Leader of Hezbollah Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah:

[Wanted Man]

Leader of Hezbollah Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah: United front against Imperialism
August 14, 2006

[..]

What is the current state of your relations with the Socialist movement?

Hasan Nasrallah: The socialist movement, which has been away from international struggle, now for a considerable time, at last began to become a moral support for us once again. The most concrete example of this has been Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela. What most of the Muslim states could not do has been done by Chavez by the withdrawal of their ambassador to Israel. He furthermore communicated to us his support for our resistance. This has been an immense source of moral for us. We can observe a similar reaction within the Turkish Revolutionary Movement. We had socialist brothers from Turkey who went to Palestine in 1960s to fight against Israel. And one of them still remains in my memory and my heart; Deniz Gezmis..!

What is the importance of Denizs for you?

Hasan Nasrallah: We now want new Denizs. Our ranks are always open to new Denizs against the oppressors. Deniz will always live in the hearts of the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon… No-one should doubt this. Unfortunately, there is no longer a common fight and fraternity against the common enemy left over by the Denizs. What we would have liked is for our socialist brothers in Lebanon to fight against imperialism and Zionism shoulder to shoulder. This fight is not only our fight. It is the common fight of all those oppressed across the world. Don’t forget that if the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon lose this war, this will mean the defeat of all the oppressed people of the world. In our fight against imperialism, the revolutionaries should also undertake a responsibility and should become in the hearts of our people of Palestine and Lebanon, Denizs once again.

It is possible to see the posters of Che, Chavez, Ahmedinecad ve Hezbollah side by side in the streets of Beirut. Are these the signs of a new polarisation?

Hasan Nasrallah: We salute the leaders and the peoples of Latin America. They have resisted heroically against the American bandits and have been a source of moral for us. They are guiding the way for the oppressed peoples. Go and wonder around our streets..! You will witness how our people have embraced Chavez and Ernesto Che Guevara. Nearly in every house, you will come across posters of Che or Chavez. What we are saying to our socialist friends who want fight together with us for fraternity and freedom, do not come at all if you are going to say “Religion is an opiate”. We do not agree with this analysis. Here is the biggest proof of this in our streets with the pictures of Chavez, Che, Sadr and Hamaney waving along together. These leaders are saluting our people in unison. So long as we respect your beliefs, and you respect ours, there is no imperialist power we cannot defeat!

[..]

Full article: http://www.emep.org/docs/press/nasral.html

Thought I'd post the most interesting part here. Whether you like Hezbollah or not, at least I hope that this throws the theory of reactionary babykillers who are going to hang all of us infidels when they're done with Israel, out of the window.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So you're saying that the Islamicists in Iran didn't turn on the communists they were allied with upon taking power? Is Hezb'ollah (the Party of God), not by its very nature opposed to the working class taking power? Have they not acted in reactionary ways in the past (such as smashing rent strikes)?

[YKTMX]

So you're saying that the Islamicists in Iran didn't turn on the communists they were allied with upon taking power?

You talk as if the Islamists "turning on" the Tudeh is the first betrayal in history. Why does it hurt you so much?

Compared to the liquidation of the old Bolsheviks, or the betrayal of the Social Democrats, or the anti-Trotskyist violence in Vietnam, or the intercenine struggles within the Republican movement during the Spanish Civil War, it's rather minor.

The Islamists won the Arab masses and then they dealt with their possible political opponents after they'd won power. Hardly a fucking surprise.


s Hezb'ollah (the Party of God), not by its very nature opposed to the working class taking power?

So is the Cuban Communist Party, and that doesn't stop you soiling yourself over them, does it?


Have they not acted in reactionary ways in the past (such as smashing rent strikes)?

Possibly. The Bolsheviks also "smashed" strikes when it had to be done.

Support for Hezbollah should be based on a position of consistent anti-imperialism, solidarity and anti-Zionism.

Your sophistry about the history of the Iranian revolution and Hezbollah's actions towards workers just provides scenery for your pro-imperialist position.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:47 PM

So you're saying that the Islamicists in Iran didn't turn on the communists they were allied with upon taking power?

You talk as if the Islamists "turning on" the Tudeh is the first betrayal in history. Why does it hurt you so much?

Compared to the liquidation of the old Bolsheviks, or the betrayal of the Social Democrats, or the anti-Trotskyist violence in Vietnam, or the intercenine struggles within the Republican movement during the Spanish Civil War, it's rather minor.

The Islamists won the Arab masses and then they dealt with their possible political opponents after they'd won power. Hardly a fucking surprise.


The Islamists [in Iran] won the Arab massesYou really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Let's for a moment forget about all of this talk of masses, which is what the leftists like to talk about instead of the working class, and look at what you said. Although there is an Arab minority in Iran, the majority of the population are not Arab, but Persian. Of course it probably doesn't matter to you. In your view I am sure that everyone who lives in the Middle East is some sort of camel riding Arab 'sand wog'. I don't live in the desert, I don't ride a camel to work. I live in a large city of 5,500,000 people, and the only place that I have seen camels here in Ankara is in the zoo.

So sit, and cheerlead whilst the working class in the Middle East is dragged deeper, and deeper, into nationalist/ethnic/sectarian strife. Pick whatever factions you want to support this week, and then change to another the next in the name of anti-imperialism.

Meanwhile, communists in the Middle east will carry on with the hard work of taking part in the struggles of the working class, and arguing for internationalism.

Devrim

[YKTMX]

Forgive me for the insensitive lack of ethnic distinction. I don't quite recognise your description of "Arab" people - perhaps your projecting a bit, who knows.


Meanwhile, communists in the Middle east will carry on with the hard work of taking part in the struggles of the working class, and arguing for internationalism.


Hezbollah is actually engaged in internationalism, and building the links of the Middle East with the wider anti-imperialist movements across the world. The "communist" left in the Middle East is highly comprimised, signified by the collaboration of the Iraqi Communist Party and the Kurdish "Socialists" with the imperial government in Iraq.

In any case, it's not possible to argue for "internationalism" on a principled basis whilst the Zionists are marauding their way through the Lebanon. It's only circle-jerk ultra-leftists who think that "neutrality" between the Lebanese national resistance and the IDF will further the socialist cause in the Middle East.

[Devrim]

Forgive me for the insensitive lack of ethnic distinction. I don't quite recognise your description of "Arab" people - perhaps your projecting a bit, who knows.
No, forgive me for being rude, and insulting. The point that I wanted to make was that we are tired of people who actually know very little about the situation in the Middle East, even to the extent of not knowing that Persians are not Arabs, lecturing us on what is going on in the region.

Hizbullah is not engaged in internationalism. It is engaged in a nationalist war.

The people who you refer to as the communist left are not communists, but Stalinists, and social democrats.

If it is not possible to argue for internationalism in times of war (the most important time to argue for it), we may as well give up.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You make yourself look more foolish by the minute, I never said anything about neutrality. I've already explained this several times, but I'll do it once more.

Communists call for a defeat to the IDF in their invasion, at the same time, they call for (and if in Lebanon and Palestine fight along side) workers to organize in self-defense, but with an internationalist communist outlook. If they aimed their guns at the same invaders that Hezb'ollah fighters did, that's fine, but they wouldn't fall under their leadership, nor would they put their guns down when the invaders were ousted (less they be dealt the same fate as the Iranian communists).

They fight to unite Israeli workers with Palestinian and Lebanese workers to defeat Israeli imperialism by proxy, to liberate Palestine, and to bring into being a socialist federation of the Middle East.


Forgive me for the insensitive lack of ethnic distinction. I don't quite recognise your description of "Arab" people - perhaps your projecting a bit, who knows.

Certainly not you. You make yourself look foolish here again. How can you claim to know anything about the history of Iran (as you write off the slaughter of thousands of communist revolutionaries as "no big deal"), when you don't even know that the Iranian population is made up mostly of Persians, not Arabs. You probably think Afghans are Arab too, huh? Or doesn't it matter?


Possibly. The Bolsheviks also "smashed" strikes when it had to be done.

When does smashing a strike "have to be done"? And are you comparing the Party of God with the Bolsheviks now?


Support for Hezbollah should be based on a position of consistent anti-imperialism, solidarity and anti-Zionism.

I support my working brothers and sisters around the globe, but not reactionary religious zealouts that want to mislead them.


Your sophistry about the history of the Iranian revolution and Hezbollah's actions towards workers just provides scenery for your pro-imperialist position.

Yeah, supporting the international working class is "pro-imperialist".. but support religious fanatics bent on the creation of an Islamic theocracy is "anti-imperialism".

What color is the sky in your world?

[YKTMX]

The point that I wanted to make was that we are tired of people who actually know very little about the situation in the Middle East, even to the extent of not knowing that Persians are not Arabs, lecturing us on what is going on in the region.

Well, I do recognise that distinction, it's just that in that post, I forget to observe it, that's all. And I do slightly object to the notion that I don't know what's "going on" in the region because I don't live there. I don't imagine there'd be much similarity between living in say, Ankarra, and living in Beirut right now.



Hizbullah is not engaged in internationalism. It is engaged in a nationalist war.

Bizarre. All wars are "nationalist" by definition. It's impossible to have a military conflict that isn't about defending some piece of land from outside invaders or internal foes. The point is that Hezbollah, as the interview points out, have correctly the indentified the links between their "nationalist" struggle against the Zionists with the "international" struggle being waged against imperialism.


The people who you refer to as the communist left are not communists, but Stalinists, and social democrats.

That's a distinction that may be less clear to the Arab (and Persian) people than it is to you me and you.


If it is not possible to argue for internationalism in times of war (the most important time to argue for it), we may as well give up.

I'm not "against" internationalism in times of war. I'm against the method by which some on the left choose to profess it.

If you say "I support the Lebanese resistance against the Israelis, and I also support the international struggle against imperialism and FOR socialist revolution", then that's internationalism par excellence.

If you say, "because the Lebanese resistance contains "reactionary" elements, I am neutral in their anti-imperialist battle, however, generally, I favour internationalism". That is a total cop-out, a sectarian deviation and an anti-working class position which will not further the cause either of anti-imperialism or of socialism in the Middle East.

If that's the position you take, then that's regrettable.

[YKTMX]

You make yourself look foolish here again. How can you claim to know anything about the history of Iran (as you write off the slaughter of thousands of communist revolutionaries as "no big deal"), when you don't even know that the Iranian population is made up mostly of Persians, not Arabs. You probably think Afghans are Arab too, huh? Or doesn't it matter?

I do recognise that distinction. As for whether it "matters" or not, I don't know.

Do I observe the differences between the Teutonic, Gallic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Roman ancestries of the various Imperialist nations? Not generally. Neither, I suppose, do you.


When does smashing a strike "have to be done"?

If a strike had broken out in defense of the Kronstadt rebels, then that would have to have been smashed. Do you support all strikes and workers' movements? Would you say you would have supported Solisdarsnosc?


And are you comparing the Party of God with the Bolsheviks now?

Yes.


I support my working brothers and sisters around the globe, but not reactionary religious zealouts that want to mislead them.

How nice of you. It's a shame you don't support liberation for your "brothers and sisters" toiling under Cuban autocracy. Perhaps the Party of God should start a cell in Cuba, they'd soon see to your Stalinist friends there.


Yeah, supporting the international working class is "pro-imperialist".. but support religious fanatics bent on the creation of an Islamic theocracy is "anti-imperialism".


The "international working class" or, more specifically, the Arab working class finds your Imperialist agenda sickening, and realises that the brave fighters of Hamas and Hezbollah are the people walking the walk. Hezbollah is more popular now than ever amongst all sections of the Middle Eastern population.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:35 PM

The point that I wanted to make was that we are tired of people who actually know very little about the situation in the Middle East, even to the extent of not knowing that Persians are not Arabs, lecturing us on what is going on in the region.

Well, I do recognise that distinction, it's just that in that post, I forget to observe it, that's all. And I do slightly object to the notion that I don't know what's "going on" in the region because I don't live there. I don't imagine there'd be much similarity between living in say, Ankarra, and living in Beirut right now.


No, I don't say that you have no knowledge of the region because you don't live there, but because you appear to have no knowledge of the region. Of course the fact that we do live here, do know that people in Iran are Persians not arabs, do speak to comrades from Arab countries, and do have Arabic speakears in our group (people in Turkey speak Turkish, not Arabic), means we have absolutly no idea.


Bizarre. All wars are "nationalist" by definition. It's impossible to have a military conflict that isn't about defending some piece of land from outside invaders or internal foes. The point is that Hezbollah, as the interview points out, have correctly the indentified the links between their "nationalist" struggle against the Zionists with the "international" struggle being waged against imperialism.


Yes, at least you got one thing right: 'All wars are "nationalist" by definition'. There is no struggle against 'imperialism'. In the current epoch all wars are inter-imperialist wars. There is only one exception-the class war, and this is not what is being waged in Lebanon.


I'm not "against" internationalism in times of war. I'm against the method by which some on the left choose to profess it.

If you say "I support the Lebanese resistance against the Israelis, and I also support the international struggle against imperialism and FOR socialist revolution", then that's internationalism par excellence.

Lining up behind nationalists is not being internationalist. There is class war, and imperialist war. I don't support Lebanses resistance against Israeli imperialism, as it is merely a tool of Iranian, and Syrian imperialism. You cheer on the war, and meanwhile the working class are being butchered.


If you say, "because the Lebanese resistance contains "reactionary" elements, I am neutral in their anti-imperialist battle, however, generally, I favour internationalism". That is a total cop-out, a sectarian deviation and an anti-working class position which will not further the cause either of anti-imperialism or of socialism in the Middle East.

I don't 'generally favour internationalism'. I support internationalism, and that means supporting workers struggles in their own interests, and not calling upon workers to fight for so-called 'national liberation'. If putting workers own interests is a 'a sectarian deviation', then I am happy to be a sectarian. If you are suggesting that calling upon workers to die in the name of national capital is a pro-working class position then I am absolutly astounded.

Devrim

[YKTMX]

In the current epoch all wars are inter-imperialist wars. There is only one exception-the class war, and this is not what is being waged in Lebanon.

Whoever contended that it was? But Anti-Imperialism is a crucial aspect of the broader class struggle. As Lenin told people like you in his day, you'll wait the rest of your natural life waiting for a struggle were the banners "socialism" and "imperialism" square off against each other in a "perfect" fashion - but it'll never happen.

To describe the struggle of the 5th largest army in the world backed by the world's only superpower and a guerilla movement based in Lebanon as "inter-imperialist" is just silly.


I don't support Lebanses resistance against Israeli imperialism, as it is merely a tool of Iranian, and Syrian imperialism. You cheer on the war, and meanwhile the working class are being butchered.

I'm glad that's sorted then. At least you're more honest than CDL.

It seems I have judged you correctly. You're yet another no-hoper pronouncing on the legitimacy of other nations to defend themselves while you mastorbate furiously about your own ideological purity.

It's sickening. I'm sure the Turkish working class ignore you accordingly.


putting workers own interests is a 'a sectarian deviation', then I am happy to be a sectarian. If you are suggesting that calling upon workers to die in the name of national capital is a pro-working class position then I am absolutly astounded.

It's not in the interests of the Lebanese working class to see their children disembowled and their homeland left in dusty ruins by Zionists. Your friends in the IDF almost accomplished it, but the "imperialist" Lebanese workers fought them off bravely and stoutly.

[Phalanx]

It seems I have judged you correctly. You're yet another no-hoper pronouncing on the legitimacy of other nations to defend themselves while you mastorbate furiously about your own ideological purity.

So once you learn a little, you know everything, right YKTMX? It's easy for you to say such things when you sit on your ass in merry ol England.


To describe the struggle of the 5th largest army in the world backed by the world's only superpower and a guerilla movement based in Lebanon as "inter-imperialist" is just silly.

Hizbollahs aims are imperialistic. They aim to destroy the State of Israel, and they attacked Israel unprovoked and had a history of doing so from 2000-2006. Only this time Israel finally decided to act.

[YKTMX]

So once you learn a little, you know everything, right YKTMX? It's easy for you to say such things when you sit on your ass in merry ol England.

:lol: I live in Scotland, Bub.

But we're all the same to you, aren't we?

Haha.


Hizbollahs aims are imperialistic. They aim to destroy the State of Israel, and they attacked Israel unprovoked and had a history of doing so from 2000-2006. Only this time Israel finally decided to act.

You don't know what imperialism means. The State Of Israel should be destroyed and Hezbollah didn't attack Israel.

Bye.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:30 PM
But we're all the same to you, aren't we?
Just as Middle Easterners are to you, bub.


You don't know what imperialism means. The State Of Israel should be destroyed and Hezbollah didn't attack Israel.

I know very well what imperialism means. Israel does have an empire and it's very repressive towards the Palestinians. This should be stopped, as any rational person would believe.

The State of Israel should not be destroyed, but it's government and it's policies must change.

Hizbollah did attack Israel, I'm not sure where you got your information.

[YKTMX]

Hizbollah did attack Israel, I'm not sure where you got your information.

A place called "reality" that exists outside the Israeli/US state department and CNN.

Check it out.

[Phalanx]

Right. Israel blew up its own tank and killed eight of its soldiers to declare war on Hizbollah. Most conspiracy theories are bullshit.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 17 2006, 11:39 PM
Right. Israel blew up its own tank and killed eight of its soldiers to declare war on Hizbollah. Most conspiracy theories are bullshit.
Who's been violating Lebanese air space for the last 4 years then? Santa Claus?

[Phalanx]

And who's been infiltrating Israel for the past six years?

Hizbollah has sent drones over Israel for a few years now as well. Both sides are guilty.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 17 2006, 11:44 PM
And who's been infiltrating Israel for the past six years?

Hizbollah has sent drones over Israel for a few years now as well. Both sides are guilty.
Israel doesn't even respect its own "borders" never mind anyone elses!

Israel hasn't lived within its borders for 4 decades, and has been occupying Lebanese land and invading Lebanese air space ever since they were kicked out of the rest of Lebanon in 2000. All the while they've been having fun killing Palestinians in the Gaza strip and the West Bank.

And you seriously expect anybody to believe that this action could be defended on the basis of "self-defense"?

This shit may fly amongst your Zionist buddies and rest of the gang in your stolen land, it doesn't wash for a second here.

[Phalanx]

Like I said, the actions Israel has taken against the Palestinians are brutal and must be stopped. The Palestinians deserve a land of their own, but it won't be all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

Israel hasn't respected its neighbors borders because its neighbors refused to respect theirs. Being a small country, Israel took to the mentality that the best defense is a good offense.

Israel should withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. People like you want it completely gone, but that clearly won't happen. Both sides must make concessions.

But do you think this 'stolen land' thing is new? Unfortunately it's been going on ever since mankind learned to hate themselves.

[Severian]

The Nasrallah statement indicates mostly that Hezbollah is taking a different tactical approach at the moment from, say, the Islamist groups in Iraq. Which creates a different tactical environment for every other group in Lebanon. It doesn't mean they're fundamentally different....and not every word they say should be taken at face value. Actions speak louder.

The Iraqi Communist Party, which YTMX condemns, is not basically different from the Lebanese Communist Party, which he's praised in other threads. It's just following a different tactical course. For either to act like the other, would be downright suicidal.

****

YTKMX has posted so much nonsense I'm going to have to ignore most of it. But: Khomeini's regime should be compared to Kerensky, not the Bolsheviks. A Kerensky unfortunately victorious - because the Iranian CP and other leftists placed political confidence in him. Rather as YTKMX advocates political confidence in various Islamist groups.

(Yes, I know the Khomeini-Kerensky analogy has other flaws too. But in terms of the course of the revolution....)

And it's probably fair to pillory YTKMX for British insularity and pigheaded ignorance of the region. It's unfortunately characteristic of much of the British left, and especially the British SWP.

*****


Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 17 2006, 05:34 PM
I know very well what imperialism means. Israel does have an empire and it's very repressive towards the Palestinians. This should be stopped, as any rational person would believe.

The State of Israel should not be destroyed, but it's government and it's policies must change.

Hizbollah did attack Israel, I'm not sure where you got your information.
Imperialism isn't just military aggression, and it doesn't depend on "who started it." (Which is kinda 3-year-old, frankly.)

Imperialism has had a definite meaning in the communist movement since Lenin's time - and you're not the only one talking as if you don't know that meaning.

Imperialism is a worldwide system of exploitation by finance capital. Like any other aspect of society, it has to be understood economically first of all.

Are Lebanese capitalist involved in exporting capital to Israel in order to exploit workers there? No, not to any significant degree.

Israel is an imperialist country - and a servant of the main, world-dominating imperialist countries in North America and Western Europe. Lebanon is not even close.

To talk of Iranian or Syrian "imperialism", as Devrim does, is similarly nonsense.

(And that's without even asking why it's so awful to want to destroy the apartheid state called Israel, or whether it was similarly awful to want to destroy the apartheid setup in South Africa. Was it only OK to want South Africa out of Namibia, but not OK to want to drive the racists out of Pretoria itself?)

[YKTMX]

But: Khomeini's regime should be compared to Kerensky, not the Bolsheviks.

CDL asked if I had "compared" Hezbollah and the Bolsheviks, to which I said yes. There's seems to be a bit confusion as to the meaning of the word "compare". Compare means to assess the similarities and differences of two seperate things. It doesn't mean that I think that Hezb and the Bolsheviks are politically or socially similar - that would be ridiculous.

Sev is like one of the rabid Christians who went nuts when Lennon said "we're bigger than Jesus". He was making a point about the hysteria over the Beatles, he wasn't saying that he and his band were Sons Of God sent down to sacrifice themselves for Mankind.


And it's probably fair to pillory YTKMX for British insularity and pigheaded ignorance of the region. It's unfortunately characteristic of much of the British left, and especially the British SWP.

This is stupid. One word in one sentence doesn't equate to "pigheaded ignorance". I'd be pigheaded if I repeatedly, and knowingly, repeated that mistake.

[Leo]

It seems I have judged you correctly. You're yet another no-hoper pronouncing on the legitimacy of other nations to defend themselves while you mastorbate furiously about your own ideological purity.

It's sickening.

No...

What's "sickening" is that you and petty bourgeoise leftists like you who are far, far away from the conflict fantasizing about workers dying for their national flag.

What's "sickening" is that you have no fucking idea what you are supporting.

What's "sickening" is that they only reason you support the Hizbullah is because your pathetic Cliffite leaders sold themselves to the islamacists in hopes of getting someone to like them for a change this time.

[Tekun]

I support their (Hezbollah) right to fight and resist Zionist imperialism
However, I do not support their party, beliefs, or agenda
I think that there is no doubt that if Hezbollah were to rule over Lebanon, they would silence any critics or protests who opposed their version of capitalism
Thus, putting an end to the working class's revolution

They support socialists and revolutionaries when they need them
But I doubt that they would let us live in the state they ruled, knowing full well that socialists would sooner or later overthrow them and their system of exploitation

[Jamal]

Nasralla was great in this talk! All of you that are failing to admit you were wrong in the other threads, just admit it man!
Hezbollah are never gonna reach the state when they rules Lebanon! Its just not gonna happen. Its all different here to what you guys are hearing.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:46 AM

But: Khomeini's regime should be compared to Kerensky, not the Bolsheviks.

CDL asked if I had "compared" Hezbollah and the Bolsheviks, to which I said yes. There's seems to be a bit confusion as to the meaning of the word "compare". Compare means to assess the similarities and differences of two seperate things.
Despite your attempted quibble and backpedal here, it's clear from the totality of your original post what you mean. It's a whitewash of the Khomeini regime, along with other "Islamist" forces.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 20 2006, 12:55 AM--> (Severian @ Aug 20 2006, 12:55 AM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 08:46 AM

But: Khomeini's regime should be compared to Kerensky, not the Bolsheviks.

CDL asked if I had "compared" Hezbollah and the Bolsheviks, to which I said yes. There's seems to be a bit confusion as to the meaning of the word "compare". Compare means to assess the similarities and differences of two seperate things.
Despite your attempted quibble and backpedal here, it's clear from the totality of your original post what you mean. It's a whitewash of the Khomeini regime, along with other "Islamist" forces. [/b]
Not at all. If you're confused as to the meaning of the word "compare", there's not much I can do to help you.

In any case, I wasn't "comparing" the Islamic republic with the Soviet Republic, I was comparing (assessing similarities and differences) Hezb and the Bolshevik Party.

I'm not interested in "whitewashing" the record of the Iranian government - but the record of the Iranian government, in this case, is not relevant to the discussion.