The Iranian State

[PigmerikanMao]

In a global revolution, it is clear that policies will have to be defined over nations other than the United States. In a global struggle against Yankee Imperialism, as Che called it "The enemy of Humanity," who will we side with and who will we consider proponents of their global corporatism? One nation tugs at the mind, the Iranian State. While some communists say that because they are in opposition to the United States, the communists may fight along side them for the time being, though others suggest that their crimes can be just as brutal as the imperialists themselves and therefore, must be opposed.

What do you think about the matter of the Iranian State?

(I've found a video by the MIM on the matter, you can view it if you want: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o4m1DcqJZz0).

[Idola Mentis]

It is a state which throws stones at people until they die.

Take one guess at what I think of the Iranian theocracy.

[Tower of Bebel]

The Iranian state could be an important factor of social revolution. It has huge oil reserves (yet it doesn't use them because the bureaucracy is ineffective), and because of its dependance on oil (maybe not for long anymore) the workers of the oil industry are a vital key.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Iran is an Islamic theocracy. That's bad. What's also bad is that the US has a vested interest in making Iran look worse.

It's just a case of a bully picking on a smaller, weaker bully.

[hajduk]

Iran is just another state which play for Bush &CO.

[Tower of Bebel]

It is astonishing how weak the Iranian regime really is. Workers meet in secrecy every week and have set up primitive workers' councils or trade unions. The regime imports half of the oil it consumes and the growth of consumption is higher than the growth of the exploitation of oil (that's why oil is rationed for common people). The embargo keeps foreign investments away from Iran and therefor nuclear power is needed (but I do not know why they do not modernize their oil industry).

As long as there is the hostility of the US in combination with barbarism in Iraq the regime will stand.

[Dean]

Iran and the U.S. want to work together, and they do. The state is being forced by its people to be anti-U.S., which shouldn't be a surprise. But it's doing little by the way of helping people n regards to class, and I do not consider Iran an ally; maybe if it were more revolutionary and I had power concerns to orient, but otherwise Iran is far from humanist; look at it's execution rate.

Iran may be a viable ally for socialist states, but it is certainly not an ally in regards to individual socialists. We should be opposed to it in general.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:38 pm
Iran may be a viable ally for socialist states, but it is certainly not an ally in regards to individual socialists. We should be opposed to it in general.
Shouldn't the Imperialists rather than their sub satellites be the target of socialist opposition though? Isn't attacking the Iranian state taking away from what could be directed at Yankee Imperialism?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Isn't attacking the Iranian state taking away from what could be directed at Yankee Imperialism?

i assume you mean that if we do not support the theocracy of Iran then the state of Iran will be unable to damage American interests ? or do you mean that instead of socialist here denouncing the Iranian state we should spend more time denouncing the American state ?

.... the people of Iran are to be given support, there are several communist organizations in Iran and they deserve solidarity but the proles of each nation must deal with their own elites in their own ways ....

let the Iranian workers deal with Iran, let the American workers deal with American, and let solidarity exist between them ....

[RNK]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+August 10, 2007 10:50 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ August 10, 2007 10:50 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 08:38 pm
Iran may be a viable ally for socialist states, but it is certainly not an ally in regards to individual socialists. We should be opposed to it in general.
Shouldn't the Imperialists rather than their sub satellites be the target of socialist opposition though? Isn't attacking the Iranian state taking away from what could be directed at Yankee Imperialism? [/b]
Would you have sided with the Nazis to fight the US?

It is necessary to form alliances with progressive anti-imperialists, sure -- but we can't go around holding hands with everyone who is the enemy of our enemy. Then we run the risk of empowering people who could be just as bad, or worse.

[Marion]

Originally posted by RNK+August 10, 2007 11:18 pm--> (RNK @ August 10, 2007 11:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:50 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 08:38 pm
Iran may be a viable ally for socialist states, but it is certainly not an ally in regards to individual socialists. We should be opposed to it in general.
Shouldn't the Imperialists rather than their sub satellites be the target of socialist opposition though? Isn't attacking the Iranian state taking away from what could be directed at Yankee Imperialism?
Would you have sided with the Nazis to fight the US?

It is necessary to form alliances with progressive anti-imperialists, sure -- but we can't go around holding hands with everyone who is the enemy of our enemy. Then we run the risk of empowering people who could be just as bad, or worse.[/b]
Exactly - from your point of view you can't go around holding hands with everyone who is your enemy, only some of them, with the history of Maoism showing that it has consistently held hands with so many supposed "enemies" that you eventually question the extent that they are enemies at all...

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+August 10, 2007 10:50 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ August 10, 2007 10:50 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 08:38 pm
Iran may be a viable ally for socialist states, but it is certainly not an ally in regards to individual socialists. We should be opposed to it in general.
Shouldn't the Imperialists rather than their sub satellites be the target of socialist opposition though? Isn't attacking the Iranian state taking away from what could be directed at Yankee Imperialism? [/b]

Would you have sided with the Nazis to fight the US?

That's a fools argument. Nazi Germany was an Empire.

[Idola Mentis]

How do you benefit from cheering on one bunch of murderous criminals as they have their pawns fight the pawns of another bunch of murderous criminals?

Why should I wish the iranian killing machine to be directed at innocent americans, any more than I wish for the american killing machine to be directed at innocent iranians?

What, concretly, is the act of condemning the crimes of the iranian state taking away from the struggle against the crimes of imperialism?

[Faux Real]

Socialists, communists, anarchists, etc. aligned themselves with the Ayatollah Khomeini and helped overthrow the Shah during the Iranian Revolution. The alliance was fine for a time. He gladly welcomed them to help, although once the Shah was gone he got rid of the only "threatening" opposition force left which were the labor organizations.

That alone should let you know about how valuable 'ally' it can be. Iran is not friendly to workers movements.

[RNK]

That's a fools argument. Nazi Germany was an Empire.

And do you think Iran wouldn't be if it were powerful enough?


Exactly - from your point of view you can't go around holding hands with everyone who is your enemy, only some of them, with the history of Maoism showing that it has consistently held hands with so many supposed "enemies" that you eventually question the extent that they are enemies at all...

Good job being an asscake. Silly Trot.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 10, 2007 11:50 pm
How do you benefit from cheering on one bunch of murderous criminals as they have their pawns fight the pawns of another bunch of murderous criminals?

Why should I wish the iranian killing machine to be directed at innocent americans, any more than I wish for the american killing machine to be directed at innocent iranians?

What, concretly, is the act of condemning the crimes of the iranian state taking away from the struggle against the crimes of imperialism?
Exactly. The crimes or Iran are too many to put them as more than a potential, reserved ally for a socialist state. No socialist organization should ally themselves with them as they stand and a socialist state should support them only if there is genuine progression promised in Iran and it benefits the people as a whole.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+August 11, 2007 12:50 am--> (PigmerikanMao @ August 11, 2007 12:50 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 08:38 pm
Iran may be a viable ally for socialist states, but it is certainly not an ally in regards to individual socialists. We should be opposed to it in general.
Shouldn't the Imperialists rather than their sub satellites be the target of socialist opposition though? Isn't attacking the Iranian state taking away from what could be directed at Yankee Imperialism? [/b]
Ahmadinijad is a reactionary fool. Iran is not an ally.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:06 am

Exactly - from your point of view you can't go around holding hands with everyone who is your enemy, only some of them, with the history of Maoism showing that it has consistently held hands with so many supposed "enemies" that you eventually question the extent that they are enemies at all...

Good job being an asscake. Silly Trot.
Oh, you make me laugh, you wacky Maoist! :lol:

PS Nice, reasoned reply - I'm at a loss as to how to counter your argument.

PPS I'm not even a Trot.

PPS Please try and use the word "asscake" in more of your posts, it cracks me up.

[Whitten]

Why is it necessary to take sides? The current Iranian regime is a natural reaction to US Imperialism in Iran in previous decades, this is not unique to Iran and is a global trend, Imperialism is capitalism in collapse and once anti-imperialist regimes (theocratic/bourgeois/proletarian or whatever) spring up all around the world the fuel maintaining global capitalism will be gone and the material conditions will be ripe for socialist revolution. Its not about supporting anyone, its just a natural progression which will lead to socialism. (Things get worse before they get better)

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:46 pm
Why is it necessary to take sides? The current Iranian regime is a natural reaction to US Imperialism in Iran in previous decades, this is not unique to Iran and is a global trend, Imperialism is capitalism in collapse and once anti-imperialist regimes (theocratic/bourgeois/proletarian or whatever) spring up all around the world the fuel maintaining global capitalism will be gone and the material conditions will be ripe for socialist revolution. Its not about supporting anyone, its just a natural progression which will lead to socialism. (Things get worse before they get better)
in this case is neccesary to take sides becouse we must recognize the game of capitalists....we must recognize who play for Bush &CO. becouse if we dont pay attention we can put ourselfs in danger to be accused like terrorists :ph34r:

[Dr Mindbender]

At the moment i dont believe the iranian state is either friend or foe, although all things considered its probably leaning towards foe because of the theocracy issue. Given the chance though, I think they would oppose socialism and progressive thought in much the same way that america is doing so now, if not then even more vehemently.
I certainly wouldnt want to live in a world dominated by their brand of political islam.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Marion+August 11, 2007 08:36 am--> (Marion @ August 11, 2007 08:36 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:06 am

Exactly - from your point of view you can't go around holding hands with everyone who is your enemy, only some of them, with the history of Maoism showing that it has consistently held hands with so many supposed "enemies" that you eventually question the extent that they are enemies at all...

Good job being an asscake. Silly Trot.
Oh, you make me laugh, you wacky Maoist! :lol:

PS Nice, reasoned reply - I'm at a loss as to how to counter your argument.

PPS I'm not even a Trot.

PPS Please try and use the word "asscake" in more of your posts, it cracks me up. [/b]
Asscakes is a funny word. :lol:

[RNK]

PPS I'm not even a Trot.

Then stop acting like one :)

What worries me is Chavez' apparent willingness to forge closer ties with Iran. Does he actually believe that Iran is progressive by any definition?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:28 pm

PPS I'm not even a Trot.

Then stop acting like one :)

What worries me is Chavez' apparent willingness to forge closer ties with Iran. Does he actually believe that Iran is progressive by any definition?
I think Chavez is too desperate for allies. I think he should looking close to home to Latin America and helping the sow the seeds of progressvism there instead of cosying up to theocracies.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm

PPS I'm not even a Trot.

Then stop acting like one :)
So if you question China's foreign policy you're acting like a Trot. While using the word "asscakes" is obviously one of your strong points it's a shame political analysis isn't ;)

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
What worries me is Chavez' apparent willingness to forge closer ties with Iran. Does he actually believe that Iran is progressive by any definition?
What is progressive? All events are progressive as they progress history towards communism. Iran acts as a progressive force in that it is anti-imperialist and so is in opposition to imperialism (it really doesn't matter if Iran would become Imperialist if it had the power, meaningless hypothetical situation), a reactionary force. Venezuela is also anti-imperialist and an enemy of America, so they cooperate against a mutual imperialist enemy. The internal affairs of Iran are of little significance in the current "game".

[Iron]

Originally posted by Whitten+August 12, 2007 08:02 pm--> (Whitten @ August 12, 2007 08:02 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
What worries me is Chavez' apparent willingness to forge closer ties with Iran. Does he actually believe that Iran is progressive by any definition?
What is progressive? All events are progressive as they progress history towards communism. Iran acts as a progressive force in that it is anti-imperialist and so is in opposition to imperialism (it really doesn't matter if Iran would become Imperialist if it had the power, meaningless hypothetical situation), a reactionary force. Venezuela is also anti-imperialist and an enemy of America, so they cooperate against a mutual imperialist enemy. The internal affairs of Iran are of little significance in the current "game". [/b]
Progressive... isn't Iran a theocracy?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Iron+August 12, 2007 09:24 pm--> (Iron @ August 12, 2007 09:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:02 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
What worries me is Chavez' apparent willingness to forge closer ties with Iran. Does he actually believe that Iran is progressive by any definition?
What is progressive? All events are progressive as they progress history towards communism. Iran acts as a progressive force in that it is anti-imperialist and so is in opposition to imperialism (it really doesn't matter if Iran would become Imperialist if it had the power, meaningless hypothetical situation), a reactionary force. Venezuela is also anti-imperialist and an enemy of America, so they cooperate against a mutual imperialist enemy. The internal affairs of Iran are of little significance in the current "game".
Progressive... isn't Iran a theocracy? [/b]
yes but islamic theocracies come full circle and have progressive elements because of their anti US/Israel stance.
Theres a good book on the issue called 'the Prophet and the Proletariat'

[Iron]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 12, 2007 10:47 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 12, 2007 10:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:02 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
What worries me is Chavez' apparent willingness to forge closer ties with Iran. Does he actually believe that Iran is progressive by any definition?
What is progressive? All events are progressive as they progress history towards communism. Iran acts as a progressive force in that it is anti-imperialist and so is in opposition to imperialism (it really doesn't matter if Iran would become Imperialist if it had the power, meaningless hypothetical situation), a reactionary force. Venezuela is also anti-imperialist and an enemy of America, so they cooperate against a mutual imperialist enemy. The internal affairs of Iran are of little significance in the current "game".
Progressive... isn't Iran a theocracy?
yes but islamic theocracies come full circle and have progressive elements because of their anti US/Israel stance.
Theres a good book on the issue called 'the Prophet and the Proletariat' [/b]
being anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist isn't enough for me to consider a nations system of government progressive.. Though i will admit i don't know much of iran outside of the propaganda about them that my TV spews. and i shall try to read that book it sounds like a good read.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:15 pm
So if you question China's foreign policy you're acting like a Trot. While using the word "asscakes" is obviously one of your strong points it's a shame political analysis isn't ;)
Oh, pwned!... Anywho China so often switched allies and enemies because of the changes of their foreign policy and state ideology switched just as rapidly. Had the governments of the third world been more stable (Most likely their instability was caused by imperialist aggression mind you, though it's a moot point) China would have probably been slower to denounce reactionaries and support revolutionaries than what it was already doing.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Iron+August 13, 2007 10:55 pm--> (Iron @ August 13, 2007 10:55 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 10:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:02 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
What worries me is Chavez' apparent willingness to forge closer ties with Iran. Does he actually believe that Iran is progressive by any definition?
What is progressive? All events are progressive as they progress history towards communism. Iran acts as a progressive force in that it is anti-imperialist and so is in opposition to imperialism (it really doesn't matter if Iran would become Imperialist if it had the power, meaningless hypothetical situation), a reactionary force. Venezuela is also anti-imperialist and an enemy of America, so they cooperate against a mutual imperialist enemy. The internal affairs of Iran are of little significance in the current "game".
Progressive... isn't Iran a theocracy?
yes but islamic theocracies come full circle and have progressive elements because of their anti US/Israel stance.
Theres a good book on the issue called 'the Prophet and the Proletariat'
being anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist isn't enough for me to consider a nations system of government progressive.. Though i will admit i don't know much of iran outside of the propaganda about them that my TV spews. and i shall try to read that book it sounds like a good read. [/b]
Isn't Iran imperialist as well because of it's exploits in Syria and Lebanon as well as its pushing of aggression and war in Iraq? Although it may be anti-Yankee Imperialist, don't all of Iran's factors make it just as reactionary as the United States?

[Phalanx]

yes but islamic theocracies come full circle and have progressive elements because of their anti US/Israel stance.
Theres a good book on the issue called 'the Prophet and the Proletariat'

The reason they have an anti America or Israel stance is because they want to dominate the region, not because of their morals. What kind of people do you think the mullahs are if they stone adulterers to death and hang 18 year olds for gay sex? Their motivation is greed and power, just like the neocons you guys so despise.

[runningmadbull]

Yeah you bet Iran sucks the big one. I would like to see the US gov go up against the Iran gov and both of them lose. They suck ass. I think all theocracies suck. I think it is absolutely insane any revolutionary leftist to align with a theocrat. Who cares how left-wing they are on other issues? Would you align yourself with Pat Robertson if he changed his views on capitalism and imperialism but kept all the other ones the same? I think not. And the Ayatollahs are Pat Robertson on steroids.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:13 pm
Yeah you bet Iran sucks the big one. I would like to see the US gov go up against the Iran gov and both of them lose.
(...)
The sad thing about such an outcome would be this: "The USA" or "Iran" can't loose. The only ones who can loose anything are not some stupid fiction represented by an ugly flag, but real people, and they will, regardless of which side makes them fight and suffer. Just like Iraq; thousands of americans and iraqis killed, maimed, traumatized, bereaved. Millions of iraqis displaced and suffering. "Iraq" didn't loose the war - all the victims of the unimaginable atrocity that is a war did, and continues to.

Where I grew up, there hadn't been war for more than 60 years. But there's still mines turning up on the beaches and under water, old grenades exploding in unexpected places. Rusting barbed wire killing the lambs and sheep. People falling into old bunkers and down forgotten storage shafts onto old bayonets. And we got away lightly compared to almost everyone else. Just thank our various gods cheap land mines hadn't become big business before the end of it!

After a war on your home soil, you live in the shadow of it, physically and mentally, for generations. No one can win, and all anyone can do is minimize and patch over the irrepairable damage.

If that's the kind of thing you "would like to see", and you really understand what it is you're wishing for, then kindly fuck off and don't make me listen to your crap.

[Ol' Dirty]

Atheism and agnosticism are illegal in Iran. If I can't live in a country legally, that country is not my ally.

[Dublin Red]

The Iranian government are no friends of the workers. They are an Islamic state and it is run according to religion so it is in many ways a backward country which has a lot to learn about the rights of the worker.

[Whitten]

Its nothing to do with morals or who good a country is to live in. We al know Iran is a backwards shit hole of a theocracy. Countries fight against foreign Imperialism once the conditions their get bad enough (for whatever their justification). Since we know the conditions will continue to deteriorate under capitalism, this marks the end of the imperialist, and thus capitalist, system.

History cares little about morals, and it cares little about ideals.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The hypocrisy of this board is absolutely stunning. You will turn your backs on one Islamic state yet cast your favour to another.

I suppose all Iran needs to do to get some support from the "left" is import a bunch of Jews into a settlement and then start blowing their kids to pieces.

Truly fucking amazing it is. :lol:

[Idola Mentis]

I think I missed the official proclamation from the Board. Could you point it out to me?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 22, 2007 01:23 pm
I think I missed the official proclamation from the Board. Could you point it out to me?
You've had hours and hours to think of something clever and that's what you have come up with?

You should have just kept quiet and saved face.

[Idola Mentis]

Geez, someone's wearing their nerves on the outside today. So you haven't got an answer for my question?

Anyway, just logged in. Nice to see you again too.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 22, 2007 01:35 pm
Geez, someone's wearing their nerves on the outside today. So you haven't got an answer for my question?

Anyway, just logged in. Nice to see you again too.
How many licks does it take to get to the centre of a tootsie roll pop?

Answer my inane, irrelevant and not so clever question and I'll answer yours swea'pea.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 22, 2007 08:46 pm
Anyway, just logged in. Nice to see you again too.
How many licks does it take to get to the centre of a tootsie roll pop?

Answer my inane, irrelevant and not so clever question and I'll answer yours swea'pea. [/quote]
It varies based on the length of each lick, the force used, and the all important age of the tootsie pop. Though, on average, the answer is 364. :mellow:

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 22, 2007 05:39 pm
The hypocrisy of this board is absolutely stunning. You will turn your backs on one Islamic state yet cast your favour to another.

I suppose all Iran needs to do to get some support from the "left" is import a bunch of Jews into a settlement and then start blowing their kids to pieces.

Truly fucking amazing it is. :lol:
The politics of idealism are the politics of delusion. Short sighted morality will never shape the world. Anti-imperialism exists because of Imperialism, and will bring down Imperialism. There's no "should", "right" or "morally just" in the matter, simply will. If it makes you feel any better there will eventually be a socialist revolution in Iran which will oppose both the Iranian Capitalists and Islamic relious institutions, it will just be a while.

[hajduk]

IRANIAN GOVERNMENT PLAY FOR BUSH & CO

when this game over then maybe we can do something for iranian people until that game is not finished if we try to make revolution with IRAN we can be captured in political trap by Bush & CO.
so we must stay for a while and wait to see what will happened in IRAN
and if someone try to blame me for that i will ask question
When is better for struggle which will help Iranian people, when foe is week or when foe is stronger?
Right now Iranian government is strong foe for us.