ON IRAN
With the kind of brutal logic of which often only dictators are capable, Stalin once said: “He who casts the vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything.”
How many democratic elections since he uttered those words have borne out the truth contained in them? For despite the massive propaganda the world has been subjected to since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, designed to hammer home the dominance and moral superiority of western-style democracy as the only system of government worth having, the fact remains that the only democracy truly worthy of the name is popular revolution.
What is taking place in Iran may be, just may be, the continuation of the 1979 revolution, taking the process begun with the toppling of the Shah to its logical conclusion in a society around which a religious straitjacket has prevented the aspirations of the people for social and economic justice being fully realised.
Conversely, we could be witnessing the first stirrings of counter-revolution, in which a new generation of western-leaning, educated youth, in conjunction with a wide layer of Iran’s denuded middle class, have grown weary of their relative isolation and role as bulwark against US imperialism. Perhaps they aspire to the consumer, Hollywood-inspired lifestyles of the West? After all, the cultural imperialism led by Hollywood is not to be underestimated in its ability to promote western values of the self realisation and eternal happiness to be found in the shopping mall? Indeed, who could argue that in this regard this method of persuasion is far more effective than any number of Apache Helicopters and Hellfire missiles? Perhaps too they just want to exist without the threat of war hanging over their heads? Or perhaps it’s either a combination of both or none of the aforementioned at all?
At this point it is impossible to know with any degree of certitude what is happening in Iran. News pictures of mass demonstrations in support of both sides are tempered by the distinctly anti-regime nature of the coverage and commentary thus far. For example, apart from a brief interview with a representative from Press TV on Newsnight last night, we’ve yet to hear or read any substantive interviews or opinions from an Ahmadinejad supporter on the nature of the current crisis. Surely such an omission can’t merely be put down to the inability of the news media to find them, as there are millions of Ahamdinejad supporters in Iran? And more than a few of those, we are entitled to expect, will no doubt be able speak English. And I just don’t buy the notion that the tens of thousands of people who’ve come out to attend pro-Ahamdinejad rallies and demonstrations have been forced out by the government-sponsored militias. The rallies on both sides are far too big to make that feasible or realistic proposition either. And what of the rest of the country? Up to now there’s been little if any news from other parts of the country outwith Tehran.
Meanwhile, the latest from Obama is that he has no intention of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. The fact is, he’s probably had more of an impact on Iran’s internal affairs in just the few short months of his presidency than every US administration has since Mossadegh was toppled in the joint US and British coup which ushered in a decades long, brutal dictatorship under the Shah. Obama’s speech from Cairo recently, platitudes and insincere attempt to assume the role of honest broker aside, sent a tremor to the heart of every regime in the region, including Israel. The result has been a sense of people filled with hope in response and leaders frantically attempting to adjust to the lofty rhetoric of change and the mea culpas which have fallen from the American president’s lips in every foreign policy speech he’s made.
But make no mistake, the need for economic hegemony demanded by the US economy remains every bit a driver of the foreign policy of the Obama administration as it was under Bush and the neocons. The only difference is in method, with Obama walking the well trodden path of previous Democrat administrations in adopting a multilateral approach towards the same objective.
The election of Obama as US president was based on his promise to change tact both domestically and internationally, a result of the inability of the US military, and its Israeli proxy, to break the Arab resistance after six years of brutal war and occupation. This impacted US society at home in spiralling debt and the entrenchment of social and economic justice to an extent unparalleled since the 19th century.
Despite the prevalence of dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East, for obvious reasons this is the most politicised region in the world, where politics bubbles under the surface of everyday life in ways we in the West would find difficult to comprehend. The tension produced acts as a centrifugal force, threatening to burst asunder to unleash years and years of pent up anger and frustration. Exactly such an unleashing of anger has taken place in Iran, with spontaneous demonstrations of tens of thousands of people erupting in response to a contested election result. You only need compare this to the apathy of the American people which met the constitutional coup d’etat which ushered in the Bush administration back in 2000 to get an idea of how politicised the region is.
As for Mousavi, if I were him I wouldn’t be salivating at the prospect of the Presidency just yet. As a pillar of the establishment, who can bet that if this outpouring of anger continues it won’t overtake him and begin to breach the very foundations of the Islamic Republic itself?
In which direction such a development might lead at this moment in time is anybody’s guess. Right now, all that anybody can say with any certainty is that those foundations are starting to look very shaky indeed.
Welcome to Hands Off the People of Iran!
Hopi Emergency Meeting
What lies behind the crisis in Iran?
With Yassamine Mather and Moshe Machover. Followed by a fundraising social.
20 June 2009, 2pm
Caxton House,129 St. John’s Way London, N19 3RQ
http://www.hopoi.org/index.html
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Should these protests continue, it will also have a considerable effect on what remains of the left in Britain.
Those who in the past have moronically addressed crowds of activists waving pictures of the Ayatollah Khoemini (step forward Yvonne Ridley and George Galloway) may be put in a rather embarrassing position. Those who are scared of saying much about the Islamic Republic of Iran being a theocracy, or anything that may be construed as critical of Islamism per se (the SWP and much of the anti-war movement) will have to either continue a rather delicate balancing act, or get their PC arses off the fence.
Finally spare a thought for some of the UK’s Muslim organisations. They can hardly come out and readily be seen to be critical of democracy, but a fair few would no doubt very much prefer to see Iran stay exactly as it is (witness the comments on the election result from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee) Talk about a rock and a hard place.
Oh well - we certainly live in interesting times!
Comment by Paul Stott — 17 June, 2009 @ 10:10 am
“Perhaps they aspire to the consumer, Hollywood-inspired lifestyles of the West?”
How dare they! LOL
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 17 June, 2009 @ 10:15 am
For all the Paul Stott’s out there who want to criticise the SWP without actually bothering to check what they are saying here is their statement…
People power rocks Iran
There is a new popular power sweeping Iran. In one of the biggest mass demonstrations since the toppling of the US-backed Shah in 1979, some one million people descended onto the streets of the capital Tehran to protest at an election widely seen as rigged.
The mass demonstration grew out of an unprecedented protest that took place on Friday night – the day of a key presidential election. Many believed that a popular reformer, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, would win the vote.
They were shocked when the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was declared the winner just hours after the polls closed.
Fearing that the election had been rigged, Mousavi’s supporters staged a series of public protests. In a mass show of defiance Iranians took to the roofs of their buildings to chant “Marg bar diktator!”, which means “death to the dictator”.
This was the slogan of the 1979 revolution.
On Saturday Ahmadinejad held a “victory rally” in Tehran. But across the city, and in other parts of the country, spontaneous demonstrations erupted where people chanted, “Our votes were stolen.” In the southern city of Isfahan riot police were driven out of popular neighbourhoods.
Police and regime militias attacked the protests. Demonstrators responded by setting buses alight and building barricades.
Crackdown
That night, amid growing fear of a massive crackdown, students held secret rallies and called for more demonstrations. The government-backed militia attacked Tehran university campus killing five students.
But the protests did not subside. On Monday a mass demonstration was called in defiance of a government ban. This time many ordinary people joined the throng of students and activists who form the bedrock of the reform movement.
Government thugs opened fire on the crowd and killed seven protesters. Their deaths bring back the memories of the mass repression unleashed by the Shah in the dying days of his regime.
On Tuesday, Mousavi called off further demonstrations after the government caved in to demands for a recount. As Socialist Worker went to press, reports were emerging of mass arrests. Former vice-president Mohammad Ali Abtah is thought to be among those detained.
Yet whatever happens over the next few days, the people of Iran have shown their power – and their thirst for change.
Comment by imatrot — 17 June, 2009 @ 10:25 am
Strange to see the SWP actually talking about Iran, didn’t they and their stalinist allies in Stop the War exclude HOPI for supporting the democratic and revolutionary movements in Iran?
Comment by Vartan Salakhanian — 17 June, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Strange to see the SWP actually talking about Iran, didn’t they and their stalinist allies in Stop the War exclude HOPI for supporting the democratic and revolutionary movements in Iran?
1) I thought HOPI was excluded because it was seen as a front group for a faction that was hostile to the StWC. This was the reason given at the time as I recall. You might well dispute that rationale, but the idea that it was to do with your supporting ‘democratic and revolutionary movements in Iran’ is simply not sustainable. I note that even those dread Stalinists in the CPB have produced a sympathetic response to the protests (they have a long-standing beef with the Republic over the suppression of the Tudeh, I think).
2) The SWP talks about Iran all the time. SW has carried articles on the bus workers’ strikes, the struggle for reform, on student protests, on the political imprisonment of people like Ramin Jahanbegloo, as well as on the need to resist imperialism. You can find interviews and columns with people like Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, Elaheh Rostami Povey, the Iranian journalist and human rights activist Isa Saharkhiz, etc. There have been numerous articles supportive of the struggle from below, with the caveat that we in the imperial countries have a duty to prevent imperialism from hijacking those movements or even preempting them with military attacks. None of this is especially occult information.
Personally, I don’t differ very profoundly from Yassamine Mather’s analysis of the elections on the HOPI webpage. Nor, it seems, does the analysis in the latest Socialist Worker. In fact, the vast majority of people on the Left are advocating much the same line: for the protests, but no illusions in Mousavi or his neoliberal backers. So I’m not sure how much use it is persisting with these divisions, despite some underlying disagreements in terms of analysis and differences of emphasis.
Comment by lenin — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:02 am
You really are a disgusting groups of traitors to the ideals of internationalism aren’t you? It has taken five days before this blog (puff piece of two of the Far Left sects that infest the British labour movement) to comment on this story, and in it (and indeed in the SWP’s little note) there is no mention at all of the brutal repression that these protesters have faced at the hands of the Iranian state. Instead, we have an attempt to smear the protesters as wanting a “Hollywood” lifestyle, whatever that might be. A blog which is perfectly happy to endorse the anti-Semitic Islamist lunacy of “liberation” movements which conform to its racist assumptions about the appropriate level of democracy and liberalism in the Middle East can’t find it within itself to offer even a crumb of support to people who are being beaten and shot by the religious police of a theocratic state. You truly are repulsive.
Comment by John Blake — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:04 am
#8 - Wrong. The article asks a series of questions, one of which mentions the possibility of a desire to liberalise in the western sense of that word.
It’s far too simplistic to say that everyone involved in the protests are of the same mind, looking for the same objective, and I think the article reflects that.
Anyone at this stage who claims to know exactly what is unfolding is either a genius or a charlatan.
I know for a fact I am not the former. I like to think I’m not the latter either.
Whilst hysterial outbursts may make you feel better, take it from one who knows, they’re about as much use as indicators on a submarine when attempting to analyse a political crisis.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:11 am
You are a charlatan, John.
Comment by Albert — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Worker-communist Party of Iran
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Iran: At least 21 killed and hundreds wounded
Last night professors of Tehran University started a sit-in at the university in protest to the attacks of security agents on Sunday night on students. The security forces used chains, daggers, threw students out of second floor windows and fired shots and killed 5. Their names are Fatemeh Barati, Kasra Sharafi, Mobina Ehterami, Kambiz Shoayee and Mohsen Imani; the 5 have already been buried without any notification being given to their parents. Many students have joined the sit-in. When a representative from the Basij (government’s militia force) tried to address the crowd, he was jeered and kicked out.
150 students from Mazandaran University in Babolsahr have been arrested last night.
Reports of those killed by the regime’s forces are as follows: 8 people in Tehran; 2 people in Kermanshah; 2 in Tabriz; 2 in Rezaiyeh; 2 at Shiraz University; and 5 at Tehran University. A lot have been wounded. The wounded in Tehran have been taken to Imam Khomeini’s 1000 bed hospital. In protest to the government’s brutal attacks, the hospital personnel stopped work since last night.
Yesterday, the families of the detained in Tehran marched to the UN headquarters and called for the regime’s condemnation for its brutality by the UN and western governments. Families of the detained are outraged that the regime refuses to provide information on the status of the children. They want to know if they are dead or alive and where they have been detained.
A number of lawyers in Tehran have issued a press release declaring their willingness to do pro bono legal work for those detained during the protests.
Today there will be a march from 7 Tir Square to the Islamic Assembly in continuation of the people’s protests.
Last night, there was a meeting with Khamenei, representatives of the 4 candidates, the Council of Guardians, Ministry of Interior and Expediency Council. At the meeting, Khamenei reiterated that Ahmadinejad remains president. Whilst some votes will be recounted, this will not result in the annulment of the election.
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:22 am
#10 - Set myself up there, didn’t I? Oh well, at least I’m a handsome charlatan. Surely that’s something to be happy about.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:24 am
The ruling class must find a compromise to get the people off the streets. If not the whole elite will be threatened and the Islamic republic may be overthrown. If
mass strikes occur the regime will not last- in my view. Remember it was the oil
workers who brought down the Shah.
The radical marxist left are present in Iran and there is an important marxist
tradition with roots in the working class. This is not a color revolution as in
Ukraine etc where the working class had been atomised by decades of Stalinist
suppression and imperialism knew there was no danger from the left- at least in the short term. Marxism is relatively popular in Iran compared with the situation in the Stalinist states (where “marxism” was despised and viewed as the ideology of the discredited ruling elite and its police state apparatus).
And think of the effect in the rest of the region and world of a mass movement overthrowing the dictatorial anti democratic Iranian regime- Egypt China- Russia- Turkey etc. It would be the first mass working class response to the world crisis of capitalism and it would be a great
example to follow
death to dictators
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:33 am
#14 - Islamophobic rants will not be tolerated on this blog whilst I have anything to do with it. If you can’t raise the level of your analysis beyond that then I suggest you post elsewhere or indeed start your own blog.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:52 am
It is good to see that the Socialist Unity blog is maintaining that fantastic tradition of the Far Left by filtering dissent. I can see now why you find it so difficult to condemn the behaviour of Iranian government.
Why is it that sectarians always identify with this Camusian figure of the lonely dissident? As if their belligerent, spittle-lathered approach to political argument was equivalent to a heroic struggle against an authoritarian state. What you really mean, Mr Blake, is that this blog declines to offer you a platform on which to gyrate and spout gibberish. It has nothing to do with ‘filtering dissent’. You aren’t obliged to be here, after all. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to call everyone disgusting traitors and so on. You could always set up your own blog (and in all likelihood attract all of two readers, each with a chip-on-the-shoulder bigger than yours). And the proprietors of this blog aren’t obliged to have you here. You’re a guest. If you’re lucky enough to get even a couple of abusive posts through, you should consider yourself lucky, not fucking go on as if you’re Solzhenitsyn reincarnated, you fat-headed little arsehole.
Comment by lenin — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:55 am
#16 - Well said, Richard. Maybe it’s time to consider a merging of the blogs - a kind of ‘United Front of a Unique Type’?
If nothing else at least we could claim to have forged a left unity of sorts out of the current debacle.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:59 am
CONTENT DELETED
Comment by John Blake — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Comrades in Iran are asking supporters to post up the details of demonstrations in Iran to help get round the filters imposed on social networking sites and sites such as Yahoo and the Guardian.
“To help beat the filters imposed on the internet in Iran, Communist Students along with comrades in HOPI and other organisations will be posting demonstrations in Iran on our website as long as our sites are not blocked.
Two demonstrations so far:
Wed 26 Khordad - 17 June 5.00pm
7 Tir Square
Thursday 27 Khordad - 18 June 5.00 pm
Solidarity with relatives of students killed on Monday night
Sahr Rey- Shah AbdolAzim
روز چهار شنبه ساعت 5 بعد از ظهر میدان 7 تیر
برای روز 5شنبه ساعت 5 بعد از ظهر ( شهرری - شاه عبدالعظیم) است
پنج شنبه با نماد سوگواری تجمع یا راهپیمایی کنید
خرداد۲۷ ساعت ۱۲ ”
http://communiststudents.org.uk/2009/06/demonstrations-in-iran-today/
Comment by Vartan Salakhanian — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Well said, Richard. Maybe it’s time to consider a merging of the blogs - a kind of ‘United Front of a Unique Type’?
As Drederick Tatum once said to Edna Krabappel - ‘trust me, you don’t want that’.
Comment by lenin — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
CONTENT DELETED
Comment by John Blake — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Socialism isn’t yours to claim, “Lenin”, and if you are unwilling to defend your views in an honest debate, against someone who has made not attempt to hide their identity, that speaks volumns about how credible your views are.
It does. You’re so right. *sigh* I’ve been hiding it for so long now, but… well… I suppose I have to reveal myself at some point. Here I am, at long last:
http://www.noisetosignal.org/images/posts/fatherjack.jpeg
No, don’t mock. I’ve been like this for years and things are only getting worse.
Comment by lenin — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Those who have indefatigably opposed Western and Zionist intervention in Iran are vindicated by this movement. Bush is gone and America has been forced to pull back from his incessant war-mongering. The people of Iran have been able to use this space to take on the regime. Amahdinejad probably weakened his own regime most when he revealed that the US and Israel were too weak to attack Iran just after the Georgia events. The people no longer felt that they had to remain loyal to the regime out of fear of the Great Satan.
Any Zionist or Western imperialist apologist who speaks up now in favour of these demonstrations is putting them in danger. Even Obama cannot support them fully just voice concern lest the regime uses the fact of Great Satan intervention to crack down. That is how hamstrung the great US democrats are.
John Blake, if you were serious you would thank your lucky stars that there are principled people in the West who have opposed US intervention, Islamaphobia etc all of which have strengthened the regime and are therefore in a position to support this movement and hopefully share knowledge with it. You, on the other hand are just a hindrance to the clearing out of the regime tainted as you are with the blood of a million Iraqis and thousands of Palestinians.
Comment by palatina — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
`Strange to see the SWP actually talking about Iran, didn’t they and their stalinist allies in Stop the War exclude HOPI for supporting the democratic and revolutionary movements in Iran?’
I think HOPI were excluded because they called for `hands of the PEOPLE of Iran’ which left the door open for Western intervention to decapitate the regime as long as it was in the interests of the `People’ of Iran but of course Western intervention would never be in the interests of the People of Iran.
Comment by Grog — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Grog, you obviously don’t know what you are talking about. HOPI was established as an anti war campaign that built and is building links with the democratic and revolutionary movements in Iran. HOPI has consistently fought against those who equivocate on the threat of Imperialist intervention. Would be good for you to quote where HOPI called for or supported imperialist intervention.
Comment by Vartan Salakhanian — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
`Would be good for you to quote where HOPI called for or supported imperialist intervention.
OK: `hands off the people of Iran’ as opposed to `hands off Iran’. It means that over time you’ve picked up not democrats and revolutionaries but mad sectarians and ultra opportunists who want the West to sort out the regime. You should have had more faith in the people and the right of nations to self-determination.
Comment by Grog — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
What you don’t realise is that the name of the campaign was a deliberate sop to the CPGB’s Stalinist allies who are not as shy about western intervention as you seem to be and which is why they have remained small and irrelevant inside Iran and are not in a position to lead anything. Look at the idiot intervention at #1.
Comment by Grog — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Grog, Lol! Yeah, let’s have a quick look at who we have picked up support from, the PCS, ASLEF and the Green Party. They definitely are ‘mad sectarians and ultra opportunists’ aren’t they. HOPI stands for the right of national self determination of Iran and HOPI stands opposed to attacks on Iran by the USA/Israel. Like I said above, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Comment by Vartan Salakhanian — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
p.s. what is more we are the only organisation that is running a national campaign against sanctions on Iran.
Comment by Vartan Salakhanian — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
John Blake, you’re not the PR member from Cardiff are you? That JB seems far more polite!
Comment by The Bunk — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Who are these Stalinist allies the CPGB has in HOPI?
Comment by Vartan Salakhanian — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Have you guys seen George Galloway’s take on what is happening in Iran:
http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2009/06/you-can-count-on-the-fact-elec.html
“You can count on the fact election was fair”
“More than 85 per cent of the electors turned out to vote - compared with 35 per cent in our own elections recently. That’s nearly 40million Xs on ballot papers.
This massive exercise took place without trouble of any kind - the polling stations were kept open longer than required to facilitate the huge lines of people outside.
Indeed, that’s one of the reasons I discount the opposition complaints.”
“It will soon fizzle out.”
Is that what John Wight and the rest of Socialist Unity hope will happen?
Do you agree that these elections were not vitiated by fraud?
Comment by David T — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
DavidT:
‘Is that what John Wight and the rest of Socialist Unity hope will happen?’
Speaking for myself, I hope that the Iranian people are able to exercise their right to self determination unimpeded by the West or western intervention, unlike the Palestinians.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
John
If you delete perfectly polite and legitimate questions, about George Galloway’s support for the Iranian regime, I can promise you that others will ask you precisely the same question.
So, what is your view on George Galloway’s open support for the Iranian Regime?
Comment by David T — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Well, David, given what we already know of previous attempts by the US to subvert democratic elections in Venezuela, given its role in fomenting Orange, Yellow, and every other such coloured so-called velvet revolutions everywhere else it desires to place its grubby paws, George Galloway is perfectly justified in smelling a rat with regard to the deluge of anti-Ahamdinejad rhetoric currently clogging up the news channels.
The point is that nobody can say for sure what is unfolding at this point in time. So before any of us start rubbing our hands in anticipation, perhaps we’d do well to allow the Iranian people the right to decide their own government.
What can be said about George Galloway with certainty, though, is that he upholds the right to self determination, even to the point of organising and leading humanitarian convoys to help people who are punished for daring to exercise that right
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Galloway is an apologist for the anti working class reactionary Iranian regime.
Unfortunately he is not alone in this regard on the British left. We should also
remember his praise for Saddam Hussain. He obviously has an attraction towards
anti democratic and anti working class dictatorships. Not usual among labour
bureaucrats and careerists. They see themselves write large
No worthwhile socialist party could be built with this guy in a leading position
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
What is the difference in the case of Iran? Why does George want the uprising to “fizzle out”?
Do you think that this might have anything to do with the fact that he is employed by the Islamic Republic’s own TV station?
Comment by David T — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
http://www.npa2009.org/content/communiqu%C3%A9-du-npa-fraude-%C3%A9lectorale-et-r%C3%A9pression-en-iran
Communiqué du NPA. Fraude électorale et répression en Iran.
mardi 16 juin 2009
Dès l’annonce de la réélection de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad avec 63% des voix, dès le premier tour, des centaines de milliers d’iraniens sont descendus dans la rue à Téhéran pour dénoncer la fraude électorale.
Depuis, les manifestations se poursuivent et commencent à s’étendre dans d’autres villes. Une répression extrêmement violente s’est abbatue sur les manifestants et les premiers morts sont à déplorer.
Dans le même temps, le président réélu a pris toutes les mesures pour fermer les moyens de communication et les sites internet.
La population a vu dans cette parodie d’élection une occasion pour dénoncer l’absence de libertés démocratiques, l’inexistence des droits des femmes, l’augmentation du chômage et de l’inflation, l’oppression des minorités nationales, l’emprisonnement sysytématique de tous ceux qui contestent le régime en place et aspirent à davantage de liberté et de justice sociale.
Les événements en cours montrent combien la crise est profonde au sein de la caste dirigeante politico-religieuse puisque les quatre candidats ont été sélectionnés par le pouvoir en place pour participer à la campagne présidentielle. Une fois de plus, la jeunesse mais aussi les femmes sont particulièrement impliqués dans ce mouvement de contestation.
En 1999, un mouvement similaire avait été réprimé et étouffé par le pouvoir en place.
C’est pourquoi, aujourd’hui, notre solidarité est nécessaire à l’égard de toux ceux qui manifestent publiquement et courageusement leur opposition au régime en place.
Le NPA dénonce la répression qui frappe les manifestants, exigent la libération de ceux qui ont été arrêtés et soutient toux ceux et toutes celles qui veulent en finir avec la République Islamique.
Le 16 juin 2009.
Comment by Entdinglichung — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Why not ask George Galloway that, David? After all, you are his most fervent stalker.
And, Sandy #35 - Congratulations, your comments have now reached the level of caricature. In fact, I was thinking of producing a talking Marxist action man to sell this Xmas. I may hire your services to provide the words.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
I am actually a big fan of George Galloway.
He’s a showman.
But he has poisoned your movement.
Comment by David T — 17 June, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
John you seem to have all the characteristics of serial sycophant- particularly towards tanned Scottish left talking political chancers dressed in a suit. Maybe you should produce an “action man” of that type
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
To the people of Iran: We are with you!
Communist Students Statement - http://communiststudents.org.uk/2009/06/to-the-people-of-iran-we-are-with-you/
Communist Students greets the mass demonstrations and bravery of the people on the streets of Iran with hope and solidarity. The mass actions are a testament to the revolutionary élan of the youth, worker’s and women’s movements, who over the last three decades have struggled and suffered at the hands of the theocratic state. The blatant rigging of the 10th Presidential election has served as a catalyst for the greatest mass movement the region has seen since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Up to 30 people have been killed at the hands of state forces and the Basij militia.
The elections were a farce from the very beginning - elections in Iran always are. The four candidates out of 450 that were allowed to run are all pillars of the establishment, all have their hands drenched in blood. No real opponents of the Islamic Republic are allowed to stand. All of the candidates support the existing neo-liberal economic policies that have brought poverty and hardship to the Iranian working class. From this and the knowledge of the history of the reformist murderers it is clear that any democrat or communist cannot give support to Moussavi and the vacillating reformist faction.
Even with all of this there was a massive turnout at the elections, the people attempted to show their disdain not just for Ahmadinejad but also for the regime, the obvious disregard for such simple democratic procedures has pushed millions onto the streets into open confrontation. Strikes, sit ins and mass rallies have taken place across Iran.
Students and the youth are at the head of this struggle and are putting their lives on the line. Below is a small sample of actions led by students and youth:
- On Monday June 15 over 5000 students rallied inside Tehran University and faced violence by security forces and the ultra nationalist Basij militia. Today they have begun another sit in which has been joined by over 120 professors who have stepped down from their positions.
-University of Tehran students reacted strongly to a statement on Tuesday by Moussavi calling on people not to take part actions. Students chanted “death to collaborator,” “No compromise, No surrender, Fight the dictator,” “They are shedding blood.”.
-Students at Sharif University of Technology clashed with security forces when over 1000 students who forced their way passed the police into the university.
-In Babol over 3000 students along with local workers demonstrated and attacked government and security buildings.
-At Qazvin University students and workers came out onto the streets shouting “death to the dictator”. There were clashes and a number of security and state building were attacked.
-In Ahwaz students and youth have been running day long battles with security forces since the announcement of the election results. This is but a taste of what is happening YouTube is full of videos of these clashes and repression.
Communist Students will step up its work in building solidarity with the democratic and revolutionary movements. In the face of the media’s biased reporting and the worrying crackdown on communication technology inside Iran, we pledge that our website will be used to get news out on the situation as it unfolds. We will be building and taking part in meetings, actions and fundraisers over the coming months. We will continue to raise the importance of winning the student movement in this country to a position of principled internationalism - combining implacable opposition to imperialist intervention in the country with unswerving support for the struggles of the Iranian masses.
Communist Students Executive
Comment by Chris S — 17 June, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
David T is being a little unfair to galloway. He’s in a tricky position. He can’t nail his colours to the mast just yet- if he backs Ahamdinejad he might end up losing his job with press tv or worse if there is a revolution.
On the other hand he might lose his job -or worse- if Ahamdinejad suceeds but Galloway has not shown himself craven enough.
But then again he wouldn’t want to be seen as a March Violet by either side.
If I were Galloway I’d f’off to the US, keep well away from any journalists, and stop big Ron from writing articles for the press with my name on.
Comment by nt9n — 17 June, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Good statement from the communist students
big contrast with the crap from Galloway
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
You know us; Support us!
People of the world!
We are your neighbours, friends, lovers, colleagues, and comrades.
You know us.
We have lived together and fought together – whether for labour rights, against
Sharia, for civil rights, asylum rights, against executions and stonings,
against cultural relativism, against faith schools and apostasy laws, for
freedom of expression, rationalism and secularism, against political Islam and
US militarism…
Today, our revolution – the one we have been preparing and waiting for - has
begun in Iran.
We need you to support it full force.
The battle you see unfolding on the streets of Iran is not about the farce of an
election, though that is what the western media wants you to think. Everyone
knows that elections in Iran are anything but. In fact, people are taking
advantage of the intensified infighting between the regime’s factions to raise
their own demands and they – like the rest of us - want the Islamic regime to
go.
And it has to go.
Thirty years of medievalism and brutality is enough.
If nothing else, one thing is clear.
The mass movement that is going to bring this regime in Iran to its knees and
break the back of the political Islamic movement internationally has begun.
Your support and solidarity will strengthen this revolutionary movement. Come
out and condemn the regime and its brutality; exert pressure on western
governments to politically isolate the regime. Join us in front of the Islamic
regime’s embassies across the globe to call for them to be shut down. Call for
the prosecution of all those involved in the killings, for the immediate release
of all detainees and political prisoners, unconditional freedoms, including for
organisation, strike and protest, an end to compulsory veiling, a living wage
and an end to sexual apartheid. Send your messages to the protesting people of
Iran to be read on our 24 hour New Channel TV station. Support us and our party,
the Worker-communist Party of Iran.
Mark our words; like racial apartheid in the former South Africa, a regime of
sexual apartheid can and will be relegated to the dustbins of history.
The future is ours.
Maryam Namazie
Mina Ahadi
Fariborz Pooya
Bahram Soroush
Mahin Alipour
Afsaneh Vahdat
Abe Asadi
Farshad Husseini
Farideh Arman
Karim Shahmohammadi
Fereshteh Moradi
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
John
In #8, you state that:
“Anyone at this stage who claims to know exactly what is unfolding is either a genius or a charlatan.”
George Galloway clearly states that the protests, etc., “will soon fizzle out”.
Is he a genius or a charlatan?
Comment by Jeremy Stangroom — 17 June, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
That Galloway statement’s got to be made up, it reads more like a piss-take than a genuine view.
Any proof “David T”?
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Read it for yourself
http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2009/06/you-can-count-on-the-fact-elec.html
Galloway makes his position very clear
I’d also guess that the editor of the paper made him put in that bit about how he works for the Iranians.
Comment by David T — 17 June, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
I think the situation is very difficult
all the candidates are conservative
they would have been barred fronm standing otherwise
so no left or progressive candidate
I guess we would see the student movement as progressive
however it is doubtful that the rural poor have signed up or voted for the limited change on offer
indeed opinion polls before election showed he would win by small percentage
obviously scared of the potential for defeat… Ahamdinejad supporters stuffed the balot boxes
they probably would have won - but were just making sure
but we should not be backing any candidates
Socialist and communists have to be very careful, not to be crushed as previously occured
The regime is still very much in power
if they were not Ahamdinejad would not have gone abroad
Comment by Sean — 17 June, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
The Iranian Communists of the Tudeh Party made some pretty dreadful mistakes in the early years of the Islamic Republic, leading to the decapitation of the party, as its leadership was tortured, forced to recant in some cases, and in others simply murdered.
But the Tudeh still exists, and here’s its statement on the elections. It’s a lot better than the self serving nonsense spouted by apologists such as Galloway.
“Our vigilant compatriots!
Your great participation in tens of millions has once again turned the tenth presidential election into a referendum against the backward-looking and deceitful regime. Million of Iranians stood in long queues holding green flags as a sign of protest against the bankrupt despotic rule of the Spiritual Leader and his cronies. This has shaken the mendacious regime to such an extent that its leaders, fearful of the repetition of 2nd Khordad (Khatamis election in 1997), have ordered their repressive forces in the major cities to crush the will of the majority by organising a quasi-military coup. The attacks by the security forces against the thousands of young people pouring into the streets protesting against the regimes charade, along with the forced closure of Mousavis campaign headquarter and combined with the threats issued by the Revolutionary Guards to suppress any protest, are all indicators of a heavy defeat suffered by the regimes leadership on the 12th of June.
Both presidential candidates, Mousavi and Karroubi, have declared the polls results as null and void, stating that they will not leave the stage. The obvious poll rigging and fixing of millions of ballots in Ahmadinejads name which was followed by Khameneis confirmations of the election results shows that the spiritual leader and his armed militias are the organisers of the state sponsored violence against the will of millions of Iranians. This electoral charade indeed points to a turning point in the way the regime intends to deal with its opponents and it clearly demonstrates that even the so-called insider critics will not be allowed even limited political activities.
Khameneis threatening statement is effectively a warning to the presidential candidates, demanding their surrender in the face of the reaction and to abandon the arena.
In recent weeks the Tudeh Party of Iran has repeatedly warned against the sinister plans of the repressive forces preparing to crush the peoples will. We asked all national forces and those struggling for liberty to unite in a common cause in opposing the regimes plans. We must not let the powerful might of the people, which has enraged and petrified the reactionaries, to be eroded and must prevent peoples retreat in disillusionment, giving the arena back to the reactionary forces. All social and political forces of the country should declare the polls results as void and use all means to voice their protests against this deception perpetrated by the Spiritual Leader and his armed cronies. By broadening and organising the struggle we must put the ruling regime under pressure. Accepting these election results would be a betrayal of the peoples vote and would be tantamount to collusion with a deceitful and backward regime.
Our vigilant compatriots!
The rulers of this regime have ruled by brute force and by betraying the goals of the Revolution, now they are about to carry out a coup d’etat against the people. The powerful presence of millions of Iranians and their protest can thwart this disgraceful machination and save our country from a serious danger.
Central Committee of Tudeh Party of Iran 13th June 2009″
Comment by paul fauvet — 17 June, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Just read the Galloway link! Gobsmacked!!!
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Is that the policy of the respect national committee too? Do your “progressive partners” in compass and the greens agree?
SILENCE
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
On HOPI:
the problem with HOPI is that it is the front of the old Iranian left (Workers Revolutionary Road) who are not actually interested in building an anti-war movement but see the anti-war movement as a substitute for a political party against the Islamic Republic. The majority of the Iranian left in exile have been utterly unsuccesful in building a base in Iran, not only because of the harsh repression, but also becuase of their mistaken understanding about the nature of the state and the balance of forces and their sectarian attitude towards religion (some of them like the Worker-Communist Party even wage a war against islam, not helpful in a country where the majority is religious)
The anti-war movement can not have the demand of ‘down with the IRI’. It would even be divisive because many people inside and outside Iran who want to get rid of the IRI, want to do it with reforms, while others want to do it with a revolution. The anti-war movments task is to stop any war against iran and indirectly help the social movements there (everyone knows the war threats only play into the hands of the Iranian neocons)
The task for building a new left in iran of course remains, but using the anti-war movement here as a substitute is not helpful.
Comment by J1917 — 17 June, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
The Guardian is now reporting that turnout in some towns reached 141 per cent!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/jun/17/iran-election-rigging
Comment by apollo — 17 June, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
This is about as straightforward as it gets. You either side with the riot cops and the armed Basiji thugs or with those being beaten, shot and intimidated. We should be 100 per cent behind the anti-Ahmadinejad demonstrators, not fence-sitting, hedging things or witholding judgement.
Comment by Ed — 17 June, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
‘We should be 100 per cent behind the anti-Ahmadinejad demonstrators, not fence-sitting, hedging things or witholding judgement.’
Is that right Ed? Your not a tiny bit put off by the fact that Mousavi was directly responsible for the slaughter of the Iranian Left, or that his supporters are primarily the business class and the salaried comentariat of the West. Wise up people Ahmadinejad won the election as fairly as any other. Yes vile Ahmadinejad who’s supporters are the very numerous Iranian poor. Imagine the poor thinking they count as much as the rich. Ask yourselves who does the benefit? Follow the money as they used to say on ‘The Wire’ yes there they are the Imperialists and the Zionists.
Comment by Christy — 17 June, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
David T: “I am actually a big fan of George Galloway. He’s a showman. But he has poisoned your movement.”
Surely what you mean is: you’re a “big fan” because he’s “poisoned” the “movement”. I know I’m in a small minority, but, unfortunately, there is more truth in this than we would like to acknowledge.
The antiwar movement had an exceptionally strong position, and then it let itself be dictated to by a big personality (and lesser “personalities”), some of whose arguments were at times pretty weak. I remember Lindsay German saying that since Saddam Hussein had not been caught, this destroyed the prowar stance! Was this the best she could do? And then - guess what? - Saddam was caught. What did German say to this? By this time, I’d tuned out and couldn’t care less what she had to say. It said a lot that someone with such unbelievably weak arguments could command such a high poistion within the “leadership” of the antiwar movement (and antiwar Left).
As for Iran,
Do any of the belligerati actually know any Iranians, have any contact with Iranian groups like HOPI? Of course not. Yet they suppose to know what is in the best interests of Iran, and have these interests at heart, rather than soliciting for another “wargasm”. I’ve yet to meet an exiled group (or read any Iranian dissident) who baacks Western foreign policy in the region. Their opinions are very much like those of HOPI: stop this counterproductive bellicosity toward Iran and Iranians themselves will sort out their own problems. It’s all very similar to how Iraqi exiles saw their own country yet the belligerati were allowed to speak on the Iraqis behalf.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 17 June, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
This looks very much like a revolutionary situation in Iran. The idea that it is under the control of Mousavi - or that the demonstrations haven’t developed a dynamic of their and that, indeed, this radicalising dynamic won’t continue to develop - is ludicrous. That’s just not how these things work. It is possible to support a movement without supporting its (apparent) leaders too.
The alternative to supporting the demonstrators is, of course, to side with state repression - to side with the Basiji death squads raiding university campuses and with the riot cops beating unarmed people. Unfortunately there is a very long tradition of this in some parts of the Left, of course, (from at least 1956 onwards) and a long tradition of covering this support for oppression with self deluding stuff about the class basis of the rebels. On this, last point see Fisk in the Independent incidently.
Comment by Ed — 17 June, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Christy: “Wise up people Ahmadinejad won the election as fairly as any other. Yes vile Ahmadinejad who’s supporters are the very numerous Iranian poor.”
We should be under no illusions about Mousavi and his past, but that’s not to say Ahmadinejad won the election. (Even so, Mousavi would be a far better President than Ahmadinejad. Not that either would be in control of foreign policy, defence, etc. The presidency seems like some sort of highpowered, glorified home secretary.)
Some of the votes are literally incredible: getting more votes in Mousavi’s home town is just not credible. Getting more votes than Khatami is just not credible! Khatami was probably Iran’s most popular politician. There are so many other examples.
Just look at the news. Millions of people are on the street: evidently, there is something wrong with the eyesight of the reporters in Tehran. At most they’re saying 1 million demonstrators, sometimes tens of thousands! If that’s not many millions of people, I don’t know what is. And look at who they are. Many of them are religious conservatives. This is not some student protest. It looks like some sort of mass uprising, made up of people of varying religiosity, political persuasions and class.
The Supreme Leader will not rerun the election - and is only offering a recount of disputed votes. But, at the same time, the Supreme Leader can’t *not* rerun the election. This is a highly combustible situation. There are leading Ayatollahs who are behind Mousavi and are making life very difficult for the Ahmadinejad gang. It’s a very fluid and dangerous situation. The most amazing thing of all is that, if Ahmadinejad did rig the election, he didn’t do it by a few thousand votes: to win by a 2:1 margin is frankly fantastic, and the fact that he thought he could get away with it is staggering. I don’t know for sure whether the election was rigged. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
Hope to post something soon on this.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 17 June, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
@ Ed ‘The idea that it is under the control of Mousavi - or that the demonstrations haven’t developed a dynamic of their and that, indeed, this radicalising dynamic won’t continue to develop - is ludicrous. That’s just not how these things work.’ I suspect you never been in a revolutionary situation there is much more co-ordination and work than you seen to think. Otherwise it would be easy wouldn’t it? We would all be having them. Lets see where we are in a fortnight and what you think then.
@Tawfiq ‘I don’t know for sure whether the election was rigged.’ No you don’t. Despite the feeding frenzy in the Western media does that not tell you something?
Comment by Christy — 17 June, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Conversely, we could be witnessing the first stirrings of counter-revolution, in which a new generation of western-leaning, educated youth, in conjunction with a wide layer of Iran’s denuded middle class, have grown weary of their relative isolation and role as bulwark against US imperialism. Perhaps they aspire to the consumer, Hollywood-inspired lifestyles of the West? After all, the cultural imperialism led by Hollywood is not to be underestimated in its ability to promote western values of the self realisation and eternal happiness to be found in the shopping mall?
That is such an appalling statement on so many levels. So people who may want friendly relations with the rest of the world and enjoy the freedoms and culture that you enjoy, sitting in your nice little western pad, could be described as wanting a “counterrevolution”? Jesus. I also like the implication that are the most educated people who have the most access to the outside world are somehow brainwashed by western culture, but those relatively ignorant rural people that are easy prey for everything the Mullah’s tell them, are somehow the true voice of open minded democracy and have not been brainwashed by the state.
Comment by Ed D — 17 June, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
George Galloway in the “Daily Record: -
“I present two weekly shows for Iranian-owned Press TV.
As such, I know that, uniquely for a developing country, the Iranian broadcast media went to extraordinary lengths to be fair to all four presidential candidates.” endquote
I’m quite prepared to accept the possibility that the claims of electoral fraud are being fabricated by those seeking to effect “democratic regime change” in Iran.
But the above comment shows how George Galloway often acts as an apologist for goverments that are a long way from consistent democracy.
The limitations of the whole election process are shown in this comment from an article by Iranian Marxist By Morad Shirin:-
“Long before the campaign began Khamenei and the system he heads had chosen their man. First, out of the over 450 hopefuls who had registered to be candidates, the Guardian Council disqualified all but four people. All 42 women were ruled out! This is the usual first step and in 2005 out of the over 1000 who registered about six candidates made it on to the ballot papers……
The Guardian Council, a 12-man body made up of six high ranking Islamic clerics and six Islamic lawyers, is selected by the Leader (currently Khamenei). It stands above the ‘parliament’ and can dismiss laws passed by it on the basis that they are un-Islamic or against the Constitution of the IRI. Basically it is elected by the chief mollah to make sure that the reactionary and medieval-looking constitution, the ‘legal’ and ideological basis for the velayat-e faghih system, is upheld and put into practice. The velayat-e faghih is the unique form of bourgeois dictatorship that lies behind the republican window-dressing of the IRI.”
source: http://www.marxist.com/iran-clumsy-fraud-provokes.htm
Apologists for the government completely fail to point this out and NEITHER DOES MOUSAVI, because he comes from WITHIN the system.
It’s a perfect example of a situation in which socialists must not in liquidate into a spontaneous mass movement, but need to build a leadership which fights for consistent democracy.
Something that the middle class opposition and those with links to the West will not support. (Just look at Obama and Brown’s comments on the situation)
Equally poisonous would be knee-jerk defence of Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic on the basis of “anti-imperialism”.
That is to entirely ignore the historical derailment of the Iranian Revolution by the Mullahs, the fact that they hold the real reins of power in the country and that Ahmadinejad is a demagogue.
As George Galloway rightly points out:-
“I’ve said many times that Ahmadinejad’s comments about the Holocaust are a disgrace.”
But he fails to draw the correct political conclusions from this and consequently ends up with no independent position. As he says: ” I present two weekly shows for Iranian-owned Press TV”. Go figure….
Comment by prianikoff — 17 June, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Prianikoff:
It stands above the ‘parliament’ and can dismiss laws passed by it on the basis that they are un-Islamic or against the Constitution of the IRI.
Reply:
Wow, sounds very much like the British Monarchy.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
#61 “Wow, sounds very much like the British Monarchy.”
Quite.
Comment by prianikoff — 17 June, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
#59 - Similarly, Ed, as you sit in your nice western pad pontificating about and salivating over the crisis engulfing yet another country in the Middle East, in the process jumping on the bandwagon of the western media even after the role they played with regard to Yugoslavia, Iraq, and the most recent disgrace of their coverage of the Gaza massacre back in January.
At least I’m willing to admit that I don’t know with any degree of certainty what’s unfolding there right now, as the article clearly articulates.
But you, a flag waver and an apologist for war and imperialism, you do know.
Comment by John Wight — 17 June, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
No respect members have spoken out against Galloway’s pro-government stance. Can we assume he is speaking for the whole of respect on this?
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Christy
The political situation and the dynamic of the protests in Iran is clearly very fluid. In fast moving situations like this things easily escalate beyond the control of those originally at the leadership of a growing mass movement. This should be an entirely uncontroversial observation from a socialist perspective. No one’s saying that there isn’t organisation or coordination amongst demonstrators - it’s just that this simply cannot be top down coordination and control by Moussavi and the elite forces around him. It’s just not credible to think that demonstrations under these circumstamces across major cities in Iran are safely under the control of Moussavi. It would be like saying that the protests in Greece recently were intricately planned by some central organisation. There are all sorts of social forces and political currents included in this movement - many people will be pulled this way and that. We have to hope that the demonstrations will pull in more urban workers and perhaps some of the rural poor too (though this is probably less likely) and that left forces are able to seize the initiative to take this beyond the limited reforms pushed by the section of the ruling class headed by Moussavi. There’s no guarantee that this will happen. But the slogans on demonstrators’ placards, banners and the things they say suggest that large sections of it are not just against Ahmadinejad, but against the daily repression imposed by the regime itself - and this is as much a problem for Moussavi as for Ahmadinejad. If the demonstrations can bring an end to executions, the stoning adulterers, state sanctioned sexism and homophobia and all the rest of it - and only that - good. That’s certainly not going to happen if the uprising is crushed.
The best of the Left have always opposed Imperial military sabre rattling against Iran while also saying that the Iranian people themselves are the only ones who can liberate themselves. Well, this is it - or at least a mass movement with the potential to do this has now emerged. It would be criminal not to support them.
As for your comments about waiting a couple of weeks and seeing what happens - the implication is that you are confident about the way this is going. I don’t see how. Whether or not the uprising will bring liberation, whether the elite fraction represented by Moussavi succeeds in containing popular radicalism or whether Ahmadinejad wrestles back control remains to be seen. Revolutionary situations are always open ended, fluid and their outcomes impossible to predict.
Comment by Ed — 17 June, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Christy: “Tawfiq ‘I don’t know for sure whether the election was rigged.’ No you don’t. Despite the feeding frenzy in the Western media does that not tell you something?”
Similarly, I couldn’t prove that Zimbabwe’s elections were rigged, but all the circumstantial evidence pointed that way. Again, all the known evidence points to something fishy.
I never get all my information from just the “Western” establishment media (Jane “spooky” Corbin, Paul “very spooky” Wood and James “Embassy Man” Reynolds, etc are just too awful for words), though on some things - sports results, weather, phallic-looking vegetables - they’re on the whole pretty reliable. Nevertheless, there also seems to be a “feeding frenzy” among many non-Western media, and for good reason: millions of people are demonstrating for democracy and freedom for the first time in thirty years! Many of these demonstratore also believe that they, are the true torchbearers of the revolution and that the revolution has been corrupted.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 17 June, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Similarly, Ed, as you sit in your nice western pad pontificating about and salivating over the crisis engulfing yet another country in the Middle East, in the process jumping on the bandwagon of the western media even after the role they played with regard to Yugoslavia, Iraq, and the most recent disgrace of their coverage of the Gaza massacre back in January.
I don’t even know what you are talking about here. The western media only jumped on the bandwagon due to the unprecedented scenes in Iran. It’s the Iranians that started this. If they had just accepted the result and gone on with their lives, it would have been a one day story. It’s not the media that said the elections were rigged, nor indeed most Zionists, as you would term then. I haven’t said this either. Though it’s true that as people who live in a liberal democracy, where church and state in effectively separated, with the freedoms and civil liberties this entails, it’s hard not to sympathise with people who in large part seem to protesting to get more of this for themselves.
But not you it would appear.
There are many big issues like this that capture the world’s attention, such as the situation in Sri Lanka a few weeks ago. That’s just how media work - one big story to another, whilst ignoring lots of little ones in between.
The media’s role in wars has nothing to do with this issue, of course, but they were obviously sympathetic to the Yugoslav war - who wasn’t? - but they were not entirely helpful with Iraq, and I’m not sure how you could claim they supported Israel’s war on Gaza. I don’t understand we’re you’re getting that from, not that it is relevant.
Comment by Ed D — 17 June, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
And yes I know that Mousavi is just another side of the same coin. Indeed the more conspiratorial side of me thinls the regime wants his people to be apart of the protests in order to coopt them and give them a pro-Islamic Republic face. But it seems clear many of these people want more than judt that, even though they will settle for Mousavi.
I know Ahamdinejad has huge support as well, but unlike you, I tend to think its the guys with the most infomation and access to the outside world that are the least brainwashed, not the most.
Comment by Ed D — 17 June, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
My last on this because events will work themselves out and my aim was to add to the debate at this stage.
George Galway says ‘I’m quite prepared to accept the possibility that the claims of electoral fraud are being fabricated by those seeking to effect “democratic regime change” in Iran.’ Cautious sort GG rarely puts a foot wrong.
Tawfiq ‘Many of these demonstratore also believe that they, are the true torchbearers of the revolution and that the revolution has been corrupted.’ Well that is possible although the revolution was actually betrayed by the early ’80s so arguably was always corrupted. Some of my friends were killed (by Mousavi) defending it so it sticks in my mind. The Left in Iran though more disciplined and better organised is just as prone to factionalism as the British Left. The consequences are more severe fights and resulting betrayals have led to people getting killed. My current Iranian contacts who at the moment support Mousavi’s faction do not believe the election was significantly rigged.
Ed ‘We have to hope that the demonstrations will pull in more urban workers and perhaps some of the rural poor too (though this is probably less likely) and that left forces are able to seize the initiative to take this beyond the limited reforms pushed by the section of the ruling class headed by Moussavi.’ I’m glad you have noticed they are missing its interesting to consider why. Also never underestimate the ‘rural poor’ Mao found them helpful. You seem to think this is a ‘mass movement’ and an ‘uprising’and ‘It would be criminal not to support them.’ In fact it would be criminal to support them until you know what this really is. Have you considered it could be a mobilisation of an amagam of interest groups and that it stretches that far and no further?
Comment by Christy — 17 June, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Galloways’ comments were so entirely predictable.
Haven’t heard a peep from his sidekick, the private schools enthusiast and former Express journalist, Yvonne Ridley. Has she ‘fizzled out’?
Comment by David Rosenberg — 17 June, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
Every word that the supporter of zionist butchery David T says in support of the nascent anti-regime movement in Iran is like a nail in its coffin.
Comment by Observations — 17 June, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
Guess who has a million times more influence over the situation than the zionist apologist Rosenberg: Galloway. And he is right, this movement will fizzle out if it doesn’t take a pro-working class, pro-self determination direction and reject the overtures of the Western and Zionist interventionists that give succor to the regime.
Comment by Observations — 17 June, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Christy: “The Left in Iran though more disciplined and better organised is just as prone to factionalism as the British Left.”
I don’t know if that’s true, but it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we support whatever they support. Although we should be wary of giving unconditional support to anyone, I think in cases like this (as with the Iraq war, in which almost to a man and woman the Iraqi Left opposed the war) we should back them and keep quiet about our reservations.
Mousavi is probably just the vehicle the Iranian people are getting behind. Their hopes are for far more than what Mousavi is promising or likely to deliver.
Christy: “The revolution was actually betrayed by the early ’80s so arguably was always corrupted”.
I’d say the revolution got corrupted in 1979! What started out as an anti-imperialist, anti-monarchy and progressive revolution got hijacked by the theocrats. A bit like the Russian revolution getting hijacked by the Bolsheviks. Revolutions have this tendency to get hijacked.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 17 June, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
#71 Every word that the supporter of zionist butchery David T says in support of the nascent anti-regime movement in Iran is like a nail in its coffin.
Wow, that David T sure is powerful
Comment by SteveF — 17 June, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
#74
he’s probably got “well-funded” friends…
Comment by rsa — 17 June, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Absolutely shocking.
How can members of Respect allow their MP to declare the elections under a semi-dictatorship “fair” in the public media? Semi-dictatorship because for example it bans socialists and workers organisations from standing and organising in the elections. And he clearly comes out against the protests hoping they will “fizzle out”. And he is paid by Press TV!
Any member of Respect who does not denounce this treachery to the Iranian masses should be “branded with infamy”. ( I wont go as far as Lenin and add “if not with a bullet”).
Comment by Stuart King — 17 June, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
John, I think you make some very good points in your article, including the historical observations re: 1953 etc.
But I suspect that your agnosticism about the likely result of a victory for the forces involved in the anti-Ahmedinejad campaign is misplaced.
While one should of course be wary of over-generalising, what is taking place in Iran at the moment has striking similarities with the various ‘colour revolutions’ which have been mounted against regimes which are not sufficiently acommodating to US & W. European imperial interests.
Three facts which nobody can credibly deny:
1) The Western media is overwhelmingly supportive of the Moussavi / Rafsanjani camp, boosting their prospects prior to the election, then reporting as fact their allegations of electoral fraud; plus giving very much greater coverage to the pro-Moussavi ralies & riots than to the huge pro-Ahmedinejad rallies, etc.
2) The support base of the anti-Ahmedinejad movement is in the better-off urban areas and among the rich & the ‘middle class’. Ahmedinejad draws his mass support from the urban & rural poor; Rafsanjani & co. are among the corrupt super-rich within the Iranian elite.
3) Since Ahmedinejad was elected in 2005, Iran has increasingly aligned internationally (both politically & in economic relationships) with Venezuela and the other revolutionary governments in Latin America; and also cemented its security relationships with Russia, China & other countries via the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation- thus undermining US influence in Asia.
To argue (as some ‘left’ organisations claim) that mass unrest on the streets of Iran is ‘ipso facto’ a good thing, is to fly in the face of the history of recent decades.
Clearly, as shown in the countries in which the various ‘colour revolutions’ have been attempted- successfully or otherwise- the Western-backed forces can mobilise an enthusiastic mass base, particularly among the wealthier sections of society.
You have to ask the obvious question: ‘Cui bono?’ ie, who would gain from the overthrow of Ahmedinejad as president of Iran?
And by the way. It is notable that Obama has been taking a very sensible & restrained position on the situation in Iran. The clear position of the Western ruling classes has been expressed via the current media coverage, and also through the US government funding of millions of dollars to Iranian ‘pro-democracy’ & ‘civil society’ groups.
Comment by Noah — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
Phew!! Thank the Lord Stuart and his crew are only armed with a keyboard and not a handgun or two - perhaps the temptation to act on Lenin’s words would be too great to resist.
Members of Respect should prepare to be branded forthwith. Consider yourselves lucky.
Comment by pop goes the bolshevik — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Cui bono? The neo-con right in America and Israel has been arguing strongly in favour of the satus quo. It suits them to have a recalcitrant Holocaust denier in charge so they can demonise the country and foment war.
Comment by apollo — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Yes Noah it’s also “striking” that the Iranian regime hangs gay men in public and treats women as second-class citizens, excecuting them for “adultery” for example.
It’s also “striking” that the Iranian president is a holocaust denier who is on friendly terms with the ku Klux Klan.
It’s also “striking” that the regime sent its security police in to forceably put down a bus workers strike, imprisoning and torturing the bus workers leaders.
It’s also “striking” that both the mainstream and dissident communist parties in Iran have come out against the government and in support of the protesters.
It’s also “striking” that not one member of respect has got the guts to publicly criticise Galloway for backing this clerical-fascist regime.
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
Observation, Is it my comment criticising Galloway’s predictable protectionism of another tyrant that make me a “zionist apologist” or just my Jewish name? I would be interested in your observation on that. Try asking Engage or the Board of Deputies or the israeli embassy if they regard me as a Zionist apologist.
When hundreds of thousands of Iranian have taken to the streets demanding freedom and democracy and an end to dictatorship, and iranian feminists, socialists and communists have welcomed this movement (without endorsing Mousavi’s politics), could we not expect someone who sees themselves as a champion of the left to utter something other than a defence of a deeply oppressive regime.
Enjoyed Galloway’s statement “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commands the loyalty of the poor, the working class and the rural voters whose development he has championed.He lives like them, looks like them - he’s never worn a suit since becoming president”. Are we to assume that George will soon relinquish his admiration for Mr Armani to show his devotion to the masses.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
To Iranians across the globe
The struggle of the people in Iran for freedom has spread and the regime is breaking under its pressure.
Tomorrow, Thursday June 18, at 5pm Tehran time, there will be protest rallies in several cities in Iran against the regime’s repression and killings. People will demand the identification and prosecution of those who have ordered and carried out the killings.
Come to the scene wherever you are. Tomorrow, simultaneously with the protest of people in Iran gather at the regime’s embassies and consulates or parliaments and city centres where you live. Put pressure on governments to condemn the Islamic Republic for its repression and killings. Demand that they shut down its embassies and consulates everywhere.
Freedom loving Iranians all around the world! Rise up against the Islamic regime together with and alongisde the masses of people in Iran!
Hamid Taqvaee
June 17, 2009
Immediate demands of the revolutionary movement in Iran
A great revolution is unfolding in Iran. The people have risen to get rid of the repressive Islamic Republic of Iran and won’t settle until this despised regime is overthrown.
To further secure the gains of the revolution and facilitate its advancement for the overthrow of the Islamic regime, the Worker-communist Party of Iran declares the following demands:
Freedom of all political prisoners
Public prosecution of those involved in the killings
An end to compulsory veiling
Unconditional freedom, including for organisation, strike and protest
A living wage
End to sexual apartheid
These are the immediate demands of millions who have taken to the streets with the slogan of “Down with Dictator.” They must be supported by anyone who claims to be supportive of the people’s protests.
The Worker-communist Party of Iran calls upon everyone to demand the above in their gatherings, demonstrations, and strikes.
Worker-communist Party of Iran
June 17, 2009
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
“You have to ask the obvious question: ‘Cui bono?’ ie, who would gain from the overthrow of Ahmedinejad as president of Iran?”
For a start: gays, women, students (the ones who haven’t yet been shot that is).
But no, clearly the whole thing has been orchestrated by a shadowy conspiracy of elite international forces. It’s not like large numbers of Iranian people are seriously pissed off for real, actual reasons and coming out onto the streets because they fucking hate the state regime or anything.
So side with the riot cops and the thugs. You can always rely on a stalinist for that.
Comment by Ed — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
SILENCE from respect, SILENCE while the Iranian left, workers, women, gays and all secularists are oppressed, SILENCE because we can’t upset his lordship galloway can we?
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
By Alan Woods Wednesday, 17 June 2009
The stormy street demonstrations in Iran are continuing and gathering strength. Anti-government protesters held another big rally in central Tehran today (Wednesday), which, to judge from photographs we have just received, has dwarfed even the massive demonstrations of the last few days. It defied renewed calls from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, to keep off the streets. Faced with vast protests, the ruling regime in Tehran is being pulled in opposite directions.
Photo by .faramarz.Late on Tuesday, Ayatollah Khamenei met representatives of the four candidates who ran in Friday’s election and urged them to maintain calm. He said no one should do anything that creates tension and all should clearly state that tensions and riots are not their demands. He said that if there was a need to recount some ballot boxes, this should be done in the presence of representatives of candidates. But the protesters are not heeding the calls.
The government, clearly nervous, has been clamping down on all information tools, including text messaging, social networking sites, and other internet outlets, in an effort to prevent the opposition from organising rallies. But a further sign of the divisions in Iran’s leadership is the fact that the interior ministry ordered an investigation into an attack on university students which they say was carried out by militia and police. It came a day after Iran’s influential speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, condemned the assault on the dormitory of Tehran University.
The demonstrations are meeting with sympathy from the population. There were, however, further signs of a crackdown today. Human rights groups said at least 100 people had been arrested in the city of Tabriz, a historic centre of protest and a Mousavi stronghold. Meanwhile, the prosecutor general of the central province of Isfahan warned that those behind post-election unrest could face the death penalty under Islamic law.
http://www.marxist.com/iran-monster-demonstration-uprising-continues.htm
Comment by Anonymous — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
Anonymous #80:
“Yes Noah it’s also “striking” that the Iranian regime hangs gay men in public and treats women as second-class citizens, excecuting them for “adultery” for example.”
Oh, for sure. However, I think you will find that the Iranian regime has a record on women’s rights, etc etc which is not quite as bad as that of our close Western ally, Saudi Arabia.
And in Saudi Arabia there are no elections for president - fixed, flawed or otherwise. Despite which, that country is equipped Royally & loyally with the best & most expensive US & UK weapons.
Iran, on the other hand, is under economic sanctions.
Most peculiar.
Anyway, what precisely is your point, Mr or Mrs Anonymous?
Comment by Noah — 17 June, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
I’m sure that if Mousavi does end up winning the election, Georgeous will have no problem swiftly changing his allegiance.
“I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.”
Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:19 am
That you and galloway are wrong to support the clerical-fascist regime in Iran Noah. Who on the left supports the Saudi regime? No-one, so why bring it up?
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:22 am
#81 Calling David Rosenberg a Zionist apologist is manifestly absurd. Self-satisfied, pompous, arrogant, ultra-left and completely wrong on Galloway, yes. But he is certainly not a Zionist apologist.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:25 am
I’m all in favour of people overthrowing their own rulers. Its imperialist intervention I oppose. The one is a good answer to the other and gives the lie to the idea that the only solution to repressive regimes is to advocate invasions by western countries. I think George is, on this one, confused, as he believes that the only way out of the neo-liberal global regime is alliances of states, movements from below being seen as utopian and unrealistic by comparison. He is not alone in this belief, which often flows out of desperation as much as any perfidy.
It leads however to the misrepresentation of an intra-elite squabble about how to divide the spoils of liberalisation with a challenge to neo-liberalism. If in Venezuela the Chavez government is supported by the left (albeit domestically sometimes critically) and those campaigning against neo-liberal models, in Iran, anyone doing this would be jailed. There is therefore an important difference, and Chavez’s statement is a step backwards.
It is important to be aware of social tensions between different forms of opposition: Ahmedinajad belongs to that faction of the elite which wants to preserve the gains of privatisation in the hands of sections of the state: his propaganda therefore emphasises his links with those sections of the population who stand to lose the most from an opening up to global capitalism, as has been seen in a number of other countries, ranging from the poor to sections of the Bazaris. Unsurprisingly his campaign against corruption has turned out ineffectual as a result.
The other section of the ruling class wants to see the benifits of privatisation spread to other sections of the capitalist class through a bigger opening to global capitalism: they seek to build a base amongst those fed up with the repressive state apparatus and the kinds of corruption that Ahmedinajad doesn’t talk about (whilst preserving their own of course).
All the signs are that Ahmedinajad is losing his base amongst a section of the bazari class, the core of his backing, which, as in the Iranian revolution, acted as a bridge between the clerics and the popular classes. In a number of cities outside Tehran the agitation has spread to them.
Its also clear however that the elite politicians who unleashed the opposition are now terrified by the possible consequences, whilst the state being forced to re-hold the elections points to the widespread nature of these agitations, and the way in which they are moving beyond the simplistic oppositions which formed the stuff of the official dispute between the two fractions of the political class.
Its just a mistake to think that in this situation its possible for anyone to predict exactly what constellation of forces will emerge, or what exactly the result will be. But it does truely give the lie to the idea that Iran is a dead, non-political society. This it seems to me should be the perspective of those concerned about imperialism: not backing for a state against its own population. The whole point is that it is up to them.
Correctly pointing out that Iran is by no means the only or even, arguably, the most repressive state in the region is perfectly legitimate. It is not however a reason to back that repression or oppose movements against it. Indeed the very possibility of such a thing is an indication that Iran needs neither military intervention or imported democracy promotion. And indeed that should be the argument if such things are attempted.
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:48 am
Whether or not one agrees with johng, the tone of his thoughtful contribution is surely the way in which debate should be conducted on this site, rather than the sanctimonious moralism, sneering and distortion which characterises most of arguments.
Comment by charalambos — 18 June, 2009 @ 8:11 am
Members of Respect are remaining silent as they are trembling before the mighty ranks of annonymous bloggers and fearful of their public branding at the hands of the Permanent Revolution chastisement brigade.
Comment by pop goes the bolshevik — 18 June, 2009 @ 8:38 am
Christy wrote at #69
“George Galway says ‘I’m quite prepared to accept the possibility that the claims of electoral fraud are being fabricated by those seeking to effect “democratic regime change” in Iran.’
Cautious sort GG rarely puts a foot wrong.”
Learn to read Christy. I said that at #60, not George Galway (sic) the well know political flautist.
Did you notice the ‘endquote’ after the paragraph from the Scottish Daily Record?
Yes, I’m a cautious sort who rarely puts a foot wrong……
Whatever the truth, the only way to validate the election result would be to subject the votes to independent scrutiny.
Something the Guardian Council and Khameini are being forced to accept by the scale of the opposition demonstrations.
I find hard to believe these could have been orchestrated by any amount of Western gold, without there being sufficient reason.
As I also stated at #60, the process by which candidates make it to the final stages of the elections is completely undemocratic.
The Guardian Council for example excluded all female candidates and ended up with people who ALL support the Islamic Republic.
Excusing this on the grounds that Iran is a “developing country” as Geo.Galloway does is not an argument.
India, for example, allows quite diverse candidates to stand in elections.
This is not reason to not give political support to Mousavi, since he accepts the restrictions on democracy by the Islamic regime.
He was part of them, but stands for neo-liberal reforms, ending the nuclear standoff and moderating Iran’s foreign policy.
All policies supported by the Rafsanjani wing of the clergy.
Ahmedinejad may be in dispute with this wing of the clergy, but is compromised with it and won’t make consistently democratic or socialist demands.
Nor is challenging the Islamic Republic part of the US or EU agendas.
Nowehere is this demand being popularized in the Western media.
Why would it be?
They aren’t in favour of such a radical democratic demand, since it opens the door to socialism.
Western governments are quite happy to use organised religion and its minions to cement the rule of capitalism.
As is shown by Saudi Arabia, by its resurgence in Southern Iraq and in the Afghan government.
This is not an issue where the left can sit back and engage in crystal-ball gazing.
Such an objectivist view of political events denies the possibility of active leadership.
The Iranian working class needs to press forward with its own demands and take control of the situation.
Comment by prianikoff — 18 June, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Prianikoff:
This is not an issue where the left can sit back and engage in crystal-ball gazing.
Such an objectivist view of political events denies the possibility of active leadership.
The Iranian working class needs to press forward with its own demands and take control of the situation.
Reply:
I have to say, this kind of thing makes me weep for the state of the left in this country. It reflects that even socialists and marxists in the West have succumbed to a history of imperialism and colonial domination in asserting some divine right to meddle in the affairs of former colonies and nations of the developing world.
The last I checked there were no Iranian troops deployed anywhere beyond their own borders, and certainly not in the occupation of other countries; no Iranian navy ships off the coast of Britain or anywhere near Europe; and no Iranian nuclear submarines patrolling the world’s oceans as part of an international policing operation to maintain the current imbalance of power.
Given the aforementioned, rather us passing judgement on Iran or the Iranian working class, surely it is they who should be giving us advice on how and why we have singularly failed to effect regime change in what by any objective definition is one of the most militaristic, war mongering, anti international working class, and imperialist states in human history.
Comment by John Wight — 18 June, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Fearful though I am of the revolutionary justice to be meted out by Stuart King, I would point out that unless George’s article is run through the Harry’s Place filter it is not a declaration of political support for the Iranian regime against the masses on the streets.
George says he doesn’t believe the election was rigged given the huge participation in it, and points out what might be an uncomfortable truth for those who think demonstration = revolution: Ahamdinejad is likely to be in tune - in religious, cultural, social, and political terms - with a large section of the Iranian population. And that section of the population is less likely to be represented among the urban middle class.
It doesn’t fit the now officially approved imperialist line that the only possible outcome of an election in Iran was a victory for Mousavi. And the howls from our own little toy bolsheviks only reveal how influenced they are by the weight of official propaganda.
I note that one BBC correspondent said the situation was the same at that in Romania when Ceausescu was overthrown. It is a patently ridiculous analogy. Ahmadinajad is not and never has been the sole repository of state power, and his position is contested within the ruling class, the state apparatus and by a form of democracy - albeit deeply corrupted and subject to extreme state repression. Ahmadinajad quite obviously has a definite political base of his own that does not rely on terror to mobilise it.
I have no way of knowing whether the election was rigged. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was vote-rigging, even on a large scale. But it is not immediately clear that it would be possible to rig the vote on such a scale as to reverse the result of the election, simply because of the high level of participation by competing political forces, both of which are represented in the state itself.
Huge numbers of the urban population are protesting because they see the opportunity to win greater social and political freedom from a stifling and repressive state. I hope they succeed in that.
Imperialism is backing the mobilisations because it hopes to influence the election of someone who will soften Iran’s anti-imperialist stance. It is not a position that commands great support among the Iranian population. I hope they don’t succeed in engineering such an outcome.
Comment by Dodging the bullet — 18 June, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Saying, “The Iranian working class needs to press forward with its own demands and take control of the situation” does NOT equate with “socialists and marxists in the West…asserting some divine right to meddle in the affairs of former colonies”?
Quite the opposite in fact. It’s a recognition of the true class nature of the Islamic Republic, which is recognised by the majority of Iranian Marxists themselves.
Simply defending Ahmedinejad and the Mullahs is more likely to bring that about as they are increasingly indefensible.
See for example Alan Wood’s most recent article:-
http://www.marxist.com/iran-monster-demonstration-uprising-continues.htm
Why such a position should be regarded as incompatible with opposing “one of the most militaristic, war mongering, anti international working class, and imperialist states in human history” is completely beyond me.
It’s a sraightforward working class, internationalist position.
As opposed to the opportunist right wing nonsense about “clerical fascists” being promoted by those who would like a pro-Western, bourgeois government in Iran.
Comment by prianikoff — 18 June, 2009 @ 9:47 am
John
Giving active solidarity to the struggle of the Iranian working class for democracy and freedom is not “meddling” in the affairs of a “former colony”. It is what socialism and working class solidarity is all about. The struggle of the Iranian working class for freedom is our struggle too- since the struggle for socialism is an international struggle. You are still caught in your (scottish) nationalist mind frame. I well remember your support for the “anti imperialism” of the Mugabe regime while you were a member of the SSP. Shameful stuff. Please reconsider your apologetics for various anti working class and anti democratic regimes. Such apologetic have nothing in common with socialism. And nether does Galloway
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Sandy #97 - Never once have I voiced support for Mugabe. That’s a lot of crap. Instead, I attributed the crisis in Zimbabwe, former British colony, whose constitution was written in Whitehall, to neoliberalism, which precipitated the economic crisis that led to the political crisis.
I would have thought that an orthodox Marxist like you would have agreed with that.
To attempt to ascribe some one-size-fits-all Marxist template to every nation or society, even those struggling to emerge from hundreds of years of colonialism, is about as un-Marxist as it gets.
Comment by John Wight — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Sandy #97 -
Here, just for you, is the concluding paragraph on the piece I wrote on Zimbabwe. Please read it and tell me where it offers support for Mugabe.
Afterwards, an apology would be kindly appreciated.
‘Robert Mugabe, with his fixation on retaining power no matter the cost to his people, is clearly not up to the task. It is to be hoped, however, that the consciousness instilled in the Zimbabwean people as a result of the expropriations that have taken place thus far has equipped them to continue a process which constitutes the only way forward, not only for Zimbabwe but for the entire developing world.’
Comment by John Wight — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Hilarious satirists such as “pop goes the bolshveik” might be well advised to take this situation a bit more seriously and perhaps consider there might be a good reason why some contributors are remaining anonymous.
Communists and leftists have been tortured and excecuted in Iran. It isn’t funny and it’s disgusting that galloway supports all this.
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:06 am
#95
Dodging the bullet is completely correct here.
There may or may not have been some electoral fraud - (for goodness sake we have seen enough of that from the labour party and Lib Dems in the UK with the scandal of abused postal voting), but what is undeniable is that both sides in the current dispute have mass social support and it would be plausible that either Ahmadinajad or Mousavi may have recieved the majority.
Noah above refers to the colour revolutions, the prototype for which was the hysterical atmosphere created in the DDR by Helmut Kohl in the lead up to reunification. It is not clear whether or not there is genuinely Western government involvement in Mousavi’s campaign, that would be typical of a “Colour revolution”, and indeed the Chinese CP has given detailed expert investigation into the colour revolutions, and I understand that a shared governmental stragety for dealing with them has been developed within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, of which the Islamic Republic of Iran is an observer. (Watch this space over the next decade as the Shanghai CO may become more importnat than NATO)
What seems more likely to me, as we have seen recently in both Kenya and Zimbabwe, is a society with an internal crisis, with different strategic directions being supported by different strands of the government and business elites, both of which have mass power bases of support in the wider population; and that the stakes are too high to be easily contained within the conventions of democratic elections.
The scale of the mass protests on the streets may indeed result in Iran becomming a more democratic society, let us hope so; but the left should certaily not be cheerleaders for Mousavi.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:20 am
“Robert Mugabe is not up to the task”? Hardly a biting communist critique of this blood stained tyrant and the reactionary ZANU regime. And that is the extract that is favourable to you?
Anyway I dont want to distract this thread towards your daft reactionary “anti imperialist” politics on other matters. Lets stick to Iran
You know i remember “leftists” who during the Iranian revolution of 1979 pushed the Ayatollah Khomeini as an “anti imperialist leader” rubbish. They helped politically prepare and then cover up the massacre of the communist left by the Islamic regime
first time tragedy- second time farce
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:27 am
The movement in the GDR was not orchestrated by Kohl, and was not the result of ‘hysteria’. This is surely an amazing proposition. Simply because politicians are in favour of something and it happens, does not mean that they created it, or on the other hand that their pronouncements define the meaning of a situation.
Andy’s position on China to me epitomises the ‘desperation’ I referred to. I’m increasingly concerned, not with these positions, but with the way some are arguing which effectively builds a huge wall between real social movements and the anti-war movement. I increasingly believe, whatever the wreaking propensities of CPGB for instance, that it is vital that STW resolves its relationship with HOPI speedily for example.
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Sandy - #102
Sorry, I didn’t realise you were now sitting in judgement in your very own Marxist Star Chamber.
And here was I thinking that the Witchfinder General was a post last filled in this country back in the 16th century.
As for the 79 Revolution, Iranian communists joined forces with the Islamic forces to topple the Shah. That they failed to achieve dominance in the aftermath is a lesson that’s been repeated throughout history.
Still, what are you suggesting? That given what took place it would have been better if the communists hadn’t joined forces and the Shah remained in power, with his torture chambers and Savak secret police?
Would that satisfy your pure Marxist credentials as you wait for that pure socialist revolution to arrive?
Comment by John Wight — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:39 am
JOhn
the elections in the DDR were clearly undertaken in an hystical atmosphere, with a media witchhunt calling for the SED to be banned; reports of Wessies beating up students who were waving the DDR flag, the clear state level blackmail that the BRD would only cooperate with the DDR economy if there was complete merger on the BRD’s own terms - thus preventing any social parachute.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 10:51 am
The forces of political Islam high- jacked the 1979 revolution- with the support of imperialism- since imperialism feared the victory of the working class. Sections of the left in Iran, guided in the main by Stalinism, viewed Ayatollah Khomeini and the reactionary forces around him as a progressive anti imperialist force. They backed him politically and covered up the anti democratic and anti human nature of political Islam even to the point that some leftists did not oppose the compulsory imposition of the veil since it was an anti imperialist measure. They also supported the war with Iraq and called for the banning of strikes in order to aid the war effort. And most shamefully sections of the Stalinist left gave the names of real marxists to Khomeinis political police so they could be arrested. Of course the international “left” was full of characters who engaged in apologetic s in favour of Khomeinei and his counter revolution. Now sections engage in apologetics for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (and some of them are paid for doing so)
Real communists fight for workers power and democracy and dont give support to a bunch of clerically robed thieves who are maintained in power by terror
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 11:04 am
JOhn
Inceidenty you are taking a much more right wing position than the SWP’s co-thinkers in gernamy at the time took,
in the period of a year or so after the wall came down and before reunification, there were several possible outcomes - the least desirable of which is what actualy happned, the full scale dismantling of the social structures and public ownership in the East. And this was in large part acheived by a campaign of destabiliation and red-baiting emanating from Bonn, that sought to exagerate social tensions and direct them towards not only challenging the bad aspects of the DDR, but also linking the legitimate aspirations with a cmapign to remove the social safety-net, commitments to women’s rights and full employment.
For you to even deny the role of Helmut Kohl in destablising the structures of the DDR after the wall came down is completely misguided.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 11:14 am
I got the impression that you were trying to suggest that the movement which bought the wall down was the creation of Kohl. If I misinterpreted you my apologies.
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
It is nonsense to suggest that Khomeni was sponsered by Imperialism. The counter-revolution in Iran took the shape of the suppression of the workers movement and other internal dissent: it did not take the form of an accomodation with imperialism.
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
#81 `Observation, Is it my comment criticising Galloway’s predictable protectionism of another tyrant that make me a “zionist apologist” or just my Jewish name? I would be interested in your observation on that. Try asking Engage or the Board of Deputies or the israeli embassy if they regard me as a Zionist apologist.’
No, its the fact that you spent most of the Israeli assault on Gaza having a go at the SWP and are spending most of this momentous event trying to discredit Galloway.
Comment by Observation — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
“It is nonsense to suggest that Khomeni was sponsered by Imperialism”
John
maybe you should do some reading on the subject and/or discuss with iranian marxists such as those who support HOPI
As everywhere the main fear of imperialism is that the working class could come to power in Iran. When it became apparent that the Shahs regime was doomed- (oil workers on strike, mass movement, workers committees etc) imperialism helped broker (US and french) the transfer of power to Khomeni. (Later on british imperialism gave a list of all communist party members in the army to the Khomeni regime which led to their arrest- this was reportedly supplied to britian by the high level defection of a KGB agent based in London- Oleg Gordievsky)
Imperialism much preferred political Islam in power rather than the working class or even a leftist regime- see Afghanistan.
In truth imperialism created political Islam as a bulwark against socialism in Muslim dominated areas of the third world. Only idiots or charlatans view Political Islam as a threat to imperialism. In fact political Islam is the perfect enemy for imperialism- it has progressive content and it can only harm the working class but it can be used to justify war, attacks on democratic rights and military spending
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
should read “has No progressive content”
sandy
In truth imperialism created political Islam as a bulwark against socialism in Muslim dominated areas of the third world. Only idiots or charlatans view Political Islam as a threat to imperialism. In fact political Islam is the perfect enemy for imperialism- it has No progressive content and it can only harm the working class but it can be used to justify war, attacks on democratic rights and military spending
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Sandy - You really have lost the plot. Now, according to your dialectical mish-mash of a theory, the victims of war and imperialism in the Middle East are to be blamed for the crimes of imperialism and the wars being waged against them.
It is indisputable that Political Islam has filled the vacuum left by the destruction or collapse of left wing and nationalist movements in the region, due to the mistakes of their leadership and/or the huge efforts brought to bear by the West in utilising puppet dictators and regimes to destroy them. And, yes, the international ruling class fears the emergence of secular and communist inspired resistance more than other, precisely because they advocate a social model that can be exported and may influence the working class and poor in their own countries.
But the key question for Marxists, socialists and progressives in the West is what side we are on now that there is no coherent or strong communist and secular movement to resist the advance of imperialism in the region.
Hezbollah has among its ranks communists and marxists, understanding as they do that to know thy enemy is to know thy friend.
The drivel you spout can only serve the interests of the West in destabilising and overturning those forces which have up to now prevented the entire Middle East from being turned into a shopping mall and theme park. In the process, they’ve succeeded in halting the advance of probably the most reactionary US administration in history, and have allowed space and time for the leftward shift that’s taken place throughout Latin America.
If only the world were so simple, Sandy, and operated according to the Marxist texts which have lulled you into the fatal mistake of believing that Marx told us ‘what’ to think rather than ‘how’ to think.
Comment by John Wight — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
An article re imperialism support for transfer of power to khomeni. one of many but i will post other and better if required
sandy
The following article looks at the question from a different angle, the role played by the U.S. in bringing the Khomeini regime to power in 1979, after the fall of the U.S.-supported Shah (king).
http://www.nadersani.net/English-Political/awtwns_guadeloupe_conference.htm
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Sandy - Out of interest, how do you view those ‘clerics’ of the Catholic Church who fought side by side with communists against US funded right wing regimes in Central and Latin America during the sixties and seventies?
The point is that every religion throws up its progressives and reactionaries. The Catholic Church has prodeced apologists for fascism as well as the practioners of liberation theology. Why then is Islam unique, in your view, in only producing reactionary movemements.
Comment by John Wight — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Sandy there are a host of conspiracy theories about the hidden powers behind Khomeni. Behind his beard is Britain. It was France wot done it etc. None of it holds any water and a Marxist analyses of domestic politics in Iran is neccessary.
The truth is that this was a revolution against a western backed despot who was a gendarme for imperialism in the region, in which a number of ideologies co-existed and competed for dominance. The left lost this battle, and the clerics took the gains of the revolution in a reactionary direction. But its quite clear that the loss of Iran was a tremendous blow to the dominant imperialism, and whilst, no doubt they would have hardly preferred a workers revolution, the fall of their man, the shah, meant they had no say in the matter. Its why the Iranian regime was enemy number 1 for the US in the region. To ignore this is to ignore reality.
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
The theories you relate are really just failures to account for this reality.
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
No enemy number I for imperialism in the region is the working class. And enemy number one for the Islamic regime is the working class and any movement for democratic rights. In 1979 Khomeini led a counter revolution against the working class. In this he had the support of imperialism and a large section of the international “left” who were so befuddled by the effect of stalinist politics that they could not tell the difference between a revolution and a counter revolution. You are continuing that awful tradition. At least you are not being paid to produce apologetics for the reactionary clerics unlike some others
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
“Communists and leftists have been tortured and excecuted in Iran. It isn’t funny and it’s disgusting that galloway supports all this.”
So someone who post annoymously think’s it’s OK to tell lies. Please - do me a favour. Engage with what people actually say. it would make a change. This kind of ultra-pure moralism is just so much hogwash and throwing the word clerical-fascist around a few times doesn’t automatically give you a left gloss.
Comment by pop goes the bolshevik — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Sandy’s logic is the same as the pro-war left, people who attempt to justify murder and slaughter in the name of progress.
The idea that ‘imperialism’ supported the rise of the Islamic Republic is a complete and utter rewriting of history.
As others have said, the Shah was a key bastion of US control in the region, along with Israel, and received even more in terms of aid and military hardware from the US than Israel did.
The huge oil reserves in Iran, its strategic location close to the Soviet Union, meant that the toppling of the Shah by an virulently anti-American regime was a disaster for the US. It is why they have done their utmost to isolate and destabilise the regime ever since, first with their role in fomenting the Iran-Iraq war, and latterly with sanctions and the demonisation of the regime under Ahmadinejad.
Any socialist who can’t see that is the equivalent to those Iraqi Communists who joined the Coalition Provisional Authority set up by the US in Iraq in 2003.
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
#108
fair enough JOhn
I should have made myself clearer, I can see that your interpreation was a reasonable one from what i wrote originally.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
#120
“Any socialist who can’t see that is the equivalent to those Iraqi Communists who joined the Coalition Provisional Authority set up by the US in Iraq in 2003.”
That is a very harsh judgement against the Communist party of Iraq, who never supported the invasion, but who made a tactical judgement that participating in the political structures that arose after the invasion was the best way of promoting the political interests of the working class, women and national and religious minorities. The CPI remain the largest political force organising on a non-sectional basis. Now you may disagree with them, but thay are no friends of imperialism nor of capitalism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Sandy - Out of interest, how do you view those ‘clerics’ of the Catholic Church who fought side by side with communists against US funded right wing regimes in Central and Latin America during the sixties and seventies?
The point is that every religion throws up its progressives and reactionaries. The Catholic Church has prodeced apologists for fascism as well as the practioners of liberation theology. Why then is Islam unique, in your view, in only producing reactionary movemements.
John
To suggest similarity between liberation theology of the 60s and 70s with Political Islam in Iran or elsewhere is grotesque. Political Islam is not so much a liberation theology but rather an enslavement theology
Political Islam is anti communist and anti human. It has no progressive content. It hates democratic rights. Political Islam has been promoted by imperialism. this was not the case with liberation theology. Also the 60s and 70s were times of working class advance. that was the spirit of the age. since the mid 70s things have been very different. no time to discuss that now
I suppose you could view the Mujaheddin in Iran as a Islamic form of liberation theology but look what happened to them in recent years. A cult . But then again what has happened to liberation theology in south America.
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Sandy
“Political Islam” simply means those people whose political worldview is informed from Islam, for example Malcolm X and Salma yaqoob.
When you say “Political Islam in Iran or elsewhere is grotesque” you are clearly verging into outright Islamophobia.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Sandy - #123 This is nothing more than a form of Islamophobia, which in essence abandons the millions of people who’ve suffered on the front lines against western intervention and imperialism, much of it involving our own government.
The Palestinians of Gaza who welcomed with joy and open arms the Viva Palestina aid convoy a few months ago, are they anti human, Sandy?
The Lebanese whose country was pummelled by the Israelis, backed by our own country, are they anti-human too?
If this dehumanisation of colonised peoples for the crime of worshipping a ‘lesser’ God is socialism, then I’m ashamed to be one.
Comment by John Wight — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
You should be ashamed of claiming to be one with all the nationalist tosh you produce
The movement known as political Islam is anti working class and anti human. Political Islam is not the same thing as islam but maybe you dont know the difference
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/PoliticalIslam.html
Political Islam
Samir Amin shines much needed light on a dimly understood phenomenon
by Samir Amin
<
http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/PoliticalIslam.html
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism
by Samir Amin
All the currents that claim adherence to political Islam proclaim the “specificity of Islam.” According to them, Islam knows nothing of the separation between politics and religion, something supposedly distinctive of Christianity. It would accomplish nothing to remind them, as I have done, that their remarks reproduce, almost word for word, what European reactionaries at the beginning of the nineteenth century (such as Bonald and de Maistre) said to condemn the rupture that the Enlightenment and the French Revolution had produced in the history of the Christian West!
On the basis of this position, every current of political Islam chooses to conduct its struggle on the terrain of culture—but “culture” reduced in actual fact to the conventional affirmation of belonging to a particular religion. In reality, the militants of political Islam are not truly interested in discussing the dogmas that form religion. The ritual assertion of membership in the community is their exclusive preoccupation. Such a vision of the reality of the modern world is not only distressing because of the immense emptiness of thought that it conceals, but it also justifies imperialism’s strategy of substituting a so-called conflict of cultures for the one between imperialist centers and dominated peripheries. The exclusive emphasis on culture allows political Islam to eliminate from every sphere of life the real social confrontations between the popular classes and the globalized capitalist system that oppresses and exploits them. The militants of political Islam have no real presence in the areas where actual social conflicts take place and their leaders repeat incessantly that such conflicts are unimportant. Islamists are only present in these areas to open schools and health clinics. But these are nothing but works of charity and means for indoctrination. They are not means of support for the struggles of the popular classes against the system responsible for their poverty.
On the terrain of the real social issues, political Islam aligns itself with the camp of dependent capitalism and dominant imperialism.
http://monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Enemy number one for imperialism in the region would be the working class IF IT WAS CLASS-CONSCIOUS AND REVOLUTIONARY. The trouble is, this is far from certain. It is a little like saying that enemy number one of the Roman Empire was the slave class - yet, 99% of the time, it did not rebel, it even kept the system functioning through its toil and non-rebellion against its lot etc. (How typical was Spartacus?)
Comment by Faust — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
sandy/anonymous
So you can find one article that supports your personal definition of “political islam”, incidently an article informed by the implicitly chauvinist euro-centric view that the secularist traditions of the French revolution are normative - notwithstanding the Egytian origins and third world location of the author.
There is indeed a strand of political thought informed by Islam that is reactionary and accomodating to imperialism, such as the house of Saud. But this is a much richer political phenomenon than you are acknowledging; indeed we can see the degree to which the genuine mass popular character of the these movement leads them to have a very contradictory social impact.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Faust
Since 1917 the ruling class has been conscious that it can lose power to the working class. Hence the granting of universal suffurage in the centres of working class power and the concession re the welfare state. The Iranian working class were on the move in 1978/79. The imperialist powers knew this. They have intelligent leaders ( unlike the chancers, buffoons and jokers that are foisted on the British left) and they knew what had to be done. the problem is not the working class failing to act but that the leadership and structures foisted on the working class by the ruling class is often strong enough to hold the working class back and permit counter revolution to succeed
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Sandy
#131
you are living in a fantasy world.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
In the meantime there are mass demonstrations reported in southern Tehran’s workers districts. I’m sure they’d be fascinated by these illuminating discussions. Comrades for goodness sake show a little dignity.
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
http://www.marxist.com/
Iran: how can the movement go forward?
By Alan Woods Thursday, 18 June 2009
What we are witnessing in Iran is a full-blown popular revolution. However, in order to set its stamp on the movement, the working class must participate in the front line. The movement will stand or fall to the degree that the working class is able to lead it.
“Prise de la Bastille” (”The storm of the Bastille”). Painting by Jean-Pierre Louis Laurent Houel.”Prise de la Bastille” (”The storm of the Bastille”). Painting by Jean-Pierre Louis Laurent Houel.On July 14 1789, a force of nearly 1000 Parisians stormed the Bastille, a medieval prison now used to hold political prisoners. When he heard about the attack, King Louis XVI asked “Is it a revolt?” “No sire,” said a nearby noble, “It is a revolution.”
Slowly but surely the reality is dawning on western commentators that what we are witnessing in Iran is not merely a riot or a protest movement. It is a full-blown popular revolution. Slowly but surely the same frightening thought is penetrating the heads of even the most obtuse reactionaries in the regime of Teheran.
Those most frightened of all of the idea of revolution are the men who are theoretically leading it. Yesterday Mousavi called on people not to demonstrate “in order to save their lives”. The result was another day of street protests. Today he is calling on the demonstrators to go to the mosques today “to mourn the people killed on Monday”. This is a transparent attempt to get people off the streets and take the steam out of the mass movement. But for now the movement shows no signs of running out of steam.
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
well here come the working class:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jlF2qQnmRZb4ZmwVl0poEXAkSPaQ
Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
I don’t know about Iran, but in Turkey, of which I do have knowledge, it isn’t the working class or the inhabitants of the impoverished city neighbourhoods who have a sophisticated command of the English language, Twitter and the Internet. Students, some of them consciously socialist, might. So might “Orange revolution” types, but let us not confuse that kind of thing with Russia 1917, or even Iran 1979.
Actually, Western lefties have repeatedly come unstuck about turmoil in other countries and cultures, and have often misinterpreted it. I am going out on a limb too by comparing Iran and Turkey, but they are at least neighbours with some cultural and social similarities.
Comment by Faust — 18 June, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
#135: “Chanting “Peace be upon (Prophet) Mohammed and his family”, the protesters marched in southern Tehran and were expected to be joined by Mousavi, the witnesses said.”
Presumably the ultra left idiots of the Worker Communist Party of Iran will be down there to set the deluded workers straight.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 18 June, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
And how is telling people to go to the mosques an attempt to get them off the streets? You have to go onto the street to go to the mosque and go back onto the street to leave it.
It is true that mosques are not ideal places to distribute “The State And Revolution”. What Mousavi is probably trying to do is to keep it Islamic. Remember, tomorrow is a Friday. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. It might be easier then to weigh the secular/religious content of what is going on.
Comment by Faust — 18 June, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Open letter to Mir-Hossein Mousavi
by Maziar Razi of the Iranian Revolutionary Marxists’ Tendency.
Thursday, 18 June 2009 (extract)
Mr Mir-Hossein Mousavi
“Many of the youth of Iran have taken part in the tenth presidential election of the ‘Islamic Republic’ and have voted for you as their preferred candidate. But this was a forced choice. This is because the four election candidates, including you, have in fact been selected by the Guardian Council. There is no doubt, that if the election had been free from the beginning, and that candidates from different tendencies in society, including workers’ representatives (like Mansour Osanloo who is today behind bars because of defending freedom and the right to form an independent trade union) could take part; the votes of the majority of toiling people and the youth would have belonged to him and not to the likes of you….”
“The first question that the youth, who are today being intimidated and threatened by Ahmadinejad’s government, put to you is this: why didn’t you complain about the undemocratic nature of the election earlier?”
In full at:-
http://www.marxist.com/open-letter-to-mir-hossein-mousavi.htm
In Persian at:-
http://www.marxist.com/open-letter-to-mousavi-persian.htm
Comment by prianikoff — 18 June, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
As an addendum to #139:
Have any of the British leftists who have appeared on Press TV ever tried to mention the case of Mansour Osanloo, or other imprisoned Iranian Trade unionists?
Have they ever raised the question of the executions of those accused of sexual transgression against state-religious morality?
I’ve personally seen George Galloway & Yvonne Ridley of Respect and Richard Seymour & Dave Crouch of the SWP participating in various programmes on the channel.
I don’t necessarily regard such participation as wrong, but there silence on such issues implies that they’ve sacrificed their political independence in order to gain publicity.
Comment by prianikoff — 18 June, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
good article
sandy
Weekly Worker
774 Thursday June 18 2009
[CONTENT DELETED - DON’T CUT AND PASTE ESSAYS. IF YOU WANT TO QUOTE AN ARTICLE JUST PROVIDE A LINK]
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
“its the fact that you spent most of the Israeli assault on Gaza having a go at the SWP and are spending most of this momentous event trying to discredit Galloway.”
You call yourself Observation though “Stalking” might be more appropriate. Your obbo rating though is quite poor. I spent most of the time of the Israeli assault marching and mobilising against the Israeli attack (though in the course of this I wasn’t prepared to overlook an outright antisemitic statement through a megaphone by an SWP member- and raised it on this forum at the time)
As for how I’m spending my time during this “momentous event” - well thinking, learning and, on the basis of what Ahmadinejad has been saying and doing over the years, and the fact that there are masses involved in popular demonstrations demanding freedom and democracy, supporting that people’s movement and rejecting Galloway’s cynical and predictable attempt to defend the current regime.
Unfortuntely Galloway still seems to have a hold over the Respect movement and, for the good of that movement and the left as a whole, it is no bad thing if that view and its holder are discredited.
Does Ahmedinejad’s regime provide the context in which left wing, liberatory and working class movements can breathe, or is the context of a popular revolt much more conducive to this? (answering that question shouldn’t take socialists too long)
And look at how the regime is protecting itself - like the Israeli state at the time of Gaza - with bullets and media blackouts.
Now Galloway may still want to cling to a regime that arrests trade unionists and democrats on May Day, oppresses ethnic and sexual minorities, enforces restrictions on women’s lives andwelcomes holocaust deniers, but i would hope that even those who have been politically close to him will want to make a bit of distance at this time.
Yes Galloway admits that Ahmadinejad’s views on the Holocaust are a disgrace but he doesn’t ask where they come from or what purpose they serve. He just treats them as random thoughts that slipped out his mouth for no reason.
I’m hoping to get to the HOPI meeting in London on Saturday where two speakers I have long had a lot of time for - the secular socialist Yassamine Mather and veteran Israeli anti-Zionist Moshe Machover are speaking. and I reckon that it will be more enlightening that the apologetics by Galloway and Observation.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 18 June, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
As I have commented elsewhere, Ahmadinejad’s personal views on Holocaust denial or his motivations are irrelevant. The fact is by inviting David Duke and Robert Faurrisson to Iran he has given international credibility to what in the West have been marginal and discredited far-right race supremacists. Throughout the Arab and Muslim world those who have no idea about Duke’s KKK connections now believe him to be an important dissenter, whose views are suppressed by a Jewish/Zionist conspiracy. That is one person’s doing. I hope he’s swept from power.
Comment by apollo — 18 June, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZV3p5KyEi0
Comment by Eddie Truman — 18 June, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
105- I think its a mistake to lump together the act of shopping other leftists to the secret police and that of resisting Saddam’s invasion.
The war from Iran’s point of view became unjustfied once the invasion has been repulsed, and imperialism was happy to see both sides slaughter each other, but should Iranian socialists simply have stood by while the invasion took place?
Comment by Armchair — 18 June, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
#140
How utterly ridiculous. I have appeared on british state broadcaster, BBC Tv and radio several times, but never tried to raise off topic criticisms of the UK government. That simply isn;t the way the world works, not the way broadcasting or journalism works
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 June, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
145
I think it was part of the mistakes made by sections of iranian left- feydaeen majority in particular- to support a ban on strikes during the iran/ iraq war and to adopt a defensive position on the war. I dont think it was correct to adopted a “defensive” position re this war. Both sides were reactionary and anti working class. However informing on other leftists is far worse I would agree. The problem was that large sections of the left tried to provide a left cover for this anti working class regime by playing up its alledged anti imperialist character. Eventually they paid a terrible price for this mistake and the working class in iran is still paying the price
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 June, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
#147 Sandy thinks that after Iraq, at the behest of the US, invaded Iran in retribution for the 1979 revolution that leftists should adopt a neutral position.
Sandy, you just make yourself look stupid.
Just as well that nobody has invaded Byres Road eh Sandy, the Glasgow intellectual left wouldn’t be interested.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 18 June, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
http://communiststudents.org.uk/2009/06/both-shifts-at-iran-khodro-on-strike-now/
Iran Khodro workers have gone on strike against repression.
Comment by Chris S — 18 June, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Sandy- but one of the alternative Iranian left positions was to ignore the question of imperialism and act as if the revolution had never taken place. THe fact is that although the clerical rgime had hijacked the revolution, imperialism was still hostile to it.
Reagan may have welcomed the fact that Khomeini rewarded the Tudeh and the Fedayeen Majority by turning on them, but that did not mean that US imperialism felt that the loss they had suffered from the overthrow of the Shah’s regime had been put right again.
The point is that while it isnt a simple question of Imperialist bad / Anti Imperialist good , nor is it a question of all reactionaries on one side and the working class on the other.
On a different point, why isn’t Chavez getting the same bile as GG? I know they’re not in the same league, but their position on this issue seems to be pretty similar.
Comment by Armchair — 18 June, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Armchair #150: “why isn’t Chavez getting the same bile as GG? I know they’re not in the same league, but their position on this issue seems to be pretty similar.”
Indeed.
The overthrow of Ahmadinejad would be a major gain for imperialism, and a defeat for the anti-imperialist forces on a global scale. Hugo Chavez- the best socialist leader we have seen in this century so far- clearly has no doubt about this.
By the way. It’s remarkable that the Western media reported another recent election result in the Middle East- that in Lebanon- as a defeat for Hezbollah and its allies & a victory for the pro-Western forces- with no protests about the result being fixed, etc, etc.
Hezbollah + allies won a majority of the popular vote in Lebanon. But the gerrymandered Lebanese electoral system gave the pro-Western paties a majority in the Lebanese parliament.
Where was the outrage in the Western press about this disgraceful violation of the wishes of the Lebanese people?
Nowhere to be seen.
Comment by Noah — 19 June, 2009 @ 12:48 am
Has it ever crossed your minds that Iran is not anti-imperialist but is trying to build itself up to being the next imperial power? An Egyptian friend bangs on about Islam’s lost glory as an empire. We used to rule half the world, she says. Hmm.
Comment by apollo — 19 June, 2009 @ 7:10 am
#146 Come on! I was hardly arguing that British lefties appearing on PressTV should use the opportunity to divert every programme they appear on into a criticism of Iranian State policy. There is such a thing as diplomacy and simple common sense!
But. are you really saying that the British left doesn’t try to raise its concerns about the BBC’s editorial content? It happens all the time; via the NUJ, via the employment of “radical journalists” and in the limited open debates on TV and Radio.
Press TV also has relatively open debates and phone-in programmes, in which some of these questions might be aired. As yet, I’ve not heard any of the people I mentioned doing so.
I’d add that I also heard Jorge Martin of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign speaking on Press TV during the attack on Gaza. But unlike the people I mentioned above, the IMT has a consistent position of not giving any political support to the Islamic Republic. I don’t think the fact that it recruited one of the most prominent Iranian Trotskyists, Maziar Razi, from the wreckage of the USEC’s disastrous split over the Iranian Revolution is any accident.
Comment by prianikoff — 19 June, 2009 @ 8:13 am
A bit of necessary historical background to the current situation in Iran, using extracts from the Iranian Workers’ Solidarity Network’s Handbook. (see the reference below)
These show how Khomeini and the Iranian Clerics used empty anti-imperialist rhetoric to undermine the workers councils (Shoras) which developed during the Iranian Revolution.
Much of the Iranian left, especially the relatively insignificant Iranian CP (Tudeh Party) and their more numerous allies in the Fedayeen Majority, became complicit in Khomeini’s campaign. Despite this, they too fell victims to the ensuing repression.
The main lesson of this period, from 1978 to the early 80’s which has continuing relevance to current discussions about Iran is that:-
“the workers’ movement had not managed to utilise the opportunities provided by the post-revolutionary balance of forces to build a nation-wide independent organisation.”
“..the only way the working class could have competed with the clerical leaders in winning over the mass of the urban poor to its side was by creating a powerful national organisation capable of fighting for the demands of all the oppressed. As it turned out, the failure of the shora movement to involve itself with issues such as housing and employment for all allowed the clerical demagogues to win over important sections of the poor and even to mobilise them against the working class.”
Khomeini and the mullahs developed a strategy to subvert the shoras and replace them with tame “Islamic shoras”.
This was achieved by a combination of religious and nationalist demagogy and force. The occupation of the US embassy provided the theatrical backdrop to build the repressive forces the clerics needed to take on the workers movement.
“…empty anti-imperialist demagogy was a good course to take to divert attention from the very real anti-capitalist dynamic that was rapidly developing.”
“Workers and peasants who were striking daily at the bases of the ruling class were now called upon to abandon that fight and concentrate all their efforts on carrying out what Khomeini called “the second and the more important revolution against the Great Satan”. What this meant in practice was to participate in daily mobilisations around the US Embassy to hear various pro-regime figures hail “Imam’s anti-imperialist line” and pass resolutions condemning the previous regime and supporting the CIR. (Council of the Islamic Revolution) The “Imam” himself called on everybody to stop “all strikes and other disturbances” whilst this “great second revolution” is going on.”
“…under the cover of “mobilising the army of 20 millions” supposedly to fight the Great Satan, the armed instruments of the clerical rule were enormously strengthened. This reinforcement greatly helped the regime in crushing many movements of protests. ”
“After a few months of “the anti-imperialist revolution”, the repressive forces had gathered enough steam for the regime to launch a new wave of terror.
First of all, university campuses which were now dominated by the left were occupied by the regime to carry out “an Islamic Cultural Revolution against the pro-Western academics”.
Many militant students were brutally murdered and thousands arrested.
Secondly, a new offensive was launched against the Kurds. This was much more ruthless than before and relied mostly on the new hezbollahi armed groups than the regular army. Thirdly, open moves to shut down independent shoras and arrest their leaders began.
The leaders of the oil workers were arrested and their shora was’ liquidated. The Union of Revolutionary Islamic Shoras was declared illegal and many of its leaders arrested. The National Railways’ Shora was made to suffer the same fate. Centres of independent Shoras in Arak, Ghazvin, Shiraz and Tehran were all occupied and closed down.
The right of workers to a share of profits was abolished. Wage increases were declared illegal and any manager found guilty of disobeying this new decree was to face imprisonment.
A new code of conduct for the Islamic Shoras was also passed by the CIR which in effect put a legal end to any possibility of forming an openly independent shora.
This was the context in which, in late September 1980, the Iraqi invasion took place. This posed a new decisive test for the workers’ movement. ”
“The wave of terror unleashed by the Islamic Regime in June and July of 1981 led rapidly to a severe setback for the revolutionary mass movement and a total takeover of all the post-revolutionary institutions by the reactionary bourgeois-clerical faction which had been preparing for this ever since the insurrection. The main forces of the left were not prepared for this counter-revolutionary onslaught. ”
“The collaborators - led by the Tudeh Party(Iranian CP) and their Aksariyat fellow travellers continued to support the regime of “militant Muslims”, claiming that it was “anti-imperialist”. They denounced the opposition to this terror as “an imperialist plot”. In fact, they collaborated with the repressive apparatus in providing information about the left which led to the arrest and execution of thousands of militants. Under these circumstances, it was clear that their continued support for the regime could only mean active collaboration with the repressive forces of the state. It did not take a long time before they became inseparable from instruments such as the Pasdaran Army, the Islamic Anjomans, the Basij Corps, the Hezbollahi thugs, the Imam’s Committees, etc. Their members were leading interrogation teams in Evin Jail and training hezbollahi torturers on how to extract information from left activists.”
“Large sections of the left made the costly mistake of tail-ending the Mojahedin Organisation. The Mojahedin, contrary to all their later claims, had always been aiming for a share in power with what they now call “the reaction”. Their main tactic for achieving this had been to appease the regime as a whole on the one hand (only one month before this wave of terror their leader had begged “the father of the revolution”, meaning Khomeini, to grant him an audience) and to try to gain a foothold within the regime by gaining the support of a section of the clergy and the army on the other hand. Taken aback with the terror, the Mojahedin’s reaction was now to change course and to push for a rapid takeover of power from above through the combined action of their own “militia” and the promised support from a faction within the regime who had aligned itself with the “President” and the “Chief of the Armed Forces”, Mr. Bani Sadr. ”
“The consequence of this policy is now history. The most important sections of the so-called “liberal” faction within the apparatus of power joined in the terror campaign and the Mojahedin leadership’s desperate attempt at “armed resistance” led to the loss of over 10 thousands of their own rank and file and provided the justification for the clergy to intensify the terror even further.
The larger part of the left went down with the Mojahedin without having enough time to realise what was happening and to reorganise itself. The forces of counter revolution were greatly strengthened. Having tested the balance of forces, the reactionary regime pushed for a final, decisive blow against all the remaining manifestations of the revolutionary movement.
Less than a year later the Tudeh and Aksariyat collaborators themselves came under the gun. They were no longer needed. They had served their masters well in suppressing the revolutionary movement. It was now their turn to have a taste of their own medicine. It was only then that they decided to go into “opposition”! Even then, it must be said, it took them another year to actually denounce the regime!
The salient result of this period was the almost total destruction of all the independent organisations of the masses, including the workers Shoras. Arrests en masse and the summary executions of thousands of known militants followed suit. The situation deteriorated so rapidly that before the third anniversary of the February 1979 insurrection, none of the major gains of the revolution had remained intact.
In the face of this setback, opportunists of all colours - who had in fact either deliberately covered up or constantly underestimated the counter-revolutionary potential of the clerical regime and its petty-bourgeois shock troops and who were responsible for the unpreparedness of the revolutionary movement - claimed that their main error was to “overestimate the capacities” of the Iranian working class!
The events of the last five years have, however, shown that they were just as mistaken about the working class as they were about the “militant Muslim leaders”. The working class remains, despite the ever increasing repression, the only major social force of opposition to the counter revolution. ”
Published by Iranian Workers’ Solidarity Network (IWSN)
London, 2009.
BM IWSN, London WC1N 3XX, England.
www.iwsn.org
iranwsn@fastmail.fm
Comment by prianikoff — 19 June, 2009 @ 10:46 am
#151 the gerrymandered Lebanese electoral system gave the pro-Western paties a majority
Shouldn’t that be patsies? More seriously, yes it is an outrage that the ethnic and sectarian gerrymandering of Lebanon is never challenged, but just because some of the opposition in Iran have pro-Western ideas doesn’t mean Western socialists should support any government that shows some opposition to Western imperialism.
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:55 am
On the subject of the way journalism works, I was interviewed on the BBC World Service live some years ago and took the opportunity to mention a protest due to take place.
An hour later, my interview was rebroadcast but the reference to the protest had been edited out.
Comment by Faust — 19 June, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
A 1980 issue of the now defunct US magazine “Problems Of Communism” devoted much of its space to the Iranian left, just as it was being subjected to major repression by the Khomeini supporters. The front cover showed women militants of the Mojahedin e-Khalq (People’s Mojahedin) practising on a firing range. The article seemed to have been written a little before, as it went into the alleged similarities between radical Shi’a Islam and Marxism, not really taking account of the turn towards savage repression of the left. (I think that magazine appeared every two months and so had trouble reflecting very recent developments.) It gave detailed descriptions of the Mojahedin, the Fedayeen and Tudeh, but the agenda seemed to be to work the Iranian Revolution into the Red Threat From The Evil Empire, even though that interpretation did major violence to what was really happening.
Comment by Faust — 19 June, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
An idea can be the most powerful thing, espeacly when the idea is to crush the hand that holds you down, For Neda the street where she was shot this street should be named Neda Street, and may all justice show light. USA and Britain watch with their diplomacy and china and russia shake hands with scum of the earth, our aryan homeland has been taking, we must take it back and be rid of the ayatollahs for good. free iran to all persains, for Neda and Cyrus the Great take our aryan land back..
Comment by Rosheen, — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:56 am