so called "elections" in Iran

[hashem]

there will be a so called "election" in Iran on friday (2012/3/2). one thing is sure: election will be boycotted by broad masses of people. leftist and progressive organizations have struggled against the islamic regime since the day it was created. islamists have suppressed anyone who dared to stand against them, even the most liberal and reformist activists and some factions among themselves were suppressed.

even the most confused and unaware people saw what does elections mean in Iran after the presidential election in june 2009. so any one who supports the islamic regime of Iran is not an ignorant person, he/she is simply an aware enemy of the people.

foreign comrades can support Iranian people by provoking the boycott, supporting a revolution in Iran, helping the progressive Iranian organizations abroad and exposing both islamic regime of Iran and bourgeois trends which are serving foreign imperialists.

[ellipsis]

moved to ongoing struggles

[erupt]

Must express my solidarity; what are the chances of someone other than whoever's in with Ahmadinejad winning any way, that is if someone believes in bourgeois democracy.

[hashem]

Must express my solidarity; what are the chances of someone other than whoever's in with Ahmadinejad winning any way, that is if someone believes in bourgeois democracy.

in Iran, supreme leader (Khamenei) has the real power. ahmadinejad was merely his servant. as soon as ahmadinejad tried to gain some independence for himself, the leader changed his policy. now he tries to repel ahmadinejad through the so called "parliament".

although ordinary people are losers anyway, as long as islamist regime (as a totality) is ruling Iran.

[Brosip Tito]

These so-called "elections" anywhere, I think is the bigger issue. Yes, having a functioning and "fair" bourgeois parliamentary system is much better than a clearly rigged, or non-existent one. However, we can't kid ourselves. The ruling class will continue to be in power.

[derg]

even the most confused and unaware people saw what does elections mean in Iran after the presidential election in june 2009. so any one who supports the islamic regime of Iran is not an ignorant person, he/she is simply an aware enemy of the people.

lol sorry to break it to you but Ahmadinejad won the 2009 elections

[hashem]

yes, Ahmadinejad won, but only because khamenei sided with him. people had voted against him but he managed to suppress his opponents. the "election" was obviously rigged, but that is not the question.

popular support of reactionary trends, will effect the tactic of progressive forces, not their strategy.

both Bonaparte III in 1850s and NAZI party of Germany in 1930s had considerable popular support, not because they were representing toilers, but because they were deceiving them.

if you are really unaware of situation in Iran, i can refer you to some resources. but if you continue your support for fascists, it would be impossible to distinguish you from them.

[Yefim Zverev]

Elections are so-called everywhere not only in Iran... do you think elections in USA or Britain change anything ? least the state ideology ?

[hashem]

i agree about elections in other capitalist countries but bourgeoisie democracy (with all of its problems) is still far better than fascism and despotism. progressive forces are struggling for a soviet state (republic of councils). but the way to achieve it is not ruining the bourgeoisie democratic system, its expanding democray beyond bourgeoisie limitations.

if there are legal opportunities for progressive activists in any country, they should use it. bourgeoisie democracy can create such opportunities for them and therefor its important. but in fascist regimes such as Irans, the government wont tolerate any field of legal activity. bourgeoisie is no longer a progressive class. its up to workers and toilers to create and guard the democray for themselfs.

Iran is an important country because its a weak spot in capitalism chain. its government is no longer able to govern the society while people are not ready to seize the power yet. after the massacre of 1980s, most of the progressive, worker and leftist activists were killed and the movement has stayed without leadership. same thing happened in france after 1871 or indonesia after 1965.

[Yefim Zverev]

the government wont tolerate any field of legal activity.

What the truth is... if the working class of a country is much poorer the country gets more authoritarian. Believe me when things would get out of control in so called civilized western countries they would get as hell authoritarian even but more than Iran...

The fact is to a certain degree worker class of those countries are slightly or more richer (with better area of freedom) in comparison to Iran's.

I don't really know by the way reasonable legal activity which is not directly or indirectly controlled by bourgeoisie state. They would be allowed nowhere a totally independent legal activity which want true changes...

Things like green-peace etc are not independent for instance. They have bourg. control over-them.


Iran is an important country because its a weak spot in capitalism chain. its government is no longer able to govern the society while people are not ready to seize the power yet.

Like in syria or libya.. only worst would come at the moment if Iranian government changes. State ideology will not change, it will stay capitalist but this time only more liberal. They will allow NATO military bases inside also they'll sell oil in dollar currency, natural resources will go cheaper etc. and other liberal changes in details.

Iran is by the way as you said the most important country on middle east. Even degenerated gravely by Islam hundreds of years still its people has preserved its character. Iran's importance comes from this point. It has wide cultural influence on the geography.

I don't know where did you get the idea... weak chain.. I have heard it before but actually it seems to me that revolution should rather happen first in countries with stronger connections to capitalism like Germany for example and stuff...

[hashem]

the "election" was held. the result was predictable: khamenei supporters pushed backed ahmadinejad. what happened to 63% support?! what happened to 24 million voters in 2009?! isnt this enough to prove how fair was the "presidential election" in 2009?

ahmadinejad was used by khamenei as a puppet and is not needed any longer.

[Orlov]

It wasn't a rigged election, the Greens only lost as they're hypocritical and backed by the West. The leader of the Greens is perhaps one of the most hypocritical figures in Iranian history as he continues to whine about human rights abuses and executions while he oversaw personally the execution of thousands of political prisoners during the Iran-Iraq war. They have no legitimacy at all and each time they lose the bourgeois election due to the current favoring of the Islamic Republican regime they resort to dirty tactics with their Western counterparts especially the American-Zionist ones which are attempting to destabilize the independent Iranian government.

[hashem]

... if the working class of a country is much poorer the country gets more authoritarian....

workers and peasants of Nepal are not richer than Irans but Nepalese people enjoy more freedom compared to Iranians. levels of freedom are not automatically determined by wealth of people.


I don't really know by the way reasonable legal activity which is not directly or indirectly controlled by bourgeoisie state

controlling is one thing, banning is another. facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger and even internet sites which contain classical writings of authors of 19th century are blocked in Iran!


... only worst would come at the moment if Iranian government changes....

that is only one alternative. there can be other alternatives. if leftist and progressive forces join togeher, they can lead a successful revolution.

as i said, the government of Iran is no longer able to govern the society. rulling factions cant even tolerate each other any longer. in case of war with foreign imperialists, the islamist regime has have no more chance than saddam or gaddafi had.


it seems to me that revolution should rather happen first in countries with stronger connections to capitalism like Germany for example and stuff...

but what if revolution didnt happened in those countries? should other nations wait for them? people of Russia didnt wait for them, nor did the Chinese or Vietnamese. your theory can only ask oppressed people in backward countries for more patience, but M-L encourages revolution in backward countires and believes that such revolutions will have positive effect on revolutionary movements in advanced countries as well.

[Yefim Zverev]

workers and peasants of Nepal are not richer than Irans but Nepalese people enjoy more freedom compared to Iranians. levels of freedom are not automatically determined by wealth of people.



controlling is one thing, banning is another. facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger and even internet sites which contain classical writings of authors of 19th century are blocked in Iran!



that is only one alternative. there can be other alternatives. if leftist and progressive forces join togeher, they can lead a successful revolution.

as i said, the government of Iran is no longer able to govern the society. rulling factions cant even tolerate each other any longer. in case of war with foreign imperialists, the islamist regime has have no more chance than saddam or gaddafi had.



but what if revolution didnt happened in those countries? should other nations wait for them? people of Russia didnt wait for them, nor did the Chinese or Vietnamese. your theory can only ask oppressed people in backward countries for more patience, but M-L encourages revolution in backward countires and believes that such revolutions will have positive effect on revolutionary movements in advanced countries as well.

I surely agree on most of your points. I don't know much about Nepal, but that might be true. It is perhaps the lifestyle of nepalese people that they can tolerate such poverty and injustice ? maybe their religion drugs them... I don't know.

Your nickname tells me that you are a Farsi right ? Good to see you around comrade.

Middle east must get rid of monotheistic religions. I would name it only Islam but I think as a principle we should keep same distance to all religions. Islam is the most stopping power against working class in the middle east, it naturally forbids uprising against state, uprising against bourgeoisie. The working class are so uneducated about everything from politics to philosophy thanks to incredible monomentalist myths of islam.

I think people of Iran deserve much better than a theocratic government too.

By the way I would still say Israel is much theocratic than Iran... Because I know very well that people of Iran are not so religious. In Iran it is only a minority group of people who are mollahs. The mosques are not even half full ! Most won't believe this fact but it is true. On the other hand people of Israel are much more religious and fanatical But in Israel people have accepted theocracy in their hearts they live as religious beings in all their cells. Most unfortunate...

That's why I'm saying these abrahamic monotheistic religions are corrupting middle east.

Religion wars take place instead of class wars. It makes total shit hole and chaos out of things.

[hashem]

It wasn't a rigged election, the Greens only lost as they're hypocritical and backed by the West. The leader of the Greens is perhaps one of the most hypocritical figures in Iranian history as he continues to whine about human rights abuses and executions while he oversaw personally the execution of thousands of political prisoners during the Iran-Iraq war. They have no legitimacy at all and each time they lose the bourgeois election due to the current favoring of the Islamic Republican regime they resort to dirty tactics with their Western counterparts especially the American-Zionist ones which are attempting to destabilize the independent Iranian government.

yes, "Green" leaders are hypocritical and criminal, but that is not ture about their supporters, or to be exact their former supporters because now a great majority of population are against the totality of islamist regime not just one wing of it. their former supporters were mostly people of different classes who were eager to change the reactionary system. except some opportunists, most of the Greens were young progressive (but inexperienced and unconscious) people.

Mousavi is a criminal but he was a puppet of Khomeini in 1980s. Ahmadinejad is a follower of Khomeini as well. what makes you think Ahmadinejad is better or more merciful than Mousavi? Ahmadinejad is a part of that system as well. he appointed executioners of 1988 as his ministers. his government has a history of torturing, executing and imprisoning innocent people (leftist students, trade union activists, women activists and ...).

if you claim that "It wasn't a rigged election [in 2009]" please tell me where are people who "elected" Ahmadinejad back then and why they havent supported him in recent "election"? if he had 24 million people behind him in 2009, then he had no problem winning in recent election but the outcome is completely different. despite the "Green" leaders (Mousavi and Karroubi) are illegaly imprisoned (without any trial) and most of the "Reformists" were forbidden from participating in the "election", Ahmadinejad supporters suffered a heavy defeat.

ordinary people had no reason to participate in a such "election". Ahmadinejad was chosen (not elected) in 2009 because he was a puppet of Khamenei on that time. now that he is not needed any longer, he is easily pushed aside.

revolutionary organizations of Iran are struggling to overthrow the islamist regime. non of the islamist factions are better than others from the viewpoint of worker class and toilers.

[derg]

yes, Ahmadinejad won, but only because khamenei sided with him. people had voted against him but he managed to suppress his opponents. the "election" was obviously rigged, but that is not the question.

popular support of reactionary trends, will effect the tactic of progressive forces, not their strategy.

both Bonaparte III in 1850s and NAZI party of Germany in 1930s had considerable popular support, not because they were representing toilers, but because they were deceiving them.

if you are really unaware of situation in Iran, i can refer you to some resources. but if you continue your support for fascists, it would be impossible to distinguish you from them.
the election wasn't obviously rigged. there may have been vote tampering, but that's by no means certain. in any case the outcome of the election was not effected, i.e. Ahmadinejad would have won anyway. Multiple surveys of the Iranian public following the 2009 election showed widespread belief in the legitimacy of the government. How the people's of a country view the legitimacy of the ruling powers is an important point for revolutionary tactics and strategy. I am not saying that because according to a dodgy election and a few opinion polls I think the IRI accurately represents the interests of its workers or population at large. But, how people engage with bourgeois democracy can't be ignored. You can't just ignore Hitler's mass support by saying "he tricked them!!". that's a shallow analysis



Iran is an important country because its a weak spot in capitalism chain. its government is no longer able to govern the society while people are not ready to seize the power yet. after the massacre of 1980s, most of the progressive, worker and leftist activists were killed and the movement has stayed without leadership. same thing happened in france after 1871 or indonesia after 1965.
I agree the situation for the organised left in Iran seems poor. Incidentally, I think one of the reasons imperialism is currently making serious headway in bringing about the fall of the Syrian regime, is because Assad was so effective at killing and persecuting communists. Had there been an organised left to direct the popular discontent with Assad, it may have been able to resist the temptations of imperialists, which the FSA and SNC have not. I hope something similar does not befall Iran.

I'd be interested to know more about the CPI (M-L-M) if anyone knows anything?


yes, "Green" leaders are hypocritical and criminal, but that is not ture about their supporters, or to be exact their former supporters because now a great majority of population are against the totality of islamist regime not just one wing of it. their former supporters were mostly people of different classes who were eager to change the reactionary system. except some opportunists, most of the Greens were young progressive (but inexperienced and unconscious) people.

Mousavi is a criminal but he was a puppet of Khomeini in 1980s. Ahmadinejad is a follower of Khomeini as well. what makes you think Ahmadinejad is better or more merciful than Mousavi? Ahmadinejad is a part of that system as well. he appointed executioners of 1988 as his ministers. his government has a history of torturing, executing and imprisoning innocent people (leftist students, trade union activists, women activists and ...).

if you claim that "It wasn't a rigged election [in 2009]" please tell me where are people who "elected" Ahmadinejad back then and why they havent supported him in recent "election"? if he had 24 million people behind him in 2009, then he had no problem winning in recent election but the outcome is completely different. despite the "Green" leaders (Mousavi and Karroubi) are illegaly imprisoned (without any trial) and most of the "Reformists" were forbidden from participating in the "election", Ahmadinejad supporters suffered a heavy defeat.

ordinary people had no reason to participate in a such "election". Ahmadinejad was chosen (not elected) in 2009 because he was a puppet of Khamenei on that time. now that he is not needed any longer, he is easily pushed aside.

revolutionary organizations of Iran are struggling to overthrow the islamist regime. non of the islamist factions are better than others from the viewpoint of worker class and toilers.
Wait so now the election results are worth paying attention to? When Ahmadinejad is the loser?

[derg]

I surely agree on most of your points. I don't know much about Nepal, but that might be true. It is perhaps the lifestyle of nepalese people that they can tolerate such poverty and injustice ? maybe their religion drugs them... I don't know.

Well maybe you should like read about it or something?? the "lifestyle of nepalese people" what is this orientalist shit. the people of nepal are not inherently acquiescent in the fase of injustice. they just pulled off a fucking armed revolution i mean damn isnt that worth something?



Middle east must get rid of monotheistic religions. I would name it only Islam but I think as a principle we should keep same distance to all religions. Islam is the most stopping power against working class in the middle east, it naturally forbids uprising against state, uprising against bourgeoisie. The working class are so uneducated about everything from politics to philosophy thanks to incredible monomentalist myths of islam.

This comes off as horribly islamophobic.



I think people of Iran deserve much better than a theocratic government too.

By the way I would still say Israel is much theocratic than Iran... Because I know very well that people of Iran are not so religious. In Iran it is only a minority group of people who are mollahs. The mosques are not even half full ! Most won't believe this fact but it is true. On the other hand people of Israel are much more religious and fanatical But in Israel people have accepted theocracy in their hearts they live as religious beings in all their cells. Most unfortunate...

This is complete bullshit. Israel is one of the most secular countries in the world. Just because it's the Zionist state doesn't make Israelis all or even largely practising jews, let alone the state theocratic. do you actually know what theocracy means



That's why I'm saying these abrahamic monotheistic religions are corrupting middle east.

Religion wars take place instead of class wars. It makes total shit hole and chaos out of things.
lol i don't even...

[Crux]

It wasn't a rigged election, the Greens only lost as they're hypocritical and backed by the West. The leader of the Greens is perhaps one of the most hypocritical figures in Iranian history as he continues to whine about human rights abuses and executions while he oversaw personally the execution of thousands of political prisoners during the Iran-Iraq war. They have no legitimacy at all and each time they lose the bourgeois election due to the current favoring of the Islamic Republican regime they resort to dirty tactics with their Western counterparts especially the American-Zionist ones which are attempting to destabilize the independent Iranian government.
No communist organization in iran, yes including the stalinists, are so fooled as to believe the iranian elections to be legitimate, so why do you?

[hashem]

the election wasn't obviously rigged. there may have been vote tampering, but that's by no means certain. in any case the outcome of the election was not effected, i.e. Ahmadinejad would have won anyway. Multiple surveys of the Iranian public following the 2009 election showed widespread belief in the legitimacy of the government. How the people's of a country view the legitimacy of the ruling powers is an important point for revolutionary tactics and strategy. I am not saying that because according to a dodgy election and a few opinion polls I think the IRI accurately represents the interests of its workers or population at large. But, how people engage with bourgeois democracy can't be ignored. You can't just ignore Hitler's mass support by saying "he tricked them!!". that's a shallow analysis

is there any source which shows "widespread belief in the legitimacy of the government" of Iran, other than their state propaganda? is there any reason for trusting their propaganda? do you seriously think the Khanemei is more honest than Saddam or Gaddafi?!

put your self in an Iranians shoe. imagine there is an election. who would you like to vote for? which islamist faction represents the will of people or at least some of their interests? you cant even tell which side is bad and which is worse.
you think people of Iran are a bunch of fools and idiots who are willing to vote for those who are brutally suppressing them and condemning them to poverty?!

islamists lost their legitimacy in early 1980s. since then, brutal suppression has been their only mean of holding the power and the only solution for their inner struggle. you are saying a regime which even its factions cant tolerate each other, is still "legitimate" from peoples viewpoint, and thats nonsense!

"How the people's of a country view the legitimacy of the ruling powers" is important for determination of currect tactics (slogans, forms of organizations, immediate aims and ...) but it will never affect the strategy.


I'd be interested to know more about the CPI (M-L-M) if anyone knows anything?

if you are interested in statements of CPI (M-L-M), here is their site:

www.sarbedaran.org (http://www.sarbedaran.org)

they have an english page.
i dont agree with some of their positions. they lost most of their members during the Amol uprising. that uprising was not well planed. arming some untrained students and intellectuals with insufficient guns and ammo and sending them to fight a brutal regular army wasnt a good idea. they failed, living heavy casualties. today a small group is left of CPI (M-L-M) which is abroad and semi active.


Wait so now the election results are worth paying attention to? When Ahmadinejad is the loser?

dont you pay attention? did i said the recent "election" was fair? NO.

i said if you compare the result with 2009, its obvious that something is wrong. the only logical explanation is: not just the results, but the possibility of free and fair elections under the dictatorship of islamists is a lie.

[derg]

is there any source which shows "widespread belief in the legitimacy of the government" of Iran, other than their state propaganda? is there any reason for trusting their propaganda? do you seriously think the Khanemei is more honest than Saddam or Gaddafi?!
check out the report by World Public Opinion. And I never said anything about Saddam or Gaddafi...? and Khanemei being honest or not is not really the point



put your self in an Iranians shoe. imagine there is an election. who would you like to vote for? which islamist faction represents the will of people or at least some of their interests? you cant even tell which side is bad and which is worse.
you think people of Iran are a bunch of fools and idiots who are willing to vote for those who are brutally suppressing them and condemning them to poverty?!

I don't at all think the people of Iran are fools. I have immense respect for them. But people regularly vote for bastards who oppress them I mean that's a basic feature of bourgeois democracy



islamists lost their legitimacy in early 1980s. since then, brutal suppression has been their only mean of holding the power and the only solution for their inner struggle. you are saying a regime which even its factions cant tolerate each other, is still "legitimate" from peoples viewpoint, and thats nonsense!

"How the people's of a country view the legitimacy of the ruling powers" is important for determination of currect tactics (slogans, forms of organizations, immediate aims and ...) but it will never affect the strategy.

Well I don't agree that brutal suppression is the only thing keeping the state going. Of course there is suppression, there is everywhere. But most people of Iran do not currently want the overthrow of the Islamic republic, even if they are not content with their leaders or some of their actions



if you are interested in statements of CPI (M-L-M), here is their site:

www.sarbedaran.org (http://www.sarbedaran.org)

they have an english page.
i dont agree with some of their positions. they lost most of their members during the Amol uprising. that uprising was not well planed. arming some untrained students and intellectuals with insufficient guns and ammo and sending them to fight a brutal regular army wasnt a good idea. they failed, living heavy casualties. today a small group is left of CPI (M-L-M) which is abroad and semi active.
Thanks. I have read a few statements on that website in the past but don't have a good feel for the CPI (M-L-M)'s history or popularity.



dont you pay attention? did i said the recent "election" was fair? NO.

i said if you compare the result with 2009, its obvious that something is wrong. the only logical explanation is: not just the results, but the possibility of free and fair elections under the dictatorship of islamists is a lie.
Ok maybe I misunderstood you because it seems like you are saying Ahmadinejad's setback in the election was proof of his unpopularity, which would make no sense if the elections were rigged