Questions about modern Iran's political evolution.

[Cheung Mo]

1.

a) Can the Mossadegh government be accurately assessed as an attempted bourgeois revolution that was aborted by Western imperialism? Why or why not?

b) If yes, was Operation Ajax as much about trying to prevent the rise of a political, economic, and social structure that would eventually facilitate a geunine proletarian revolution in Iran and the Middle East as it was about trying to ensure that Churchill and the UK could plunder Iran's resources so as to allow access to cheap oil?

c) If yes, did the West's imperialist powers have a long-term goal of inciting a popular revolution without a liberal/bourgeois revolution so as to ensure that this revolution would have a strong reactionary current (i.e. Islamic theocracy...Keep in mind that my hostility towards Islam as the basis for a system of government rests in my belief that Hebrew mythology is reactionary bullshit thast ought to be discareded by all of humanity.) and result in a tyrannical failed state, thus allowing Western imperialists to use social liberalism as a pretense for setting up a more sustainable puppet state in Iran?

2.

a) Were there any dealings between the Soviet Union and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that may have caused the Kremlin to insist that the Tudeh Party oppose Mossadegh's government and the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?

b) Regardless of whether the answer to 2a is yes or no, were Moscow and its satellite parties justified in opposing Mossadegh? Why or why not?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

1.

a) Can the Mossadegh government be accurately assessed as an attempted bourgeois revolution that was aborted by Western imperialism? Why or why not?

Yes, a national bourgeois take-over. The Shah was a representative of the comprador pro-imperialist ruling-class.


b) If yes, was Operation Ajax as much about trying to prevent the rise of a political, economic, and social structure that would eventually facilitate a geunine proletarian revolution in Iran and the Middle East as it was about trying to ensure that Churchill and the UK could plunder Iran's resources so as to allow access to cheap oil?

Pretty much.


c) If yes, did the West's imperialist powers have a long-term goal of inciting a popular revolution without a liberal/bourgeois revolution so as to ensure that this revolution would have a strong reactionary current (i.e. Islamic theocracy...

Ummmm...you need to keep in mind that in the Third World, any genuinely popular movement (i.e. one involving the working-class and peasantry) will have an element of anti-imperialism to it.

The Islamic revolution was no exception.



Keep in mind that my hostility towards Islam as the basis for a system of government rests in my belief that Hebrew mythology is reactionary bullshit thast ought to be discareded by all of humanity.) and result in a tyrannical failed state, thus allowing Western imperialists to use social liberalism as a pretense for setting up a more sustainable puppet state in Iran?

One of the important things to understand is that the communists failed to lead a working-class uprising against the Shah's reactionary rule. This, despite the power of the trade unions and the influence of the communists.

That allowed the national bourgeoisie, as represented by the ayatollahs, to seize power.



2.

a) Were there any dealings between the Soviet Union and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that may have caused the Kremlin to insist that the Tudeh Party oppose Mossadegh's government and the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?

Did the Tudeh oppose Mossadegh? That's news to me.


b) Regardless of whether the answer to 2a is yes or no, were Moscow and its satellite parties justified in opposing Mossadegh? Why or why not?

If they did, it was an extremely stupid and reactionary policy.

Why? Because Mossadegh's policies were a direct and open confrontation with Western economic imperialism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 24, 2007 06:11 pm
1.

a) Can the Mossadegh government be accurately assessed as an attempted bourgeois revolution that was aborted by Western imperialism? Why or why not?
No, Mossadegh was far from revolutionary. Nowadays the bourgeoisie does not produce any more George Washingtons. Mossadegh, like Arbenz and Allende, hesitated every step of the way and was destroyed.

Now there were other class forces at work in Iran at the time that were revolutionary....

Keep in mind this was in a period where workers' revolution was seen as a real danger in Iran. After WWII, the Gilan Soviet Republic was created in northern Iran. It was crushed...but unrest continued across Iran. The oil nationalization was adopted under pressure of workers' unrest, including massive strikes in the oil industry.

Some history on Iran's 3 revolution in the 20th century:
Part 1 (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6713/671361.html)
Part 2 (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6714/671460.html)
Part 3 (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6715/671558.html)


b) If yes, was Operation Ajax as much about trying to prevent the rise of a political, economic, and social structure that would eventually facilitate a geunine proletarian revolution in Iran and the Middle East as it was about trying to ensure that Churchill and the UK could plunder Iran's resources so as to allow access to cheap oil?

Oy. You think the capitalists go around doing pseudo-Marxist analyses with a long-term theoretical approach to preventing proletarian revolution? No. They pragamatically advance their immediate interests.

Now immediately crushing the Iranian working class was a factor...


c) If yes, did the West's imperialist powers have a long-term goal of inciting a popular revolution without a liberal/bourgeois revolution so as to ensure that this revolution would have a strong reactionary current...and result in a tyrannical failed state, thus allowing Western imperialists to use social liberalism as a pretense for setting up a more sustainable puppet state in Iran?

Wait, you think in '56, the imperialists could have predicted the '79 revolution...and that they wanted it?

This is straight-up conspiracism, attributing downright godlike omniscience to the CIA. If you think they're that good, you might as well give up now on ever opposing them. Just concentrate on hiding in the basement and making tin-foil hats to keep out their mind-control rays.

In reality, the '79 revolution caught them and just about everyone by surprise. And it was a blow that U.S. imperialism has still not recovered from. And Iran is certainly tyrannical, but "failed state"? It has little in common with Afghanistan or Somalia.


a) Were there any dealings between the Soviet Union and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that may have caused the Kremlin to insist that the Tudeh Party oppose Mossadegh's government and the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?

What are you talking about? The question should be, why did these so-called Communists support this bourgeois government to start with?

The Tudeh Party's conduct in the Mossadegh period is essentially similar to the Guatemalan Communists' support to Arbenz, the Chilean Communists' support to Allende, the Indonesian Communists' support to Sukarno, or....the Tudeh Party's support to Khomeini.

In all these cases, the official "Communists" promoted the Menshevik idea of placing one's confidence in the so-called "national bourgeoisie", resisted any move by working people to mobilize independently, arm themselves, and resist reaction.

The Tudeh had some kind of minor falling-out with Mossadegh at one point, apparently in disappointment over his broken promises, but that's a detail. They didn't change their basic policy, and failed to call on working people to arm themselves, or take to the streets and defeat the shah's police.

Now, why do the official "Communists" have such a consistent history of reformist betrayal? It's not because of any particular business deal by Moscow - it's because of the whole class basis of these parties and the Moscow regime.

These parties' leadership is in class terms basically the same as the social democracy: labor bureaucrats and other middle-class elements. The only difference from social democracy was their ties to the Moscow regime - which was headed by bureaucrats seeking accomodation with world capitalism.

Why did the Tudeh Party sell out? Not because of any conspiracy, but because of their nature. It's just what they do.