The Iranian Revolution.

[вор в законе]

I created this thread due to the fact that another user who mentioned something about some homosexuals who were executed in Iran, so perhaps we could analyse the causes of the Iranian Revolution and the potential that there is there, for a future Communist Revolution.


The reasons that eventually leaded to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 were not because the Iranian people were fundamentalist Muslims , but simply because they were anti-Americans.Thousands of those who participated in the Revolution were communists.
Khomeini and the Mulhas simply took advantage of the circumstances for their own benefit.

The anti american sentiment of the Iranian people , was more or less for the same reasons to that of the South Americans.
That is because at 1953 ,the U.S.'s CIA and UK's MI-6 plotted the military coup that returned the shah(the former king) of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

At the time of the Shah , anyone who was even suspected to be a communist was sent to prison and many times executed, by the iranian secret police(Savak (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/)).

Their difference is that Ayatolah Khomeini didn't just ''imprisoned'' the communists,he was simply executing them all.I have read articles and heared people telling me that the Mojahedins were entering in the Iranian Universities and they were shoting all the Communist and Left-Wing students.All the syndicats and every Left or Communist Organization (including all of the members) were exterminated by the Mojahedins.


It is forbidden to the Iranian people to enjoy certain individual freedoms.The 70% of Iran's 65 million population is less than 30 years of age.
Based on that figures,i believe that there is a lot of potential for another Revolution in Iran.A real Communist Revolution, which would change the fate of Middle East.
That is if some people attempt to organize themselves and the Iranian society, in order to fight for this cause, since nothing will happen if we just sit and hope for a Communist Revolution to happen there.
Here fit's perfectly the famous quote of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara:"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe, you have to make it fall."


Check this link as well,if you wish.It is an article written 2 years ago , but there are some useful information there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0616/p01s04-wome.html

[southernmissfan]

As long as the US can keep their grubby hands out of it, and I'm in no way convinced that they will.

[Seeker]

I'm inclined to say that a revolution is a lot like an apple that falls when it is ripe. However, in this world there is no light, so it is up to us to make it ripe.

[rebelworker]

Unfortuantly much of Irans communist opposition is in exile, but there is some hope, although a communist friend of mine said that most of the working clas ahs been deeply pacified with religion I have recently heard of a new radical anti establishment trade union movement that is brewing. in a few weeks they managed to get thousands of sigantures across most trades of individuals who support the formation of a class struggle union independend of political parties and the state.

I think it is clear that where extreem opression exists, revolt with materialize, especially when the religeous hierarchy is so intwined with the ruling order, much like the situation in pre revolutionary Spain.

Also the severity of the current regeim can only be ignored for so long, recently an Iranian Born Canadian journalist returned to her country and took some photographs of a large demonstration.
For this crime against the state she was raped and tortured to death. She had disapeared in police custody for a while but a short while after a doctor who claimed to have examined her fleed to Canada and made public statements which lead to an understanding of her fate.

Just one current example of the Fundamentalist rulers and the brutality they show to all "non beleivers"

rebelworker

[Led Zeppelin]

recently an Iranian Born Canadian journalist returned to her country and took some photographs of a large demonstration.


No, she took pictures of a prison.

[Seeker]

The Quran teaches authoritarian and reactionary values in its literal interpretation. Maybe the experience of being led by authoritarian reactionaries will inspire a few people to find a new interpretation, or maybe not.

[Djehuti]

We have a lot of communists from Iran in exile here in Sweden. They are supporters of a communist tradition called "Worker communism" (I think its somewhat relative to council communism), and their main theorist is Mansoor Hekmat. Their views are generally good actually, they are often radical atheists and anti-nationalists. Most of their work in exile are pointed toward the situation in Iran and I guess they will return to fight in Iran when the situation becomes better. In Iran there is once again a growing underground communist movement. The women are holding secret meeting in disguise of wedding parties, etc. Women in Iran have a very prominent role in the communist organisations. The islamist reaction smashed and destroy the communist revolution in 1979, but the iranian people have not given up. Solidarity with the working class of Iran!


Workers Communist Party of Iran:
http://www.wpiran.org/english.htm
http://www.hekmatist.com/english-index.htm


Mansoor Hekmat archive:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/index.htm

The Official Mansoor Hekmat website:
http://www.m-hekmat.com/

[southernmissfan]

From what I've read, the population, especially the youth, are growing very tired of the mullahs and religious wackos. As long as the US stays out of it, I think they could make some real progress...

[freedum]

i recently read a NEFAC interview with an Iranian Anarchist Communist where he discusses the situation in Iran now as well as tells about the time of the Iranian Revolution when he got his first taste of politics under the Shah regime:

http://nefac.net/node/1731

"Payman Piedar is the editor of Nakhdar, a Farsi/English-language anarchist-communist magazine with a growing international readership, particularly among Iranian exile communities in North America and Europe. Although he remains very humble of his revolutionary activity over the past three decades, there is a lot to learn from his experiences. We are very proud to have the opportunity to publish some of them here. "

[Led Zeppelin]

We have a lot of communists from Iran in exile here in Sweden. They are supporters of a communist tradition called "Worker communism" (I think its somewhat relative to council communism), and their main theorist is Mansoor Hekmat. Their views are generally good actually, they are often radical atheists and anti-nationalists.

"Worker Communism" is ultra leftism, when Hekmat died his party split, and it is on the verge of collapse.

He was a mediocre party builder, but the entire leadership was based around him, when he died the party collapsed, also the party has made a cult around him.

[Stormshield]

Hey, Djehuti - you're swedish too? :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
"Worker Communism" is ultra leftism...

Now why would you want to say a thing like that? :lol:

A Better World-Programme of the Worker-communist Party (http://www.m-hekmat.com/index2.html)

By Iranian standards, this is pretty advanced stuff.

A lot of their ideas seem to derive from "1789" -- all the "equal rights" and "civil liberties" stuff.

I'm skeptical that it's possible to go "beyond bourgeois horizons" in Iran for the remainder of this century.

But if a group like this (inspired by the ideas in this programme) came to power in Tehran, they'd certainly sweep out an enormous amount of antiquated crap.

And that would be a very good thing.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Now why would you want to say a thing like that?

Because they call Leninism "bourgeois Communism".


By Iranian standards, this is pretty advanced stuff.

A lot of their ideas seem to derive from "1789" -- all the "equal rights" and "civil liberties" stuff.

I'm skeptical that it's possible to go "beyond bourgeois horizons" in Iran for the remainder of this century.

But if a group like this (inspired by the ideas in this programme) came to power in Tehran, they'd certainly sweep out an enormous amount of antiquated crap.

And that would be a very good thing.


I never said it would be a bad thing if they came into power, but one aspect of ultra leftism is that it never comes to power.

I support the Communist Fedaian (minority).

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 28 2005, 02:29 PM
The reasons that eventually leaded to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 were not because the Iranian people were fundamentalist Muslims , but simply because they were anti-Americans.Thousands of those who participated in the Revolution were communists.
And more importantly, millions were workers participating around, basically, class demands. The oil workers especially were an important force......the Iranian Revolution had perhaps the largest

And the 1979 Revolution drew on the history of class struggle in Iran, including the Constitutionalist Revolution beginning in 1905 or so, and the post-WWII revolution that included the creation of a Soviet Republic in northern Iran....

Future struggles will also draw on this whole history, including the '79 Revolution.

Khomeini was popular with many because of his consistent opposition to the shah, not because of his theocratic views...he was able to use that political capital to consolidate a new bourgeois regime. But that was a prolonged and difficult process, 'cause workers, farmers, women, the oppressed nationalities kept raising their own demands and insisting on keeping their own organizations. The Iran-Iraq war probably had a lot to do with wearing down working people.

...even today, the Iranian state has all kinds of dual institutions and other features reflecting that difficulty.


All the syndicats and every Left or Communist Organization (including all of the members) were exterminated by the Mojahedins.

That sounds like an exaggeration. Certainly the kind of vigilante attacks you describe happened (and happen, against student demonstrators and others). As well as more "official" forms of repression, executions, etc.

But workers' committees (shoras) do still exist...economic organizations, very loosely equivalent to unions.

And wiping out all leftists in Iran? No. A lot of people went into exile, of course.

Some leftist groups continued to act openly into the early 1980s, including the HVK (Workers Unity Party). When they were banned or dissolved, their members were not all wiped out.

Today, Marxist books are legally published inside Iran by more than one publishing house, including classics, books on women's liberations, and assessments of the current world political situation.

The political space taken by millions of working people, in the course of making the '79 revolution, is not that easily closed down completely, nor can political continuity be completely broken that easily.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 29 2005, 06:52 PM

Now why would you want to say a thing like that?

Because they call Leninism "bourgeois Communism".
Actually they say Lenin and the Bolsheviks were worker-communists.

But in any case that's a pretty pointless way to evaluate a political tendency, by what they say about yours (Stalinism.) You are not the center of the universe.

[Led Zeppelin]

But in any case that's a pretty pointless way to evaluate a political tendency, by what they say about yours (Stalinism.) You are not the center of the universe.

No, but "my" theory (Marxism-Leninism) is the center of Communist theory.

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:37 PM
Hey, Djehuti - you're swedish too? :)
Hey, Stormshield - you're swedish too? :)

[Wurkwurk]

You guys are not understanding the Iranian Revolution. You see, the Iranian people are very very different than anyone else, and their culture is very different than what you might expect.

Let me give you a quote made from the British, in their many conquests of the world. "Keep an Arab full, and he will be content. Keep an Iranian just a little bit hungry, and he will be content". This is the paradox of Iranian culture: if Iranians are completely content, then they have time to think about how to better their way of life. They are not content to sit down and be content, they have to do something.

Under the Shah, Iran was prosperous, international, opulent, and very very content. Khomeini, who was in exile in France, played upon this twirk of Perisan culture proclaiming: "Iran is so rich! The Shah is so rich! Yet you are not so rich, because the Shah is robbing you of vast fortunes. Under me, oil will flow unimpeded and every family will be met by a tax collecter who hands out money instead of taking any. Iran has so much more potential! F*** the Shah!" --for the most part.

So thats why there was a revolution. And now they regret it. It was not because the Shah was pro american, or anti mullah, it was that he made his country happy. No kidding, I'm Iranian so I do know what I'm talking about.

And believe in no way there will be a communist revolution. The people of Iran are generally religious, but not as much as a common arab. OF all the people I met, I was the most liberal, and I'm not even a communist. The next time there's gonna be a revolution is when the economy catches up and when there is an ease in international tensions, so they can make it or break it again. And its not going to be communist.

Sorry dudes, I can say with CERTAINTY there is the same chance of a sucsessful American communist army marching on washington as there is an Iranian one marching on Tehran.

[Led Zeppelin]

You guys are not understanding the Iranian Revolution. You see, the Iranian people are very very different than anyone else, and their culture is very different than what you might expect.

Let me give you a quote made from the British, in their many conquests of the world. "Keep an Arab full, and he will be content. Keep an Iranian just a little bit hungry, and he will be content". This is the paradox of Iranian culture: if Iranians are completely content, then they have time to think about how to better their way of life. They are not content to sit down and be content, they have to do something.

Under the Shah, Iran was prosperous, international, opulent, and very very content. Khomeini, who was in exile in France, played upon this twirk of Perisan culture proclaiming: "Iran is so rich! The Shah is so rich! Yet you are not so rich, because the Shah is robbing you of vast fortunes. Under me, oil will flow unimpeded and every family will be met by a tax collecter who hands out money instead of taking any. Iran has so much more potential! F*** the Shah!" --for the most part.

So thats why there was a revolution. And now they regret it. It was not because the Shah was pro american, or anti mullah, it was that he made his country happy. No kidding, I'm Iranian so I do know what I'm talking about.

And believe in no way there will be a communist revolution. The people of Iran are generally religious, but not as much as a common arab. OF all the people I met, I was the most liberal, and I'm not even a communist. The next time there's gonna be a revolution is when the economy catches up and when there is an ease in international tensions, so they can make it or break it again. And its not going to be communist.

Sorry dudes, I can say with CERTAINTY there is the same chance of a sucsessful American communist army marching on washington as there is an Iranian one marching on Tehran.

That must be the most stupid thing i have ever heard in my life!

The Iranian people will only revolt when they are happy? Are you shitting me or what?

I dislike Monarchists like you, backing up the Sjah as if he made Iran a paradise, you do know there was poverty right? You do know the gap between rich and poor was huge right?

Revolution in Iran is very likely, just because the people are religious doesnt mean they oppose Communism, werent the Russians religious? Did they not support the Bolsheviks? This might piss off some people but its the truth, Iran needs a Lenin, a great revolutionary who can build up a revolutionary party and with that party lead the working class to victory, leaders do make a difference.

Lets take Mansoor Hekmat for example, he was a ultra-leftist, but he was also a great party builder, the party flourished under his leadership, after he died ultra-leftism exposed itself and the party split.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:00 PM
You see, the Iranian people are very very different than anyone else,
Right there I knew this post was going to be tripe, and I wasn't wrong.

Anytime somebody says group X is drastically different from the rest of humanity....

And in this case it also involves ridiculously sweeping generalizations about Iranians, who belong to several different nationalities and speak several different languages just for starters...Persians are only slightly more than half the population. And oil workers, many of whom were/are Arab, were in the vanguard of the revolution. Azeris, Kurds, and others also joined the revolution, responding to the oppression of their peoples under the shah.

"Under the Shah, Iran was prosperous, international, opulent, and very very content." And by Iran, you mean the upper class and maybe the middle class. Since working people are often invisible to liberals and other bourgeois types.


Khomeini, who was in exile in France, played upon this twirk of Perisan culture proclaiming: "Iran is so rich! The Shah is so rich! Yet you are not so rich, because the Shah is robbing you of vast fortunes. Under me, oil will flow unimpeded and every family will be met by a tax collecter who hands out money instead of taking any. Iran has so much more potential! F*** the Shah!" --for the most part.

So thats why there was a revolution

In other words, because of workers' and peasants' discontent with the massive economic inequality and exploitation under the shah. But you have to pretend this is some special, irrational quirk of "persian culture" (the non-Persian 40-something percent of Iran's population also being invisible to you.)

[Wurkwurk]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 3 2005, 03:26 AM

That must be the most stupid thing i have ever heard in my life!

The Iranian people will only revolt when they are happy? Are you shitting me or what?

I dislike Monarchists like you, backing up the Sjah as if he made Iran a paradise, you do know there was poverty right? You do know the gap between rich and poor was huge right?

Revolution in Iran is very likely, just because the people are religious doesnt mean they oppose Communism, werent the Russians religious? Did they not support the Bolsheviks? This might piss off some people but its the truth, Iran needs a Lenin, a great revolutionary who can build up a revolutionary party and with that party lead the working class to victory, leaders do make a difference.

Lets take Mansoor Hekmat for example, he was a ultra-leftist, but he was also a great party builder, the party flourished under his leadership, after he died ultra-leftism exposed itself and the party split.
That is stupid, I agree. But thats the culture, try and change that if you can! And I'm not shitting you, most Iranians see this paradox and openly acknowledge it. When I asked several Iranians if they 'learned their mistake', they didn't say yes. Thats the way it will be, for quite a while (since the culture IS 3,000 + years old).

And I'm not backing up the shah. Its generally agreed by Iranians that Iran was a content, much wealthier place under him, rather than Khomeini. You can argue all you like about the class differences between rich and poor, but you cant doubt that a secular monarchy is better than a tyrinnical religious theocracy.

If Iran gets a Lenin, then the Mullahs will execute him. Simple. But seriously, I can bet one million euros that Iran wont have a sucsessful communist revolution...if any. Yes, there is a large gap between rich and poor (much more that under the Shah, mind you), but how can you seriously believe that people who voted for Ahmedinejad could launch a communist revolution!? That guy is more conservative than Bush!!

Also, know that a full 10% of the population of Iran participated in the Iranian revolution, which shows full and well the extent of Persian culture (meaning, most people in Iran follows it). The 40 other percent of Iranians might not be ethnically Persian, but their rate of assimilation into Persian culture and society is astounding (both the Shah and the Mullahs are taking efforts to see that they dont dissapear altogether). I can, being Iranian, say that the vast majority of Iranians are generally in the same Persian 'culture group', and you white guys can argue with me all you like on this point.

QUOTE:
And in this case it also involves ridiculously sweeping generalizations about Iranians...

Yes, because thats how the majority of Iranians are. Not all, to be sure. Its like saying 'American people like fast food' because 80-90% of Americans go to fast food on a common basis. Yes, its a generalization, but the fact is that for the majority of people its very true.

It sounds like you guys are preferring the Mullahs to the Shah! Both are not really good choices, but MULLAHS!?!? Shame on you! :o

[Led Zeppelin]

That is stupid, I agree. But thats the culture

No it isn't, just because you claim something doesn't make it true.


And I'm not shitting you, most Iranians see this paradox and openly acknowledge it.

No, you are making this shit up.


When I asked several Iranians if they 'learned their mistake', they didn't say yes. Thats the way it will be, for quite a while (since the culture IS 3,000 + years old).


When I asked several Iranians if they "learned their mistake" they said yes.


And I'm not backing up the shah. Its generally agreed by Iranians that Iran was a content, much wealthier place under him, rather than Khomeini. You can argue all you like about the class differences between rich and poor, but you cant doubt that a secular monarchy is better than a tyrinnical religious theocracy.


You make everything sound so nice, why not dictatorial "tyrinnical" monarchy?

Nazi Germany was wealthier under Hitler then under the Weimar government, whats your point?

And no, it was not "content", hence the revolution.


If Iran gets a Lenin, then the Mullahs will execute him. Simple.

What if that Lenin wasn't a retard and stayed out of the country and somewhere save? :rolleyes:


But seriously, I can bet one million euros that Iran wont have a sucsessful communist revolution...if any.

Restrict him, he is a monarchist anti-Communist capitalist.


Yes, there is a large gap between rich and poor (much more that under the Shah, mind you), but how can you seriously believe that people who voted for Ahmedinejad could launch a communist revolution!? That guy is more conservative than Bush!!


The consciousness of the masses change, they are not fixed positions, these are the same people who voted for Mossadegh 50 years ago.


I can, being Iranian, say that the vast majority of Iranians are generally in the same Persian 'culture group', and you white guys can argue with me all you like on this point.


You somehow believe your argument is more valuable because you're Iranian, I hate to break it to you but i'm also Iranian. :rolleyes:


It sounds like you guys are preferring the Mullahs to the Shah! Both are not really good choices, but MULLAHS!?!? Shame on you!

The shah was an American puppet, I support Iranian independence.