Is the Islamic Republic of Iran progressive? [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2008, 03:28

It accomplished several goals that we've seen in bourgeois-democratic revolutions. Though it was not was not based on 'democracy' or republican virtues, it has leaped in miles. To say that Iran was 'not better' under their own rule, as opposed to being a client-state to the U.S. and England, is a left-cover for imperialism.

It's funny how you say that Iran is now "under their own rule" when just a sentence before you say that there is no democracy.

I'm interested in knowing how the Iranian people can be "under their own rule" (in the same degree that people in bourgeois-democratic nations are) without democratically electing their leaders?

Also, a question directly related to that, I'm interested in knowing how a "bourgeois-democratic revolution" ended up in something which is not a bourgeois-democracy?

Iran's Human Development rating improved significantly in the years after the revolution, climbing from 0.569 in 1980 to 0.732 in 2002. This is at the same rate of Turkey, which is right behind Israel in having the highest life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living rating in the region. Literacy rates among Iranian women rose from 28% to 80% between 1976 and 1996, and illiteracy moved from 52.5 per cent in 1976 to just 24 percent within a few years after several campaigns initiated by Tehran. As far as health is concerned, maternal and infant mortality rates have been cut significantly. They have progressed even under the aggressive auspices of the Carter doctrine, and years of blockade and sanctions by the E.U. and US.

Oh, so you're one of those people.

First of all, cite a source for those numbers.

Secondly, if you want to compare the records of economic growth and some records of "raising the standard of living" to the Shah's regime, the latter comes off much better relative to the Islamic Republic, but this is not the way Marxists measure the progressive nature of a regime.

By that standard Nazi Germany would be "progressive" over the Weimar Republic.

Anyway, on to the actual figures and acts:

The Shah introduced novel economic concepts such as profit-sharing for industrial workers and initiated massive government-financed heavy industry projects, as well as the nationalization of forests and pastureland. Most important, however, were the land reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform) programs which saw the traditional landed elites of Iran lose much of their influence and power. Nearly 90% of Iranian share-croppers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-cropper) became land owners as a result. Socially, the platform granted women more rights and poured money into education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education), especially in the rural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural) areas. The Literacy Corps was also established, which allowed young men to fulfill their compulsory military service by working as village literacy teachers.

[...]

The White Revolution consisted of 19 elements that were introduced over a period of 15 years, with the first 6 introduced in 1963 and put to a national referendum on January 26th, 1963.

Land Reforms Program and Abolishing "Feudalism": The government bought the land from the feudal land lords at a fair price and sold it to the peasants at 30% below the market value, with the loan being payable over 25 years at very low interest rates. This made it possible for 1.5 million peasant families, who had once been nothing more than slaves, to own the lands that they had been cultivating all their lives. Given that average size of a peasant family was 5, land reforms program brought freedom to 9 million people, or 40% of Iran's population.

Nationalization of Forests and Pasturelands: Introduced many measures, not only to protect the national resources and stop the destruction of forests and pasturelands, but also to further develop and cultivate them. More than 9 million trees were planted in 26 regions, creating 70,000 acres (280 km²) of "green belts" around cities and on the borders of the major highways.

Profit Sharing for industrial workers in private sector enterprises, giving the factory workers and employees 20% share of the net profits of the places where they worked and securing bonuses based on higher productivity or reductions in costs.

Extending the Right to Vote to Women, who had no voice and were suppressed by Islamic traditions. This measure was widely criticized by the clergy.

Formation of the Literacy Corps, so that those who had a high school diploma and were required to serve their country as soldiers could do so in fighting illiteracy in the villages. At this point in time 2/3 of the population was illiterate.

Formation of the Health Corps to extend public health care throughout the villages and rural regions of Iran. In 3 years, almost 4,500 medical groups were trained; nearly 10 million cases were treated by the Corps.

Formation of the Reconstruction and Development Corps to teach the villagers the modern methods and techniques of farming and keeping livestock. Agricultural production between 1964 and 1970 increased by 80% in tonnage and 67% in value.

Formation of the Houses of Equity where 5 village elders would be elected by the villagers, for a period of 3 years, to act as arbitrators in order to help settle minor offences and disputes. By 1977 there were 10,358 Houses of Equity serving over 10 million people living in over 19,000 villages across the country.

Nationalization of all Water Resources, introduction of projects and policies in order to conserve and benefit from Iran's limited water resources. Many dams were constructed and five more were under construction in 1978. It was as a result of these measures that the area of land under irrigation increased from 2 million acres (8,000 km²), in 1968, to 5.6 million in 1977.

Urban and Rural Modernization and Reconstruction with the help of the Reconstruction and Development Corps. Building of public baths, schools and libraries; installing water pumps and power generators for running water and electricity.

Didactic Reforms that improved the quality of education by diversifying the curriculum in order to adapt to the necessities of life in the modern world.

Workers' Right to Own Shares in the Industrial Complexes where they worked by turning Industrial units, with 5 years history and over, into public companies, where up to 99% of the shares in the state-owned enterprises and 49% of the shares of the private companies would be offered for sale to the workers of the establishment at first and then to the general public.

Price Stabilization and campaign against unreasonable profiteering (1975). Owners of factories and large chain stores were heavily fined, with some being imprisoned and other's licenses being revoked. Sanctions were imposed on multi-national foreign companies and tons of merchandise stored for speculative purposes were confiscated and sold to consumers at fixed prices.

Free and Compulsory Education and a daily free meal for all children from kindergarten to 14 years of age. In 1978, 25% of Iranians were enrolled in public schools alone. In that same year there were 185,000 students of both sexes studying in Iran's universities. In addition to the above there were over 100,000 students pursuing their studies abroad, of which 50,000 were enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States.

Free Food for Needy Mothers and for all newborn babies up to the age of two.

Introduction of Social Security and National Insurance for all Iranians. National Insurance system provided for up to 100% of the wages during retirement.

Stable and Reasonable Cost of Renting or Buying of Residential Properties (1977). Controls were placed on land prices and various forms of land speculation.

Introduction of Measures to Fight against Corruption within the bureaucracy. Imperial Inspection Commission was founded, consisting of representatives from administrative bodies and people of proven integrity.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution)

If I were you I would consider the Shah progressive, but I'm not, I'm a Marxist.

Also, you are borrowing the Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions of the Second International, which only affirms my point further. If you read a little before that line, instead of nit-picking parts of it to prove your point, you'd find that you are only proving yourself wrong.

It seems that Lenin wants to cast off the "clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements" by "assisting" (or, according to the Trotskyists, 'collaborating') the "bourgeois-democratic liberation movements."

I'm the one who's nitpicking from that, am I?

So you say that Lenin actually wanted to "cast off the reactionary elements" which he meant by "assisting the bourgeois-democratic liberation movements" and that I nitpicked a sentence out of that thesis to make it seem as if he actually didn't support "bourgeois-democratic liberation movements" unconditionally which are reactionary because they are...bourgeois?

No, I don't think so, later on in the same theses he goes on to say:

fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate—by setting up “working people’s Soviets”, etc.;

fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm)

Now, in Iran the communist movement has been illegalized and tens of thousands of revolutionary leftists have been either executed or jailed....and you try to imply that Lenin (of all people!) would have supported the reactionary regime based on this because the literacy rates have gone up? :lol:

No, no, you have Lenin all wrong, he's not the petty philistine you try to make him out to be:

Social-Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic warning to the proletariat and other working people of all nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans of “their own” bourgeoisie, who with their saccharine or fiery speeches about “our native land” try to divide the proletariat and divert its attention from their bourgeois intrigues while they enter into an economic and political alliance with the bourgeoisie of other nations and with the tsarist monarchy.

The proletariat cannot pursue its struggle for socialism and defend its everyday economic interests without the closest and fullest alliance of the workers of all nations in all working-class organisations without exception.

[...]

It follows, therefore, that workers who place political unity with “their own” bourgeoisie above complete unity with the proletariat of all nations, are acting against their own interests, against the interests of socialism and against the interests of democracy.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm)

Besides, you were taking the historical context out of that quote anyway. Keep in mind, at the Second Congress, he was addressing Muslims from the "Baskir and Tatar Republics" along with "Kirghizia, Turkestan", which, coincidentally, are all from the Central Asian landmass. In those spots, the "khans, landowners, and mullahs" still predominated. In the Gulf region, conditions were (and are) far different. So Islamism plays an entirely different role, and represents different social forces that are in direct contradiction to U.S. imperialism.

To say that khans, landowners and mullahs - especially mullahs - are not the predominant social force in Iran betrays ignorance of the situation there.

They are the predominant social force, they hold state-power, and they are part of the Iranian bourgeoisie, i.e., ruling class.

Given that fact, to then say that "Islamism plays an entirely different role" because the Iranian bourgeoisie happens to oppose the American bourgeoisie and seeks to protect its own interests, is like saying that the political nature of Islamism itself has changed and has been transformed into a progressive ideology.

I don't know, I don't believe that a nation wherein two women have the same worth in front of the law as one man, wherein any opposition to the government is brutally suppressed, wherein all women are forced to wear veils and in some areas are still stoned for "cheating", wherein homosexuals are hanged, wherein workers are exploited and oppressed etc. etc. is run by a progressive ideology just because the ruling class happens to defend its own interests, I'm sorry.

In that respect I'm a revolutionary, while you are a defender of the reactionary regime, which in turn makes you a reactionary on that issue, an issue which happens to be one of the most important ones at the moment.

I think you should change your name to "Labour Shall Rule [except in Iran and other nations run by Islamist ideology]".

Bright Banana Beard

15th July 2008, 03:43

I think you should change your name to "Labour Shall Rule [except in Iran and other nations run by Islamist ideology]".

In USA, it is labor instead of labour. :)

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2008, 07:43

The Shah (if you know your history) was put in on the auspices of Anglo-American agents, who were concerned over the Mossadeq coalition's (which included the Iranian Communists) preparation to take their oil fields out of British hands, and to take on a radical land program. During his power, he had a rubber-stamp Senate to dictate his orders (very much like Diem from South Vietnam), but after the Islamists took power, a Islamic Consultive Assembly was put in place. By the Constitution's orders, the Jews and Christians must have at least one representative (though three Jews have been elected in the elections two years ago), and the former Majlis that supported the Shah (who were not suppressed by the Islamists) continue to hold many seats.

As for my 'proof', check it out:
UNICEF: At a glance - Iran (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iran.html)

With an estimated population of 71.4 million, Iran is the most populous country in the region, and the 16th most populous in the world. With a Gross Domestic Product of US$110 billion, Iran is the second largest economy in the region. It is also the second largest Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil producer and has the world's second largest reserves of gas. The human development trend, which had been positive and rising in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s may, however, reduced its accelerating trend and stagnated in the second half of the 90’s. In 2001 Iran's Human Development Index remained classified as "medium" although it gainied ground by moving from the 97th position in 2000 to the 90th rank in 2002. Iran continues to experience a transition from a traditional rural-based society to a semi-industrialized country and faces many challenges. These include: a) high unemployment (generally estimated to be above 25 per cent); b) a distorted distribution of income and; c) inequality of opportunity (although poverty is officially set at 18 per cent of the population, 16.5 mllion people can be considered as living under the relative poverty line).

The health status of Iranians has improved over the last two decades. Iran has been able to extend public health preventive services through the establishment of an extensive Primary Health Care network. As a result child and maternal mortality rates have fallen significantly, and life expectancy at birth has risen remarkably. Infant (IMR) and under-five (U5MR) mortality have decreased to 28.6 and 35.6 per 1,000 live births respectively in 2000, compared to an IMR of 122 per 1,000 and an U5MR of 191 per 1,000 in 1970.

Immunization coverage is over 90 per cent and polio is almost eliminated. Over 85 per cent of the population has access to health services and 90 per cent of births are attended by trained health personnel. The maternal mortality rate is reported at 37 per 100,000 live births. Tetanus Toxoid coverage of women stands at approximately 80 per cent. The prevalence of moderate to sever underweight, wasting and stunting are 11 per cent, five per cent and 15 per cent respectively. About 93 per cent and 73 per cent of households had access to safe drinking water and sanitary toilet in 2000 respectively. Malnutrition remains relatively high as a result of inadequate income distribution and poor caring practices, especially in rural areas.
Iran has one of the highest rates of drug usage in the region. In addition to its social and economic consequences, drug use is emerging as a major contributor to HIV infection and AIDS. Official figures show a total of 3,680 reported cases of HIV/AIDS but the Ministry of Health believes that the actual number of HIV infections is at least three times higher. Some 64.5 per cent of the cases were contaminated through intravenous drug use (IVDU), 8.9 per cent through sexual transmission, 5.1 per cent through blood and blood product transfusion, 0.4 per cent through mother-to-child transmission (MTCT). Some 21.0 per cent of the contaminations were of unknown origin.

Developments in education have also been positive. In 2001 the literacy rate of the population aged over six years of age has reached 80.4 per cent (85.1 per cent of men and 75.6 per cent of women). The urban-rural gap has also narrowed to about 14 per cent (86.25 per cent of urban population versus 72.4 per cent of the rural). There are, however, still noticeable differences among and within Iranian provinces. The net enrollment ratio is above 97 per cent and is almost equal among girls and boys.

However, national averages hide disparities related to gender and area. While the overall enrollment rate for boys is 98 per cent, it varies significantly between provinces. For girls, the range is between 99 per cent in Tehran and 84 per cent in Sistan and Baluchestan. The enormous gains in the educational status of the Iranian population can be attributed to massive government’s investment in public education (on average 45 per cent of the government’s social affairs budget since 1989). Unfortunately, with less than 15 per cent enrolment, Iran has a significantly low rate of pre-school attendance, with no significant difference between boys and girls. Hence efforts should be directed towards expanding opportunities for early learning of pre-school aged children.

Despite all the investment in women’s education and health, women’s employment, which had reached a high of 13.8 per cent of total persons employed just before the Revolution, has actually declined since (12 per cent in 1996). In December 2001 the Cabinet approved the submission of a bill to the Parliament on Iran’s accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) with a general reservation. The bill has however not yet been passed by Parliament.

Also, of course, their Human Development Index (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=IR&indicatorid=15), which shows that 'development' (of life expectancy, purchasing power parity, literacy, standard of living) reached a height after the Islamists took power.

The Islamists (unlike the US puppet that came before them) realized that Britain and the United States will not provide the necessary external capital to develop heavy industry (since they just needed Iranian petroleum), so they reached into their large pool of labor to build up steel, petro-chemicals, copper, automobiles, and machine tools plants and mines. They also built power generators, dams and large-scale irrigation networks, which erroneously improved Iranian agriculture. So no, 'comparatively' speaking, the Shah was a fucking comprador that was tied to Washington and London, while the Islamists were not.

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2008, 08:06

I'm the one who's nitpicking from that, am I?

So you say that Lenin actually wanted to "cast off the reactionary elements" which he meant by "assisting the bourgeois-democratic liberation movements" and that I nitpicked a sentence out of that thesis to make it seem as if he actually didn't support "bourgeois-democratic liberation movements" unconditionally which are reactionary because they are...bourgeois?

No, I don't think so, later on in the same theses he goes on to say:

Now, in Iran the communist movement has been illegalized and tens of thousands of revolutionary leftists have been either executed or jailed....and you try to imply that Lenin (of all people!) would have supported the reactionary regime based on this because the literacy rates have gone up? :lol:

No, no, you have Lenin all wrong, he's not the petty philistine you try to make him out to be:

To say that khans, landowners and mullahs - especially mullahs - are not the predominant social force in Iran betrays ignorance of the situation there.

They are the predominant social force, they hold state-power, and they are part of the Iranian bourgeoisie, i.e., ruling class.

Given that fact, to then say that "Islamism plays an entirely different role" because the Iranian bourgeoisie happens to oppose the American bourgeoisie and seeks to protect its own interests, is like saying that the political nature of Islamism itself has changed and has been transformed into a progressive ideology.

I don't know, I don't believe that a nation wherein two women have the same worth in front of the law as one man, wherein any opposition to the government is brutally suppressed, wherein all women are forced to wear veils and in some areas are still stoned for "cheating", wherein homosexuals are hanged, wherein workers are exploited and oppressed etc. etc. is run by a progressive ideology just because the ruling class happens to defend its own interests, I'm sorry.

In that respect I'm a revolutionary, while you are a defender of the reactionary regime, which in turn makes you a reactionary on that issue, an issue which happens to be one of the most important ones at the moment.

I think you should change your name to "Labour Shall Rule [except in Iran and other nations run by Islamist ideology]".

I should change it to a more historical materialist name, such as "Labor Can Rule ."

I haven't argued for class-conscious workers to become the [I]extreme wing of bourgeois-nationalist movements, but for merely looking at what happened in Iran through a scientific scope: the Shi'ite clerics co-opted the anti-Shah protests (bringing death to Communists) but ultimately starting the bourgeois revolution by developing an industrial base (creating more proletarians) and by introducing technology and electrical power to agriculture.

Islamism is clearly bourgeois, but in a region that is kilometers of desert with a few cities that are entirely dependent on nothing but oil refineries and pipe-lines, it's clear that a bourgeois revolution is the next step, and the popularity of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Sadrists is testament to that.

Devrim

15th July 2008, 08:16

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2008, 08:30

There isn't any desert in Lebanon.

Nor do they have any oil.

Devrim

You get my point, Devrim. The reason that there is advanced and backwards nations/regions is because one is advanced at the expense of the other. Lebanon is part of that latter.

---------------------

Iran still clearly has more bourgeois goals to accomplish (the UN characterizes them as a "semi-developed" nation), but today more than ever, the Iranian ruling coalition is bitterly divided - the 'Reformists' (pro-US) have called for a greater privatization of the oil and gas sectors, and has been the most relaxed for better relations with Washington. Ahmadinejad's gang has been a staunch opponent of plans to reduce the public sector, and is not capitulating with the growing dissent within the Assembly. As so, they have been weaker than ever, and their failed treatment of the disastrous earth-quakes only added insult to injury.

There has been an increase of work stoppages and strikes, and the student movement is picking up strength. The contradictions within the Iranian state is only an expression of the vast divide between the bourgeois class itself (between strengthening pro-imperialist cliques and more “nationalist” figures), so it seems that the Iranian Left could only naturally enter the spot-light in the coming months. If the US invades, the Maoists (who have paraded in large numbers in the streets of Tehran) have threatened to open up a 'people's war'. I'm guessing that an intervention would be all that was needed to build a bridge between the Communists and Iranian working class.

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2008, 08:31

(if you know your history)

Apparently I know my history better than you, as I shall prove:

The Shah was put in on the auspices of Anglo-American agents, who were concerned over the Mossadeq coalition's (which included the Iranian Communists)

Wrong.

Not all Iranian communists supported Mossadeq, in fact that was one of the main reasons why it was so easy for him to be "overthrown" by a semi-coup staged by the CIA.

During his power, he had a rubber-stamp Senate to dictate his orders (very much like Diem from South Vietnam),

Very similar to the current Iranian regime which is directly under the leadership of the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, of which the other governmental bodies are simply tools of rubber-stamping.

but after the Islamists took power, a Islamic Consultive Assembly was put in place.

I have already refuted the myth about the "Islamic Consultive Assembly" or the "Assembly of Experts" being democratic:

The "Assembly of Experts" isn't elected by the people in a democratic election process, you made that up.

The list of nominees is screened by the government and only the "acceptable" people are allowed to be added to the vote, the same is the case in the election process for all positions in the government. During the last elections for example a large number of "reformist" candidates were not allowed to run.

I did not say that the Assembly of Experts was elected by democratic process, I said they are elected by the people.
Which is blatantly false as I demonstrated.

They aren't "elected by the people", they are simply ratified "by the people", they are chosen by the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, who have the real power in their hands.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-think-t83415/index2.html?&highlight=Iran)

By the Constitution's orders, the Jews and Christians must have at least one representative (though three Jews have been elected in the elections two years ago), and the former Majlis that supported the Shah (who were not suppressed by the Islamists) continue to hold many seats.

Stop getting your information from wikipedia searches while pretending that you "know your history".

The "former Majlis that supported the Shah" doesn't exist, there are no Monarchists in the current Consultative Assembly (or Majlis as you want to call it to sound knowledgable of the situation), there are no opposition parties to the Islamic Republic in it either.

You know why?

Because they are banned.

It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths some people are willing to go to prove the existence of something just so they can pretend to be rrrrrrevolutionary.

As for my 'proof', check it out:
UNICEF: At a glance - Iran (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iran.html)

Also, of course, their Human Development Index (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=IR&indicatorid=15), which shows that 'development' (of life expectancy, purchasing power parity, literacy, standard of living) reached a height after the Islamists took power.

That's not proof, I already responded to that non-argument of yours in my last post:

Secondly, if you want to compare the records of economic growth and some records of "raising the standard of living" to the Shah's regime, the latter comes off much better relative to the Islamic Republic, but this is not the way Marxists measure the progressive nature of a regime.

By that standard Nazi Germany would be "progressive" over the Weimar Republic.

[...]

Now, in Iran the communist movement has been illegalized and tens of thousands of revolutionary leftists have been either executed or jailed....and you try to imply that Lenin (of all people!) would have supported the reactionary regime based on this because the literacy rates have gone up? :lol:

As I said, I am a Marxist, and I don't judge the "progressive-ness" of a regime based on the literacy rates going up a few percent, that's idiotic.

By that logic the overwhelming majority of capitalist (and especially imperialist) nations would be considered "progressive", which nullifies your entire point to begin with because under the Shah's regime the standard of living also took great leaps.

It's just a total non-argument so stop repeating it.

The Islamists (unlike the US puppet that came before them) realized that Britain and the United States will not provide the necessary external capital to develop heavy industry (since they just needed Iranian petroleum), so they reached into their large pool of labor to build up steel, petro-chemicals, copper, automobiles, and machine tools plants and mines. They also built power generators, dams and large-scale irrigation networks, which erroneously improved Iranian agriculture. So no, 'comparatively' speaking, the Shah was a fucking comprador that was tied to Washington and London, while the Islamists were not.

I just cited examples of the Shah's regime developing not only heavy industry, but every branch of the economy, which was fully in line with his "White Revolution", you have not been able to refute that, instead you say "the Islamic Republic developed and improved some parts of the economy as well!".

Great argument, but it doesn't really prove anything now does it?

If you were to be consistent in your argument of "good economy equals good regime", you would support the Shah just as much (if not more) than the current Iranian regime, though I know that consistency is not your strongest point.

Marxists oppose both equally, because both are inherently reactionary regimes, and above that both are bourgeois dictatorships, the most reactionary of all types of bourgeois rule.

However, when comparing "human rights", the Islamic Republic is certainly far behind the Shah. Torture is regular practice in the Islamic Republic and the most cruel methods are used to extract information, this while also being the case for the most "prominent" political prisoners during the Shah's rule, was not regular practice.

Women are forced to wear the veil, and if they don't do so they can get punishments ranging from a fine to being whipped, something which was not the case during the Shah's rule.

Women are now considered to be worth half a man in law, and the testimony of two women is required to be considered equal to the testimony of one man, this was not the case during the Shah's rule.

Homosexuals are publically hanged, this was not the case during the Shah's rule.

All forms of media are under the supervision of the regime, but not only political media (as was the case during the Shah's rule), but also anything related to culture such as music, movies etc. is censored so as to "keep the morals of the people high".

But that is all child's play compared to the execution of tens of thousands of communists and revolutionary leftists from all ideological persuasions during "the white terror".

All political opposition to the Islamic Republic was suppressed, and it still is today.

Now, the same was the case during the Shah's rule of course, but they weren't all arrested and executed en masse as is the case now.

So then, we have the facts; The Islamic Republic is not democratic in any way. The Islamic Republic is not progressive either economically or socially when compared to the past regime in any way. And, most importantly, the Islamic Republic is just as reactionary as any other capitalist nation out there.

But you don't care about that, do you? You only care about coming over as oh so "rrrrevolutionary" because you see the inherent progressive nature of the peaceful Islamic Republic which never harmed any living thing.

Here's some advice for you; Don't repeat that trash to any Iranians, they will most likely beat the shit out of you.

should change it to a more historical materialist name, such as "Labor Can Rule ."

Oh, a vulgar stageist!

Menshevism hasn't died yet after all.

I haven't argued for class-conscious workers to become the [I]extreme wing of bourgeois-nationalist movements, but for merely looking at what happened in Iran through a scientific scope: the Shi'ite clerics co-opted the anti-Shah protests (bringing death to Communists) but ultimately starting the bourgeois revolution by developing an industrial base (creating more proletarians) and by introducing technology and electrical power to agriculture.

Islamism is clearly bourgeois, but in a region that is kilometers of desert with a few cities that are entirely dependent on nothing but oil refineries and pipe-lines, it's clear that a bourgeois revolution is the next step, and the popularity of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Sadrists is testament to that.

That's a bullshit way of reasoning and it doesn't have anything to do with historical fact.

The Shah was just as much a capitalist (if not more!) than the current Mullah's who rule Iran, in fact, if he stayed in power capitalism would have developed to a much greater extent than it has under the Islamic Republic, as his "White Revolution" proved.

Actually, ironically (for you anyway), the Shah wanted to eliminate feudalism at all costs, not just in economic relations, but also in social relations, something which the Islamic Republic has no intention of doing at all.

This idea of "revolution equals progressive bourgeois coming to power which develops capitalism and creates more proletarians and is therefore desirable" is flawed because it's deterministic.

It's entirely possible (as history has proved on more than one occasion) that a revolution could result in a regression rather than a progression over the past regime.

Also, I'm going to split this thread since it has gotten off-topic.

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2008, 09:03

Wrong.

Not all Iranian communists supported Mossadeg, in fact that was one of the main reasons why it was so easy for him to be "overthrown" by a semi-coup staged by the CIA.The Iranian Communists were in coalition with him during his campaign in 1950, but after Eisenhower urged him to shag ass away from the Reds, he did. But I never said that they did not ever separate from him, so I don't know why you're constantly going out of your way to say "ZOMG YOU TOTALLY ARE HISTORICALLY INACCURATE HERE." Sit down bud, get off your high-horse. I'll be more specific I guess, to prevent you from shitting out a hairy Leon Trotsky in your upcoming potty-smelling posts.

As I said, I am a Marxist, and I don't judge the "progressive-ness" of a regime based on the literacy rates going up a few percent, that's idiotic.

By that logic the overwhelming majority of capitalist (and especially imperialist) nations would be considered "progressive", which nullifies your entire point to begin with because under the Shah's regime the standard of living also took great leaps.

It's just a total non-argument so stop repeating it.I'm not judging just 'literacy rates', we're talking about purchasing power parity, life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality rates, and the overall standard of living as I've sang again and again like 'It's a Small World After All' played repeatedly Disney Land (or is it Disney World, Mr. Specific?).

The Weimer Republic example is utterly retarded - the Nazi's programme was based on bailing out the ruling class in Germany, which was in it's stages of high capitalism. It granted loans and public investment, and the state owned shares of predominant industries (while nationalizing them later for war-time purposes). The overall real wages for workers barely increased and food stamps were even cut periodically. It wasn't significant.

All of the socio-economic ratings described in the first paragraph are directly tied to the overall material level of the masses, which is decided by how high the productive forces are ultimately developed. Iran (unlike your stupid Germany example) has had real national tasks of developing heavy industry, which they've partially succeeded in doing. Since Iran broke from it's agrarian economic model (after the Islamists took over), the Human Development Index ratings noticeably leaped in bounds not seen during the Shah years. It is you that took a wikipedia article as evidence of how a US comprador has done better in improving the Iranian's standard of living, but it is I who has offered a better, updated, more reliable source that has been surveying Iranian development for decades.

But you don't care about that, do you? You only care about coming over as oh so "rrrrevolutionary" because you see the inherent progressive nature of the peaceful Islamic Republic which never harmed any living thing.

Here's some advice for you; Don't repeat that trash to any Iranians, they will most likely beat the shit out of you. You are using long paragraphs to compensate for your tiny penis, Sped Zepellin.

Here's some advice for you: stop being a Trot and keep it real.

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2008, 09:24

The Iranian Communists were in coalition with him during his campaign in 1950, but after Eisenhower urged him to shag ass away from the Reds, he did.

See, you're bullshitting again.

There was no such thing as a monolithic "Communist" bloc in Iran, there were various communist parties with various opinions on Mossadeq.

I'll be more specific I guess, to prevent you from shitting out a hairy Leon Trotsky in your upcoming potty-smelling posts.

"Shitting out a hairy Leon Trotsky"? Is that the best you can do?

Typical Menshevik, can't even insult properly.

I'm not judging just 'literacy rates', were talking about purchasing power parity, life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality rates, and the overall standard of living as I've sang again and again like 'It's a Small World After All' played repeatedly Disney Land (or is it Disney World, Mr. Specific?).

Don't be obtuse (though I know it must be hard for a Menshevik).

All those things you mentioned were also raised during the Shah's regime, and more significantly than under the Islamic Republic. That doesn't prove anything, or, well, I guess it proves that you are clueless.

Weimer Republic example is utterly retarded - the Nazi's programme was based on bailing out the ruling class in Germany, which was in it's stages of high capitalism. It granted loans and public investment, and the state owned shares of predominant industries (while nationalizing them later for war-time purposes). The overall real wages for workers barely increased and food stamps were even cut periodically. It wasn't significant.

It's not "utterly retarded". If anything is "utterly retarded" it's your view on the Islamic Republic which is being chipped off bit by bit as I reply to your posts.

The standard of living was raised significantly in Nazi Germany, so by your logic it was "progressive".

But why stay in Nazi Germany?

Currently the standard of living is being raised in most capitalist nations, historically it certainly has, so if you want to remain consistent with your "economic growth equals progressive regimes" crap you would be supporting most capitalist states throughout history....which is entirely in line with Menshevism.

Your ideology is bankrupt, it was already thrown "into the dustbin of history" in 1917.

By the way, that's a quote which you ironically took over from...."the hairy" Trotsky.

All of the socio-economic ratings described in the first paragraph are directly tied to the overall material level of the masses, which is decided by how high the productive forces are ultimately developed. Iran (unlike your stupid Germany example) has had real national tasks of developing heavy industry, which they've partially succeeded in doing. Since Iran broke from it's agrarian economic model (after the Islamists took over), the Human Development Index ratings noticeably leaped in bounds not seen during the Shah years.

What do you call Mensheviks without any knowledge on what they're talking about? A Menshevik.

No, actually, Iran had already started to break with the agrarian economic model during the Shah's rule (and it certainly wasn't "broken" right after the revolution), which is what his "White Revolution" was aimed at.

All the other things you mention, such as "having a real natural task of developing heavy industry" was started by the Shah:

The Shah introduced novel economic concepts such as profit-sharing for industrial workers and initiated massive government-financed heavy industry projects, as well as the nationalization of forests and pastureland.

[...]

Urban and Rural Modernization and Reconstruction with the help of the Reconstruction and Development Corps. Building of public baths, schools and libraries; installing water pumps and power generators for running water and electricity.

Only a person who knows nothing of Iran would say that the Shah would not have "developed capitalism" more, or at least to the same extent, in Iran as the Islamic Republic, which has had years of economic blunders behind it.

It is you that took a wikipedia article as evidence of how a US comprador has done better in improving the Iranian's standard of living, but it is I who has offered a better, updated, more reliable source that has been surveying Iranian development for decades.

Yes a very great source....UNICEF, which does not even say anything about the economic situation pre-revolution.

It's obvious that you're clueless about Iran, so stop trying to pretend that you're not.

You are using long paragraphs to compensate for your tiny penis, Sped Zepellin.

Oh my, a tiny penis insult! I am so deeply hurt. :crying:

What are you, 12? Or did you mistake this place for a locker-room where petty sophomoric insecure teenagers can insult others by saying they have small penises as if it somehow clears them of their own stupidity?

Let me buy you a pack of gum, I'll show you how to chew it.

Here's some advice for you; stop being a Trot and keep it real.

Stop clinging to Menshevism, it's dead and buried and your idiocy is not going to help revive it.

BobKKKindle$

15th July 2008, 09:40

Iran has not completed the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and the inability of the government to complete bourgeois historical tasks serves as an affirmation of the theory of permanant revolution. Iran's main export is petroleum (petroleum exports account for around 80% of total foreign exchange earnings) which, as a primary good, indicates that the Iranian economy has not been able to overcome the external obstacles to development imposed by imperialism. The weakness of the Iranian bourgeoisie also extends to the political sphere, as the government has imposed severe restrictions on the ability of the proletariat to create independent political organizations, as shown by the government response to a strike held by bus workers in Tehran in 2006: Tehran bus workers under attack (http://libcom.org/news/article.php/iran-bus-strike-update13-300106)

Although the government has allowed for some improvements in the material condition of the proletariat, this is not evidence that the government is progressive - all governments, even when they are not subject to democratic accountability through regular elections and free assembly, face pressure to protect the living standards of oppressed social groups, as a failure to do so would lead to a loss of legitimacy and so create the potential for the growth of radical opposition. The Iraqi government under the rule of the Ba'ath party passed similar reforms to those employed by the Iranian government - in 1972, a state-owned company (the Iraqi Company for Oil Operations) was established to take control of resources which had belonged to the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) and by 1975 all remaining foreign resources were also nationalized (Source: An Iraqi Woman's Account of War and Resistance, Haifa Zangana)

Leo

15th July 2008, 14:30

Islamism is clearly bourgeois, but in a region that is kilometers of desert with a few cities that are entirely dependent on nothing but oil refineries and pipe-lines, it's clear that a bourgeois revolution is the next step, and the popularity of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Sadrists is testament to that.I getting pretty sick of this liberal western leftist students "oh those poor little brown people" argument. Here's a list of different industries and agricultural products in this "region that is kilometers of desert with a few cities that are entirely dependent on nothing but oil refineries and pipe-lines" you ignorant clot:

Iran; Main Industries: petroleum, petrochemicals, fertilizers, caustic soda, textiles, cement and other construction materials, food processing (particularly sugar refining and vegetable oil production), ferrous and non-ferrous metal fabrication, armaments. Main Agricultural Products: wheat, rice, other grains, sugar beets, sugar cane, fruits, nuts, cotton; dairy products, wool, caviar.

Lebanon; Main Industries: banking, tourism, food processing, wine, jewelry, cement, textiles, mineral and chemical products, wood and furniture products, oil refining, metal fabricating. Main Agricultural Products: citrus, grapes, tomatoes, apples, vegetables, potatoes, olives, tobacco; sheep, goats.

Iraq; Main Industries: petroleum, chemicals, textiles, leather, construction materials, food processing, fertilizer, metal fabrication/processing. Main Agricultural Products: wheat, barley, rice, vegetables, dates, cotton; cattle, sheep, poultry.

Afghanistan; Main Industries: textiles, soap, furniture, shoes, fertilizer, cement; handwoven carpets; natural gas, coal, copper. Main Agricultural Products: opium, wheat, fruits, nuts; wool, mutton, sheepskins, lambskins.

Syria; Main Industries: petroleum, textiles, food processing, beverages, tobacco, phosphate rock mining, cement, oil seeds crushing, car assembly. Agricultural Products: wheat, barley, cotton, lentils, chickpeas, olives, sugar beets; beef, mutton, eggs, poultry, milk.

Palestine (Gaza Strip and West Bank); Main Industries: textiles, soap, cement. Main Agricultural Products: olives, citrus, vegetables; beef, dairy products.

Turkey; Main Industries: textiles, food processing, autos, electronics, mining (coal, chromite, copper, boron), steel, petroleum, construction, lumber, paper. Main Agricultural Products: tobacco, cotton, grain, olives, sugar beets, pulse, citrus; livestock.

Saudi Arabia; Main Industries: crude oil production, petroleum refining, basic petrochemicals, ammonia, industrial gases, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), cement, fertilizer, plastics, metals, commercial ship repair, commercial aircraft repair, construction. Main Agricultural Products: wheat, barley, tomatoes, melons, dates, citrus; mutton, chickens, eggs, milk.

United Arab Emirates; Main Industries: petroleum and petrochemicals; fishing, aluminum, cement, fertilizers, commercial ship repair, construction materials, some boat building, handicrafts, textiles. Main Agricultural Products: dates, vegetables, watermelons; poultry, eggs, dairy products; fish

Yemen; Main Industries: crude oil production and petroleum refining; small-scale production of cotton textiles and leather goods; food processing; handicrafts; small aluminum products factory; cement; commercial ship repair. Main Agricultural Products: grain, fruits, vegetables, pulses, qat, coffee, cotton; dairy products, livestock (sheep, goats, cattle, camels), poultry; fish

Oman; Main Industries: crude oil production and refining, natural and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production; construction, cement, copper, steel, chemicals, optic fiber. Main Agricultural Products: dates, limes, bananas, alfalfa, vegetables; camels, cattle; fish

Jordan; Main Industries: clothing, phosphate mining, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, petroleum refining, cement, potash, inorganic chemicals, light manufacturing, tourism. Main Agricultural Products: citrus, tomatoes, cucumbers, olives; sheep, poultry, stone fruits, strawberries, dairy.

Egypt; Main Industries: textiles, food processing, tourism, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, hydrocarbons, construction, cement, metals, light manufactures. Main Agricultural Products: cotton, rice, corn, wheat, beans, fruits, vegetables; cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats.

Israel; Main Industries: high-technology projects (including aviation, communications, computer-aided design and manufactures, medical electronics, fiber optics), wood and paper products, potash and phosphates, food, beverages, and tobacco, caustic soda, cement, construction, metals products, chemical products, plastics, diamond cutting, textiles, footwear. Main Agricultural Products: citrus, vegetables, cotton; beef, poultry, dairy products.

Bahrain; Main Industries: petroleum processing and refining, aluminum smelting, iron pelletization, fertilizers, banking, insurance, ship repairing, tourism. Main Agricultural Products: fruit, vegetables; poultry, dairy products; shrimp, fish.

Kuwait; Main Industries: petroleum, petrochemicals, cement, shipbuilding and repair, water desalination, food processing, construction materials Main Agricultural Products: fish

Qatar; Main Industries: crude oil production and refining, ammonia, fertilizers, petrochemicals, steel reinforcing bars, cement, commercial ship repair. Main Agricultural Products: fruits, vegetables; poultry, dairy products, beef; fish.

Quite obviously all those countries are capitalist countries, more backwards than the countries in Europe and possibly the working class in those countries has less experience than it's class brothers in the West, but it has the exact same interests nevertheless. Middle East is clearly not a "region that is kilometers of desert with a few cities that are entirely dependent on nothing but oil refineries and pipe-lines". Nor can something similar be said about any other region in the world. We are living in a capitalist world, a fully capitalist one. Stage-ist theories such as the one you are defending never managed to fit reality: not now, not a hundred years ago.

I'm not judging just 'literacy rates', we're talking about purchasing power parity, life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality rates, and the overall standard of livingSo let's see how this sounds: you support a bourgeoisie that was based on suppressing workers' councils, and a regime that constantly attacks and murders workers whenever they attempt to struggle because they... provide services for the "poor little brown people".

Whenever I encounter people such as yourself, I recall this passage from John Reed's Ten Days That Shook the World:

Just at the door of the station stood two soldiers with rifles and bayonets fixed. They were surrounded by about a hundred business men, Government officials and students, who attacked them with passionate argument and epithet. The soldiers were uncomfortable and hurt, like children unjustly scolded. A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack.

“You realise, I presume,” he said insolently, “that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making your-selves the tools of murderers and traitors?”

“Now brother,”answered the soldier earnestly, “you don’t understand. There are two classes, don’t you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We——”

“Oh, I know that silly talk!” broke in the student rudely. “A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don’t understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots.” The crowd laughed. “I’m a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn’t Socialism you are fighting for. It’s just plain pro-German anarchy!”

“Oh, yes, I know,” answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. “You are an educated man, that is easy to see, and I am only a simple man. But it seems to me——”

“I suppose,” interrupted the other contemptuously, “that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?”

“Yes, I do,” answered the soldier, suffering.

“Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans?”

“Well, I don’t know much about that,” answered the soldier stubbornly, “but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat——”

“You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schlüsselburg for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing ‘God Save the Tsar!’ My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn’t you ever hear of me?”

“I’m sorry to say I never did,” answered the soldier with humility. “But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero.”

“I am,” said the student with conviction. “And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free Revolution. Now how do you account for that?”

The soldier scratched his head. “I can’t account for it at all,” he said, grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. “To me it seems perfectly simple—but then, I’m not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie——”

“There you go again with your silly formula!” cried the student.

“——only two classes,” went on the soldier, doggedly.

“ And whoever isn’t on one side is on the other…”

...so confidently, so shamelessly downplaying the interests of the working class and supporting the bourgeoisie, and all in the name of socialism!

I'm sure you have good intentions. On the other hand, the interests of the Middle Eastern proletariat and the Middle Eastern bourgeoisie are completely opposed, and when you cheer for the Middle Eastern bourgeoisie, you constitute yourself on the other side, that of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, and not only in the Middle East but in where you live also, since the proletariat is international and has international interests.

Unicorn

15th July 2008, 14:51

I just read a paper which makes a pretty good argument that Iran is a progressive state. The author compares the Iranian Constitution with the Soviet 1977 Constitution concluding with the following arguments:

"Iranian Constitution rejects the capitalist mode of production and distribution and allows the Islamic State to control the main means of production and distribution. Further, it creates a centralized structure of authority whereby the state power remains with the guardians of ideology who give direction and stability to policies based upon Islam and distributive justice. The Iranian constitution assumes to provide all citizens with basic necessities of life. "

Source:
Khan, Ali Ali, "Constitutional Kinship between Iran and the Soviet Union" . New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 9, pp. 293-323, 1988 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=987563

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2008, 15:19

Iranian Constitution rejects the capitalist mode of production and distribution and allows the Islamic State to control the main means of production and distribution. Further, it creates a centralized structure of authority whereby the state power remains with the guardians of ideology who give direction and stability to policies based upon Islam and distributive justice. The Iranian constitution assumes to provide all citizens with basic necessities of life.

That's just bullshit.

First of all, the Constitution does not "reject the capitalist mode of production and distribution", private property is a right defended by law:

Article 46 [Fruits of Business]
Everyone is the owner of the fruits of his legitimate business and labor, and no one may deprive another of the opportunity of business and work under the pretext of his right to ownership.

Article 47 [Private Property]
Private ownership, legitimately acquired, is to be respected.

Anyone who has been in Iran knows that it is capitalist. All companies including the "state-owned" ones (which aren't really "state-owned" because a large portion of the shares are owned by private stockholders) are run on the profit-motive.

They have a stock exchange. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Stock_Exchange)

My cousin owns his own business for fucks sake.

If you consider Iran to be "socialist" then you would also have to consider Hindenburg's Germany or the other state-capitalist nations that nationalized some industries to be socialist, like; Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain, Nazi Germany etc.

And poverty in Iran is widespread, the Islamic Republic doesn't "provide all citizens with basic necessities of life", that's just absurd.

Also, that book seems like it has been written by a moron.

From the link:

Islamic egalitarianism embodied in the Iranian Constitution presents an alternative to both capitalism and secular socialism and redefines the obligations of an Islamic state. If Iran succeeds in establishing a stable and workable constitutional system, it may give a revitalized respectability to the idea of joining Islam with modern egalitarian principles.

Does that person even know that the Iranian judicial system is based on Sharia law, and is therefore by definition not "modern" or "egalitarian"?

Unicorn

15th July 2008, 15:44

That's just bullshit.

First of all, the Constitution does not "reject the capitalist mode of production and distribution", private property is a right defended by law:

Anyone who has been in Iran knows that it is capitalist. All companies including the "state-owned" ones (which aren't really "state-owned" because a large portion of the shares are owned by private stockholders) are run on the profit-motive.

They have a stock exchange. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Stock_Exchange)

My cousin owns his own business for fucks sake.

If Iran is "socialist" then so was Hindenburg's Germany or the other state-capitalist nations that nationalized some industries; Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany etc.
Your points are well taken I did not argue that it is socialist. Iran is built upon the principle of "Islamic egalitarianism" (the term used by the author) which is more progressive than Western free market capitalism. Private ownership is only protected in Iran on the condition that it contributes to the economic growth and progress to the country, and that it does not harm society.

And poverty in Iran is widespread, the Islamic Republic doesn't "provide all citizens with basic necessities of life", that's just absurd.
The constitution guarantees the right to housing, education and health care which is much better than what any Western states are constitutionally obliged to offer.

Does that person even know that the Iranian judicial system is based on Sharia law, and is therefore by definition not "modern" or "egalitarian"?
Islamic egalitarianism is a totally different concept than secular egalitarianism.

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2008, 15:53

Your points are well taken I did not argue that it is socialist. Iran is built upon the principle of "Islamic egalitarianism" (the term used by the author) which is more progressive than Western free market capitalism.

No, it's not "more progressive" than the welfare states in the West because there is no welfare state in Iran, it's only "guaranteed in the constitution", while in reality it doesn't exist.

In other words, it's just nice phraseology, similar to the Soviet Constitution of 1977 probably.

They're both equally reactionary to a Marxist anyway because they're both capitalist states.

Private ownership is only protected in Iran on the condition that it contributes to the economic growth and progress to the country, and that it does not harm society.

That condition is non-existant.

There are countless companies that don't "contribute to economic growth", obviously the state doesn't close them down, it would destroy the economy.

The constitution guarantees the right to housing, education and health care which is much better than what any Western states are constitutionally obliged to offer.

It's irrelevant what the constitution "guarantees".

There are countless people who cannot afford education, healthcare or housing, and they aren't "taken care of" by the state, just take a stroll down a slum in Mashad or Teheran.

In that respect "the western state" where I live in is much "better".

Islamic egalitarianism is a totally different concept than secular egalitarianism.

I know; it's reactionary.

BobKKKindle$

15th July 2008, 16:00

Your points are well taken I did not argue that it is socialist. Iran is built upon the principle of "Islamic egalitarianism" (the term used by the author) which is more progressive than Western free market capitalism.How can Iran possibly be egalitarian in any way? The gini coefficient is a measure of income equality based on an index of one hundred - a higher number indicates a less equal distribution of income, such that a larger proportion of national income is concentrated in a smaller number of households. The Iranian coefficient is forty three - by comparison, the UK is thirty four, such that the UK (which is, by any definition, an example of "western free market capitalism") is more equal than Iran. The UK is also more egalitarian in the spheres of social activity and political freedom - women are not forced to wear a hijab when they appear in public, and people are not executed by hanging for having sexual relations with a member of the same sex.

(Statistics Source: CIA World Factbook, Distribution of family income (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html))

The constitution guarantees the right to housing, education and health care which is much better than what any Western states are constitutionally obliged to offer.A constitution is meaningless unless the terms of the constitution are implemented in practice. Article 125 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution confirmed freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly (including the freedom to hold mass meetings) but these freedoms were not upheld by the government.

Unicorn

15th July 2008, 16:40

They're both equally reactionary to a Marxist anyway because they're both capitalist states.
Bullshit. Aren't you a Trotskyite? You should know that no serious analysis can support the crazy notion that the USSR was capitalist in 1977.

It's irrelevant what the constitution "guarantees".

There are countless people who cannot afford education, healthcare or housing, and they aren't "taken care of" by the state, just take a stroll down a slum in Mashad or Teheran.

In that respect "the western state" where I live in is much "better".
Of course it is relevant what the constitution guarantees. The constitution reflects the basic principles of the state. Iran cannot take care of the poor adequately because it is a poor state. I don't blame Iran for its poverty because the root cause of poverty in the Third World is Western imperialism.

Your country probably has a "better" welfare state than Iran or Cuba. Does that mean that your country is more progressive than Cuba? Of course not, because the mere fact that it as so much richer than Cuba that it can invest more money in absolute terms to welfare proves nothing. Cuba is still more progressive because it is more or less socialist and spends proportionately more of its GDP to welfare. The same is true of Iran (except that unlike Cuba Iran is not in any way socialist).

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2008, 16:50

Bullshit. Aren't you a Trotskyite? You should know that no serious analysis can support the crazy notion that the USSR was capitalist in 1977.

I was referring to Iran....

Of course it is relevant what the constitution guarantees. The constitution reflects the basic principles of the state. Iran cannot take care of the poor adequately because it is a poor state. I don't blame Iran for its poverty because the root cause of poverty in the Third World is Western imperialism.

Oh so it's just because they're poor? It has nothing to do with the fact that the bourgeoisie exploits the working-class because the economic system is capitalist?

Give me a break.

Your country probably has a "better" welfare state than Iran or Cuba. Does that mean that your country is more progressive than Cuba? Of course not, because the mere fact that it as so much richer than Cuba that it can invest more money in absolute terms to welfare proves nothing. Cuba is still more progressive because it is more or less socialist and spends proportionately more of its GDP to welfare. The same is true of Iran (except that unlike Cuba Iran is not in any way socialist).

First of all there is no such thing as "my country", I don't have a country.

Secondly, your "argument" is a contradiction.

You say that Cuba invests in welfare because it's "socialist", but you admit that Iran isn't "socialist", yet you claim that they do invest heavily in welfare "just because their constitution says so" and because they're....nice, I guess.

If the same is true of Iran as in Cuba, then you would have to say that Iran is "socialist" in the same manner that Cuba is, but of course you can't do that, because it is a fact that Iran is a capitalist nation (as I proved above).

The fact that you believe in the benelovance of the Iranian bourgeoisie is quite disturbing.

Obviously the bourgeoisie in the west can afford to spend more on welfare, they don't do that out of benevolance however, and I never claimed they did. They do it out of fear of revolution, it was a direct result of the class struggle which forced them to concede on those points. The bourgeoisie isn't benevolent, and if we expect charity from them we'd be waiting for a long time; forever, that is.

The same is the case in Iran. Any welfare measures that are supported (which aren't many) are a direct result of the class struggle, not of some "kindheartedness" of the Iranian bourgeoisie. Therefore, to consider the Iranian bourgeoisie to be "progressive" for it is reactionary and totally alien to Marxism.

What a ridiculous position to hold.

Also, care to prove the claim that proportionally the Islamic Republic spends more of its GDP on welfare? Not that it really matters, just interested in knowing what your sources are.

Unicorn

15th July 2008, 17:25

Oh so it's just because they're poor? It has nothing to do with the fact that the bourgeoisie exploits the working-class because the economic system is capitalist?

Give me a break.
I acknowledge the existence of a bourgeois class in Iran and the exploitation of Iranian workers. This is a factor but not the sole factor as the productive forces of Iran aren't sufficiently developed for building socialism or providing adequate welfare.

First of all there is no such thing as "my country", I don't have a country.
Yes, I chose the words badly.

Secondly, your "argument" is a contradiction.

You say that Cuba invests in welfare because it's socialist, but you admit that Iran isn't socialist, yet you claim that they do invest heavily in welfare "just because their constitution says so".

If the same is true of Iran, then you would have to say that Iran is "socialist" in the same manner that Cuba is, but of course you can't do that, because it is a fact that Iran is a capitalist nation (as I proved above).
No, Iran isn't socialist because there is a private sector in the country and the role of God in the Iranian legal system. There is no contradiction.

Obviously the bourgeoisie in the west can afford to spend more on welfare, they don't do that out of benevolance however, and I never claimed they did. They do it out of fear of revolution, it was a direct result of the class struggle which forced them to concede on many points. The bourgeoisie isn't benevolent, and if we expect charity from them we'd be waiting for a long time; forever, that is.

The same is the case in Iran. Any welfare measures that are supported (which aren't many) are a direct result of the class struggle, not of some "kindheartedness" of the Iranian bourgeoisie. Therefore, to consider the Iranian bourgeoisie to be "progressive" for it is reactionary and totally alien to Marxism.
What you say is true but Marxists understand law as the expression of the existing class relations in the society. The Iranian bourgeoisie is of course not progressive but class relations in Iran are more progressive than in the West which is reflected in the Iranian law.

What a ridiculous position to hold.
My argument follows Brezhnev who maintained that Third World nations with a large public sector (the state is the main owner of the means of production) are progressive.

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2008, 17:35

I acknowledge the existence of a bourgeois class in Iran and the exploitation of Iranian workers. This is a factor but not the sole factor as the productive forces of Iran aren't sufficiently developed for building socialism or providing adequate welfare.

I know it isn't, and I never said it was the only factor.

What you say is true but Marxists understand law as the expression of the existing class relations in the society. The Iranian bourgeoisie is of course not progressive but class relations in Iran are more progressive than in the West which is reflected in the Iranian law.

See, that's where you lose me.

How the hell can "class relations" in one capitalist state be more progressive than "class relations" in another capitalist state...when they are both capitalist states?

It just doesn't make sense.

My argument follows Brezhnev who maintained that Third World nations with a large public sector (the state is the main owner of the means of production) are progressive.

There are plenty of capitalist nations with a large public sector, that doesn't have anything to do with the nation being progressive....because it is capitalist.

I'm not sure if arguing with you further on this point is going to help much.

You seem to base your views on the perception that the Iranian bourgeoisie is somehow more benevolent than the bourgeoisie of other nations because they happen to have a bigger public sector (which is different from what you said above, by the way), that just doesn't make any sense because workers in the public sector are just as exploited as in any other sector of the economy.

Unless you can prove of course that the public sector companies in Iran are run according to socialist lines, but you can't, because it's a capitalist nation.

Anyway, you said before that the Iranian bourgeoisie "spends proportionately more of its GDP to welfare", which implies that the Iranian bourgeoisie is just nicer than other bourgeoisie, a notion which I refuted above.

But I'm curious if you could cite a source for that, and also if you could cite a source for your claim that Iran has a "bigger public sector" than most other capitalist nations.

Again, I'm not asking for sources because it matters to the argument; Marxists consider all capitalist states to be reactionary and don't believe that the benevolence of a bourgeoisie has anything to do with its national policies, I'm just asking for them because I'm curious to know where you get your information from.

Unicorn

15th July 2008, 18:14

See, that's where you lose me.

How the hell can "class relations" in one capitalist state be more progressive than "class relations" in another capitalist state...when they are both capitalist states?

It just doesn't make sense.
Class relations in capitalist countries vary greatly. Class relations are more progressive if such things as minimum wages, maximum working hours and public healthcare exist. As prof. E.O. Wright notes: "The rights and powers associated with the relations of production are not perfectly polarized: all sorts of state regulations may deprive capitalists of having unfettered rights and powers over the use of their means of production; institutional arrangements like works committees or worker co-determination may give workers certain kinds of rights and powers over the organization of production."
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Polyc-int.PDF

There are plenty of capitalist nations with a large public sector, that doesn't have anything to do with the nation being progressive....because it is capitalist.

I'm not sure if arguing with you further on this point is going to help much.

You seem to base your views on the perception that the Iranian bourgeoisie is somehow more benevolent than the bourgeoisie of other nations because they happen to have a bigger public sector (which is different from what you said above, by the way), that just doesn't make any sense because workers in the public sector are just as exploited as in any other sector of the economy.

Unless you can prove of course that the public sector companies in Iran are run according to socialist lines, but you can't, because it's a capitalist nation.

Anyway, you said before that the Iranian bourgeoisie "spends proportionately more of its GDP to welfare", which implies that the Iranian bourgeoisie is just nicer than other bourgeoisie, a notion which I refuted above.
I don't claim that the bourgeoisie in any country is "nicer". But the working class is in some countries is in a better position and enjoys some employee rights whereas in other countries it is totally downtrodden. More progressive class relations are the result of past struggles which the working class has won. Iran's class relations are definitely at least in some respects more progressive in the West which is reflected in the large public sector and workers' rights in the law.

But I'm curious if you could cite a source for that, and also if you could cite a source for your claim that Iran has a "bigger public sector" than most other capitalist nations.

Again, I'm not asking for sources because it matters to the argument; Marxists consider all capitalist states to be reactionary and don't believe that the benevolence of a bourgeoisie has anything to do with its national policies, I'm just asking for them because I'm curious to know where you get your information from.
"All private banks, insurance companies and the private industry owned by 51 major industrialists were nationalized by the government in 1979."
http://www.financeinislam.com/article/1_36/1/149

"The industrial sector, for instance, is dominated by over 1,100 nationalized industries that produce over 60 percent of the total value added in this sector."
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero012804.html

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2008, 18:15

Though I desire for the 'good guys' to win, if they do not, we must chase after why the 'bad guys' won. There was a lack of material basis for socialism in Iran, therefore when the nationalist-bourgeois triumphed, as Marxists we must view that such events are incidental to processes enveloping between social and political forces within that specific country. Iran's Revolution was "more progressive" because it broke their spot as a client state of the imperialist-capitalist system, and became nationally independent and was pursuing development on their own lines as a result of the anti-colonial ousting of the Shah

Islamism is "progressive" only because it challenges U.S. imperialism and it's lackeys in the field of combat. If they (Hamas and Hezbollah) "win" it's only because qualitative changes have not yet been made in the Arab world yet that grants a significant material basis for the success of Marxist parties.

Led Zeppelin

16th July 2008, 03:58

Class relations in capitalist countries vary greatly. Class relations are more progressive if such things as minimum wages, maximum working hours and public healthcare exist.

I already replied to this.

If you go by that definition of "progressive class relations" then the west would be more "progressive" because more workers here have healthcare, they get paid more, they have less working hours etc. etc.

Then you get back to your argument of Iran being too poor, and back to the argument based on the benevolence of the Iranian bourgeoisie.

I already explained how such things have nothing to do with benevolence or "nice-ness".

I don't claim that the bourgeoisie in any country is "nicer". But the working class is in some countries is in a better position and enjoys some employee rights whereas in other countries it is totally downtrodden. More progressive class relations are the result of past struggles which the working class has won. Iran's class relations are definitely at least in some respects more progressive in the West which is reflected in the large public sector and workers' rights in the law.

It has already been proven that what it says in the Constitution is worthless, since it is not applied in practice. To say that it would have been applied if the Islamic Republic had enough funds is indulging in hypotheticals which are based on the benevolence of the Iranian bourgeoisie. I'm not going to go there with you.

Obviously the Iranian working-class does not enjoy "more benefits" than working-classes in other nations, for starters they live in a bourgeois dictatorship without even the facade of bourgeois democracy to cover it.

It's a police-state for fucks sake, how can you say that they "in a better position"?

Also your public sector argument is really inane. I already responded to that in my previous posts:

Anyone who has been in Iran knows that it is capitalist. All companies including the "state-owned" ones (which aren't really "state-owned" because a large portion of the shares are owned by private stockholders) are run on the profit-motive.

[...]

You seem to base your views on the perception that the Iranian bourgeoisie is somehow more benevolent than the bourgeoisie of other nations because they happen to have a bigger public sector (which is different from what you said above, by the way), that just doesn't make any sense because workers in the public sector are just as exploited as in any other sector of the economy.

Unless you can prove of course that the public sector companies in Iran are run according to socialist lines, but you can't, because it's a capitalist nation.

"All private banks, insurance companies and the private industry owned by 51 major industrialists were nationalized by the government in 1979."
http://www.financeinislam.com/article/1_36/1/149

"The industrial sector, for instance, is dominated by over 1,100 nationalized industries that produce over 60 percent of the total value added in this sector."
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero012804.html

That doesn't prove anything. I never denied that there are many nationalized companies, there are, but they are not run on socialist lines, they are capitalist companies of which a lot of shares are owned by private stockholders.

I already posed some historical analogies to you proving that capitalist states nationalizing businesses are not progressive, if they were then Fascist Italy and Hindenburg's Germany would be considered progressive as well.

There is a difference between nationalizing businesses based on socialist property relations and nationalizing them based on capitalist property relations. The latter only serves to strengthen the bourgeoisie's grip over the economy. The fact that you are considering that to be progressive is disturbing.

Also, you didn't respond to the first part of my question: "Also, care to prove the claim that proportionally the Islamic Republic spends more of its GDP on welfare? Not that it really matters, just interested in knowing what your sources are."

Though I desire for the 'good guys' to win, if they do not, we must chase after why the 'bad guys' won. There was a lack of material basis for socialism in Iran, therefore when the nationalist-bourgeois triumphed, as Marxists we must view that such events are incidental to processes enveloping between social and political forces within that specific country.

I know that we must look for the reasons for their defeat, but you are wrong because you don't know anything about the revolutionary movement in Iran, therefore your sweeping generalizations about "lack of material conditions" are just ridiculous.

You want to know why they "didn't win"?

Because the vast majority of so-called "communists" went over to the line of vulgar stage-ism, ironically like yourself. They also claimed that "Iran was not ready for socialism" and that "the bourgeois-democratic revolution had to be completed".

In practice this meant that they handed over their weapons to the government, they handed over their membership information to the government, and they eventually handed over their lives to the government, because they were arrested and executed en masse a year or two afterwards.

Not all communists went down this route, however. The Fedaian split into a majority and minority, the minority of which opposed the new Islamic Republic and said that they should go further towards socialist revolution....as they also did in Russia, despite the fact that Russia was more backward compared to Iran. They did not say this because they believed Iran was developed enough to be socialist, that's absurd, the Bolsheviks didn't support revolution because they believed Russia was ready to be socialist either.

They said it because it is the revolutionary position to hold; we do not "hand over" our power to the bourgeoisie when we are perfectly capable of performing the tasks of building up society ourselves, and in a much more humane manner. Their intention was not to "build socialism in one country" either, it was to move over to a socialistic society which would become the base of further revolutionary movements in the world, which is the only thing that could salvage socialism at home.

This is the concept of permanent revolution, it is Marxism.

You are repeating the line of the Mensheviks who said that "Russia was not developed enough for socialism therefore the bourgeoisie should come to power", a line which, as I and Trotsky said, was already cast into the dustbin of history more than half a century ago.

Anyway, in retrospect and sane person can see that the stage-ist theory was proven wrong. The bourgeoisie wiped out the worker's movement in Iran and to this day it has been enforcing a bourgeois police-state.

The fact that you believed this to be inevitable, when it obviously wasn't, makes you Menshevik or neo-Stalinist. I don't just say that as a political slur either, it is what you are. If you don't believe me just read the history of Menshevism and Stalinism and how they tried to stifle the revolutionary movement by saying that they "just weren't ready for it", which in many cases ended in mass slaughter of communists.

By the way, if you truly "desired the good guys to win" you wouldn't have made up lies to defend the reactionary Islamic republic, and you certainly wouldn't have "desired the good guys to support the bad guys".

Lenin and Trotsky refuted this nonsense long ago:

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

Napoleon, I think, wrote: "On s'engage et puis ... on voit." rendered freely this means: "First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens." Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917, and then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history they were certainly details) as the Brest peace, the New Economic Policy, and so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious.

Our Sukhanovs, not to mention Social-Democrats still farther to the right, never even dream that revolutions cannot be made any other way. Our European philistines never even dream that the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations in a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater distinctions than the Russian Revolution.

It need hardly be said that a textbook written on Kautskian lines was a very useful thing in its day. But it is time, given that, to abandon the idea that it foresaw all the forms of development of subsequent world history. It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm)

The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale. This struggle, under the conditions of an overwhelming predominance of capitalist relationships on the world arena, must inevitably lead to explosions, that is, internally to civil wars and externally to revolutionary wars. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism.

The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.

The above-outlined sketch of the development of the world revolution eliminates the question of countries that are ‘mature’ or ‘immature’ for socialism in the spirit of that pedantic, lifeless classification given by the present programme of the Comintem. Insofar as capitalism has created a world market, a world division of labour and world productive forces, it has also prepared world economy as a whole for socialist transformation.
Different countries will go through this process at different tempos. Backward countries may, under certain conditions, arrive at the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner than advanced countries, but they will come later than the latter to socialism.

A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power, is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the development of the international socialist revolution.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr10.htm)

Iran's Revolution was "more progressive" because it broke their spot as a client state of the imperialist-capitalist system, and became nationally independent and was pursuing development on their own lines as a result of the anti-colonial ousting of the Shah.

You're so determinstic that you can't even bring yourself to call one aspect of it progressive while still recognizing that other aspects of it were and still are reactionary.

Yes, sure, the break with US imperialism was progressive, I won't deny that. It's one of the main reasons many "communists" supported the Khomeini in the first place.

That doesn't change the fact that socially, culturally and economically it was a turn backward, because despite your claims of their "break with the imperialist-capitalist system"...they were still capitalist, and more backward than the capitalism of the Shah, relatively speaking.

Originally the revolution was progressive, hell it even set-up a more-or-less bourgeois democratic type of society with freedom of press and freedom of all parties to assemble and exist (my mom, who was a communist, even voted for the Islamic Republic to exist!), but this was all over after a year or two, and much earlier for parties that dared to go against the government.

I would agree with you that their defeat was caused by economic peculiarities of the situation if there was no mass revolutionary movement in Iran which was on the side of the communists (though I would not support the reactionary bourgeoisie like you, I would oppose it), but there was, and it was betrayed by the leadership of the parties to "back the anti-imperialist bourgeois-democratic Islamic Republic".

Islamism is "progressive" only because it challenges U.S. imperialism and it's lackeys in the field of combat. If they (Hamas and Hezbollah) "win" it's only because qualitative changes have not yet been made in the Arab world yet that grants a significant material basis for the success of Marxist parties.

Again, this is nothing but vulgar economism. What you are saying basically is that we stupid brown people (as Leo said) should not bother ourselves with socialism because we are doomed by the iron laws of material conditions to live in Islamist dominated capitalist states.

The fact that you have not bothered to reply to Leo when he refuted the nonsense about Middle-Eastern countries not being "developed enough" proves enough.

As Lenin said, this puts you in the camp of reformism.

For a person who quotes Lenin you sure don't agree with him much:

"Our European philistines never even dream that the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations in a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater distinctions than the Russian Revolution.

It need hardly be said that a textbook written on Kautskian lines was a very useful thing in its day. But it is time, given that, to abandon the idea that it foresaw all the forms of development of subsequent world history.

It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools."

Comrade B

16th July 2008, 04:02

During the rule of the Shah, the country was owned by the west, but there was a thriving communist movement

After the overthrow of the Shah, the communists were all shot.

Led Zeppelin

16th July 2008, 04:09

During the rule of the Shah, the country was owned by the west, but there was a thriving communist movement

After the overthrow of the Shah, the communists were all shot.

The most simple post in this thread, yet one of the best.

Though I'd add to say that the country was not owned by the west entirely, it was certainly a puppet-state but the Shah did develop the nation economy to a great extent, in such a way that many Iranians still consider his rule to be a period of more economic prosperity.

The "white revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution)" built up the national economy to a great extent, certainly more than the Islamic Republic ever has.

But I'm a Marxist, I don't consider capitalists to be "more progressive" because they develop capitalism more for their own benefit, if I did I'd have to consider all capitalist nations with a growing economy to be led by "more progressive" capitalists.

Labor Shall Rule

16th July 2008, 05:41

I haven't called for 'stage-ism'. I'd like to see you prove that. If the Iranian Communists did take a line in which they tailed the Islamists (despite the fact that most of their unions, women's organizations, and village and neighborhood committees were mobilizing millions) then that is an inherently reactionary line.

God damnit, the Shah might of accomplished minor leaps, but if you look at the Human Development Index (which tracked literacy, life expectancy, the combined gross income of the 'poorest', the purchasing power parity), you'd see that it started tracking Iran four years before the Islamists took power. The 'progressiveness' of the Islamists is undeniably noticeable - all those categories jumped (and infant mortality fell) after the Shah fell. I'll repeat - the Iranians were 'better off' (aka - progressively better) after Khomeni's thugs took over.

It obviously was inevitable - who the fuck took over? They (the nationalist-bourgeois) took over because bourgeois revolution was still necessary. The Communists (if they took over) would still have to go through a bourgeois revolution while under conditions of prematurity and isolation.

Oh yeah, and Marx did believe there was "progressive" capitalists, what are you talking about?

Labor Shall Rule

16th July 2008, 05:55

During the rule of the Shah, the country was owned by the west, but there was a thriving communist movement

After the overthrow of the Shah, the communists were all shot.

Are you serious? The Tudeh was destroyed by the Savak, which rounded up every trade unionist, anti-Shah activist, and Communist and (normally) had them shot, while many were sent to Evin Prison where torture was the order of the day. According to Tortured Confessions by Ervand Abrahamian, "over 60,000 members of the Tudeh Party were massacred, while another 10,000 are uncounted for."

Led Zeppelin

16th July 2008, 06:27

I haven't called for 'stage-ism'. I'd like to see you prove that.

Are you kidding me? You called for it a few sentences down in the same post:

It obviously was inevitable - who the fuck took over? They (the nationalist-bourgeois) took over because bourgeois revolution was still necessary.

If the Iranian Communists did take a line in which they tailed the Islamists (despite the fact that most of their unions, women's organizations, and village and neighborhood committees were mobilizing millions) then that is an inherently reactionary line.

Yes it is, but then why do you keep saying that it was inevitable for the Islamists to take power when it was also entirely possible for the communists to take it (were they not betrayed by their leadership)?

God damnit, the Shah might of accomplished minor leaps, but if you look at the Human Development Index (which tracked literacy, life expectancy, the combined gross income of the 'poorest', the purchasing power parity), you'd see that it started tracking Iran four years before the Islamists took power. The 'progressiveness' of the Islamists is undeniably noticeable - all those categories jumped (and infant mortality fell) after the Shah fell. I'll repeat - the Iranians were 'better off' (aka - progressively better) after Khomeni's thugs took over.

You keep saying this but you don't respond to anything I say which disproves that.

The leaps which the Shah "accomplished" were minor, but they certainly weren't minor compared to the leaps "accomplished" by the Islamic Republic.

You say that the "Human Development Index" started tracking Iran four years before the Islamist took power...but the Shah's White Revolution was started in 1963 and most results were achieved before 1975, when Iran started being tracked by the "Human Development Index".

Economically Iranians are not "better off", politically they are not "better off", and culturally they are not "better off".

Yes, sure, the literacy rate has gone up, life expectancy has gone up, and infant mortality has fallen...as it has in virtually any capitalist nation on earth due to technological developments and capital accumulation.

That doesn't mean that capitalism is "progressive", and it doesn't mean that one group of capitalists is better at developing the economy than another when it is an objective fact that the other group developed it to a greater extent in a shorter period of time.

But this argument is just stupid. Marxists don't base their views of a capitalist regime on how much they develop the economy, by that standard most capitalist states in history have been "progressive" and any capitalist nation which has a growing economy is "progressive".

It's economist garbage.

It obviously was inevitable - who the fuck took over? They (the nationalist-bourgeois) took over because bourgeois revolution was still necessary. The Communists (if they took over) would still have to go through a bourgeois revolution while under conditions of prematurity and isolation.

Yes, there were bourgeois tasks but they can and should be "solved" under the leadership of the proletariat, not under the leadership of the reactionary bourgeoisie which has proven time after time that it is not capable of doing this.

Oh yeah, and Marx did believe there was "progressive" capitalists, what are you talking about?

Yeah he did, over 120 years ago when they could actually still play a progressive part in history.

The fact that you missed over 100 years of history says enough about your "ideology".

Are you serious? The Tudeh was destroyed by the Savak, which rounded up every trade unionist, anti-Shah activist, and Communist and (normally) had them shot, while many were sent to Evin Prison where torture was the order of the day. According to Tortured Confessions by Ervand Abrahamian, "over 60,000 members of the Tudeh Party were massacred, while another 10,000 are uncounted for."

You know what your google searches are really starting to piss me off. You don't know shit about Iranian history yet you keep making these stupid claims which are based on information that you read on Wikipedia or Google searches and are simply not true.

First of all it was not "regular practice to round up every trade-unionist, anti-Shah activist, and communist and (normally) have them shot, while many were sent to Evin Prison where they were tortured", if that was the case parties such as Tudeh and Fedaian wouldn't even exist, hell, a lot of my own family members would have been shot by the Shah instead of by Khomeini.

Secondly, what you just said exactly describes "regular practice" in the Islamic Republic, not under the Shah.

And those numbers are referring to the Islamic Republic's mass slaughter of Tudeh party members, not of the Shah's regime. Besides, that 60.000 figure is pulled either out of your or Abrahamian's ass.

From the Tudeh party itself:

On 6th February 1982, they charged a part of the Party's leadership with "spying", and sent them to their dungeons. In later consecutive attacks, the regime arrested more than 10,000 members and cadres and supporters of the Party, and declared the Tudeh Party of Iran illegal. The despotic regime of the Islamic Republic announced that they had succeeded in eliminating the Tudeh Party of Iran for ever. Using the most barbaric physical and mental tortures, they organised an all out propaganda campaign against the party and the Organisation of Iranian Peoples' Fadaian (Majority). In the immediate period after the onslaught, the Party confronted grave difficulties; Its organisation collapsed, many of its members and cadres were forced to emigrate, and general confusion and crisis prevailed.

[...]

Faced with this prospect , Khomeini in a final bid to save his regime, intensified the atmosphere of terror and repression in the country, and ordered the massacre of political prisoners in Iran. In a matter of three months , in the summer of 1989, a committee of Khomeini's representatives visited the Iranian prisons and tried and sentenced to death thousands of political prisoners. The real number of executed prisoners is still unknown, but human rights organisations such as Amnesty International put the figure at more than five thousand prisoners from various political parties and organisations.
Link (http://www.tudehpartyiran.org/history.htm)

The History doesn't mention any mass executions that occurred under the Shah, only the arrest and executions of some of the leaders of the party, which completley coincides with what I said earlier in the thread:

Marxists oppose both equally, because both are inherently reactionary regimes, and above that both are bourgeois dictatorships, the most reactionary of all types of bourgeois rule.

However, when comparing "human rights", the Islamic Republic is certainly far behind the Shah. Torture is regular practice in the Islamic Republic and the most cruel methods are used to extract information, this while also being the case for the most "prominent" political prisoners during the Shah's rule, was not regular practice.

[...]

All political opposition to the Islamic Republic was suppressed, and it still is today.

Now, the same was the case during the Shah's rule of course, but they weren't all arrested and executed en masse as is the case now.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1194008&postcount=9)

You obviously don't give a shit "about the good guys" when you keep making shit up to defend the reactionary regime of Iran.

Labor Shall Rule

16th July 2008, 06:53

I give up. It's clear you're right and whatever I type won't make a damn difference.

The U.S. puppet was 'not as bad' as the native bourgeois' rule (so it doesn't really matter if there was a coup in Tehran tomorrow), the national-democratic revolution was not a necessary step, and I'm a Menshevike worker-killer.

Led Zeppelin

16th July 2008, 06:57

The U.S. puppet was 'not as bad' as the native bourgeois' rule (so it doesn't really matter if there was a coup in Tehran tomorrow)

Did I ever say this?

No:

Marxists oppose both equally, because both are inherently reactionary regimes, and above that both are bourgeois dictatorships, the most reactionary of all types of bourgeois rule.

Unicorn

16th July 2008, 13:02

That doesn't prove anything. I never denied that there are many nationalized companies, there are, but they are not run on socialist lines, they are capitalist companies of which a lot of shares are owned by private stockholders.

I already posed some historical analogies to you proving that capitalist states nationalizing businesses are not progressive, if they were then Fascist Italy and Hindenburg's Germany would be considered progressive as well.

There is a difference between nationalizing businesses based on socialist property relations and nationalizing them based on capitalist property relations. The latter only serves to strengthen the bourgeoisie's grip over the economy. The fact that you are considering that to be progressive is disturbing.
Your position is odd. The minimum programme of a communist party should call for the nationalization of industry. Nationalization in Nazi Germany was not progressive but Iran is not Fascist. Unlike in Nazi Germany workers in Iran have the right to vote and thus influence the democratic process. Nationalization improves the lives of workers as a rule because it allows for some democratic supervision and control over the means of production. Nationalized industries are a gain made by the working class and should be defended.

rebelworker

16th July 2008, 14:32

Jesus fucking christ people!

Iran progressive????

Lets make a little analogy here....

Imagine in the 70's the left in the US was a tiny bit more supprted by the working class, then there was a political uprising across the board politically, largely due to a rejection of the war in Vietnam, a troubled economy and rising oil prices.

Now imagine that in a few places community coucicls and workplace occupations take place, the move towards revolution looks good.

Then the extreemly well organised religeous right springs into action, based in thousands of churches they surplant the state govt and declare relegious law.
Step one, kill the black nationalists, trade unionists and commie student types.

Step two, enact relegious law (homosexuality, abortion, free love, all out the window).

Censorship of TV and movies, women "learning their place" in the home, church leaders dictating culture.

A broad populist coallition govt is formed, with the cornerstones of patriotism, moral purity and rejection of the outside world....

Thats Iran.

Period.

Get a grip....

Led Zeppelin

16th July 2008, 18:32

Your position is odd.

It's only odd when it's viewed through the lens of reactionary "Brezhnevism".

The minimum programme of a communist party should call for the nationalization of industry.

I already responded to this:

There is a difference between nationalizing businesses based on socialist property relations and nationalizing them based on capitalist property relations. The latter only serves to strengthen the bourgeoisie's grip over the economy. The fact that you are considering that to be progressive is disturbing.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1194682&postcount=25)

Any "communist" that calls for the bourgeoisie to nationalize businesses is not a communist, but a tool of the bourgeoisie.

Nationalization in Nazi Germany was not progressive but Iran is not Fascist.

It's a bourgeois dictatorship just as Nazi Germany was, and obviously it's capitalist, so they're both reactionary.

What is wrong with you?

Unlike in Nazi Germany workers in Iran have the right to vote and thus influence the democratic process.

If this is all a game to you then stop replying to me.

I already responded to this horseshit claim of Iran "being democratic" like 10 posts ago, now you're clutching back at it?

During his power, he had a rubber-stamp Senate to dictate his orders (very much like Diem from South Vietnam),

Very similar to the current Iranian regime which is directly under the leadership of the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, of which the other governmental bodies are simply tools of rubber-stamping.

but after the Islamists took power, a Islamic Consultive Assembly was put in place.

I have already refuted the myth about the "Islamic Consultive Assembly" or the "Assembly of Experts" being democratic:

The "Assembly of Experts" isn't elected by the people in a democratic election process, you made that up.

The list of nominees is screened by the government and only the "acceptable" people are allowed to be added to the vote, the same is the case in the election process for all positions in the government. During the last elections for example a large number of "reformist" candidates were not allowed to run.

I did not say that the Assembly of Experts was elected by democratic process, I said they are elected by the people.
Which is blatantly false as I demonstrated.

They aren't "elected by the people", they are simply ratified "by the people", they are chosen by the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, who have the real power in their hands.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-think-t83415/index2.html?&highlight=Iran)

By the Constitution's orders, the Jews and Christians must have at least one representative (though three Jews have been elected in the elections two years ago), and the former Majlis that supported the Shah (who were not suppressed by the Islamists) continue to hold many seats.

Stop getting your information from wikipedia searches while pretending that you "know your history".

The "former Majlis that supported the Shah" doesn't exist, there are no Monarchists in the current Consultative Assembly (or Majlis as you want to call it to sound knowledgable of the situation), there are no opposition parties to the Islamic Republic in it either.

You know why?

Because they are banned.

It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths some people are willing to go to prove the existence of something just so they can pretend to be rrrrrrevolutionary.

Nationalization improves the lives of workers as a rule because it allows for some democratic supervision and control over the means of production.

No they don't, that's an absolutely idiotic claim and you didn't even bother to back it up with evidence because there is none in existence.

There is no "democratic supervision" over capitalist companies in Iran just because they're owned by the capitalist state, what kind of Brezhnevite garbage is this?

I proved that the Islamic Republic is not "democratic". I proved that the Islamic Republic does not have "socialist companies" but that all the nationalized companies are based on capitalist property relations and are run on the profit-motive.

Yet here you are still posting as if all of those facts went straight over your head, forcing me to reply to "arguments" that I already refuted by re-posting what I said 10 posts ago.

I'm not interested in repeating myself for you just because your disgusting reactionary ideology prevents you from "getting it", so don't reply to me with this utter crap that I have already refuted in the future.

Nationalized industries are a gain made by the working class and should be defended.

Yeah, totally, workers in Nazi-Germany, Fascist Italy, the Shah's Iran (and the Islamic Republic, obviously) etc. must put their life on the line to defend industries owned by the state which kills them when they go on strike.

You're a joke.

Unicorn

16th July 2008, 19:11

I already responded to this:

Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1194682&postcount=25)

Any "communist" that calls for the bourgeoisie to nationalize businesses is not a communist, but a tool of the bourgeoisie.
What the fuck? Ever heard of minimum demands or transitional demands? They are standard Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Programme

It's a bourgeois dictatorship just as Nazi Germany was, and obviously it's capitalist, so they're both reactionary.

What is wrong with you?
Nazi Germany was Fascist, Iran is not. Stop comparing apples with oranges.

If this is all a game to you then stop replying to me.

I already responded to this horseshit claim of Iran "being democratic" like 10 posts ago, now you're clutching back at it?
You claimed that Iran is a dictatorship. It is not and I didn't say that I accept your claim. It is a "police state", broadly defined, like for example the USA. Workers in Iran have the right to vote and influence the parliamentary process. Iran's democratic system is flawed and roughly in the same level as in the US but the country is still democratic (and anti-imperialist, I might add).

No they don't, that's an absolutely idiotic claim and you didn't even bother to back it up with evidence because there is none in existence.

There is no "democratic supervision" over capitalist companies in Iran just because they're owned by the capitalist state, what kind of Brezhnevite garbage is this?
State-owned companies in bourgeois democracies are supervised by the parliament. Having the right to vote workers therefore have some ability to supervise and control them. Workers have no democratic control over the management of privately owned enterprises.

Yeah, totally, workers in Nazi-Germany, Fascist Italy, the Shah's Iran (and the Islamic Republic, obviously) etc. must put their life on the line to defend industries owned by the state which kills them when they go on strike.
In Fascist states workers should not defend state-owned industries because the state power is held by ultra-reactionaries who have disenfranchised the proletariat.

In bourgeois democratic states however workers should oppose any privatization initiatives. Marxists all committed to defending all gains made by the working class. This principle applies whether the state is Britain, France, the US or Iran.

Led Zeppelin

16th July 2008, 19:24

What the fuck? Ever heard of minimum demands or transitional demands? They are standard Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Programme

Have you even read that book? No? Because I have, and there's no part in it saying that we should support nationalization in bourgeois dictatorships (or even bourgeois democracies) or use nationalization as a slogan in bourgeois dictatorships.

That's moronic, you don't strengthen the dictatorship of a national bourgeoisie by giving them more economic power.

Nazi Germany was Fascist, Iran is not. Stop comparing apples with oranges.

I didn't say Iran was fascist, I said it was a capitalist bourgeois dictatorship like Nazi Germany was, bourgeois dictatorships come in many forms.

I'm not comparing apples and oranges, you just can't see the difference between two apples because your reactionary ideology blinds you to it.

You claimed that Iran is a dictatorship. It is not and I didn't say that I accept your claim.

And you didn't present any evidence to refute the evidence that I presented, which makes your claims irrelevant.

It is a "police state", broadly defined, like for example the USA. Workers in Iran have the right to vote and influence the parliamentary process. Iran's democratic system is flawed and roughly in the same level as in the US but the country is still democratic.

Oh really? Do people in the US get arrested and tortured for being communists? Do they get executed for it? Do people in the US get arrested, jailed or executed for opposing the government?

Are you really that deluded?

The fact that you said that there is "roughly the same level of democracy in Iran as in the US" renders your entire posting history on this forum a joke.

State-owned companies in bourgeois democracies are supervised by the parliament. Having the right to vote workers therefore have some ability to supervise and control them. Workers have no democratic control over the management of privately owned enterprises.

There is no bourgeois democracy in Iran, there is no legal workers' movement in Iran, they killed that off a year or two after the "Great Islamic Proletarian Revolution".

I have already proven that there is no form of democracy in Iran, but let me sum it up for you (though it won't really help because you're way too deluded to understand basic historical facts).

The Guardian Council holds all power in Iran. The leader of the Guardian Council is the Supreme Leader, who has the power to veto anything that is passed by the Parliamentary body.

Elections to the Parliamentary body are screened by the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader, and even many of the reformist within the current Islamic Republic who support minor reforms are not allowed to run.

Parties and political organizations that oppose the government are not allowed to run either, instead they spend their time in jail being tortured or executed.

This you call a "bourgeois democracy", when any moron (literally, any moron) can see that it is no form of democracy at all.

And before you try to "prove Iran to be a democracy" read my post here where in an argument I refuted all the nonsense regarding that idiotic claim:

What a load of nonsense.

The "Assembly of Experts" isn't elected by the people in a democratic election process, you made that up.

The list of nominees is screened by the government and only the "acceptable" people are allowed to be added to the vote, the same is the case in the election process for all positions in the government. During the last elections for example a large number of "reformist" candidates were not allowed to run.

As for real political opposition to the ruling clique; they are all arrested and either executed or jailed.

To say that the people of Iran are satisfied with the leadership is idiotic, in fact your entire post was filled with innacuracies.

The people support the regime? I have been to Iran, I have family living in Iran, only those who directly benefit from the current regime, that is, the people who are in pay of it, have some vague support for it, and even they would prefer another system because they realize that the people are getting sick and tired of living in a police-state.

After hundreds of thousands of opponents to the government have been executed (just recently students were killed simply for opposing the government) you say that Iran's people are satisfied with the government?! After hundreds of thousands are jailed for political dissent you say it is democratic?!

I hope you will take back what you said as I hope it was based on ignorance.

I did not say that the Assembly of Experts was elected by democratic process, I said they are elected by the people.

Which is blatantly false as I demonstrated.

They aren't "elected by the people", they are simply ratified "by the people", they are chosen by the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, who have the real power in their hands.

It is true that the Iranian government goes through a screening process to determine who is acceptable as a candidate (regulated in turn by the Guardian Council), but ultimately it does go to election.

And given the fact that all anti-government parties are banned and that even many reformist candidates are excluded during that screening-process it makes Iran as a dictatorship, not a democracy as you try to portray it as.

The fact is that the Iranian screening process is official rather then unofficial, as it is elsewhere (even though I could technically run for office, many unofficial screening elements would prevent me from coming close to getting on a ballot, let alone a reasonable chance to win.)

You really are good at making things up and then presenting them as semi-coherent concepts, aren't you?

That "unofficial screening process" that you are talking about doesn't officially exist which is the entire point of bourgeois-democracy.

In the Netherlands for example anyone is allowed to run, and even though communists don't get many votes, they're still allowed to be included (in Iran they're either jailed or killed, if you didn't know), same in the US and any other bourgeois-democratic country.

Now, you may say that the fact that no communist has a chance of ever getting elected has to do with the system of democracy being flawed...well duh, that's why it's a bourgeois-democracy and not a proletarian-democracy.

However, to say that such a system is exactly the same as an outright dictatorial system such as the one in Iran now or during the Sjah, or Franco's Spain, or Hitler's Germany etc. turns you into a political stooge.

See, here I can be a communist (or socialist or anti-government in general) and I won't get jailed or executed, in Iran I would be.

Even an infant would be able to tell the difference based on that simple fact.

While I'm on the president, as far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, perhaps you'd prefer if Akbar Hashemi Rafasanjani and his free-market approach had won?

Yes of course because if you don't support one you are supporting the other.

What is this deterministic nonsense? The world isn't black and white so our political actions shouldn't be based on black and white type of thinking.

I opposed both Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad, as most people in Iran did and still do.

You misspelled Rafsanjani by the way, I think that perhaps in the future you shouldn't try to flaunt your knowledge of Iran in a conversation with a person who's Iranian and has studied and followed the situation there carefully and thoroughly for several years now.

His education reforms were a joke and inflation reached 49% under his administration. Ahmadinejad is no better then Rafasanjani, but Rafasanjani was no better then Ahmadinejad.

I know, and so do most of the Iranian people, that's why we shouldn't be thinking in "either/or" terms like political dinosaurs.

Not that it matters much; the Supreme Leader is responsible for the armed forces, foreign policies, economic policies, and the nuclear programme.

That, in addition to the fact that the Supreme Leader is the one who appoints the Guardian Council, is why I stated that any Iranian despotic rule would be under the Supreme Leader and not the president.

You didn't mention the Guardian Council once, actually.

You only mentioned the Assembly of Experts.

Once again, my statement has been taken out of context.

My point was that if a foreign power were to invade, the population won't stand idle as said power destroyed their very way of life (as we all watched happen in Iraq); they would resist. In fact I find it likely that such an invasion would spark heightened patriotism and nationality among Iranians.

Agreed.

By your own numbers, 62% were content enough to turn out to vote, and while there is opposition (as there is in any government), more people then not feel they have played a role in politics.

It doesn't have anything to do with "being content", it has to do with survival.

The Iranian people are living in a police-state. Most people know at least one person who was either jailed or executed by the regime for political reasons.

Again; an entire generation of politically active people was wiped out.

Why do people come out and vote? Well, if you see a person on TV who's telling you lies (Ahmadinejad has made quite a few of them) and you believe that either that someone improves your life, or your life will remain as shitty as it is (living in fear, poverty and misery), what would you do?

The better question would be; What have you got to lose?

Well, your job for one, but besides that; nothing.

That is why 62% of the people voted, not because they actually believed it would change anything or because "they are content" (what the fuck is that shit?), they're not morons, but because for better or worse they hoped it would change something even if it was slightly.

The breaking point is coming nearer with every election, and the more "reformist" the president becomes, the more near a break with the Islamic Republic the people are.

Iranians may not be happy with the present leaders, but they are content enough that they are not on the verge of revolt (or apathy as in Iraq).

Again, it doesn't have anything to do with "being content", it's a fucking police-state we're talking about.

If you are "not content" you get arrested and jailed for life, tortured or shot.

When you write things like this I can't even take you seriously.

Okay, and so that would make the election no less legitimate then many others in the world (such as the 64% voter turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential election.)

I don't care about any election "being legitimate", I care about how the bourgeoisie operates the state and to what degree it allows democracy and freedom.

In bourgeois-democracies it is much higher than in bourgeois-dictatorships, this is not to say that I prefer the former over the latter, I prefer a socialist system over both, but it is to say that there's a difference between dictatorships and democracies, even if they are both bourgeoisie in character.

Perhaps somebody other then myself defended Iran's government?

You've been doing quite a lot of it, see above.

I simply conveyed the message that the Iranian government is more stable and that their military is stronger then either Iraq or Afghanistan, and a military intervention into Iran would result in mass casualties for both sides.

And there is no disagreement there, but you didn't just say that, you actually defended Iran's political system (by saying that it is just the same as any country) and you also said that the Iranian people support the government and are "quite content" with it, which is absurd.

I approached the issue with as much objectivity as I could; I introduced what information was needed for my justification for U.S. not to intervene with Iran (keeping in mind that moral issue are not a legitimate reason to go to war.)

I'm sorry but that wasn't objective at all, and you didn't approach the question from a revolutionary leftist point of view.

I was and still am quite offended by what you said, not just because I have actually lost family members due to the Islamic Republic, but also because what you said was not based on facts at all and it infuriates me to think that there are people out there on the left who believe that Iranians are "quite fine" with the current government when each day people are dying to have it destroyed!

If you must know, I believe the humane conditions in Iran are appalling (esp. the Iranian stance homosexual and women's rights), and a theocratic government is a disturbing idea to say the least.

However unless you support some sort of global moral police force for the former, or a new wave of crusades for the latter, neither is a just cause to go to war.

Of course they're not just causes to go to war, and only Neo-Cons believe that they are.

I never called on war on Iran by imperialist powers, that's crazy, it would only strengthen the current regime as you quite rightly said.

There is no disagreement there, but please don't fabricate or sugarcoat things in order to be in a better position to "defend Iran", that's not our job, we don't have to defend Iran's government, we call it as it is: A reactionary bourgeois-dictatorship, a police-state, a theocracy. We call the US as it is too: An imperialist nation, a bourgeois-democracy, ruled by one of the most reactionary wings of the bourgeois political spectrum.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1188352&postcount=25), Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1189679&postcount=28)

Notice how the person I refuted there didn't reply back.

He knew when to admit he was wrong and stop spouting reactionary crap, you seem to have not learned that very important trait.

In Fascist states workers should not defend state-owned industries because the state power is held by ultra-reactionaries who have disenfranchised the proletariat.

In all bourgeois dictatorships, actually, not just the fascist kind.

In bourgeois democratic states however workers should oppose any privatization initiatives. Marxists all committed to defending all gains made by the working class. This principle applies whether the state is Britain, France, the US or Iran.

Too bad that Iran is a bourgeois dictatorship and not a bourgeois democracy, which renders your entire "argument" moot.

But as I said, the fact that you just compared the level of democracy in Iran to that of the US is enough proof of your ignorance regarding Iran, but this is not ignorance stemming from lack of knowledge, no, this is willful ignorance, the worst kind.

Unicorn

16th July 2008, 20:15

Have you even read that book? No?
Yes.

Because I have, and there's no part in it saying that we should support nationalization in bourgeois dictatorships (or even bourgeois democracies) or use nationalization as a slogan in bourgeois dictatorships.
Wrong.

"The socialist program of expropriation, i.e., of political overthrow of the bourgeoisie and liquidation of its economic domination, should in no case during the present transitional period hinder us from advancing, when the occasion warrants, the demand for the expropriation of several key branches of industry vital for national existence or of the most parasitic group of the bourgeoisie."
- Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg

That's moronic, you don't strengthen the dictatorship of a national bourgeoisie by giving them more economic power.
The power of the bourgeois is stronger if there is a class of capitalists controlling the means of production instead of the state.

And you didn't present any evidence to refute the evidence that I presented, which makes your claims irrelevant.
Give me a break, even Washington admits that Iran is a democratic state.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1045710727430B226

Oh really? Do people in the US get arrested and tortured for being communists? Do they get executed for it? Do people in the US get arrested, jailed or executed for opposing the government?
Yes, at times when it is expedient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Why do you hold illusions about the benevolence of the American bourgeois?

There is no bourgeois democracy in Iran, there is no legal workers' movement in Iran, they killed that off a year or two after the "Great Islamic Proletarian Revolution".

I have already proven that there is no form of democracy in Iran, but let me sum it up for you (though it won't really help because you're way too deluded to understand basic historical facts).

The Guardian Council holds all power in Iran. The leader of the Guardian Council is the Supreme Leader, who has the power to veto anything that is passed by the Parliamentary body.
The Supreme Court holds that power in the US and it has very little accountability to the people.

Elections to the Parliamentary body are screened by the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader, and even many of the reformist within the current Islamic Republic who support minor reforms are not allowed to run.
In the US a substantial proportion of the electorate is class discriminatorily disenfranchised and the regulation of elections guarantees that opposition parties have little chance to achieve anything. This accomplishes roughly the same objective.

Too bad that Iran is a bourgeois dictatorship and not a bourgeois democracy, which renders your entire "argument" moot.
Not so because even if Iran is classified as a dictatorship the working class will still reap substantial benefits from the public ownership of the means of production because if the capitalists are private individuals they will use the profits more wastefully.

Led Zeppelin

16th July 2008, 20:35

Yes.

Stop lying, you're not fooling anyone.

You have not read the book, or if you have you did not comprehend it, as is proven by this:

Wrong.

"The socialist program of expropriation, i.e., of political overthrow of the bourgeoisie and liquidation of its economic domination, should in no case during the present transitional period hinder us from advancing, when the occasion warrants, the demand for the expropriation of several key branches of industry vital for national existence or of the most parasitic group of the bourgeoisie."
- Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg

Oh my, quoting snippets out of context now are we?

Sorry, that's not going to work with me, I actually know what Trotsky's position was on this matter, and I actually have read the book.

First of all, if you don't understand the difference between expropriation and nationalization you're stupid, but I'll let Trotsky explain this, from the same link that you just posted:

Thus, in answer to the pathetic jeremiads of the gentlemen democrats anent the dictatorship of the “60 Families” of the United States or the “200 Families” of France, we counterpose the demand for the expropriation of those 60 or 200 feudalistic capitalist overlords.

In precisely the same way, we demand the expropriation of the corporations holding monopolies on war industries, railroads, the most important sources of raw materials, etc.

The difference between these demands and the muddleheaded reformist slogan of “nationalization” lies in the following: (1) we reject indemnification; (2) we warn the masses against demagogues of the People’s Front who, giving lip service to nationalization, remain in reality agents of capital; (3) we call upon the masses to rely only upon their own revolutionary strength; (4) we link up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg)

See, there is a difference between those demands and your "muddleheaded reformist slogans of nationalization".

Don't try to falsify history with me and don't try to make Trotsky out to be as some kind of Brezhnevite moron, it's not going to work.

This was the position of Trotsky on the matter:

The nationalization of railways and oil fields in Mexico has of course nothing in common with socialism. It is a measure of state capitalism in a backward country which in this way seeks to defend itself on the one hand against foreign imperialism and on the other against its own proletariat. The management of railways, oil fields, etcetera, through labor organizations [In Iran this isn't even done through independent labour organizations but directly through the state] has nothing in common with workers’ control over industry, for in the essence of the matter the management is effected through the labor bureaucracy which is independent of the workers, but in return, completely dependent on the bourgeois state.

[...]

What should be the policy of the workers’ party in this case? It would of course be a disastrous error, an outright deception, to assert that the road to socialism passes, not through the proletarian revolution, but through nationalization by the bourgeois state of various branches of industry and their transfer into the hands of the workers’ organizations.

The power of the bourgeois is stronger if there is a class of capitalists controlling the means of production instead of the state.

Not if they control that state through a dictatorship, as any person with basic knowledge of politics would know.

Give me a break, even Washington admits that Iran is a democratic state.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1045710727430B226

BWHAHAHAHHA you are not going by what the US considers to be "democratic"?

But even that claim of yours is not true, I can quote Bush saying countless times that "the people of Iran are not free" and that "Iran is a dictatorship", but I don't do that because I don't base my political beliefs on what a capitalist state considers to be "democratic" or a "dictatorship". :lol:

Can you sink any lower than you have already gotten? I don't think so.

Yes, at times when it is expedient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Why do you hold illusions about the benevolence of the American bourgeois?

I don't, I'm not blind though, like you are.

Even the McCarthyites didn't arrest, jail and execute anyone who opposed the government, but that is beside the point. I'm referring to the US now, not back in the 50's or 60's, when it was obviously less democratic (but still a bourgeois democracy).

The fact is that in Iran you do get arrested, jailed or executed if you oppose the government, and not just 10 or 15 years ago, but right now.

And that's even disregarding the fact that there is no form of any democratic election process, which I proved above and to which you didn't bother to respond, because you can't.

The Supreme Court holds that power in the US and it has very little accountability to the people.

Oh wow you proved all my facts wrong there!

This is irrelevant, I'm not even sure why you posted this.

In the US a substantial proportion of the electorate is class discriminatorily disenfranchised and the regulation of elections guarantees that opposition parties have little chance to achieve anything. This accomplishes roughly the same objective.

Oh it does? Then why does the oh so democratic Iranian state not do the same thing? Why do they have to ban all opposition to the government and arrest, jail and execute any person who is opposed to them?

After all, they could just as well do what they do in the US to "accomplish roughly the same objective".

I know why they don't: Because it's not a bourgeois democracy.

Not so because even if Iran is classified as a dictatorship the working class will still reap substantial benefits from the public ownership of the means of production because if the capitalists are private individuals they will use the profits more wastefully.

So the working-class reaps substantial benefits from nationalized companies which are run on the profit-motive and are for a large part owned by private stockholders, while they have no democratic say in how the companies are run because they are directly managed by capitalists?

I never realized Iran was a beacon of workers' control over the means of production, I guess I - and practically everyone else in the world - missed that.

But hey, why don't you move to Iran if it's so "democratic" and if you can "reap such substantial benefits"?

Just don't say you're a communist though (even though you aren't, they won't really tell the difference), you'll have to spend the rest of your life languishing in a jail if you do.

Unicorn

16th July 2008, 22:43

Oh my, quoting snippets out of context now are we?

Sorry, that's not going to work with me, I actually know what Trotsky's position was on this matter, and I actually have read the book.

First of all, if you don't understand the difference between expropriation and nationalization you're stupid, but I'll let Trotsky explain this, from the same link that you just posted:
Nationalization and expropriation by the state are synonymous.

See, there is a difference between those demands and your "muddleheaded reformist slogans of nationalization".

Don't try to falsify history with me and don't try to make Trotsky out to be as some kind of Brezhnevite moron, it's not going to work.
Strawman. I don't support the "muddleheaded reformist slogans of nationalization" Trotsky criticises. In fact, I agree with Trotsky's criticism. It is wrong to pay compensation to the previous owners of the expropriated property as the muddleheaded reformists want.

This was the position of Trotsky on the matter:
Trotsky just states that the only way to socialism is a proletarian revolution. He does not dispute that nationalization generally improves the workers' lives and privatization harms them in states with mixed economy.

Not if they control that state through a dictatorship, as any person with basic knowledge of politics would know.
You support the privatization of Iran's economy as a means to reduce the power of the state? Ridiculous.

BWHAHAHAHHA you are not going by what the US considers to be "democratic"?

But even that claim of yours is not true, I can quote Bush saying countless times that "the people of Iran are not free" and that "Iran is a dictatorship", but I don't do that because I don't base my political beliefs on what a capitalist state considers to be "democratic" or a "dictatorship". :lol:

Can you sink any lower than you have already gotten? I don't think so.

I don't, I'm not blind though, like you are.

Even the McCarthyites didn't arrest, jail and execute anyone who opposed the government, but that is beside the point. I'm referring to the US now, not back in the 50's or 60's, when it was obviously less democratic (but still a bourgeois democracy).

The fact is that in Iran you do get arrested, jailed or executed if you oppose the government, and not just 10 or 15 years ago, but right now.

And that's even disregarding the fact that there is no form of any democratic election process, which I proved above and to which you didn't bother to respond, because you can't.
Iran had democratic elections recently. 23 million Iranians voted, most of them working-class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_2008

It is true that communist candidates are not allowed to participate in the Iranian elections. A similar situation however exists in many democratic countries. For example, in Germany a communist party that seeks to establish a workers' state would be declared illegal as anti-constitutional ("verfassungsfeindlich").

Oh it does? Then why does the oh so democratic Iranian state not do the same thing? Why do they have to ban all opposition to the government and arrest, jail and execute any person who is opposed to them?

After all, they could just as well do what they do in the US to "accomplish roughly the same objective".

I know why they don't: Because it's not a bourgeois democracy.
Wrong, the US as an imperialist nation benefits from super-profits which are used to pacify the working class. Iran as a non-imperialist nation does not have that option and thus the Iranian bourgeois resorts to more crude methods.

So the working-class reaps substantial benefits from nationalized companies which are run on the profit-motive and are for a large part owned by private stockholders, while they have no democratic say in how the companies are run because they are directly managed by capitalists?
Yes, because the revenue goes to the state and thus can be spent on social programs. The capitalists don't want to spend a dime to help the workers. Executives in state-owned companies are also less often overcompensated.

Led Zeppelin

17th July 2008, 00:38

I just replied to that horseshit post of yours but lost it, so I will reply again but less in-depth because I don't have the desire to waste my time on you.

Nationalization and expropriation by the state are synonymous.

Trotsky wasn't referring to expropriation by the capitalist state, he was referring to expropriation of the capitalists by the workers. It's a bit difficult to expropriate capitalists....with other capitalists replacing them, isn't it?

Well, perhaps in your universe that could work, but we're living in reality.

I don't support the "muddleheaded reformist slogans of nationalization" Trotsky criticises. In fact, I agree with Trotsky's criticism. It is wrong to pay compensation to the previous owners of the expropriated property as the muddleheaded reformists want.

So you reply to one part of a quote that I post, and you expect to be taken seriously? What, do you think the members here are incapable of reading or something?

I'll re-post the part of the quote which you ignore so that people will see how dishonest you really are:

Thus, in answer to the pathetic jeremiads of the gentlemen democrats anent the dictatorship of the “60 Families” of the United States or the “200 Families” of France, we counterpose the demand for the expropriation of those 60 or 200 feudalistic capitalist overlords.

(3) we call upon the masses to rely only upon their own revolutionary strength; (4) we link up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers.

Let's see here, supporting the expropriation of capitalists and linking up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers. Yes, that's a revolutionary position.

Supporting nationalization of capitalist companies...by a capitalist state which is a bourgeois dictatorship to boot, and considering that to be progressive, yes, that's a reactionary position, or as Trotsky so eloquently put it: "the muddleheaded reformist" position.

Trotsky just states that the only way to socialism is a proletarian revolution. He does not dispute that nationalization generally improves the workers' lives and privatization harms them in states with mixed economy.

You really do think that people here are not able to read the quotes I post in full, and that when you reply to small parts of them you are "proving yourself right", don't you?

Well, that's quite delusional of you, on top of being dishonest.

I'll just re-post the quote which you totally ignored again, you know, the quote where he says that nationalization has nothing in common with socialism and that it doesn't result in "workers having more democratic control over the means of production":

The nationalization of railways and oil fields in Mexico has of course nothing in common with socialism. It is a measure of state capitalism in a backward country which in this way seeks to defend itself on the one hand against foreign imperialism and on the other against its own proletariat. The management of railways, oil fields, etcetera, through labor organizations has nothing in common with workers’ control over industry, for in the essence of the matter the management is effected through the labor bureaucracy which is independent of the workers, but in return, completely dependent on the bourgeois state.

He did not believe that nationalization of capitalist companies by a capitalist state - which happens to be a bourgeois dictatorship as well - was desirable or progressive, as you do.

No, he supported the slogan of expropriating the capitalists by workers (not by a "benevolent bourgeoisie"), while at the same time linking up the question of expropriation with the seizure of power by the proletariat and peasantry.

You are a Brezhnevite, you have admitted this, but I can't understand why on earth you want to associate Trotsky, a Marxist, with your reactionary nonsense. I guess you just want to drag him through the mud as you have been dragged through it.

No, this doesn't work, because you see, Trotsky was a Marxist and a revolutionary, unlike you, who are a reactionary.

You support the privatization of Iran's economy as a means to reduce the power of the state? Ridiculous.

Your Brezhnevite black and white type of thinking is coming up again.

I know this is unimaginable to you, but I actually go as far as to support the expropriation of capitalists in Iran, while linking up the question of expropriation with the seizure of power by the proletariat and peasantry.

So, yes, I'm a revolutionary. :ohmy:

Iran had democratic elections recently. 23 million Iranians voted, most of them working-class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_2008

You know, this isn't a game where you can ignore my refutations of your claims and then bring them up again later on, as if I somehow didn't refute the same garbage before.

I proved that elections in Iran are in no way democratic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1195103&postcount=35), and you say again they just had democratic elections, you are being purposefully being ignorant and dishonest.

I even said the same thing several posts ago:

Unlike in Nazi Germany workers in Iran have the right to vote and thus influence the democratic process.
If this is all a game to you then stop replying to me.

I already responded to this horseshit claim of Iran "being democratic" like 10 posts ago, now you're clutching back at it?

Don't think that you can get away with these petty games though, if you are going to repeat your moronic claims I'm going to repeat my refutations of them:

What a load of nonsense.

The "Assembly of Experts" isn't elected by the people in a democratic election process, you made that up.

The list of nominees is screened by the government and only the "acceptable" people are allowed to be added to the vote, the same is the case in the election process for all positions in the government. During the last elections for example a large number of "reformist" candidates were not allowed to run.

As for real political opposition to the ruling clique; they are all arrested and either executed or jailed.

To say that the people of Iran are satisfied with the leadership is idiotic, in fact your entire post was filled with innacuracies.

The people support the regime? I have been to Iran, I have family living in Iran, only those who directly benefit from the current regime, that is, the people who are in pay of it, have some vague support for it, and even they would prefer another system because they realize that the people are getting sick and tired of living in a police-state.

After hundreds of thousands of opponents to the government have been executed (just recently students were killed simply for opposing the government) you say that Iran's people are satisfied with the government?! After hundreds of thousands are jailed for political dissent you say it is democratic?!

I hope you will take back what you said as I hope it was based on ignorance.

I did not say that the Assembly of Experts was elected by democratic process, I said they are elected by the people.

Which is blatantly false as I demonstrated.

They aren't "elected by the people", they are simply ratified "by the people", they are chosen by the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, who have the real power in their hands.

It is true that the Iranian government goes through a screening process to determine who is acceptable as a candidate (regulated in turn by the Guardian Council), but ultimately it does go to election.

And given the fact that all anti-government parties are banned and that even many reformist candidates are excluded during that screening-process it makes Iran as a dictatorship, not a democracy as you try to portray it as.

The fact is that the Iranian screening process is official rather then unofficial, as it is elsewhere (even though I could technically run for office, many unofficial screening elements would prevent me from coming close to getting on a ballot, let alone a reasonable chance to win.)

You really are good at making things up and then presenting them as semi-coherent concepts, aren't you?

That "unofficial screening process" that you are talking about doesn't officially exist which is the entire point of bourgeois-democracy.

In the Netherlands for example anyone is allowed to run, and even though communists don't get many votes, they're still allowed to be included (in Iran they're either jailed or killed, if you didn't know), same in the US and any other bourgeois-democratic country.

Now, you may say that the fact that no communist has a chance of ever getting elected has to do with the system of democracy being flawed...well duh, that's why it's a bourgeois-democracy and not a proletarian-democracy.

However, to say that such a system is exactly the same as an outright dictatorial system such as the one in Iran now or during the Sjah, or Franco's Spain, or Hitler's Germany etc. turns you into a political stooge.

See, here I can be a communist (or socialist or anti-government in general) and I won't get jailed or executed, in Iran I would be.

Even an infant would be able to tell the difference based on that simple fact.

While I'm on the president, as far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, perhaps you'd prefer if Akbar Hashemi Rafasanjani and his free-market approach had won?

Yes of course because if you don't support one you are supporting the other.

What is this deterministic nonsense? The world isn't black and white so our political actions shouldn't be based on black and white type of thinking.

I opposed both Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad, as most people in Iran did and still do.

You misspelled Rafsanjani by the way, I think that perhaps in the future you shouldn't try to flaunt your knowledge of Iran in a conversation with a person who's Iranian and has studied and followed the situation there carefully and thoroughly for several years now.

His education reforms were a joke and inflation reached 49% under his administration. Ahmadinejad is no better then Rafasanjani, but Rafasanjani was no better then Ahmadinejad.

I know, and so do most of the Iranian people, that's why we shouldn't be thinking in "either/or" terms like political dinosaurs.

Not that it matters much; the Supreme Leader is responsible for the armed forces, foreign policies, economic policies, and the nuclear programme.

That, in addition to the fact that the Supreme Leader is the one who appoints the Guardian Council, is why I stated that any Iranian despotic rule would be under the Supreme Leader and not the president.

You didn't mention the Guardian Council once, actually.

You only mentioned the Assembly of Experts.

Once again, my statement has been taken out of context.

My point was that if a foreign power were to invade, the population won't stand idle as said power destroyed their very way of life (as we all watched happen in Iraq); they would resist. In fact I find it likely that such an invasion would spark heightened patriotism and nationality among Iranians.

Agreed.

By your own numbers, 62% were content enough to turn out to vote, and while there is opposition (as there is in any government), more people then not feel they have played a role in politics.

It doesn't have anything to do with "being content", it has to do with survival.

The Iranian people are living in a police-state. Most people know at least one person who was either jailed or executed by the regime for political reasons.

Again; an entire generation of politically active people was wiped out.

Why do people come out and vote? Well, if you see a person on TV who's telling you lies (Ahmadinejad has made quite a few of them) and you believe that either that someone improves your life, or your life will remain as shitty as it is (living in fear, poverty and misery), what would you do?

The better question would be; What have you got to lose?

Well, your job for one, but besides that; nothing.

That is why 62% of the people voted, not because they actually believed it would change anything or because "they are content" (what the fuck is that shit?), they're not morons, but because for better or worse they hoped it would change something even if it was slightly.

The breaking point is coming nearer with every election, and the more "reformist" the president becomes, the more near a break with the Islamic Republic the people are.

Iranians may not be happy with the present leaders, but they are content enough that they are not on the verge of revolt (or apathy as in Iraq).

Again, it doesn't have anything to do with "being content", it's a fucking police-state we're talking about.

If you are "not content" you get arrested and jailed for life, tortured or shot.

When you write things like this I can't even take you seriously.

Okay, and so that would make the election no less legitimate then many others in the world (such as the 64% voter turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential election.)

I don't care about any election "being legitimate", I care about how the bourgeoisie operates the state and to what degree it allows democracy and freedom.

In bourgeois-democracies it is much higher than in bourgeois-dictatorships, this is not to say that I prefer the former over the latter, I prefer a socialist system over both, but it is to say that there's a difference between dictatorships and democracies, even if they are both bourgeoisie in character.

Perhaps somebody other then myself defended Iran's government?

You've been doing quite a lot of it, see above.

I simply conveyed the message that the Iranian government is more stable and that their military is stronger then either Iraq or Afghanistan, and a military intervention into Iran would result in mass casualties for both sides.

And there is no disagreement there, but you didn't just say that, you actually defended Iran's political system (by saying that it is just the same as any country) and you also said that the Iranian people support the government and are "quite content" with it, which is absurd.

I approached the issue with as much objectivity as I could; I introduced what information was needed for my justification for U.S. not to intervene with Iran (keeping in mind that moral issue are not a legitimate reason to go to war.)

I'm sorry but that wasn't objective at all, and you didn't approach the question from a revolutionary leftist point of view.

I was and still am quite offended by what you said, not just because I have actually lost family members due to the Islamic Republic, but also because what you said was not based on facts at all and it infuriates me to think that there are people out there on the left who believe that Iranians are "quite fine" with the current government when each day people are dying to have it destroyed!

If you must know, I believe the humane conditions in Iran are appalling (esp. the Iranian stance homosexual and women's rights), and a theocratic government is a disturbing idea to say the least.

However unless you support some sort of global moral police force for the former, or a new wave of crusades for the latter, neither is a just cause to go to war.

Of course they're not just causes to go to war, and only Neo-Cons believe that they are.

I never called on war on Iran by imperialist powers, that's crazy, it would only strengthen the current regime as you quite rightly said.

There is no disagreement there, but please don't fabricate or sugarcoat things in order to be in a better position to "defend Iran", that's not our job, we don't have to defend Iran's government, we call it as it is: A reactionary bourgeois-dictatorship, a police-state, a theocracy. We call the US as it is too: An imperialist nation, a bourgeois-democracy, ruled by one of the most reactionary wings of the bourgeois political spectrum.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1188352&postcount=25), Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1189679&postcount=28)

During his power, he had a rubber-stamp Senate to dictate his orders (very much like Diem from South Vietnam),

Very similar to the current Iranian regime which is directly under the leadership of the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, of which the other governmental bodies are simply tools of rubber-stamping.

but after the Islamists took power, a Islamic Consultive Assembly was put in place.

I have already refuted the myth about the "Islamic Consultive Assembly" or the "Assembly of Experts" being democratic:

The "Assembly of Experts" isn't elected by the people in a democratic election process, you made that up.

The list of nominees is screened by the government and only the "acceptable" people are allowed to be added to the vote, the same is the case in the election process for [I]all positions in the government. During the last elections for example a large number of "reformist" candidates were not allowed to run.

I did not say that the Assembly of Experts was elected by democratic process, I said they are elected by the people.
Which is blatantly false as I demonstrated.

They aren't "elected by the people", they are simply ratified "by the people", they are chosen by the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, who have the real power in their hands.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-think-t83415/index2.html?&highlight=Iran)

By the Constitution's orders, the Jews and Christians must have at least one representative (though three Jews have been elected in the elections two years ago), and the former Majlis that supported the Shah (who were not suppressed by the Islamists) continue to hold many seats.

Stop getting your information from wikipedia searches while pretending that you "know your history".

The "former Majlis that supported the Shah" doesn't exist, there are no Monarchists in the current Consultative Assembly (or Majlis as you want to call it to sound knowledgable of the situation), there are no opposition parties to the Islamic Republic in it either.

You know why?

Because they are banned.

It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths some people are willing to go to prove the existence of something just so they can pretend to be rrrrrrevolutionary.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1195103&postcount=35)

It is true that communist candidates are not allowed to participate in the Iranian elections. A similar situation however exists in many democratic countries. For example, in Germany a communist party that seeks to establish a workers' state would be declared illegal as anti-constitutional ("verfassungsfeindlich").

See, you're ignoring everything I said again, just to repeat your lies and distortions, as I didn't refute them already.

I have debated many people on this forum, for several years, you are by far the most pathetic of them all.

It is not just "communist candidates" that are not allowed to participate, any party or candidate who opposes the government is not allowed to participate. Even reformists who support minor reforms are not allowed to participate.

But it doesn't just stop at "not being allowed to participate in the elections", any party or person who opposes the government is either jailed, tortured or executed.

This is all irrelevant, however, because the parliament doesn't have any power. You are citing election results to a parliamentary body with no power, with the candidates in those elections being hand-picked by the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader, as proof of Iran being democractic.

This makes you an idiot.

Wrong, the US as an imperialist nation benefits from super-profits which are used to pacify the working class. Iran as a non-imperialist nation does not have that option and thus the Iranian bourgeois resorts to more crude methods.

Oh so it's just because they don't have enough benefits from super-profits?

I knew you'd go back to the "they're too poor for it" argument again, given the strange nature of your "ideology", if you can even call it that.

Explain how the "non-imperialist" nations of Brazil, Argentine, Bolivia, Armenia, India, Botswana etc. etc. are able to "do the job" without having to "resort to more crude methods"?

It's just because the Iranians are backward, right? They're too dumb to realize that they don't have to resort to such crude methods.

It's the "stupid brown people" type of thinking again, which isn't surprising at all coming from someone like you.

Yes, because the revenue goes to the state and thus can be spent on social programs. The capitalists don't want to spend a dime to help the workers. Executives in state-owned companies are also less often overcompensated.

I think it's funny how you think that companies that are owned by a capitalist state, and of which the majority of shares are owned by private stockholders, are somehow different in nature than companies that are owned by....capitalists.

Also, I think it's funny how you think that the Iranian bourgeoisie is so benevolent that it spends any penny it gets on social programs.

Actually, no, I don't think it's funny, I think it's quite sad, as it betrays tremendous ignorance and idiocy on your part.

I have asked you three times now to present evidence of the Iranian state spending more of its GDP on welfare than other nations, and you have ignored it exactly three times.

Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, because even if it did spend more of its GDP on welfare it wouldn't change the fact that it did so for reactionary purposes, that is, to keep the working-class "silent" and "in order". Some people, the politically inept, consider this a sign of benevolence from the bourgeoisie, a "progressive thing" that "needs to be supported", but these people are reformists which are of no use to us anyway. They are in essence reactionary.

It would be interesting to know what your source for that is though.

Colonello Buendia

17th July 2008, 13:53

the clue is in the name, ISLAMIC republic or iran. islam is reactionary and therefore an islamic republic is also reactionary. their record on gay and womens rights are appalling and therefore they should not be considered progressive

Comrade Vasilev

17th July 2008, 14:05

I think the Iranian working class would be in a better position to organize today if Iran had of become a liberal bourgeois republic, rather than the current mercantile clericalism which actively represses labor. Either way, it's pointless to argue over the past, what's done is done, but anyone who thinks that a Revolution which ended with the burning of books and public hangings of homosexuals is severely deluded.

It's highly opportunist to side with one bourgeois state against another, bourgeois states will always war against each other just as competing capitalists try to drive each other out of business. Cheering for Iran makes about as much sense as when the Social Democrats started cheering their own nations in WWI.

Comrade Castro

17th July 2008, 18:40

I dont see how a leftist can say that the Islamic Republic of Iran is in any way progressive. The Islamic government has literally killed THOUSANDS of communists and leftists of any kind, and it goes on today! The only thing iranś government is useful for is blowing the shit out of the zionists in palestine and the us bases in iraq if they are attacked.

hekmatista

17th July 2008, 18:53

Whatever goals of the bourgeois-democratic revolution may have been accomplished during the (in spite of the) Islamic Republic, proletarian revolution is on the agenda. Without it, the democratic revolution cannot be completed. Mere opposition to the imperial center does not make one "progressive." There was a time when every small show of independence by the late, unlamented Shah was greeted by "anti-imperialists" as progressive (I won't point fingers at which tendencies; any of you my age remember quite well).

Unicorn

18th July 2008, 08:38

RedAnarchist

18th July 2008, 09:00

Ismail

18th July 2008, 09:37

Its run by extremely religious men who feel the need to persecute women, homosexuals, religious/ethnic minorities and to impose their brand of Islam on the Iranian people. It is not progressive, but this does not mean that we must support some American/Israeli attack on the Iranians - the Iranian working class should not be punished for their government, and the American and Israeli working class should not be forced to kill for their government. In my opinion, the sooner the Iranian government is overthrown from within, the better.Correct. As Hoxha once said, "every big capitalist country aims to become a great world power, to overtake and surpass the other great powers, and compete with them for world domination." Iran has had imperialistic ambitions in Iraq, for example. Hoxha (I mention him since he was actually alive at the time) commented on the Ayatollah back in 1979, and said that the Communist parties should work with the Ayatollah only as far as he is anti-colonialist, and should turn on him when the British and Shah are pushed out.

From Reflections on the Middle East

We cannot accept the tales that the bourgeois revisionist propaganda, American imperialism and world capitalism are spreading that Ayatollah Khomeini or this one or that in Iran are people who do not understand politics or are just as backward as Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein were. This is not true. On the contrary, the facts show that people like Khomeini know how to make proper use of the existing movement of these peoples, which, in essence and in fact, is a progressive bourgeois-democratic and anti-imperialist movement.

We must always bear in mind that neither this political opposition, nor the religious opposition to the Pahlavis was united. Some of those who comprised this opposition were against the so-called agrarian reform, against the right of women to vote, etc. This section, which comprised conservative clergy, was steadily losing its influence amongst the masses, who were moving closer to that part of the clergy who openly fought the dictatorship of the Shah on the basis of the Shia principles of the Moslem religion. One of these was Ayatollah Khomeini, who was imprisoned, tortured, imprisoned again, and sent into exile and his son murdered. This enhanced the influence of the imam among the people, in the "Bazaar" (the main market centre of Tehran), hence, amongst the merchants, and also amongst the workers. In the rising tide of agitation and the great demonstrations against the Shah, the masses demanded the return of the Imam to the homeland.

The death of his son and of a political personality, Ali Shariat, in mysterious circumstances led to the emergence of the religious elements in the forefront of the clashes and the whole people united with them, especially in Tabriz on February 18-19, 1977, as well as in Tehran, Qum and other Iranian cities. All this testifies to the fighting spirit of the people of Iran. As a result the Pahlavi monarchy was quite incapable of resisting the repeated waves of the onslaught of the insurgent people.

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, but are still unformed ideologically and will have to go through a great school in which they will learn. The Marxist-Leninists must teach the people to assess the events that are taking place in the light of dialectical and historical materialism. However, 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 and working class must play a major role in those revolutionary movements, having a clear understanding of the moments they are going through; they 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 Shia clergy or the anti-Shah elements of the old and new national bourgeoisie might carry out.

Certainly, if the working class, the poor peasantry and the progressive students, whether believers or non-believers, allow the impetus of the revolution to ebb away, which means that they do not proceed with determination and maturity towards alliances and activities conducive to successive political and socio-economic reforms, then the revolution will stop halfway, the masses will be disillusioned and the exploitation of them will continue in other forms by pseudo-democratic people linked in new alliances with the different imperialists.

Unicorn

18th July 2008, 09:43

I just replied to that horseshit post of yours but lost it, so I will reply again but less in-depth because I don't have the desire to waste my time on you.

Trotsky wasn't referring to expropriation by the capitalist state, he was referring to expropriation of the capitalists by the workers. It's a bit difficult to expropriate capitalists....with other capitalists replacing them, isn't it?

Well, perhaps in your universe that could work, but we're living in reality.

So you reply to one part of a quote that I post, and you expect to be taken seriously? What, do you think the members here are incapable of reading or something?

I'll re-post the part of the quote which you ignore so that people will see how dishonest you really are:

Let's see here, supporting the expropriation of capitalists and linking up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers. Yes, that's a revolutionary position.

Supporting nationalization of capitalist companies...by a capitalist state which is a bourgeois dictatorship to boot, and considering that to be progressive, yes, that's a reactionary position, or as Trotsky so eloquently put it: "the muddleheaded reformist" position.
I am Marxist-Leninist, not a Trotskyist, and I do know Lenin's position on the matter. Lenin wrote that as Lenin noted that, as state-monopoly capitalism develops in a bourgeois state, favourable conditions emerge for overthrowing the bourgeoisie and transferring the economy to public management in the interests of the working people; after assuming power, the working-class party would have important levers for managing the entire economy at its disposal. "State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshhold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and a rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 363). You hold an anti-Leninist position on the issue of nationalization by bourgeois states.

It is not just "communist candidates" that are not allowed to participate, any party or candidate who opposes the government is not allowed to participate. Even reformists who support minor reforms are not allowed to participate.
Why should communists care about the reformists who are not allowed to participate? They are capitalists too and many of them are much worse than Ahmanidejad as they support privatization and Western imperialism.

But it doesn't just stop at "not being allowed to participate in the elections", any party or person who opposes the government is either jailed, tortured or executed.

This is all irrelevant, however, because the parliament doesn't have any power. You are citing election results to a parliamentary body with no power, with the candidates in those elections being hand-picked by the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader, as proof of Iran being democractic.
Iran is a revolutionarydemocratic dictatorship of the broad alliance of the petty-bourgeois masses, the middle strata of society, in particular the intelligentsia and office workers, the toiling peasantry, other non-proletarian contingents of the working people and the working class. Lenin stated that "with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist stage". (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.31, p. 244)

Iran in the long run is orientating social development towards socialism and it is led by a vanguard revolutionary-democratic party. 70% of Iran's industry is nationalized as of 2006. According to the article 44 of Constitution, the economy of Iran is to consist of three sectors: state, cooperative, and private; and is to be based on systematic and sound planning. The state sector is to include all large-scale industries, foreign trade, major minerals, banking, insurance, power generation, dams and large-scale irrigation networks, radio and television, post, telegraph and telephone services, aviation, shipping, roads, railroads and the like; all these will be publicly owned and administered by the State. The cooperative sector is to include cooperative companies (Bonyads) and enterprises concerned with production and distribution, in urban and rural areas, in accordance with Islamic criteria. 120,000 cooperatives are in operation across the country employing about 15 million people. The private sector consists of those activities concerned with construction, agriculture, animal husbandry, industry, trade, and services that supplement the economic activities of the state and cooperative sectors. A socialist orientation is not some “ synthesis” of capitalism and socialism, but a revolutionary way of effecting, against a background of constantly strengthening socialist forces, a transition to socialism in a historically short period, bypassing the capitalist stage, which is fraught with suffering for the working people.

Oh so it's just because they don't have enough benefits from super-profits?

I knew you'd go back to the "they're too poor for it" argument again, given the strange nature of your "ideology", if you can even call it that.

Explain how the "non-imperialist" nations of Brazil, Argentine, Bolivia, Armenia, India, Botswana etc. etc. are able to "do the job" without having to "resort to more crude methods"?
They are not encircled by Western imperialism and demonized as being a part of the "Axis of Evil". Don't blame Iran for the actions of Western imperialists who are most responsible for the human rights problems in Iran.

I think it's funny how you think that companies that are owned by a capitalist state, and of which the majority of shares are owned by private stockholders, are somehow different in nature than companies that are owned by....capitalists.

Also, I think it's funny how you think that the Iranian bourgeoisie is so benevolent that it spends any penny it gets on social programs.

Actually, no, I don't think it's funny, I think it's quite sad, as it betrays tremendous ignorance and idiocy on your part.
The role and objectives of state capitalism in economic life are determined by the interests of the class the state represents. A bourgeois state establishes state capitalism largely in the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie. circumstances, state capitalism can serve to weaken private monopolies, which is why the Communist Parties are working to expand the democratic nationalisation of private capitalist enterprises. State capitalism is of particular importance for the developing countries like Iran, as it makes them less dependent on neo-colonialists and helps raise employment and living standards. It also accelerates their economic development by drawing on the state budget and enhances production concentration and elements of planning, thus increasing the rates of economic development. Under certain conditions, state capitalism. can also be instrumental in democratising social life.

I have asked you three times now to present evidence of the Iranian state spending more of its GDP on welfare than other nations, and you have ignored it exactly three times.

Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, because even if it did spend more of its GDP on welfare it wouldn't change the fact that it did so for reactionary purposes, that is, to keep the working-class "silent" and "in order". Some people, the politically inept, consider this a sign of benevolence from the bourgeoisie, a "progressive thing" that "needs to be supported", but these people are reformists which are of no use to us anyway. They are in essence reactionary.

It would be interesting to know what your source for that is though.
"Iran spent 22.5 percent of its 2003 national budget on social welfare programs."
http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_profiles/2004-2005/Iran.html

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 10:10

I am Marxist-Leninist, not a Trotskyist, and I do know Lenin's position on the matter.

I already posted Lenin's position on the matter, as I have already replied to anything you say:

Third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm)

fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate—by setting up “working people’s Soviets”, etc.;

fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm)

Now, in Iran the communist movement has been illegalized and tens of thousands of revolutionary leftists have been either executed or jailed....and you try to imply that Lenin (of all people!) would have supported the reactionary regime based on this because the literacy rates have gone up? :lol:

No, no, you have Lenin all wrong, he's not the petty philistine you try to make him out to be:

Social-Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic warning to the proletariat and other working people of all nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans of “their own” bourgeoisie, who with their saccharine or fiery speeches about “our native land” try to divide the proletariat and divert its attention from their bourgeois intrigues while they enter into an economic and political alliance with the bourgeoisie of other nations and with the tsarist monarchy.

The proletariat cannot pursue its struggle for socialism and defend its everyday economic interests without the closest and fullest alliance of the workers of all nations in all working-class organisations without exception.

[...]

It follows, therefore, that workers who place political unity with “their own” bourgeoisie above complete unity with the proletariat of all nations, are acting against their own interests, against the interests of socialism and against the interests of democracy.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm)
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1193878&postcount=3)

Why should communists care about the reformists who are not allowed to participate? They are capitalists too and many of them are much worse than Ahmanidejad as they support privatization and Western imperialism.

We "shouldn't care" if we were allowed to run ourselves, and if we were allowed to exist ourselves.

We aren't.

Anyway this isn't a reply to the fact that there is no democracy because all opposition of any kind to the government is banned.

In any bourgeois dictatorship "reformist capitalists" were/are also banned, because they are dictatorships.

Would you say "who cares if they are banned?" in those cases as well?

That is no argument, in fact you present no argument at all.

I have no idea why you decided to reply to me again when you have nothing to reply with.

Iran is a revolutionarydemocratic dictatorship of the broad alliance of the petty-bourgeois masses, the middle strata of society, in particular the intelligentsia and office workers, the toiling peasantry, other non-proletarian contingents of the working people and the working class.

I have disproven that Iran is democratic, and you repeating that lie won't make it any more true.

It only makes you look more foolish when you keep repeating it.

Lenin stated that "with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist stage". (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.31, p. 244)

Yes, with the aid of the proletariat in advanced countries they can advance to socialism and communism.

First of all Iran is in no way receiving "any aid from the proletariat in advanced countries" because there are not advanced countries that are socialist.

Secondly, Iran is in no way progressing towards socialism or communism, as you yourself admitted it is in no way socialist.

Quoting Lenin out of context to prove a point that isn't even reinforced by what you quoted is idiotic, an ability which you have displayed throughout this thread.

Iran in the long run is orientating social development towards socialism and it is led by a vanguard revolutionary-democratic party.

You are a fucking clown.

which is why the Communist Parties are working to expand the democratic nationalisation of private capitalist enterprises.

Are you an idiot? No seriously, are you?

Iran is in no way democratic, so even if this "argument" was valid it doesn't apply to Iran.

And the state companies are for a large part owned by private stockholders.

I have said this over and over again and you keep repeating the same garbage that is refuted.

This makes you objectively an idiot.

I'm sorry.

"Iran spent 22.5 percent of its 2003 national budget on social welfare programs."
http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_profiles/2004-2005/Iran.html

First of all that source is bullshit, it's written by the Army Handbook for fucks sake.

Secondly, you quoted that part out of context and you didn't even bother to compare the 22.5 % of GDP spent to other countries.

This is the context of that quote:

Iran spent 22.5 percent of its 2003 national budget on social welfare programs. More than 50 percent of that amount covered pensions.

So only about 11% was spent on "social welfare programs", when you take out the amount spent on pensions, which is just one program and which is given in most nations on earth.

And thirdly, this doesn't disprove that Iran is capitalist, so it is of no relevance at all.

It's nice to know where you get your sources from though.

I was glad when you didn't reply to me, I thought you finally realized how idiotic and indefensible your positions really are. But no, you decided to sink even deeper into the reactionary shit that was already covering you. Now you claim that Iran is actually lead by a "revolutionary-democratic vanguard moving towards socialism".

Only an utter idiot could say such a thing while actually believing it, and even though you proved yourself to be one with your earlier replies, at least you could still pretend to be "semi-leftist" with your previous position.

Now you have moved over to the complete opposite side of the spectrum, which is where your position would logically have lead you anyway.

Why bother replying to me when you don't even reply to me? You post inane shit, without actually responding to any of the arguments I present, and then expect me to do what exactly? What is the point of this bullshitting?

Do you just want to show everyone here how childishly idiotic you are? Is that your aim?

Well, if that is your aim, I congratulate you on a job well done!

Ismail

18th July 2008, 10:15

Remember people, it's more important to know how peoples lives are being improved than the fact that their lives are improved. For example, France had (and has) a better economy than Vietnam, but this is because it had (and still has) many neo-colonies and is fully integrated with the rest of the European nations, which themselves are all very rich and quite a few have neo-colonies of their own. Peoples lives are better in France than in Vietnam.

Finland has quite a few social programs from what I hear, but that doesn't make it socialist. The US has few, that doesn't make it ultra-capitalist. They're both equally capitalist because capitalism is the economic system itself that determines all.

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 10:21

Remember people, it's more important to know how peoples lives are being improved than the fact that their lives are improved.

Of course it is, and you know what I'm glad that people like you and Hekmatist, RedAnarchist, rebelworker, Leo, Devrim, Comrade Vasilev and Comrade Castro are around, it shows that there are some sane people on the board.

But it is important to note that it is not "people" who actually believe this trash, it's only Unicorn and his third-positionism, oh, sorry, I mean "Brezhnevism".

Unicorn

18th July 2008, 10:41

We "shouldn't care" if we were allowed to run ourselves, and if we were allowed to exist ourselves.

We aren't.

Anyway this isn't a reply to the fact that there is no democracy because all opposition of any kind to the government is banned.

In any bourgeois dictatorship "reformist capitalists" were/are also banned, because they are dictatorships.

Would you say "who cares if they are banned?" in those cases as well?

That is no argument, in fact you present no argument at all.

I have no idea why you decided to reply to me again when you have nothing to reply with.
I stated that Iran is a revolutionarydemocratic dictatorship and obviously in such countries opposition parties are banned. Do you even know what is a revolutionarydemocratic dictatorship?

Yes, with the aid of the proletariat in advanced countries they can advance to socialism and communism.

First of all Iran is in no way receiving "any aid from the proletariat in advanced countries" because there are not advanced countries that are socialist.
Iran benefited substantially from economic cooperation with the USSR in the 1980s and more recently it has cooperated with Cuba. This paves the way to socialist construction.

Iran is cooperating closely with Cuba and Fidel Castro who is the most important leader of the international communist movement called Iran "a bastion of dignity and independence." Iran is "a friend, a brother, and an ally" to Cuba according to Castro. President Mohammad Khatami was decorated with the Jose Marti medal of distinction by Castro who also invited Ahmadinejad to visit Cuba in 2006. Castro has praised the Iranian Islamic revolution.
http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/06/26/index-e.htm#b3

Secondly, Iran is in no way progressing towards socialism or communism, as you yourself admitted it is in no way socialist.
Not yet but it is moving there.

Are you an idiot? No seriously, are you?

Iran is in no way democratic, so even if this "argument" was valid it doesn't apply to Iran.

And the state companies are for a large part owned by private stockholders.

I have said this over and over again and you keep repeating the same garbage that is refuted.

This makes you objectively an idiot.

I'm sorry.
You don't seem to even know what is the theory of non-capitalist development put forward by Leonid Brezhnev at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1969. This theory is the basis of my analysis.

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 10:50

I stated that Iran is a revolutionarydemocratic dictatorship and obviously in such countries opposition parties are banned. Do you even know what is a revolutionarydemocratic dictatorship?

Oh I see, just because you "state something" makes it true?

No, it doesn't, especially not when you "state" moronic things like that.

Iran benefited substantially from economic cooperation with the USSR in the 1980s and more recently it has cooperated with Cuba. This paves the way to socialist construction.

Again, you are a fucking clown.

Capitalist economies don't "construct socialism" and capitalist states don't "move towards socialism" you idiot.

Iran is cooperating closely with Cuba and Fidel Castro who is the most important leader of the international communist movement called Iran "a bastion of dignity and independence." Iran is "a friend, a brother, and an ally" to Cuba according to Castro. President Mohammad Khatami was decorated with the Jose Marti medal of distinction by Castro who also invited Ahmadinejad to visit Cuba in 2006. Castro has praised the Iranian Islamic revolution.
http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/06/26/index-e.htm#b3

I don't give a shit about what Castro thinks of Iran.

Not yet but it is moving there.

The only thing that is moving somewhere here is you, towards becoming a Fascist.

You don't seem to even know what is the theory of non-capitalist development put forward by Leonid Brezhnev at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1969. This theory is the basis of my analysis.

Here's a fun fact for you; Brezhnev was just as moronic as you are, I don't care what he had to say on anything, especially on Iran.

Comrade Vasilev

18th July 2008, 11:48

Unicorn

18th July 2008, 12:24

Unicorn it seems you are falling into the trap of many left-wing liberals, and that's thinking that Islam is the religion of the oppressed third-world, you are romanticizing a country simply because it opposes America, many 'leftists' these days are doing exactly this for no reason except for getting a '1 up' in the never ending crapfest with the far-right.

Stop playing the political games of the bourgeois Unicorn, we are on the side of the working class, and you best remember that. Siding with a clerical mercantile-fascist bourgeois regime against a liberal-bourgeois regime is sordid opportunism at it's lowest.

Coming from a revisionist Unicorn a defense of Khrushchevite nitwits and social-imperialists like Fidel isn't surprising.

Unicorn, you remind me of Brezhnev when he talked about 'non-socialist development' in the third-world, and supported an array of anti-communist scumbags all over the middle-east and Africa. Not to mention that Breshev purposely ran-down and underdeveloped the poorer Soviet republics so they could serve as resource depots for the rich Russian SSR, which is exactly what happened to Cuba.
Yes, it is true that my political positions follow the 1970s line of the CPSU and the anti-revisionist minority faction of the Finnish Communist party. (The majority faction is Eurocommunist)

When some other tendencies gain the support of a mass party here I will seriously consider them. Maoism, Trotskyism and cranky "Stalinism" have always been irrelevant in the politics of the Finnish left as their supporters have never numbered more than a few hundred and were expelled in disgrace from the Communist party.

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 14:43

As for Iran spending so much on "social welfare programs":

The infant mortality rate of Iran is 36.93, which means that Iran is ranked 148th behind such nations as; Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Peru, Kyrgyzstan, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Ecuador, Philippines.

The life expectancy at birth of Iran is 70.86, which means that Iran is ranked 130th, behind such nations as; Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Morocco, Nicaragua, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Paraguay, Argentina.

Iran is ranked 93rd in overall healtcare, behind such nations as; Cuba, Venezuela, Jordan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Libya, Sri Lanka, Senegal.

Iran is ranked 114th in literacy rates, behind such nations as: Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, Peru, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Philippines.

But wait! That's only because the Iranian government "is poor and doesn't benefit from super-profits because it's not imperialist"....oh wait, neither are all those other countries mentioned.... :lol:

Oh no! It's because because the Iranian government is surrounded by imperialists....oh, wait, so are Cuba and North Korea....:lol:

This is what you get when you try to judge the "progressiveness" of a state based on "how much they spend on social welfare programs" - which is moronic in and of itself - without even knowing how much they spend on it or how it compares to other nations; you make a complete fool of yourself like you just did.

Labor Shall Rule

18th July 2008, 17:35

What's the point of this thread?

No one is saying the Ayatollah is 'good' or that it was terrific that the Islamists took over, but that the petit-bourgeois achieved national independence and took Iran (as the UN characterized it) out of an "agrarian economy."

If any of you tried to explain why the Islamic Revolution happened, why it achieved what it did, and how it's current fate now is reflective of the past lineage of historic leaps that have furthermore enveloped contradictions between the largest imperialist powers, you'd draw similar conclusions on the progressive nature of Tehran's regime.

It is 'progressive', not because it is 'good' or simply 'preferable' to a Communist-led dictatorship of the most exploited and oppressed classes, but because they carried out necessary tasks of the bourgeois revolution. They did. And you don't have to continuously note the Nazi example to prove that wrong, because Germany was a highly industrialized state, not a Central Asian backwater.

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 17:40

What's the point of this thread?

No one is saying the Ayatollah is 'good' or that it was terrific that the Islamists took over

Read the posts in the thread before you reply to it, if you don't it makes yourself look stupid.

Unicorn has said that the Iranian government is "moving towards and constructing socialism" while also saying that it is "led by a revolutionary democratic vanguard party".

You yourself have been making up lies to defend the Iranian government as well, all of which I have refuted.

Why did you even bother to reply to this thread again? Need to be embarrassed some more?

If any of you tried to explain why the Islamic Revolution happened, why it achieved what it did, and how it's current fate now is reflective of the past lineage of historic leaps that have furthermore enveloped contradictions between the largest imperialist powers, you'd draw similar conclusions on the progressive nature of Tehran's regime.

It is 'progressive', not because it is 'good' or simply 'preferable' to a Communist-led dictatorship of the most exploited and oppressed classes, but because they carried out necessary tasks of the bourgeois revolution. They did. And you don't have to continuously note the Nazi example to prove that wrong, because Germany was a highly industrialized state, not a Central Asian backwater.

Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chile, Idi Amin's Uganda, pick whichever you want, they all expose your ignorance regarding the matter.

Labor Shall Rule

18th July 2008, 17:49

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 17:58

What 'lies' have I made up? That they (the Iranians) did better after the US-backed Shah, or worse? UNICEF and the UN Human Development Index partially proved my claim as correct, and the fact that they were nationally-independent from foreign (specifically US and British) capital was 'better' enough (at least through a Marxist lense).

Hahaha, I love how you say "the Iranians did better" as if the Iranian people had any say over what the Supreme Leader wanted to do, hilarious.

If you are going to keep repeating your "arguments" I'll have to keep repeating my refutations of them:

The "white revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution)" built up the national economy to a great extent, certainly more than the Islamic Republic ever has.

But I'm a Marxist, I don't consider capitalists to be "more progressive" because they develop capitalism more for their own benefit, if I did I'd have to consider all capitalist nations with a growing economy to be led by "more progressive" capitalists.

Yes, sure, the literacy rate has gone up, life expectancy has gone up, and infant mortality has fallen...as it has in virtually any capitalist nation on earth due to technological developments and capital accumulation.

That doesn't mean that capitalism is "progressive", and it doesn't mean that one group of capitalists is better at developing the economy than another when it is an objective fact that the other group developed it to a greater extent in a shorter period of time.

But this argument is just stupid. Marxists don't base their views of a capitalist regime on how much they develop the economy, by that standard most capitalist states in history have been "progressive" and any capitalist nation which has a growing economy is "progressive".

It's economist garbage.

Either say something original or proceed to shut up.

Marx once told the Indians that to achieve the "full fruits of capitalism" they must oust the British first. He also came to similar conclusions over the issue of Irish and Polish liberation-movements. There is nothing 'un-Marxist' or 'reactionary' about what I'm saying.

Yes there is, because there's no one here who opposes the Indian independence movement and prefers India being a colony of the UK, now is there? And there isn't anyone here who prefers Iran being a neo-colony of the US either. You already tried to slander me with that crap earlier and it didn't stick that time, and it won't stick this time:

[B]Marxists oppose both [the Shah and the Islamic Republic] equally, because both are inherently reactionary regimes, and above that both are bourgeois dictatorships, the most reactionary of all types of bourgeois rule.

The fact that you can't see the difference between the independence movement of India which did result in a bourgeois democracy and the "independence" movement of Iran which resulted in a bourgeois dictatorship and the decimation of the class-conscious section of the proletariat, makes you a reactionary. Add to that the fact that you support the national bourgeoisie of countries coming to power if they are "backward enough" over supporting the revolutionary movement of the proletariat of those countries.

Hey, Menshevik, did you know that Iran in 1979 was more developed than France, Germany or the UK were when Marx was writing about proletarian revolutions being possible in those countries? Did you know they had a stronger proletarian movement there than those countries had when Marx was calling for revolution in them?

Stop quoting Marx to back up your reactionary stage-ist crap, it was already refuted by the Marxists before the Russian revolution, when all the Mensheviks were whining about how "the material conditions weren't developed enough!!!".

It would have been an entirely differently matter if someone like Mossadeq had come to power and a bourgeois democracy now reigned in Iran. For one I wouldn't be living in the Netherlands, some of my relatives would still be alive, students demonstrating and workers on strike wouldn't be shot on the streets, the country would not be exploited by a reactionary bourgeois dictatorship (though it would still be exploited by a bourgeoisie), etc. etc.

But you see, I wouldn't "support" Mossadeq either. You know why? Because I'm not a Menshevik scumbag like you are.

I would support proletarian revolution at all times, and these "bourgeois tasks" that you keep whining about like a typical Menshevik should be "completed" under the leadership of the proletariat, while the international socialist movement is strengthened by a socialist revolution which in turn could lead to more revolutions.

This marks the difference between reactionaries and revolutionaries, you belong to the former category, so stop pretending that you don't.

tehpevis

18th July 2008, 18:08

if any of you think Iran is Progressive, you probably need mental help

tehpevis

18th July 2008, 18:09

and by progressive I mean on the scale of Human Rights, not technological/national

Ismail

18th July 2008, 19:14

and by progressive I mean on the scale of Human Rights, not technological/nationalTo be fair, I don't think anyone is arguing that Iran is progressive on social issues.

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 19:25

To be fair, I don't think anyone is arguing that Iran is progressive on social issues.

That's not true, Unicorn is:

Unlike in Nazi Germany workers in Iran have the right to vote and thus influence the democratic process. Nationalization improves the lives of workers as a rule because it allows for some democratic supervision and control over the means of production.

Iran benefited substantially from economic cooperation with the USSR in the 1980s and more recently it has cooperated with Cuba. This paves the way to socialist construction.

Secondly, Iran is in no way progressing towards socialism or communism, as you yourself admitted it is in no way socialist.

Not yet but it is moving there.

Pogue

18th July 2008, 19:34

Iran is under the control of authoritarian homophobes.

Ismail

18th July 2008, 21:30

The "it's moving there" comment is retarded, as is saying that cooperation with allegedly socialist states make a nation socialist. (Using that logic, Amanollah would have turned Afghanistan into a socialist paradise by 1929) As far as bourgeois democracy goes though, I don't doubt that Iran is more democratic. (Kinda hard to have less democracy than the Nazi's) But even Unicorn doesn't think that the current social policies are in any way progressive. (Unless I'm wrong and he really is a retard)

Led Zeppelin

18th July 2008, 21:36

The "it's moving there" comment is retarded, as is saying that cooperation with allegedly socialist states make a nation socialist. (Using that logic, Amanollah would have turned Afghanistan into a socialist paradise by 1929)

But you forget that Iran is led by a "vanguard revolutionary-democratic party"!

Iran in the long run is orientating social development towards socialism and it is led by a vanguard revolutionary-democratic party.

I forgot to post that gem.

As far as bourgeois democracy goes though, I don't doubt that Iran is more democratic. (Kinda hard to have less democracy than the Nazi's)

Well I was more referring to the latter part of that quote which said the Iranian state "allows for some democratic supervision and control over the means of production".

Comrade B

18th July 2008, 21:42

Is everyone here ignoring that after the Shah, all the communists were shot? That is the reason that the government isn't killing as many people now. Because they already killed all their opposition. That would be like saying that, if the Nazis were to have been left alone after WWII, and had actually killed all the Jews, the country would be on a progressive path, because they have finished killing people.

Leo

18th July 2008, 21:54

That is the reason that the government isn't killing as many people now.

They actually still are executing many from the opposition, and they are doing it publicly also. They are also jailing, imprisoning, torturing etc. workers who try to struggle for their interests still.

Leo

18th July 2008, 22:43

Marx once told the Indians that to achieve the "full fruits of [British] capitalism" they must oust the British first. He also came to similar conclusions over the issue of Irish and Polish liberation-movements. There is nothing 'un-Marxist' or 'reactionary' about what I'm saying.Things change. Capitalism was still a system that was spreading on the world and thus that was developing the productive forces massively by doing so. Under these circumstances, some marxists did support some national independence movements which were in reality against older modes of production and were to develop the productive forces. Their support of those movements was not done for the sake of "anti-imperialism", if nothing because imperialism didn't exist then. Obviously, Marx and Engels did not have a stance on or a theory of imperialism, and the support they gave to national liberation movements have got nothing to do with the support given to allegedly "anti-imperialist" nationalist bourgeois movements. Not only was their support limited to "oppressed nations", the American North was, for example, supported against the American South, or the USA again was supported against Mexico. Those are hardly "oppressed nations". All those support given to those wars, whether rightly or wrongly, was done to support the development of productive forces. Now as imperialism is the world epoch of imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions and signifies the end in the expansion of the capitalist mode of production and thus the development of productive forces are no more, Marx's position has got absolutely nothing to do with the support given to "anti-imperialist" movements or states today. You can not hide behind it and attempting to do so only shows your lack of knowledge in regards to their position.

Lenin explains the attitude of Marx and Engels on this question like this: “The Russian social-chauvinists (headed by Plekhanov), refer to Marx’s tactics in the war of 1870; the German (of the type of Lensch, David and Co.) to Engels’ statement in 1891 that in the event of war against Russia and France together, it would be the duty of the German Socialists to defend their fatherland…All these references are outrageous distortions of the views of Marx and Engels in the interest of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists…Whoever refers today to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Marx’s statement that ‘the workers have no fatherland’, a statement that applies precisely to the epoch of the reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution shamelessly distorts Marx and substitutes the bourgeois for the socialist point of view”. http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...5/s+w/ch01.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s+w/ch01.htm)

Sentinel

18th July 2008, 23:05

Fidel Castro who is the most important leader of the international communist movement called Iran "a bastion of dignity and independence." Iran is "a friend, a brother, and an ally" to Cuba according to Castro. President Mohammad Khatami was decorated with the Jose Marti medal of distinction by Castro who also invited Ahmadinejad to visit Cuba in 2006. Castro has praised the Iranian Islamic revolution.

Whoops, I just lost quite a bit of respect for Castro. I understand that this is about politics and forging anti-imperialist alliances and so forth, and that he obviously didn't mean that -- how could any communist -- but that's a bit much to say about communist-slaughering reactionary turds like the Iranian leadership whatever the circumstances. Disgraceful.

Comrade B

19th July 2008, 03:30

There are not as many communists killed now though, due to the mass executions in the early formation of the country. What an improvement!

Unicorn

19th July 2008, 11:04

To be fair, I don't think anyone is arguing that Iran is progressive on social issues.
No, indeed it is totally reactionary on social issues. (Sharia etc.)

Unicorn

19th July 2008, 11:25

Well I was more referring to the latter part of that quote which said the Iranian state "allows for some democratic supervision and control over the means of production".
Iranians had the opportunity to choose in the latest Presidential and Parliamentary between candidates with different views of how nationalized the economy should be. This question can be freely debated in Iran. Thus, your criticism about the lack of democracy does not apply. The constitution however guarantees that all key industries are nationalized.

Workers can supervise and control the management of state-owned enterprises to a limited degree through the parliament. For this reason and because nationalization helps to develop the productive forces communists support the nationalization of industry in bourgeois states and progress towards state capitalism. Transition to socialism from state capitalism is much easier than from a totally privatized economy. Iran with its large public sector is more state capitalist than any Western countries and thus more progressive in this respect.

Led Zeppelin

19th July 2008, 13:29

Iranians had the opportunity to choose in the latest Presidential and Parliamentary between candidates with different views of how nationalized the economy should be. This question can be freely debated in Iran. Thus, your criticism about the lack of democracy does not apply. The constitution however guarantees that all key industries are nationalized.

Workers can supervise and control the management of state-owned enterprises to a limited degree through the parliament. For this reason and because nationalization helps to develop the productive forces communists support the nationalization of industry in bourgeois states and progress towards state capitalism. Transition to socialism from state capitalism is much easier than from a totally privatized economy. Iran with its large public sector is more state capitalist than any Western countries and thus more progressive in this respect.

You are like a Brezhnev-Bot aren't you? Keep repeating the same garbage like a parrot without taking note of the facts.

You can "debate freely" whatever you want as long as it's in the context of the current government and state. If you oppose the current government and state, you're arrested and hauled off to jail to await either a long jail sentence (while enjoying some nice torture techniques) or an execution.

But even if you support the government and state but only want some minor reforms, you're still not allowed to participate in the elections to the Parliament or Presidency (which don't have any real power anyway) because you are screened by the Supreme Leader.

Therefore the state-owned companies are run by managers who are handpicked by the dictatorial clique, and it is run on the basis of the profit-motive, i.e., they are capitalist companies like any other.

Oh by the way, Brezhnev-Bot, here's something nice for you to read about Iran's "Road To Socialism":

The Iranian Government declared its intention to privatize most state industries after the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, in an effort to stimulate the ailing economy.

[...]

According to the article 44 of Constitution, the economy of Iran is to consist of three sectors: state, cooperative, and private; and is to be based on systematic and sound planning.

A strict interpretation of the above has never been enforced in the Islamic Republic and the private sector has been able to play a much larger role than is outlined in the Constitution. In recent years, the role of the private sector has been further on the increase. Furthermore, an amendment of the article in 2004 has allowed 80% of state assets to be privatized.

Go ahead, ignore that (and the fact that the majority of shares are owned by private stockholders) again and say "BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO LOL!!1!1!!" Like the typical parrot moron that you are.

Not that it really matters because they are capitalist companies, run on capitalist property relations, of whom the managers are handpicked by the leadership and are just as bad, if not worse, than any other capitalist. I guess this basic logic is too much for your tiny Brezhnevite brain to handle.

I have said this over a dozen times now, and you keep repeating your own garbage. By the way, I have said that you keep repeating your own things over a dozen times now as well...but you keep doing it.

I have come to the conclusion that you are not only a moron, but a very insecure pathetic person. Reason does not touch your feeble pathetic mind, for it is too much clogged up by old dogmas that you have learned by rote from reading shitty articles on the internet written by other Soviet-Bots like yourself. You know, those guys who used to have high positions in the Soviet bureaucracy in the 70's and 80's and thought they still had to "prove themselves to the people" by writing inane shit and adding "Long Live Marxism-Leninism!" at the end of every sentence.

Oh, and who then traded in their Communist Party cards for membership in the bourgeoisie club in the late 80's and early 90's.

I really do pity you. I mean, you say all kinds of shit about things you know nothing of, and then actually think that you are taken seriously. It is really pathetic.

As I said before (oh yes, as I said before again!) you are the most miserable and idiotic member that I have ever debated with (if you can call that debating, I'd rather call it talking to a brick wall) on this forum, and I have been here for over 3 years.

No one ever repeated the same crap to me after I already proved it wrong over a dozen times. Seriously, no one was as moronic as you to think that this was a good debating tactic. They had some intelligence to understand that this would only embarrass them rather than help them in the debate.

You are too stupid to realize this, truly sad.

Dimentio

19th July 2008, 15:25

Was Hitler a progressive/anti-imperialist?

He "liberated" Germany from French and British imperialist limitations on the German economy?

Led Zeppelin

19th July 2008, 15:40

He was not only "progressive" and "constructing socialism", he was also making sure that the working-class received many benefits due to the amount of GDP he spent on social welfare programs:

The original "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the Nazi party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including "the abolition of all incomes unearned by work," "the ruthless confiscation of all war profits," "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations," "profit-sharing in large enterprises," "extensive development of insurance for old-age," and "land reform suitable to our national requirements").

[...]

Hitler proclaimed that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system." Hitler's speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in Toland, J. (1976) Adolf Hitler Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday Speech. May 1, 1927. p. 224

[...]

Nazis came to power in the aftermath of the Great Depression. When the Nazis came to power the most pressing issue was an unemployment rate of close to 30%. Before World War II, the Nazis placed non-Nazi professionals in charge of economic policy. Hitler appointed Hjalmar Schacht, a former member of the German Democratic Party, as Chairman of the Reichsbank in 1933 and Minister of Economics in 1934.

At first, Schacht continued the economic policies introduced by the government of Kurt von Schleicher in 1932 to combat the effects of the Great Depression. These policies were mostly Keynesian, relying on large public works programs supported by deficit spending - such as the construction of the Autobahn - to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment (which stood at 30% in early 1933). There was major reduction in unemployment over the following years, while price controls prevented the recurrence of inflation. The economic policies of the Third Reich were in the beginning the brainchildren of Schacht, who assumed office as president of the central bank under Hitler in 1933, and became finance minister in the following year.

Schacht was one of the few finance ministers to take advantage of the freedom provided by the end of the gold standard to keep interest rates low and government budget deficits high, with massive public works funded by large budget deficits. The consequence was an extremely rapid decline in unemployment--the most rapid decline in unemployment in any country during the Great Depression.

See, the Nazis were "better at developing the economy" than the previous leaders, so they were "more progressive" and "constructing socialism".

Unicorn is a closet-fascist, there's no doubt about that. In a few months or years he will praise Nazi Germany for the above reasons. I'm willing to bet on that.

Die Neue Zeit

19th July 2008, 16:55

Dimentio

19th July 2008, 17:46

and by progressive I mean on the scale of Human Rights, not technological/national

Believe me, most of us here are quite confused on what Unicorn really mean by his statements.

Unicorn

19th July 2008, 17:57

Unicorn is a closet-fascist, there's no doubt about that. In a few months or years he will praise Nazi Germany for the above reasons. I'm willing to bet on that.
Go fuck yourself. I have had enough of your insults. The last drop was that you called me a Fascist.

Oluja

19th July 2008, 19:13

saying progressive and is-lame in one sentence is a sign of madness...;)

Led Zeppelin

20th July 2008, 00:18

^^^ LZ, at least you have the courage to move away from that reductionist Trot thinking regarding Stalin's successors by calling Unicorn a "Brezhnevite." However, to be more accurate, he's a Suslovite.

Actually he said himself he's a Brezhnevite, or takes his "ideas" from him.

Go fuck yourself. I have had enough of your insults. The last drop was that you called me a Fascist.

You are a closet-fascist, there is no doubt about that.

Any person who supports a capitalist dictatorial government that hangs homosexuals, stones girls, shoots workers on strike, and jails or kills anyone who is politically opposed to it, while also believing that it is "constructing socialism" and that "it is lead by a revolutionary-democratic vanguard" is obviously a closet-fascist.

Your ideology is that of third-positionism, which is reactionary to the core, and which eventually leads to open fascism.

As I said in your departure thread; good riddance.

Saorsa

20th July 2008, 07:32

Unicorn's leaving? How sad... I do so love the stench of revisionism.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0806/S00660.htm

Revolutionary-democratic vanguard arrests union leader for taking part in an International Women's Day gathering! No contradiction there!

Labor Shall Rule

20th July 2008, 17:42

Led Zeppelin (and Leo), the world does not always behave in ways that conform to your classical logic. That is a mechanical understanding of dialectics. You're thinking on lines of what ought to be, rather than what is.

It's easy (as a "principled" Marxist) to fall into the trap of egging on third world movements (whether they are 'Islamist' or not) while living in the heart of imperialist-oppressor countries. It's possibly a 'white man's burden' mentality that is culturally inscribed into your heads, or it can simply be that you are misinformed. It is true that the primary contradiction is between those that produce surplus value and those that come to control it, but to cower in fear and pretend that there are not secondary contradictions (race and nation) is terribly malignant to any revolutionary movement.

As so, the nationalist-bourgeois may be (and in conclusion, likely will) be a dead-end as you head further down the road, but if they are the force that carries out revolution (around race or nation), then it's ridiculous, and actually Menshevik and 'stageist' in itself, to expect the Palestinians (or Iranians) to just sit back and wait for socialism to come. In the last 20th century, national-liberation movements exceeded socialist movements, and you can not just deduct that to 'Stalinism' or a Comintern policy that fucked up everything. It shows that capitalism is far from being 'in decay', and in fact, it is continuing to develop. Though socialism 'ought to be' around now (at least in your and Leo's calculations), it 'is' not.

Also, in conclusion, something can be 'reactionary' and progressive at the same time. It is 'progressive' in that the overthrow the Shah regime represented a blow to Anglo-American imperialism, but it is reactionary that millions of communists were killed, and repressive Islamic law was pushed on Iranians.

Led Zeppelin

20th July 2008, 18:12

Led Zeppelin (and Leo), the world does not always behave in ways that conform to your classical logic. That is a mechanical understanding of dialectics. You're thinking on lines of what ought to be, rather than what is.

Wrong, you're the one who's thinking along the lines of "what ought to be" rather than "what could be" based on the actual class relations on the ground, then you reduce that to "what is" to justify your mechanical sloganism.

The Nazis ended up in power in Germany...that was inevitable, because it is what happened.

The German revolution of 1918/19 was defeated...that was inevitable, because it is what happened.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 ended up in a reactionary bourgeois-dictatorship lead by the Islamists...that was inevitable, because it is what happened.

You leave no room for independent action of the proletariat or the proletarian movement and you reduce everything to vulgar determinism, while at the same time entirely ignoring the class-forces involved in those events and the actual causes of their defeat.

This is the Menshevik method, not the Marxist method, and as I said it was already refuted about a century ago.

It's easy (as a "principled" Marxist) to fall into the trap of egging on third world movements (whether they are 'Islamist' or not) while living in the heart of imperialist-oppressor countries. It's possibly a 'white man's burden' mentality that is culturally inscribed into your heads, or it can simply be that you are misinformed.

This is hilarious coming from you.

Let's see here, a person from Iran and a person from Turkey have a "white man's burden" mentality, while a white liberal yuppie is "progressive and on the side of the stupid brown people".

It must be nice living in that little bubble of yours.

As so, the nationalist-bourgeois may be (and in conclusion, likely will) be a dead-end as you head further down the road, but if they are the force that carries out revolution (around race or nation), then it's ridiculous, and actually Menshevik and 'stageist' in itself, to expect the Palestinians (or Iranians) to just sit back and wait for socialism to come.

Well no shit, which is essentially what your position is.

You want the Iranian or Palestinians to "sit back and wait for socialism to come" because they are currently "being led by a progressive national bourgeois!".

You are therefore the Menshevik stage-ist, not us.

In the last 20th century, national-liberation movements exceeded socialist movements, and you can not just deduct that to 'Stalinism' or a Comintern policy that fucked up everything. It shows that capitalism is far from being 'in decay', and in fact, it is continuing to develop. Though socialism 'ought to be' around now (at least in your and Leo's calculations), it 'is' not.

Once again, wrong.

Why do you keep repeating historical falsehoods when I have already proven them to be false? Does it make you feel high and mighty or something?

Ironically you even admitted yourself that there were "millions of communists" in Iran later on in your own post!

I am going to say this one more time so pay attention because I'm not your teacher on the history of the Iranian revolution.

The Fedaian was the largest revolutionary party of the Middle-East. They had tens of thousands of members and support of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people:

On May 1st, 1981 one hundred thousands of the Fedaian supporters gathered in Azadi (Freedom) Square in Tehran.

The official newspaper of the Organization, had a circulation of 100 thousand to 300 thousand. In the course of four years of hard work to build the skeleton of the Organization, the number of members reached twenty thousands.

And that was after the split of the Minority, which supported furthering the revolution towards the socialist stage, while the Majority supported the Islamic Republic "critically" for being "anti-imperialist", i.e., had the same position as you have now.

Why did the Majority faction support this reactionary position when they could have just as well called on the workers (who had already set up workers' councils similar to the Soviets which sprang up in Russia during the revolution of February) to further the revolutionary struggle for their liberation?

Easy, the revolutionary leadership which had founded the party, and was the theoretical, ideological and organizational center of the party, was decimated by the Shah, which was like cutting off the head of a snake.

You could compare it to the entire Bolshevik revolutionary leadership being arrested and executed before October, the rest of the party would have followed the line of Menshevism, which was already so pervasive even with Lenin and Trotsky around to fight it.

This is why only a Minority remained true to their principles and split, after which they were arrested by the government and killed off, with the help of their "former comrades" in the Majority.

A year or so afterwards the Majority was also killed off, betrayed by their "anti-imperialist progressive allies".

This was after they had already lost most of their base though, and had also given up their weapons and membership information to the government.

The history of just one communist party, which was the largest.

Now, combine that with all the other communist parties with all the support they had, which as you said ran in the millions, and tell me that it was "inevitable" for the Islamists to keep power when the proletariat had the full potential of taking power for itself, if only it was not betrayed by its leadership.

Labor Shall Rule

20th July 2008, 18:35

Led Zeppelin

20th July 2008, 19:03

It was "inevitable" that a dictatorship of capital through a period of accumulation had to arise (bourgeois revolution) since they have backward countries, which is why the Bolsheviks came to embody a bureaucratic state-capitalist regime, rather than genuine socialism, and which is why (even if the anti-imperialist nationalist-bourgeois took over) their reactionary regime would be obligated to carry out the same thing.

It's historical materialism. So I don't know what the hell you are talking about with this 'Menshevik' bullshit.

It's Menshevik because nothing is "inevitable" solely because economic conditions dictate it to be "inevitable", and even that is not true because as I said, Iran was more advanced economically than Germany, the UK or France were when Marx and Engels believed proletarian revolutions to be possible there "in alliance with the peasant movement".

You ignore every other factor and only focus on the basic economic conditions, this is Menshevism and stage-ism. The fact that you invoke the name of historical materialism and dialectics to defend this backward idea only makes it more absurd.

I'm not sure why you dislike being called a Menshevik? They shared your exact views regarding this matter, so why be so worried to be related to them? Doesn't have a nice ring to it, huh? I wonder why.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that the working-class of Iran was strong enough to take state-power and retain it, as I proved above. They did not do so not because it was "inevitable" for their movement to be wiped out, but because they were betrayed by their leadership, as I proved above.

Your constant whining about the "bourgeois tasks of the revolution" were not ignored by me, in fact I specifically answered them several pages ago. It just went straight over your head because you can't comprehend revolutionary thinking.

The Fedaian split into a majority and minority, the minority of which opposed the new Islamic Republic and said that they should go further towards socialist revolution....as they also did in Russia, despite the fact that Russia was more backward compared to Iran. They did not say this because they believed Iran was developed enough to be socialist, that's absurd, the Bolsheviks didn't support revolution because they believed Russia was ready to be socialist either.

They said it because it is the revolutionary position to hold; we do not "hand over" our power to the bourgeoisie when we are perfectly capable of performing the tasks of building up society ourselves, and in a much more humane manner. Their intention was not to "build socialism in one country" either, it was to move over to a socialistic society which would become the base of further revolutionary movements in the world, which is the only thing that could salvage socialism at home.

This is the concept of permanent revolution, it is Marxism.

Or, as someone else put it:

With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.

The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and, very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfillment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.

So no, I (nor Lenin or Trotsky) didn't claim that "socialism in one country" was possible in the USSR, or that "the bourgeois tasks of the revolution can be skipped over".

What I am saying is that those tasks must be completed under the leadership of the proletariat, so that the bourgeois revolution can grow into the socialist revolution, which at the same time gives a powerful impetus to revolutionary movements in other nations. This is different from believing that those bourgeois tasks need to be fulfilled by a bourgeois-dictatorship because you see a "logical historical pattern" in that, when obviously those tasks are not being fulfilled at all but only held back.

It's hard to discuss these matters with a person who does not understand basic Marxist history.

The Russian revolution was never intended to "build socialism in one country", it was intended to build a base and keep it while the revolution spread to other more advanced countries. It didn't spread for a variety of reasons, so the USSR degenerated and eventually collapsed.

Shit happens, that doesn't mean that you have to turn to reactionary Menshevism for consolation.

Labor Shall Rule

20th July 2008, 20:31

Sure, they might of been 'strong enough', but they didn't win. Period. That's all it comes down to.

It's because the petit-bourgeois carried out a bourgeois revolution. That's what happened. That's 'progressive' (as dialectics teach us, something can be 'reactionary' and progressive at the same time), and we can't change it, because we do not have time-machines. Get over it. It's called Marxism, you arse.

Random Precision posted the following in the anti-imperialism forum:

I am often reminded in such debates of the words of Lenin on the Easter Rising in Ireland, reprimanding Rosa Luxemburg and other socialists who condemned James Connolly and the Republican Socialists for allying themselves with reactionary elements of the merchant class and the Catholic Church:

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts in small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without outbursts by a revolutionary section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian, against oppression by the landowners, the church and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.- to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says 'We are for socialism', and another somewhere else and says, 'We are for imperialism', and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a 'putsch'.
Whoever expects a 'pure' social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person is paying lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.

Led Zeppelin

20th July 2008, 20:39

Sure, they might of been 'strong enough', but they didn't win. Period. That's all it comes down to.

So this is what Lenin was talking about when he said:

I have lately been glancing through Sukhanov's notes on the revolution. What strikes one most is the pedantry of all our petty-bourgeois Democrats and of all heroes of the Second International. Apart from the fact that they are all extremely fainthearted, that when it comes to the minutest deviation from the German model [of Socialism] even the best of them fortified themselves with reservations — apart from this characteristic, which is common to all petty-bourgeois Democrats and has been abundantly manifested by them throughout the revolution, what strikes one is their slavish imitation of the past.

They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even absolutely failed to understand Marx's plain statements that in times of revolution the utmost flexibility is demanded, and have even failed to notice, for instance, the statements Marx made in his letters — I think it was in 1856 — expressing the hope of combining the peasant war in Germany, which might create a revolutionary situation, with the working-class movement — they avoid even this plain statement and walk around and about it like a cat around a bowl of hot porridge.

Their conduct betrays them as cowardly reformists who are afraid to deviate from the bourgeoisie, let alone break with it, at the same time they disguised their cowardice with the wildest rhetoric and braggartry.

"The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible." All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution.

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

Our Sukhanovs, not to mention Social-Democrats still farther to the right, never even dream that revolutions cannot be made any other way. Our European philistines never even dream that the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations in a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater distinctions than the Russian Revolution.

It need hardly be said that a textbook written on Kautskian lines was a very useful thing in its day. But it is time, given that, to abandon the idea that it foresaw all the forms of development of subsequent world history. It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools.

See, Menshevik, that's the difference between Marxism and vulgar stage-ism.

You are a cowardly reformist who are afraid to deviate from the bourgeoisie, let alone break with it, yet at the same time you disguise your cowardice with the wildest rhetoric and braggartry.

And you're a fool as well, according to Lenin that is.

Yes, that's the perfect description of you.

I think it's truly hilarious how you think you're a Marxist even though you know nothing of basic Marxist theory, thanks for giving me and everyone else here a good laugh though.

Now please stop embarrassing yourself and go read something, you should start with the Manifesto and work your way up from there.

Oh, and stop quoting Lenin, he wasn't "on your side" you clown, he was opposed to that Menshevik and economist trash from the beginning.

Labor Shall Rule

20th July 2008, 21:06

lol, I don't know why you keep telling me that I'm suggesting we should throw away our red flags and march behind the bourgeoisie. I'm not arguing that whatsoever. I've posted about the Iranian Maoist's preparation for a 'people's war' military strategy in the event of a US invasion, and the necessity to "develop independent proletarian currents."

I'm only explaining to you (which you've failed to jam into your tight iron-skulled head) that what happened in Iran, happened. It happened, because it needed to happen. It accomplished what it did, because it had to accomplish what it did.

:glare:
Jesus Christ......

20th July 2008, 21:09

It happened, because it needed to happen.

Why did it need to happen? Why did the communist movement "need" to be crushed (or, rather, why did they need to lose)?

Labor Shall Rule

20th July 2008, 21:18

Why did it need to happen? Why did the communist movement "need" to be crushed (or, rather, why did they need to lose)?

I'm referring to their bourgeois revolution, the expansion of the productive forces that was an absolute necessity to carry out.

Led Zeppelin

20th July 2008, 21:22

I'm only explaining to you (which you've failed to jam into your tight iron-skulled head) that what happened in Iran, happened. It happened, because it needed to happen. It accomplished what it did, because it had to accomplish what it did.

You could try to explain to me why you think the world is flat in the same manner, and add in parentheses that "I failed to jaim that into my tight iron-skulled head", that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, and just plain ignorant of history as well.

Again....again, and over and over again, I have already replied to this:

The Nazis ended up in power in Germany...that was inevitable, because it is what happened.

The German revolution of 1918/19 was defeated...that was inevitable, because it is what happened.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 ended up in a reactionary bourgeois-dictatorship lead by the Islamists...that was inevitable, because it is what happened.

You leave no room for independent action of the proletariat or the proletarian movement and you reduce everything to vulgar determinism, while at the same time entirely ignoring the class-forces involved in those events and the actual causes of their defeat.

[...]

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that the working-class of Iran was strong enough to take state-power and retain it, as I proved above. They did not do so not because it was "inevitable" for their movement to be wiped out, but because they were betrayed by their leadership, as I proved above.

What you have done in essence is to say: It happened, so it was supposed to happen, because it happened.

That's not argument (unless you're in sixth grade which would entirely fall in line with your "lol u hav tiny penis" comment), that's just inanity.

I on the other hand have explained what the class-forces were on the ground during the revolution, how strong the workers' movement was, what the positions of the various parties were, how those positions came into existence, why those positions came into existence, and how they led to the eventual descruction of the workers' movement.

Clearly it is you who is the "Marxist" here...

If you believe that historical events happen due to inevitability, and that there's nothing anyone can do about it but "go with the flow", you put yourself out of the revolutionary camp, and become a vulgar reactionary.

the expansion of the productive forces that was an absolute necessity to carry out.

An expansion of productive forces which was also carried out under the leadership of the Shah to a greater extent, and has also been carried out in practically every capitalist nation on earth due to the simple law of capital accumulation, and has nothing to do with the fact that a socialist government would have done the same thing anyway.

The fact that you consider this to be progressive on the part of the bourgeois dictatorship that rules over Iran is also a result of your general stupidity and Menshevism.

Labor Shall Rule

20th July 2008, 21:34

Led Zeppelin

20th July 2008, 21:58

I'm arguing here that bourgeois revolution was inevitable, not that reactionaries would come to power. The support of various Iranian social stratas (chiefly the small shop-owners and small proprietors) shot the reactionaries to the forefront of the bourgeois revolution, which had it's obvious consequences. The Communists could of won them over, and they'd still 'inevitably' would of had to carry out a bourgeois revolution under their own rule.

Well yes obviously that's true.

You can't "skip over" the bourgeois tasks of any revolution, it's just that they are "played out" in a much more embryonic and undeveloped form if the working-class carries it out under its leadership and if there's a strong working-class movement to counterpose the bourgeoisie, and also they grow over into the socialist revolution.

This is what happened in Russia:

One stage or another of the historical process can prove to be inevitable under certain conditions, although theoretically not inevitable. And conversely, theoretically ‘inevitable’ stages can be compressed to zero by the dynamics of development, especially during revolutions, which have not for nothing been called the locomotives of history.

For example, in our country the proletariat ‘skipped’ the stage of democratic parliamentarianism, granting the Constituent Assembly only a few hours, and even that much only in the back yard. But the counter-revolutionary stage in China can in no way be skipped over, just as in Russia the period of the four Dumas could not be skipped over. The present counter-revolutionary stage in China, however, was historically in no sense ‘unavoidable’. It is the direct result of the catastrophic policy of Stalin and Bukharin, who will pass into history as the organizers of defeats. But the fruits of opportunism have become an objective factor which can check the revolutionary process for a long time.

So the bourgeois tasks of the revolution that inevitably need to be fulfilled are not ignored by a socialist government, you can't ignore something which is a economic necessity, but they are carried out under the leadership of the proletariat, which means that the bourgeois tasks grow over into socialist tasks, which in turn makes the revolution "permanent":

The permanent revolution is described as a revolution which welds together the oppressed masses of town and country around the proletariat organized in soviets; as a national revolution that raises the proletariat to power and thereby opens up the possibility of a democratic revolution growing over into the socialist revolution.

The permanent revolution is no isolated leap of the proletariat; rather it is the rebuilding of the whole nation under the leadership of the proletariat.

This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.

The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and, very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfillment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.

But this does not mean that you can "build socialism in one country", it is merely a means to an end, and the end is the spread of the revolution to other more advanced countries:

The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois resoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism.

Were the bourgeois tasks of the revolution completed after the Russian revolution? Yes, and they were completed under the leadership of the proletariat, or the Bolsheviks, and some socialist tasks were tackled as well.

What I'm saying is that the forces existed during the Iranian revolution for the same thing. There was a strong communist movement and the consciousness of the working-class was certainly ready for it as well. They failed due to a failure on the part of the leadership of many parties, and due to the failure of those parties to do what the Bolsheviks successfully did in Russia.

This "was historically in no sense ‘unavoidable’. It is the direct result of the catastrophic policy of parties such as the Fedaian Majority and Tudeh, who will pass into history as the organizers of defeats. But the fruits of opportunism have become an objective factor which can check the revolutionary process for a long time."

And that it certainly has.

But we should, as Marxists that view 'progress' as part of the development of the productive forces, see that the Islamists did once play a 'progressive' role in that sense. If they did not push out the US-backed Shah, Iran would be more backward than it is today.

No, we shouldn't, because we're on the side of the working-class, not on the side of a group of capitalists, no matter if they "developed the economy more" than the group of capitalists who ruled before them.

I have already linked to the Shah's "white revolution" which took Iran from the dark ages to "modern times", relatively speaking for the 70's that is. Iran would probably not have been more backward if the Shah was in place, at best it would be "equally backward" as it is today.

But that is beside the point, which is that under the leadership of the proletariat it would have been far more advanced.