

But seeing Ahmedinajad as some sort of "anti-imperialist" is just plain wrong. He yells at America to get votes, and because he doesn't have a whole lot of choice in the matter. It's not like the US government would really be satisfied with anything short of overthrowing him. Nobody in Washington has forgotten Khomeini taking US diplomats hostage, and probably nobody ever will.

There's a possibility that the US might cut the Iranians a bit of slack for a while if he is sufficiently willing to apply his tongue to the American imperial boot. But that didn't work too well for Qadaffi...

-M.H.-

[rundontwalk]

Another reason Iran having a nuclear weapons program is a bad idea is the fact that it would create a nuclear arms race in a somewhat volatile region. The Wahhabists over in Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to get their hands on a nuke, so it'd make for a generally unpleasant experience methinks.

[A Marxist Historian]

Another reason Iran having a nuclear weapons program is a bad idea is the fact that it would create a nuclear arms race in a somewhat volatile region. The Wahhabists over in Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to get their hands on a nuke, so it'd make for a generally unpleasant experience methinks.

Now that's a serious point. Not the least reason why it is bad for Israel to have nukes.

But this is something, to give them some credit for common sense, the mullahs are very aware of.

All indications, including even from US imperial thinktanks, is that they don't want to actually deploy nukes. Rather, they want what countries like Germany and Japan have, I think they call it "turnkey capacity," where they could deploy nukes in three weeks if they really want to. They want to develop the program sufficiently to the point of having nuclear *capacity,* and then stop.

Almost as good a deterrent as actually having them.

Plus, what's the point of getting a nuke if you don't have a missile that can load one? Iran is not the USA, they don't have air or sea control. An effective nuclear deterrent has to be in the form of nuclear missiles.

Which is why the Iranians have a quite considerable intermediate missile program, which bothers the US and Israel if anything even more than the nuclear program. Of course, the Iranians claim that the payloads would be non-nuclear...

-M.H.-

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Iperialism is the highest form of capitalism, and neocolonial flunkies like Ahmedinajad can only make a pretense of fighting imperialism, compromising with it at every opportunity. Why is that? Because they represent the comprador Iranian capitalist class. So the fight vs. imperialism *is* the fight vs. capitalism, and is also the fight vs. the national capitalist classes in countries that are victims of capitalist imperialist exploitation.

So we must expose them as sellouts, as insufficiently militant in the fight vs. imperialism. Opposing them arming themselves to the teeth vs. the imperialists puts you to their right, not to their left.

Nuclear weapons are not billy clubs and riot gear. They are not something the mullahs can use vs. the Iranian working class and peasantry. Their only use is to defend the country, or perhaps in minor local squabbles with other small countries--but not too useful there either.

A big imperial power like the USA can nuke Hiroshima without touching a hair on the head of any American. India and Pakistan, if they nuke each other, will devastate their own countries with radiation poisoning. So they are objectively far less of a threat than nukes in the hands of the USA.



Working class power *is* the emancipation of the working class. It's that simple. And Mao was quite right when he said that political power flows out of the barrel of a gun.

Just how do you think the class war is conducted? Through chatter on Revleft? Have you ever been on strike or walked a picket line?

In the class war between the bosses and the workers, whether simply economic in a strike or in higher forms of class war, it is always force and power that ultimately decides. The stronger force with the more economic power and military force wins. Like in Longview Washington right now with the longshoremen, where the reason the longshoremen have not been defeated is their willingness to kick ass and use whatever means necessary.



Once our class is in power and the capitalists are defeated, why then we can get rid of nuclear weapons and guns in general too for that matter. But what do we do meanwhile?

The fact is that in the first half of this century, you had two world wars which killed tens of millions of people. If there had been a third world war between the USA and the USSR, with or without nuclear weapons, would human civilization have survived? Quite possibly not.

Why did this not happen? Because the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was the single most important factor in preserving the human race from destruction for half a century.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we are all in big trouble, that is why the world has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since. It is just fortunate that hostilities between the USA and its main rivals haven't yet reached the old murderous intensity leading to world war. Given the collapse of the world economy, that is only a matter of time however.

Fortunately, the USA is economically dependent on China, a noncapitalist and nonimperialist power, and China has nukes. Acting as a stabilizing factor slowing down the world's rapid descent into barbarism, despite the utterly rotten nature of the Chinese Communist Party.

-M.H.-

That imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism does not extract the former from the latter. Capitalism is still the main enemy, not imperialism. As i've said, the danger of focusing too much on imperialism itself, rather than thinking of it as a stage (the highest) of Capitalism, we risk losing our class-based analysis and - especially if we combine this with too much 'realpolitik' - risk muddling ourselves into a nation-based, compromise analysis, where the goal of working class self-emancipation is lost to talk of red flags and anti-imperialism on behalf of the working class.

Which leads nicely to my next point. There is a huge difference between working class self-emancipation and emancipation on behalf of the working class. If you want to be simple, then let's: Socialism is the system of proletarian dictatorship; that is, the system where the working class itself holds power, not where someone else holds power and declares their rule to be in the interests of the working class. I challenge you to agree with my point, because if you don't then clearly we have diverged, philosophically, at a very early stage, from each other.

And with that i'll ignore that little swipe, i've stated many times on the forums that i've been involved in class action. Even if I hadn't, i'm not making any grand theoretical observations here, so I don't really need to justify myself to you, comrade.

The collapse of the USSR might have effected a dramatic change in imperial power relations, but its existence only served to counter-act one imperial power (the USA) by the equal power of another (the USSR). It was a unique situation - uniquely lucky for realpolitikers like yourself, uniquely unlucky for those concerned with working class self-emancipation - and we shouldn't mourn its demise, but that of what followed in Russia especially, in the 1990s and beyond, and the horrific imperialism unleashed by teh USA since.

[piet11111]

I wonder what happens should Iran finally detonate a nuke.

I would expect Israel to lose it and start a war.

[Nox]

Do you support Iran's Nuclear Weapons Programme?
Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?

Are you fucking serious?

They are not developing nuclear weapons, the US are using the exact same accusations as they did against Iraq, and guess what they turned out to be... wrong!

Isn't it strange how every oil rich country that doesn't feed their oil to American corporations has an 'evil dictator' and a nuclear weapons programme?

:rolleyes:

[A Marxist Historian]

That imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism does not extract the former from the latter. Capitalism is still the main enemy, not imperialism. As i've said, the danger of focusing too much on imperialism itself, rather than thinking of it as a stage (the highest) of Capitalism, we risk losing our class-based analysis and - especially if we combine this with too much 'realpolitik' - risk muddling ourselves into a nation-based, compromise analysis, where the goal of working class self-emancipation is lost to talk of red flags and anti-imperialism on behalf of the working class.

Which leads nicely to my next point. There is a huge difference between working class self-emancipation and emancipation on behalf of the working class. If you want to be simple, then let's: Socialism is the system of proletarian dictatorship; that is, the system where the working class itself holds power, not where someone else holds power and declares their rule to be in the interests of the working class. I challenge you to agree with my point, because if you don't then clearly we have diverged, philosophically, at a very early stage, from each other.

And with that i'll ignore that little swipe, i've stated many times on the forums that i've been involved in class action. Even if I hadn't, i'm not making any grand theoretical observations here, so I don't really need to justify myself to you, comrade.

The collapse of the USSR might have effected a dramatic change in imperial power relations, but its existence only served to counter-act one imperial power (the USA) by the equal power of another (the USSR). It was a unique situation - uniquely lucky for realpolitikers like yourself, uniquely unlucky for those concerned with working class self-emancipation - and we shouldn't mourn its demise, but that of what followed in Russia especially, in the 1990s and beyond, and the horrific imperialism unleashed by teh USA since.

As if one weren't directly related to the other, as everybody knows. The USSR was not, in Marxist terms, an imperial power, exploiting capital abroad to extract surplus profit through sweatshop labor in the Third World, but objectively an anti-imperialist power, providing support to Third World nations seeking to be independent of Western imperialism, if they were willing to be pro-Soviet in realpolitik terms.

And an anti-capitalist power, compelling western imperialist countries to offer welfare state pseudo-socialist reforms to their own working classes so that the workers would not be lured by the Soviet example.

Your very idea of differentiating between imperialism and capitalism is wrongheaded. In this era, they are one and the same. If you oppose imperialism you oppose capitalism and vice versa, because anti-imperialist "national" capitalism is no longer a practical possibility nowadays.

I must say I'm surprised at your philosophical point, as you are expressing the classic Stalinist conception, which is certainly not where I thought you were coming from.

No, socialism is *not* the dictatorship of the proletariat. In a socialist society there are no classes, there is no state, and there is no dictatorship of one class over another.

The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to oversee the transformation of society from capitalism to socialism, something that obviously can't happen overnight. Its purpose is to -- abolish itself.

Stalinists always identify the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism, as they in turn identify the dictatorship of the Stalinist bureaucracy with the dictatorship of the proletariat. They want to preserve the Stalinist bureaucratic dictatorship indefinitely, so they call it "socialism."

-M.H.-

[The CPSU Chairman]

I'm against all nuclear weapons, but I basically consider Iran a short-term exception, due to the (as I see it) extreme danger of Iran being attacked by the U.S and Israel. I remember people always talking about war with the DPRK, but when the DPRK obtained nuclear weapons, that stopped instantly and there hasn't been a word of it since. I personally would be glad to see Iran get them. Well, ok, not "glad", but I guess relieved, since the possibility of war would instantly become greatly diminished, down to almost nil.

I don't believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program, though. There's just no evidence for it. All there is is the U.S and Israel insisting that Iran is building them and it must be stopped (incredibly hypocritical from these two countries, one of which has its own undeclared WMD program and the other of which is the only country ever to have USED nuclear weapons).

[piet11111]

HA !

Russia will supply the S-300 afterall ! dated october 10 2011

http://www.haaretz.com/news/russia-to-supply-iran-with-s-300-defense-systems-1.263654


Russia intends to fulfill a contract to supply S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran, Interfax news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying on Friday.
Israel and the United States have repeatedly asked Russia to scrap a contract to sell Iran the truck-mounted S-300, which can shoot down hostile missiles or aircraft up to 150 km (90 miles) away.
"There is a contract to supply these systems to Iran, and we will fulfill it," Ryabkov told Interfax in an interview. "Delays (with deliveries) are linked to technical problems with adjusting these systems," he added.
He also cautioned against politicizing Russia's arms exports to Iran.
"It is absolutely incorrect to put the emphasis on the issue of S-300 supplies... and to turn it into a major problem, to say nothing of linking it to the discussion on restoring trust in the purely peaceful character of Iran's nuclear program," Ryabkov said.
The possible sale of the S-300s, which could protect Iran's nuclear facilities against air strikes, is an extremely sensitive issue in Russia's relations with Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Moscow this week to press the Kremlin to back tougher sanctions against Iran.



And aperantly iran has a version of their own with improved specifications of the export model S-300 (Russia downgrades its export weapons) called the Bavar-373 that is said to be based on S-300 purchases by China from Russia.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/20/c_131150131.htm

The link above mentions that the delivery of the S-300 by Russia had been canceled by medvedev but the first link is more recent.

The S-300 will make it virtually impossible to attack iran with all non-stealth airplanes and since one F-117 was shot down with the crude SA-3 in 1999 over Yugoslavia i have high hopes that the imperialists will find any attack much too risky.

Especially since they believe that particular F-117 wreckage had Russians crawling all over it by Serb invitation :thumbup1: