Iranian President coming out against capitalism?

[cyu]

What are your thoughts about this? Has he been spending too much time with Chavez? Or is it just relative empty words, just so he can sound cool?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=52977&sectionid=351020101

Ahmadinejad: Capitalism nearing collapse
Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:48:07

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says capitalist systems are on the verge of collapse and can no longer bring economic development.

"There are some who believe we can improve the economic situation with the formulas that are prescribed by the West; they must know that capitalist systems are falling apart," said Ahmadinejad, who was addressing clerics in Iran's western city of Hamadan on Thursday.

"The fundamental philosophy of Iran's Islamic Revolution was that it should not be based on Western systems," he continued.

According to Ahmadinejad, the problems Iran now deals with are the direct result of disregard for the ideals of the 1979 revolution.

Ahmadinejad added that his government intends to pursue policies that will bring justice, maintaining that if there is to be development in the country, poor areas must come first.

[Cheung Mo]

The Pope opposes the death penalty; does that make Catholic theocracy progressive?

[Faux Real]

He is probably saying this because the Islamic Labour Party of Iran just gained a bunch of seats in parliament and is under tons of pressure to make economic reforms if he wants to be re-elected, even from conservatives within his own party.

[RHIZOMES]

Doesn't make him any less of a total fucking reactionary.

[The Douche]

Baathists were "socialist" too. So was Quadafi.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And especially Nasser, per Khrushchev. ;)

[Dean]

Ahmadinejad came to power in a wave of populist support, with a populist agenda. That is why he and Chavez are such fine political allies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ While I have a somewhat higher opinion of Chavez than you do (while not being merely a populist, he is a reformist hack, nevertheless), I prefer a "united front" against the cappies in OI. I posted there regarding one "spoiled rich kid" receiving that Cato Institute award, and I hope a "united front" is there.

[Colonello Buendia]

Islam has always had a problem with capitalism but they aint even close to progressive. Even Gordon Brown is more progressive. at least he sees women as equals, not that it saves him from the fact that he's a capitalist pig dog.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Ahmadinejad is a reactionary anti-capitalist, not a progressive anti-capitalist. For theocrats, religious feudalism is preferred system of government and economics. While progressives should support the people of Iran, we must remember that Ahmadinejad and his religious allies are still enemies of socialism.

[cyu]

Islam has always had a problem with capitalism but they aint even close to progressive.


What are Islam's proposed solutions to capitalism? Is it more or less opposed to it than Catholicism? The previous pope has come out against the "excesses" of capitalism, but he (and the current pope) still suppressed liberation theology.

[ChairmanArt]

What has been said so far about Ahmadenijad's position as a reactionary anti-capitalist is the most valid point here. Islam's (Ahmadenijad's) solution to capitalism is basically theocratic fascism, which is what he means when he says that Iranian problems are the result of "disregard" for the Islamo-fascist ideals of the 1979 revolution. From that point of view, even though he opposes capitalism, he still upholds and represents an "outmoded"- an system rooted in oppressive relations that is fundamentally based in the past, and must be opposed and eventually done away with in order to ensure a brighter future. Though the Islamo-fascist program is opposed to western capitalism, it is no better and no worse than what we have here in its need to be eliminated.

[cyu]

Islam's (Ahmadenijad's) solution to capitalism is basically theocratic fascism


What are the characteristics of this "theocratic fascism"? The original fascists worked closely with corporations and ensured that the rich stayed rich. Do they want the same thing? If so, what exactly do they mean when they are opposed to capitalism? Do they just mean they're against certain aspects of the market economy, but still want the rich to stay much richer than everyone else?

[Dimentio]

What are Islam's proposed solutions to capitalism? Is it more or less opposed to it than Catholicism? The previous pope has come out against the "excesses" of capitalism, but he (and the current pope) still suppressed liberation theology.

Islam is against rent, which is one of the foundations of capital ackumulation.

[Demogorgon]

His economic policy consists of privatising everything that isn't nailed down. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[Zurdito]

Ahmadinejad is a reactionary anti-capitalist, not a progressive anti-capitalist. For theocrats, religious feudalism is preferred system of government and economics. While progressives should support the people of Iran, we must remember that Ahmadinejad and his religious allies are still enemies of socialism.

Ahmadinejad is not a "reactionary anti-capitalist", this was Marx's phrase used to describe the anti-capitalist resistance of reactionary classes being pushed out of existence by capitalism at a time when it was revolutionising social relations and the economy, and as such is not a very useful phrase today, in the imperialist epoch, when capitalism is no longer revolutionising anything but is instead holding back the development of society and the means of production.

Ahmadinejad is firmly pro-capitalist; a bourgeois leader of a third world state who, in order to cut a better deal for the national bourgeoisie, needs to lean to an extent on his own masses, to resist the advances of imperialism to a certain extent and maybe win back a greater degree of economic independence for Iran, whilst still firmly operating within the imperialist global system. The idea of this "economic nationalism" is that you can form cross-class alliances within a third world or, more technically, a semi-colonial, country, based on the fact that the development of a protected "national" capitalism and domestic market would lead to better pay and conditions for workers, and a more powerful national bourgeoisie. Therefore it's a contradictory process and we can't compeltely dismiss all the illusions workers have int his, but neither can we obviously claim that it is socialist or anti-capitalist.

[BIG BROTHER]

He's anti-imperialist alright, but I really don't think he's looking to end the opression of the workers at all.

[rouchambeau]

He's not against capitalism, he's against threats to his rule.

[Led Zeppelin]

People saying that Ahmadinejad is "anti-imperialist" don't understand what imperialism is, or rather, think that only US imperialism exists in the world.

[Devrim]

Islam is against rent, which is one of the foundations of capital ackumulation.

Funny, I have never even heard of this. Perhaps, you mean interest.

Islam is 'against' interest. It is very clear in the Koran. The whole idea of Islamic banking today though is about giving interest another name, so as to keep usury within the bounds of Islam.

Devrim

[Devrim]

People saying that Ahmadinejad is "anti-imperialist" don't understand what imperialism is, or rather, think that only US imperialism exists in the world.

Absolutely agreed.

Devrim

[AGITprop]

Baathists were "socialist" too. So was Quadafi.
Peoples thoughts on Quaddafi?

[Comrade Krell]

Peoples thoughts on Quaddafi?
Basically another Nasserite. Basically the Arab version of 'African socialism', is devoted to reversing colonial economic relationships, nationalism - but completely rejects Marxist class struggle as 'divisive'. Basically fascist when it comes down to it, which is why the 'mother' fascist Brezhnev supported them.

[Faux Real]

Basically another Nasserite. Basically the Arab version of 'African socialism', is devoted to reversing colonial economic relationships, nationalism - but completely rejects Marxist class struggle as 'divisive'. Basically fascist when it comes down to it, which is why the 'mother' fascist Brezhnev supported them.:huh: Both Qadaffi and Nasser are Arab and from North Africa and called for Arab nationalism and the erasing of the old colonial borders that of course the puppet monarchs and dictators installed by the colonial powers refused to give in to. Qaddafi abandoned that ideology because of how the Arab countries abandoned him while Libya was being bombed. Calling them fascist is a bit ridiculous.

[Comrade Krell]

:huh: Both Qadaffi and Nasser are Arab and from North Africa and called for Arab nationalism and the erasing of the old colonial borders that of course the puppet monarchs and dictators installed by the colonial powers refused to give in to. Qaddafi abandoned that ideology because of how the Arab countries abandoned him while Libya was being bombed. Calling them fascist is a bit ridiculous.
Well I don't use the term fascist likely, but I think it's an apt description. The central tenet of fascism was basically a reaction to the perceived 'divisiveness' of Marxism - ie the belief that the interests of capital and labor were in fact reconcilable, and that class collaboration was favorable. That of course is a lie, the nature of the State as an instrument of class oppression means only one class can be on top of the State at one time. Any belief that the interests of the bourgeois and working class can be reconciled is fascism - just fascism at different levels of severity.

[Andy Bowden]

Any belief that the interests of the bourgeois and working class can be reconciled is fascism - just fascism at different levels of severity.

In that case just about every capitalist government in the west has been "fascist" - to levels of severity that make the term pretty meaningless.

Fascism is a very specific response, based from the middle class in times of crisis where they are faced with challenges from the working class and Big Business capitalism.

Its role is organised violence against the labour movement, with the aim of atomising it completely, and attempting to use large capital for its own ends, while in reality being used as a tool for them - albeit an exceptionally and often catastrophically unstable one.

[Comrade Krell]

In that case just about every capitalist government in the west has been "fascist" - to levels of severity that make the term pretty meaningless.

Fascism is a very specific response, based from the middle class in times of crisis where they are faced with challenges from the working class and Big Business capitalism.

Its role is organised violence against the labour movement, with the aim of atomising it completely, and attempting to use large capital for its own ends, while in reality being used as a tool for them - albeit an exceptionally and often catastrophically unstable one.
I understand your view, but my comes from looking at 'fascism' from less of the specific examples and looking more to the Leninist analysis of imperialism and a more general look. I see the state bourgeois, as an instrument of class rule, as an entity in constant flux depending on the class struggle. At various times the bourgeois 'democratic' regimes will use 'human rights', 'freedom' and other such concepts to fool the proletariat, the bourgeois democratic regimes is the most common formation of bourgeois states these days, although various more brutal forms of bourgeois states exist elsewhere in the world.

Fascism, as in the specific ideology of the Great Depression, formed itself as a radical tendency of welfare capitalism, which likewise with the rise of the working class organized in the Communist Party, sought to use extreme violence and to utilize the full apparatus of the repressive state to contain proletarial outbursts. Severity depends on how vicious the class struggle is at the time.

[ChairmanArt]

Indeed, your opinion is valid, Comrade Krell. Although, I think it is also valid to say that the tendencies of at least the Bush regime have been extremely fascistic, so it is not an exaggeration (and consequently a marginalization of the word) Andy Bowden, to say that at least the current western capitalist regime ruling America is fascist, although this fascism is not based in the middle class (which I must strongly disagree with you on being the essential backbone of fascistic movements, as seen by widespread prloetarian support for the Nazis in Germany) but amongst the bourgeoisie as a specific response to globalization and threats to US imperialism, including the so-called "terrorists". But the widespread violence, as well as the glorification of the military, and suppression and subversive acquisition of information which you neglected to mention is the same, and thus we are currently living under an at least quasi-fascist regime.

[Andy Bowden]

The US is a quasi-fascist state?

The US still has a political environment where you can set up a Socialist or Labour Movement stall, meeting etc and not have it smashed up and its organisers arrested by security forces.

The Republicans have been shafted in elections and peacefully conceded power to Democrats.

Anti war protests still happen in large numbers.

None of these would happen under a fascist regime. And it's those kinds of activities that characterise a fascist regime - not a leadership cult, or patriotism towards the military.

Calling the US "quasi fascist" or "social fascist" is totally undermining what fascism is.

And btw, the Nazis did not EVER have mass support from German workers. Their base was from the middle class. German workers consistently voted for the Social Democrats or Communists.

[BIG BROTHER]

The US is a quasi-fascist state?

The US still has a political environment where you can set up a Socialist or Labour Movement stall, meeting etc and not have it smashed up and its organisers arrested by security forces.

The Republicans have been shafted in elections and peacefully conceded power to Democrats.

Anti war protests still happen in large numbers.

None of these would happen under a fascist regime. And it's those kinds of activities that characterise a fascist regime - not a leadership cult, or patriotism towards the military.

Calling the US "quasi fascist" or "social fascist" is totally undermining what fascism is.

And btw, the Nazis did not EVER have mass support from German workers. Their base was from the middle class. German workers consistently voted for the Social Democrats or Communists.

I agree with you, the word fascist is used too loosely and too often now days.

But I disagree with you on the seccond. The Nazis did have mass support at the beguning, much moe than the social democrats and communists.

[ChairmanArt]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the United States government has developed fascistic tendencies in recent years, which gives some people the grounds to call them at least quasi-fascist. Your point that the word fascist is too largely used is valid, but there's some definite fascism to the Bush regime, in my opinion.

And the Nazis most definitely had support from the German workers in the begnning. For, comrade, there was no middle class in the Weimar Republic where the Nazis have their origin, only the extremely poor and the bourgeoisie due to the horrendous inflation after WWI. That would be like saying that the current Mugabe regime has middle classed backing-which is ridiculous, becuase due to fact that their money is worth practically nothing, there is no middle class to speak of.

[chebol]

Andy's analysis of fascism is the correct one.

One problem though guys. You need to go back and remove the term "middle class" from the discussion, and replace it with "petit bourgeois".

The "middle class" in Germany (in so far as it existed) did support the Nazis, but it is more useful (as the point has been made about levels of poverty etc, which obscure people's understanding of what "middle class" is) to look at people's relation to the means of production (you know, that good old marxist approach).

'Tis the petit bourgeoisie, when in crisis, that forms the backbone of fascism (the movement, that is). Fascism itself, however, is a movement in the service of Capital - as Andy pointed out, it's main task is to weaken the working class to the extent necessary to prevent the overthrow of capital and to enable the re-establishment of its "normal" operations. The petit bourgeoisie - as the historically vulnerable class stuck between the two classes in whom capitalist society and politics is founded - is the perfect tool upon which to base this operation.

(Hint: this was never the case in Iraq or Libya, and you're WAY off the mark if you think these were fascist. And no, developing a theory of which you can boast that it's based on theory, rather than historical examples, is not an alternative. Nor is it marxist, or leninist).

Now for a history lesson. The working class supported the SPD and communists before Hitler's rise to power. Even a cursory view of history should remind you of that. That is why the Nazis took the name "National Socialist" and took on a number of populist policies that might appeal to the working class. A section of the nazi movement (the SA) oriented towards this more "socialistic" pole - initially as a tactic to coopt workers (look at the BNP's atrocious attempt to set up their own union in the UK for example), but some even strayed into believing it - but was quickly (and bloodily) wiped out as the Nazis-proper asserted their stranglehold.

Furthermore, the fact that the first people the Nazis went for weren't the jews, or roma, or homosexuals, but the communists, and notably the trade union leaders, ought to suggest that maybe the idiotic formulation "the german working class supported the nazis from the beginning" ought to be taken apart and rephrased a wee wee bit.

It is undeniable that once in power, Hitler managed to win the support of many more germans through his economic, political, and initial military gains. But to think that a proletariat, faced with a minority government based upon a party that they had been fighting (and I mean really fighting) against - through violent street battles with the violent thugs of the NSDAP - and against whom they had just voted, would suddenly turn around and sy "Ok, now we support Hitler"..... sorry, it's not only daft, it's ahistorical. Even Kautsky would be chewing rags over this one.

[YKTMX]

This statement is not insincere and is entirely congruent with President Ahmadinejad's political history and the elecotral constituency he's built up in the Islamic Republic. The electoral constituency has been one built on opposition to the more "free-market" elements in the regime, more help for the poor and the "anti-capitalist" spirit of the 1979 revolution, and fervent opposition to Western Imperialism.

This has gained him, and the Islamic Republic itself, mass support amongst Iranian.

[Led Zeppelin]

This statement is not insincere and is entirely congruent with President Ahmadinejad's political history and the elecotral constituency he's built up in the Islamic Republic. The electoral constituency has been one built on opposition to the more "free-market" elements in the regime, more help for the poor and the "anti-capitalist" spirit of the 1979 revolution, and fervent opposition to Western Imperialism.

"Anti-capitalist spirit of the 1979", do you even know what the hell you are talking about?

Anti-capitalism in the form of a back-to-feudalism movement is not progressive. It's disgusting that you say such things and call yourself a communist at the same time. Tens of thousands of communists of all tendencies were wiped out by the "anti-capitalist 1979 revolution", the most progressive layers of the working-class movement.


This has gained him, and the Islamic Republic itself, mass support amongst Iranian.

No, first of all he doesn't have mass support, secondly the main reason he was "elected" was due to his history as Mayor of Teheran, where he enacted more liberal laws concerning the wearing of veils and other such reforms aimed at fooling the youth.

Naturally when he came to power that all changed and he became the most conservative President to date.

This is all irrelevant though, he has no real power, it resides with the Supreme Islamic Council.

But I like a white middle-class teenager from the UK talking about how much Iranians love Ahmadinejad (and the Islamic Republic!), it shows how delusional some people really are on the left.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Ahmadinejad was elected on promises of economic reform to cut unemployment and fight inflation.

Reality kicked in (i.e. food prices tripled and house prices doubled during a period in 2006).

He is about as anti-capitalist as any Republican.

And he certainly does not have mass support.

A poll by Baztab showed that 62.5 percent of those that voted for Ahmadinejad would not elect him again. Link. (http://www.antiwar.com/ips/sanati.php?articleid=11493)

Among those that did not vote for him in the first election, only 3.5 percent said they would consider voting for him in the next election. Link. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/ih24ak03.html)

Those who do admire him rally to his nationalist rhetoric.

Nothing a communist should support.

Edit: Oh, I see that Comrade Led Zeppelin responded first.


But I like a white middle-class teenager from the UK talking about how much Iranians love Ahmadinejad, it shows how delusional some people really are on the left.I whole heartedly agree. :)

I also think its a double standards; what is okay for these 'backward third worlders' would never be tolerated in their own countries.

[YKTMX]

Anti-capitalism in the form of a back-to-feudalism movement is not progressive.

I didn't claim that it was. You'll also notice that I put anti-capitalism in quotes, suggesting I'm not entirely convinced about how genuine this was, although it obviously existed, as anyone who knows anything about the Iranian revolution knows.


Tens of thousands of communists of all tendencies were wiped out by the "anti-capitalist 1979 revolution", the most progressive layers of the working-class movement.


Communists and socialists led the 1979 revolution! It was what came afterwards that was the problem, not the revolution itself.


No, first of all he doesn't have mass support

This is false. A poll released this month revealed:



Two thirds also approve of how President Ahmadinejad is handling his job at home and his dealings with other countries. Sixty-six percent approved "of the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president," while 22 percent disapproved. To probe deeper into these sentiments of support, the study asked questions about "the way President Ahmadinejad has been traveling abroad and speaking about Iran's foreign policy." Sixty-three percent said the president's activities have made "the overall security of Iran" "mostly better"; only 14 percent said this has made Iran's security mostly worse. Similarly, 64 percent said Ahmadinejad's activities had made "other countries' views of Iran" mostly better; 16 percent said his work had made these countries' views worse.
Support for Ahmadinejad is stronger among those with low income and low education, and considerably weaker at the upper end of each scale. Among low-income respondents, 75 percent approved of Ahmadinejad's performance; among high-income respondents, it was 41 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. Among those with less than a high school education, 80 percent approved of Ahmadinejad; among those with some college or more, it was 49 percent, with 35 percent disapproving. These differences suggest that the remarks of many observers, to the effect that Ahmadinejad operates as the Iranian version of a "populist," are not far off the mark




http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/iran120408.html


Now, you can either accept these facts, or you can screech and call me names. I'm not bothered either way, to be honest.


This is all irrelevant though, he has no real power, it resides with the Supreme Islamic Council.


I don't think he is irrelevant, as I said, but I think you're right about the power of the Islamic council.


But I like a white middle-class teenager from the UK talking about how much Iranians love Ahmadinejad (and the Islamic Republic!), it shows how delusional some people really are on the left.

I'm not a teenager, I'm 22. I'm from the from the UK, I'm Scottish. And I'm not middle class.

The facts on the popularity of President Ahmadinejad speak for themselves. His role as an opponent of economic liberalization is widely recognised.

Can your mind absorb these facts?

We'll see.

[Pawn Power]

The guy is insane. I wouldn't hold what he says to serriously.

[Ismail]

I think people take these guys 'anti-capitalist' messages too seriously. Communists should use these leaders for our purposes. We shouldn't say "Oh hey, this guy is awesome!", we should say "Oh hey, this guy can unwillingly be useful in order to gain Communists some popularity!". Enver Hoxha for example had no love for Ayatollah Khomeini, but he stated that the Communists must exploit the situation (of unrest and dislike of the 'excessive' elements of capitalism) and drive people away from Khomeini and into the ranks of the Communists. Otherwise, Hoxha condemned Nasser, Qaddafi, and so on as anti-Communists who serve no purpose due to lack of a revolutionary situation. He only said "Work with the theocrats, but prepare to betray them" because of the situation in Iran.

Sound sensible?


In Algeria the people waged the national liberation war against the French colonialists and, although it was not led by a Marxist-Leninist party but by the national bourgeoisie, the war for national liberation ended with the withdrawal of the foreign occupiers, but it was carried no further...
In Tunisia the people seem to be asleep and very apathetic, are showing little sign of awakening, but they are not all that backward. Recently there was talk about a trade-union movement there and the general secretary of the trade-unions was arrested, but nothing more happened.
In 1952 there was a revolt in Egypt, too. The monarchy was overthrown without bloodshed. King Farouk was expelled from Egypt by a group of officers. Those who removed him from the throne accompanied him to Alexandria, gave him money, put him on board a ship and helped him to get away and save his neck. In other words, they told the monarch he had better leave of his own accord and save his skin, because he could no longer stay in the country, he no longer had any basis there. Thus, the group of officers, headed by Nasser, Naguib and Sadat, carried out what you might call a bloodless military coup against an utterly degenerate monarchy and seized power. What was this group of Egyptian officers that carried out the putsch and what did they represent? These officers were of the bourgeoisie, its representatives, they were anti-British, but amongst them there were also pro-Hitlerites. As I have mentioned, Anwar elSadat himself declares he collaborated with the "Desert wolf", the Nazi field-marshal Rommel.

This event, that is, the removal of Farouk from the throne, was exaggerated to the point of being called a "revolution". However, the Egyptian people, the working masses of that country, gained nothing from this whole affair. Virtually no reform to the benefit of the people was carried out. The so-called agrarian reform ended up in favour of the feudals and wealthy landowners. Under the disguise of the unity of Arab peoples the newcomers to power tried to bring about the "unification" of Egypt with Syria. However, every effort in this direction was in vain because in Syria, too, at this time the capitalist bourgeoisie in the leadership of the state had simply changed their horses and their patron. The imperialist Soviet Union had replaced France. It sabotaged this baseless "unification" and established itself firmly in that country.

As is known, in 1969 there was a revolt in Libya, too; the dynasty of King Idris was overthrown and a group of young officers, headed by Qaddafi who poses as anti-imperialist, came to power. We can describe this revolt, this movement, as progressive at first, but later it lost its impact and at the moment it has fallen into stagnation. Qaddafi who came to power and claims to be the head of Islam, exploited the Moslem religion to present Libya as a "progressive", country and even called it "socialist", but in reality the great oil wealth of the country is being exploited for very dubious adventurous and sinister aims. Of course, for purposes of demagogy and because the income from the sale of oil is truly colossal, some changes have been made in the life of the people in the cities, while the poverty-stricken nomads of the desert remain a grave social problem. As we know, Qaddafi was a disciple of Nasser's in politics, ideology and religious belief, as well as in his aims.
A somewhat more advanced and more revolutionary uprising against the monarchy took place in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, in 1958. It ended with the killing of King Faisal and his prime minister, Nuri Said. The "communists" took power there together with General Kassem, a representative of the liberal officers. Only five years later, however, in 1963, there was a coup d'etat and Kassem was executed. He was replaced by another officer, Colonel Aref. In 1968 General Al-Bakr came to the head of the state and the "Baath" Party, a party of the reactionary feudal and compradore bourgeoisie, returned to power.

[....]

In regard to Khomeini, he is a religious leader, a dedicated
believer, and an idealist philosopher. He may even be a
fanatic, but we see that at the same time he is in accord
and united with the revolutionary spirit of the Iranian
people. Khomeini has taken the side of the opponents of
the monarchy. The imperialist bourgeois, the supporters of
the Pahlavi monarchy and other reactionary forces in the
world say that he wants to become a monarch himself. Let them
say this; but the fact is that the anti-imperialists,
anticolonialist, and antifeudal liberation movement in Iran
is in the ascendancy and Khomeini still maintains a good
stand in regard to this movement.

[....]

Although anti-religious in their principles, the Iranian
Marxist-Leninists must not for the moment wage a struggle
against the religious beliefs of the people who have risen in
revolt against oppression and are waging a just struggle
politically. . . . Our world outlook cannot be assimilated
easily in isolation from the revolutionary drive of the masses
or from the anti-imperialist trends that are trying to remain
in the leadership and to maneuver to prevent the
bourgeois-democratic reforms of the revolution. . . . The Iranian

Marxist-Leninists must not let the revolution die down. The
working class and its true Marxist-Leninist vanguard should
have no illusions about the "deep-going" bourgeois-democratic
measures and reforms which the Shiah clergy or the anti-Shah
elements of the old and new national bourgeoisie might carry
out.

[Davie zepeda]

Point valid to all of you but also Islam naturally rejects any other thought or reform . ! they stick to the koron rather than looking for any equality because the base's thought of thing's for them is to stick to the book and other view's or thought's is an enemy anything that threatens to change there way of living and how they think is a threat.
The problem with African revolution's is there to quick to attack each other on how to bring about change so that causes conflict within and around the country's .The only hope for Africa to change is for capitalism to progress the situation where people can get a decent education once capitalism improver's it enough where the country's in Africa have the equipment and the mean to produce for them self's and not relay on outer help then a revolution may work in Africa intell then they will be back ward's intell condition's improve.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

A cursory glance at this thread explains why the militant Left today has lost the role it once had.

Most of the people who posted here are living in 19th century Europe. Their whole analysis is based on imposing the 1848 situation in the capitalist core of Western Europe onto the 2008 situation in a third-world Muslim country.

What is the outcome of this? Most people in this thread come out with pure bullshit.

It's so fucking HOPELESS to read this thread. Apart from Zurdito, nobody seems to understand what a national bourgeoisie is, and apart from Andy Bowden, nobody seems to understand what Fascism is.

On a forum with thousands of educated leftists, this is tragic.

No wonder we're so marginalized. No wonder we'll always remain a bunch of dreamers on a website, or a handful of radicals in the corner of a demonstration!

[chebol]

Spirit of Spartacus wrote:


A cursory glance at this thread explains why the militant Left today has lost the role it once had.


Ah, not quite, but it does provide a good illustration of where it's ended up. The main reasons lie elsewhere.


Apart from Zurdito, nobody seems to understand what a national bourgeoisie is, and apart from Andy Bowden, nobody seems to understand what Fascism is.

Ahem. Ah, this is perhaps a little harsh (though based on the posts here, entirely understandable).

Some people here have no excuse (except their own political ideology or tendency, which is clearly a clogged filter on reality), but I presume that not a few aren't actually such highly "educated leftists" as you might presume, but are actually very well-meaning but dangerously under-educated in term so of history, economics and politics.

Add to this the cock-and-bull of the capitalist propaganda machine, the post 9-11 renegades like Hitchens and the pseudo-leftists of the Alliance for War and Liberalism, all of whom crow on about "Islamo-fascism" (in much the same way that there really WAS a communist liver-eating monster living under your bed as a child in the 1950s), and it's all to easy to foresee
discussions as painfully off the mark as this one taking place.

There are two options - throw up your arms in despair and call everyone an idiot; or do as Marx, Lenin, and every honest revolutionary has done, and patiently explain the errors and the reasons.

Even if it sometimes feels like chewing on old rags.

[Davie zepeda]

no Fris tof all why the left the way is because the left has so many group's that do what you just did shoot down one aother fighting over which is more left and who is right and wonrg instead of saying hey let's make a unfying front.

[hekmatista]

no Fris tof all why the left the way is because the left has so many group's that do what you just did shoot down one aother fighting over which is more left and who is right and wonrg instead of saying hey let's make a unfying front.
Achieving this takes considerable patience as we are at all levels of development here. A few brief comments: Having high approval ratings in polls says no more about the nature of Ahmadinejad's regime than high approval polls of Bush in the middle of his first term did. The state as agent of capital accumulation and expanded reproduction isn't always the one the big bourgeoisie per se would have chosen, especially in states of emergency, such as those founded upon a popular uprising. Nonetheless, the Islamic state in Iran (as well as all other religio-authoritarian, nationalist, pan-Arabist, and Zionist regimes) remains the agent and arbiter of capitalist based production relations, regardless of the "opinions" or ideologically based limitations on usury, etc, of its leading figures. Ditto for actual fascism, which of course does not exist in fully developed form in Iran, much less in Bush' USA.