IRAN IN THE CROSSHAIRS
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 dealt a severe setback to the strategic and geopolitical interests of the West, in particular the United States and Israel. Indeed, ever since a nationalist government led by Mohammad Mossadegh was removed from power in a coup orchestrated by the US and British governments in 1953, Iran had been a vital strategic asset in maintaining control of the region, both in terms of its location within striking distance of the Soviet Union and its vast reserves of oil.
In this part of the world the experience of the vast majority of people with regard to the West and so-called western values since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire has been one of occupation, colonisation, expropriation, humiliation, and puppet dictatorships. The emergence of political Islam in recent years as the dominant ideology in resistance to the aforementioned is a reflection of the fear in which the West held Soviet influence in the region during the height of the Cold War, a fear responsible for western intelligence services actively aiding and abetting the purging of the left in the region by its various client regimes, including Iran under the Shah.
With the destruction of leftist resistance movements throughout the Middle East, political Islam emerged to fill the vacuum, providing not just organised resistance, but also an alternative set of social and cultural values to those associated with their oppressor. In effect, the emergence of political Islam was a reflex against modernity, combining religious doctrine with anti-imperialism in a heady mix which has wrought much confusion among leftists and progressives in the West over how to relate to and engage with it.
To be sure, the tragedy of the 1979 revolution in Iran was the purging and near total destruction of the Iranian left in its aftermath by the clerics and their supporters. This was an especially cruel fate given the significant role it played alongside followers of the Ayatollah in toppling the hated Shah.
Thirty years on, then, is it any wonder that voices emanating from the left in Iran are calling for support for the opposition, led by former prime minister Mir Houssein Mousavi, against Mahmoud Ahamdinejad in the aftermath of the disputed election result which returned the current incumbent to power?
As with most seismic events and political upheavals, however, history provides us with a parallel. Just after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a section of the Iraqi Communist Party decided to cooperate with the US-led occupation. They took up seats in the organ of the interim colonial administration, the Coalition Provisional Authority. After decades of repression suffered under Saddam, perhaps it is no surprise that they would do so. Nevertheless, it was a gargantuan blunder, one which effectively ruined their credibility forevermore among the vast majority of Iraqi people.
Likewise, in the West, whenever we find ourselves on the same side as the US State Department and the British Foreign Office when positioning ourselves on the internal affairs of a nation lying in the crosshairs of military intervention, alarm bells should automatically be set ringing.
Thus far no hard evidence has been produced proving that electoral fraud on anything like the scale suggested took place in Iran. Combined with a distinct lack of analysis of the social forces involved on either side of this dispute, this has led to many voices within the international left being raised in support of an opposition movement led by a section of the Iranian establishment motivated by sectional economic interests. It is a movement driven by students and Iran’s more affluent middle class.
That such a powerful and determined movement has erupted should come as no surprise. After all, history teaches us that the more privileged layers of a given society are every bit as capable of taking to the streets to struggle for their interests as the working class and the poor, especially in the wake of an election that doesn’t go their way. In this regard the examples of Chile in 1973 and Venezuela in 2002 spring to mind.
Moreover, however much we might wish it weren’t so the geopolitical context in which this crisis is unfolding cannot be cast aside or derided as naivety on the part of those who choose to factor it into their analysis.
The regime led by Ahmadinejad is neither socialist nor even progressive in many of its aspects. But in its resistance to US hegemony, in its material aid to Arab resistance against Israeli expansionism, it certainly plays a progressive role both regionally and globally
Indeed, Ahmadinejad’s first port of call after the election was a regional summit in Russia, where the heads of state of Russia, China, and four ex-Soviet republics met to push forward plans to forge closer ties under the rubric of a rival trade, security, and energy bloc to the current monolithic US and NATO led equivalent. It is such actions that have ensured him the undying enmity of the West.
Internally, since coming to power in 2005, the Iranian president has oriented towards the rural and urban poor and the lowest strata of the Iranian working class, attempting to bolster their meagre position with state subsidies in the form of cheap food, fuel, and other necessities. He’s also increased public sector wages, pensions and provided cheap loans in an attempt to stimulate the Iranian economy from below. The aforementioned must be viewed in the context of a national economy which is made up of the state ownership of an advanced energy and a smaller manufacturing sector, alongside a private sector which has suffered in recent years due primarily but not exclusively to a lack of private investment. Such a state of affairs is largely a consequence of the sanctions imposed on Iran by the West.
Interestingly, that bible of international capital, Forbes magazine, recently had this to say about Ahmadinejad’s economic policies: ‘Ahmadinejad has not shown many signs of economic skill during his four-year term, plowing money into food and fuel subsidies to please his support base of rural voters, and using gimmicky hand-outs like free shares of privatized companies to redistribute wealth.’’
The use of the word ‘gimmicky’ to describe an attempt at wealth redistribution is certainly apropos in the pages of Forbes magazine.
Economically, Iran has a GDP of $842 million (July 2008 est), which spread over a population of just under 70 million translates to a per capita GDP of $12,800. The only export commodity of note is oil, hence the need to manufacture nuclear power for domestic consumption in order to maximise the nation’s ability to obtain hard currency. That Iran may also be harnessing its development of nuclear power for military means has seen it exist under the very real threat of military attack from the US and Israel over recent years. With the example of the devastation visited on Iraq next door still fresh, the external pressure this has placed on the Iranian government and Iranian society cannot be underestimated when taking stock of recent events.
As for the opposition, its figurehead, Mousavi, represents the moderate wing of the Iranian ruling elite. He’s former prime minister and a member of Iran’s Expediency Council, which arbitrates in disputes between the government and the theocratic Guardian Council. Though a declared supporter of Iran’s nuclear programme, Mousavi has also voiced support for what he describes as ‘more pragmatic relations with the West’, in the hope of lifting the sanctions and increasing foreign investment. This, along with his proposed reduction of the public sector and an increase in privatisation, is designed to reduce inflation, which currently stands at around 15 percent.
Such differences in economic policy between the rival candidates reflects a schism within the Iran’s ruling elite, split between those who represent the middle class and the more affluent sectors of society, the so-called reformers, and those, personified by Ahmadinejad, which represents the interests of the poorer sectors, particularly in rural areas. Of course, in a social and political crisis no such division between the sides involved is ever black and white or simplistic. There will be supporters of Mousavi and the opposition among the rural poor and urban working class, and vice versa. But in general terms the analysis holds.
Too, it is well nigh certain that not all of the protesters who’ve been on the streets confronting the state in recent days have been motivated by economic factors – or at least not solely by economic factors – or indeed support for Mousavi. Within their ranks are undoubtedly many who see this as the opportunity to challenge the very foundations of the Islamic Republic, determined to end the political, social, and cultural restrictions which are part of daily life in Iran, ushering in a new system of government altogether.
Women’s rights in particular have come under the microscope within the Islamic Republic. In the Iranian Constitution, the passage on the role of women reads thus:
‘Through the creation of Islamic social infrastructures, all the elements of humanity that served the multifaceted foreign exploitation shall regain their true identity and human rights. As a part of this process, it is only natural that women should benefit from a particularly large augmentation of their rights, because of the greater oppression that they suffered under the old regime.
The family is the fundamental unit of society and the main center for the growth and edification of human being. Compatibility with respect to belief and ideal, which provides the primary basis for man’s development and growth, is the main consideration in the establishment of a family. It is the duty of the Islamic government to provide the necessary facilities for the attainment of this goal. This view of the family unit delivers woman from being regarded as an object or instrument in the service of promoting consumerism and exploitation. Not only does woman recover thereby her momentous and precious function of motherhood, rearing of ideologically committed human beings, she also assumes a pioneering social role and becomes the fellow struggler of man in all vital areas of life. Given the weighty responsibilities that woman thus assumes, she is accorded in Islam great value and nobility.’
Women were active participants in the Revolution that toppled the Shah. Most activists were professional women of the secular middle classes, from among whom political antagonists to the regime had long been recruited. Like their male counterparts, these women had nationalist aspirations and were in opposition to the Shah as a puppet of the United States. Some women also participated in the guerrilla groups, especially the Mujahedin and the Fadayan. More significant were the large numbers of working class women in the cities who participated in street demonstrations during the latter half of 1978 and early 1979. They responded to the call of Khomeini that it was necessary for all Muslims to demonstrate their opposition to tyranny.
Following the Revolution the status of women changed. The main social group to inherit political power– the traditional middle class - valued most highly the traditional role of women in a segregated society. Accordingly, laws were enacted to restrict the role of women in public life; these laws affected primarily women of the secularized middle and upper classes. The attire of women became a major issue. Although it was not mandated that women who had never worn a chador would have to wear this garment, it was required that whenever women appeared in public they had to have their hair and skin covered, except for the face and hands. The law has been controversial among secularised women, although for the majority of women, who had worn the chador even before the Revolution, the law had only a negligible impact.
No democracy is without its imperfections. Under the Islamic Republic Iranians, no matter where they happen to live throughout the world, have the right to vote in elections. Women are debarred from standing for office, which is certainly regressive in itself. However, this differs from democratic elections in the West only in the sense that debarment here is based on economic status rather than gender. In effect this ensures that only the wealthy within western societies have any meaningful chance of holding high office.
Furthermore, while women in the US and Britain can stand for election, even sit at the heads of their respective governments, the reality is that both of the aforementioned nations have been responsible for depriving women throughout the Middle East and beyond of a far more fundamental right – namely the right not to be slaughtered or see their families slaughtered in the cause of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.
The opposition movement in Iran is not supported by the vast majority of the population. Evidence for this is the fact that there have been no sustained mass rallies across the entire country, no strike action in solidarity with the protesters, nor has there been any obvious split within the armed forces between pro-regime and anti-regime elements.
Significantly, a strong voice in support of the President Ahmadinejad has been that of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, who understands very well the realities involved in resisting the crushing hegemony of US imperialism. He also has hard experience of dealing with a determined domestic opposition backed by the western media, which is able to mobilise thousands of people to take to the streets.
Destabilisation efforts by the US government must also be factored into the equation, specifically the $400 million dollars passed by Congress back in 2007 to fund various initiatives in this regard. Reports of cross border operations into Iran from Iraq and Turkey by US Special Forces, in addition to the funding of internal opposition groups, have emerged in recent years. And surely the decision by the BBC to augment its world service with programming in Farsi back in January is worthy of more than passing interest.
Taken altogether then - the geopolitical context in which this political crisis is unfolding, the economic divisions within the ruling elite and their echo within Iranian society, and Ahmadinejad’s role in countering US hegemony - it is undeniable that the main beneficiaries of what is currently taking place in Iran are presently sitting in Washington, Tel Aviv and London.
Iran indeed is sitting the crosshairs.
Wow. I mean, wow.
John Wight has elevated opposition to ‘hegemony’ to such a level that it becomes the ultimate good in itself, and to hell with anything else. A theocracy in Iran is better than a democratic leftist government because it challenges US hegemony.
John thinks there’s no problem with deliberately oppressing women with legal restrictions, because the capitalist system oppresses everyone anyway. That’s like saying that because the State does violence, there’s no point stopping a mugger beating up an old lady in the street.
Comment by unseen — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:02 am
What happened to the comment by driver that was here before? nothing offensive in it, why was it deleted?
Comment by unseen — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:05 am
“In effect, the emergence of political Islam was a reflex against modernity”
What a ridiculously egocentric interpretation of history.
“There is no such thing as political Islam. There is only Islam.” Osama Saeed, Sept 2007. The only reason this statement is true is because there is no such thing as apolitical Islam.
The Prophet was not only a religious leader, but also a general and a president. For you to frame resurgent Islam as a response to the west is equally as imperialist an interpretation as that put forward by orientalists and neocons. You use the same ridiculous comparisons and arguments, but from the perspective of a left wing myopic rather than a right wing hypermytropic perspective.
Both are wrong.
Islam is its own reason for existence. It is not an option chosen by Muslims for lack of a socialist alternative. Socialism is man made and flawed. From an Islamic perspective it is just as flawed as capitalism. The Prophet was a self employed merchant involved in international trade who understood the benefits and social responsibility that go with wealth. Were society to follow his example, the result would not be socialism.
There were many factors in the decline of the strength of Islam, from the Mongol invasions and destruction of Mutazilah influence through to the Battle of Lepanto and colonialism.
Islam will be here long after socialism, communism and capitalism have gone. Judge it on its own merits. Islam has always been political.
Comment by robert browne — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:05 am
There is no evidence that the current movement in Iran was orchestrated by western imperialism. The comparison with the position of the section of the Iraqi left who decided either to support the invasion of Iraq or participate in an occupation government is therefore entirely specious. Its also true that there is little in the way of solid evidence that this is a revolt of the privilaged on the model of Venezuela beyond the fact that it was widely believed that Ahmedinajad tended to get lots of votes from the poor (in actual fact reformers have historically got just as many votes from the same social layer). It is very unclear at the moment that either the US, London or Tel Aviv are ‘beneficiaries’ of what is going on (particularly as no-one is clear what is going on) and even if they were this would not be evidence that they had orchestrated what was going on. The actual behaviour of the US and the British echo chamber has been such as to suggest that they were unprepared for what transpired. One suspects that most of the major players were, including the Iranian ones. If it should turn out that what occured was somehow triggered by a complicated CIA operation I don’t see how that would a) help us know anything about what the shape and outcome of the present events are or b) what our attitude ought to be to them. I just don’t see how its even an interesting question for the left given that the situation now is unfolding, very obviously, totally out of the control of whoever ‘instigated’ it. I suspect that these events have in any case in the short term put on hold any prospects for military intervention. If in the long term such calls arise then we must opppose them. For the moment the discussion should be what kind of solidarity ought to be given to those facing repression at the hands of the State in Iran.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Rise of The Iranian People
Tracking, reporting and analyzing the movement and events taking place in Iran
http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/
Comment by sandy — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:41 am
Well its also very unclear that the protests are aimed at ending the theocracy. So even in a very interesting interview with participant in a Marxist student group in Tehran in this weeks Socialist Worker, in which the interviewee gives a detailed account (well as detailed as the format will allow) of the history of the Student Movement in Iraq from 1953 onwards, which rather belies the easy and I’d suggest, lazy, stereotypes about students and their attitudes on display here, its made clear that in their opinion the upsurge is not connected to any desire to end the theocracy but for a loosening of controls and more space for autonomous organisation etc. If there is a tendency for many on of us in our speculations to go a bit overboard, what is objectionable about John’s position is that he is actually reproducing a rationale for the actual repression going on here and now, a rationale being used by the regime and being denied by those facing the repression. I spotted a call to reset mobile addresses to Tehran as this apparently jams up the ability of the security services to track down students and bloggers whom they are hunting in the city as we speak. I did’nt know who made the call. It might have been a right wing exile group. It might have been the CIA. It might have been a left wing group. I don’t know. But I spread the message and re-set my phone. And I don’t care who put the call out. Seems like a good idea to me. If intefering in the Irans repressive security apparatuses ability to track down petite bourgoise elements and jail and torture them is a crime against John’s rather strange version of anti-imperialism so be it. I’d encourage everyone else to do the same.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:47 am
That is a perfectly fair comment.
Comment by driver — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:57 am
The situation, as you alluded, is far from simple and straightforward. But, even more importantly, it’s dynamic and in constant flux. What is so dynamic is the make-up of the opposition, the objectives of the opposition and the leadership of the movement that has so suddenly and unexpectedly blossomed.
As far as the facts you cited, I would have to disagree with a couple but especially one which I personally have seen pictures and am sure of: the movement has indeed been national and not just concentrated in the capital. Huge demonstrations - in some cases such as in Isfahan, Shiraz and Tabriz, hundreds of thousands or even a million strong - have taken place in almost all major cities: Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz, Arak, Mashad, Ahvaz, Sari, Babol, Bushehr, Khoramshar, Karaj, Hamadan, Rasht, Sanandaj and many others.
There have been reports of splits in the military brass over whether to fire into the crowd or not. One commander has been fired for not ordering his soldiers to shoot to kill. There have been splits among the top clerics, as well. The daughter of an influential Ayatollah (Rafsanjani) was detained and later released. Other clerics have either announced their support for or have been seen among the demonstrators wearing green - the symbolic color of the movement.
Mousavi who was relatively progressive for a cleric to begin with, under the pressure of the movement is developing along progressive and democratic lines. While he had grievences about and wanted to challenge the election process - and rightly so: the regime has publically acknowledged there were more votes for Ahmadinejad in 50 voting districts than there were residents, though it added it would not have changed the final outcome - he has suddenly and unexpectedly found himself leading a movement for democracy, including equal rights for women. For this reason, he’s been called “an accidental leader” for this movement. Many, including myself, wondered whether under the threats of the regime on the one hand, and fearing that the movement may go “too far”, get “out of hand” and threaten the very foundations of the regime, he would abandon the movement and make peace with the regime, but he did not do so and in fact proclaimed he was going to stand with the people to the very end. He wasn’t just being humble when he said he was learning from the people. It happens to be true.
As for the demands of the uprising, as far as I know, abandoning the role Iran plays in the region or privatization is not among them. Unlike Chile and Venezuela which you mentioned, this is not a revolt by the affluent who feel threatened by a socialist or progressive leader who is going to take from them and give to the poor or who is going to make land reforms or nationalize industries cutting into their profits. It is largely a movement of the middle class who for historic and social/religious reasons is by and large sympathetic to the working class and the poor, but who also feels oppressed. But, more importantly and significantly, this has increasingly grown to be a movement about women’s rights among others. In fact, you can see the presence of women in large numbers in every demonstration demanding equal rights with men. This point alone should make any leftist and progressive think twice before opposing it.
As for the West, you’re absolutely right. I have always said that anytime you find yourself on the same side as the US or other imperialist powers, you should wonder whether you’re on the correct side. But, having said that, I assure you that the US and its European allies are watching closely and will change their position on a dime if the movement grows into a revolution. Because of a long history of colonialism, exploitation and plundering that you also pointed out, and because of the anti-imperialist revolution of 30 years ago, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism still runs high among the population including among the students who are playing a vanguard role in this. They mostly come from middle class and some from working families and are relatively progressive.
Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to form political parties regardless of ideology, freedom to form and join labor unions and freedom to print and publish is not what the US and its allies would like to see in Iran. That would not work in their interests and they have never been for it in any developing country.
But, that’s what can happen if the movement continues and succeeds. If the movement grows into a revolution which finishes the unfinished business of the 1979 revolution, it would create the environment where the left could thrive again and thrive it will. Therefore, long before the movement even gets to the point where these freedoms could be attained, the West will have made a 180 turn. I would not be surprised even to see the West providing the regime with more advanced riot control and spying and communication monitoring equipment. Right now, they want to weaken the regime, but in the absence of a better alternative, namely a puppet regime, they would not want to change it. But, a puppet regime is not within reach now, so they will choose to work with the regime than risk getting something much worse.
As for Israel, Ahmadinejad gives the US and Israel a reason to demonize and attack Iran with his idiotic denial of the holocaust. It’s much harder for the US to attack a democratic Iran with a credible and legitimate leadership. Besides, I don’t think Israel is expecting a pro-imperialist regime to emerge in Iran from this uprising so there is no basis for the assertion that they or the US will be the beneficiaries. What they want is a weak Iran and a reason to attack. They get more of a reason with Ahmadinejad. I’m not saying Ahmadinejad invites an attack by being anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist. I’m only speaking to the point as to what Israel would like to see happen and whether they are the beneficiaries.
As another commentator pointed out, who knows what will emerge and who will be the real beneficiaries. But, one thing is clear, people want freedoms from a theocratic, repressive and fundamentalist regime. Let them win and benefit from that; then we’ll see if Israel or the US will also be beneficiaries which I doubt as I mentioned above.
Besides, Mousavi, as far as I can tell, holds similar views about Israel, imperialism and Palestine and that’s mainly for historical reasons and because of the people.
Also, Ahmadinejad is no Chavez or Allende. In fact, he has expanded the private sector not contracted. Although he has increased public workers’ salaries but those salaries can’t keep up with the rampant inflation.
Ahmadinejad is also a more strict follower of Islam and believes in literal implementation of it in the society. His motives in the region are more for religious rather than social justice or progressive reasons. His administration has been responsible for executing juveniles including a 16 year old girl for being raped by a 55 year old man who only got whipped for his crime unlike his victim who got hanged.
The students who started this movement wanted laws changed; they wanted freedoms, but more and more they’re being driven to the conclusion that what is needed is to change the regime and replace it with a democratic republic and that’s what Mousavi is now warning the regime’s leaders about. If the movement succeeds in its immediate goal of reelection, I would not be surprised if the people pressure the new president for changes in the constitution for more rights and freedoms because what happens in such situations is that people get policized and their level of consciousness and militarims grows. Changing the regime altoghether would then be on the agenda which is why the regime is cracking down so harshly and preventing the news from getting out. Changing the regime would finally finish the unfinished revolution of 30 years ago which accomplished its anti-imperialist objective but got stolen by the religious fundamentalists and stripped of its second major goal, namely the democratic part. People have seen that on the horizon and are not willing to let go.
And finally, how can we, as leftists, ask the Iranian people to tolerate their repressive theocratic regime because its leader is opposing imperialism?
Sako, Los Angeles
Comment by Anonymous — 24 June, 2009 @ 1:33 am
Very interesting Sako. One complaint I have heard is that Mousavi was central to the repression of the 1980s. On the other hand pro-US commentators are complaining that his hand was in the Beirut bombing of US marines. Others say that it doesn’t much matter what the leaders think. The question is the movement. On the other hand this is a not uninteresting piece despite the publisher, which deconstructs the popular class analyses which seems an odd melange of Petras and the State Department (ie the rise of the liberal global middle class with a minus or a plus sign):
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/dabashi.iran.myths/
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 2:04 am
It does occur to me that the media see’s what it wants to see: ie middle class liberals combatting a bunch of ignorent peasents. Then folk turn this upside down and imagine they have an argument. Perhaps its they who have been headfixed rather then those of us disputing the argument. Looking at that footage from the weekend of a large crowd of demonstraters chasing the anti-riot police down the street, I have to say they didn’t look like NGO activists to me. I’ve met a few and they’re not very good at that sort of thing.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 2:28 am
I think it should be noted that of all the comments by Iranian Marxists on MRZine and under Yoshie Furuhashi’s posts on Lenin’s Tomb, not a single one supports her analysis. Speaking for myself, I am interested in building ties with these comrades and not “making the record” that I hate George Soros or Peter Ackerman. There are a number of Iranian Marxists that I have contact with privately as Marxmail subscribers that for obvious reasons do not post publicly. They hold this “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach in total disdain.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 24 June, 2009 @ 2:50 am
Wow, this is the hardcore Kissingerite-of-the-left approach from John Wright. Open, transparent and unashamed. Democracy and human rights second, geopolitics first - one country must be scarified to further your own interests else where, so screw the Iranians.
In a way I think this is courageous; I don’t know if I would have the guts to be that honest.
The thing is, even on your own terms your completely off. It will be much harder for Israel to demonise the reformists in Iran and call for further sanctions and military action, so Iran’s position in the world, and those causes it supports that you judge to be more important than Iranians themselves, will be strengthened. Isn’t that obvious? How can they stop Iran’s nuclear programme when this great movement has swept to power? And not having an open holocaust denier supporting the Palestinians will be much harder to criticise. I’m stunned that people are so stupid that they can not see this. Have you no political brains at all?
Needless to say, the unprecedented protests in Iran since the election, that were banned, show they have huge support. So does the lack of a huge response against them until the weekend. To say that the opposition is opposed by the overwhelming majority is absurd so will not work as coherent propaganda.
Comment by Ed D — 24 June, 2009 @ 3:22 am
The question is, will Iranians and others believe they have to go on living under these regimes simply because of things that happened 30 or 50 years ago? At what period will they be allowed to move on?
Comment by Ed D — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:06 am
Paul Craig Roberts, the beloved of vdarecom and American Renaissance and now PRESS TV, says that the USA is busy subverting Iran.
Can he be right?
Will Baluchistan ever be free? Or Arabistan? Or Greater Kurdistan?
Comment by Bill Corr — 24 June, 2009 @ 6:21 am
One word. Misogyny.
Comment by Apollo — 24 June, 2009 @ 7:04 am
John Wight is the Right. All that talk about family and values and how good it is when women stay in the kitchen is alien to Marxism.
I predict that in two years, Wight is part of David Lindsay’s “mass” party.
Comment by Fabian from Israel — 24 June, 2009 @ 7:54 am
It is becoming increasingly clear that for the likes of John Wight imperialism is simply a rude word for US foreign policy, and its central mechanism is the CIA plot. On this view the central contradiction in the world is between the USA and the other established imperial powers on the one hand, and on the other hand, those countries currently and historically exploited by them - even though the ruling classes and elites of those countries have no perspective of replacing the global system, but only of altering the relative position of their national power-bases within it.
In this view, the masses of the former colonial world have at best a walk-on part, and then only on condition that they are not so ill-mannered as to challenge their own ‘progressive’ or ‘anti-imperialist’ elites.
Where they do, their disruptive and adventurist mass outbursts are a priori reactionary and must therefore by definition be the work of bourgeois minorities and imperialist intelligence agencies. Any ‘evidence’ to the contrary can therefore be dismissed as the propaganda of the imperialist media.
This simple intellectual straight-jacket certainly has the merit of sparing the ossified mental faculties of its adherents from any undue strain. But as it comes into increasing conflict with the unfolding reality of the Iranian people’s resistance, its adherents are driven with increasing desperation to the crudest smears and amalgams.
The claim that the protesters are ‘gilded youth’and ‘privileged’ while the honest toilers of Iran are behind their pious leaders has been refuted here and at Lenin’s Tomb so often that those who persist in repeating it merely discredit themselves. And not one scrap of evidence has been produced to show that the protests are akin to the ‘colour revolutions’ that occurred in ex-Soviet republics, where - partly as a result of people having first-hand experience of John Wight’s brand of ‘socialism’ - there were large sections of the population who took the West’s protestations of democracy at face value, which is clearly not the case in Iran.
There is no point in arguing with a parrot. We can go to Press TV or any other paid mouthpiece of the Teheran regime for the scab lies that John Wight specialises in reproducing - though I dont know why he bothers as a computer could generate it as easily. He has said all he has to say, and his reaction to evidence, counter-argument and refutation is simply to ignore it and repeat himself.
Why does Andy continue to give space to this vicious intellectually dishonest reactionary filth?
Comment by Stephen Marks — 24 June, 2009 @ 9:08 am
I have to say JOhn, that this passage in particular is not consistent with what I know from my Iranian friends:
Under the Shah, the majority of urban women did not wear a hijab, and being forced to cover themselves was deeply resented by many, if not most women. In fact it was middle class women who were least affected, as they had more private space to continue sunbathing and dressing how they pleased in private enclosed gardens and courtyards - this restriction fell hardest upon working class women.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 9:42 am
John Wight’s argument is simply ridiculous. The left should be supporting progressives and human rights. What is happening in Iran is a spontaneous uprising of the people that was sparked off by what was clearly seen to be a fraudulent election. The will of the people was ignored by the ruling clique to impose their own leader against the democratic decision.
The only perverse justification for supporting Khameini and Ahmadinejad at this time for someone on the left would be to look at the country and support the leader who has the most anti-Western rhetoric,irrespective of any other consideration. =
[CONTENT DELETED]
Comment by Mikey — 24 June, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Repulsive.
Iranian Leftists against the Theocracy, British Leftists for it. It’s that old colonial attitude unfortunately: ‘we know best’.
Comment by Henry Dubb — 24 June, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Within their ranks are undoubtedly many who see this as the opportunity to challenge the very foundations of the Islamic Republic, determined to end the political, social, and cultural restrictions which are part of daily life in Iran, ushering in a new system of government altogether.
We can but hope.
As for John W’s geopolitical conspiracism, I’m with johng:
I just don’t see how its even an interesting question for the left given that the situation now is unfolding, very obviously, totally out of the control of whoever ‘instigated’ it.
Strange post.
Comment by Phil — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:07 am
I don’t really agree with John Wight here, but it is a point of view which has somoe currency in the wider left, for example the Cuban, Venezualan and Brazilian governments, and the Chinese CP have all expressed diplomatic solidarity with the Iranian government, and these are countries for whose governments the geo-political relationship between economic and political sovereignty and the global institutions of US hegemony are the most critical factor in their international relations. NOr am i minded to be intimiated out of allowing the debate to continue here by liberal outrage!
John’s position reminds me of this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:15 am
The cause of anti-imperialism is not served by defending the indedfensible.
I understand where John W is coming from, but I bellieve that his view, leaving aside any moral considerations, is ultmately self-defeating.
Chavez is undoubtedly entitled to have a close dimplomatic/ strategic/ economic relationship with Iran, but it does not follow that socialists whoever they are should defend the reactionary policies of the clerical regime.
That also goes for GG, someone I still have massive respect (no pun) for.
It is possible to be 100% against sanctions and military intervention without supporting the regime politically.
Comment by Armchair — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Trots for Theocracy! Yes!
TROTS FOR THECRACY!
When is the t-shirt line coming out?
Comment by OLD TOAD — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:32 am
No democracy is without its imperfections. Under the Islamic Republic Iranians, no matter where they happen to live throughout the world, have the right to vote in elections.
You forgot to mention that if they’re unlucky enough to live within reach of the regime they also have the right to be arrested, detained, unfairly prosecuted, banned from travelling abroad, have their meetings disrupted, be tortured and ill-treated (a practice which is “common and committed with impunity”), and also sentenced to flogging, amputation and stoning for crimes against chastity and such misdemeanours.
But still, no democracy is without its imperfections, eh?
http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iran
Comment by D.B. — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:34 am
This article really is quite shocking in its cold and callous disregard for the misogyny, homophobia and state-imposed theocracy which is the reality of life in Iran.
It’s difficult to agree with an analysis that excuses all of this simply on the basis that the Iranian government is currently unpopular with the US government.
If being at odds with the governments of the US and UK were the only criteria for support - and JohnW seems to argue just that here - then a similar argument, using the same perverse logic, could be constructed for support for nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany oppressed its own people but challenged the existing international status quo - also on occaision using “anti-imperialist” propaganda - so would JohnW have used the above argument in those circumstances too?
Comment by communist — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Again, can I just repeat? It seems to me that what is going on here is that media see’s what it wants to see. That is liberal middle class people rebelling against authoritarian bigotry supported by lower class people. Some people turn this upside down and think they are making a left wing point. However the statistics recounted in this article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/dabashi.iran.myths/
demonstrate pretty convincingly that this picture is IMPOSSIBLE sociologically speaking.
Andy clearly deeply believes that there is some fundemental contradiction between China and US imperialism, and that this is enough to bind the interests of China to some new formation ranging from Russia to Iran to Venezuela (and its this which seems to lead to him incessently quoting the peoples daily as if it was in some sense a left wing or progressive publication). I find this puzzling.
But those on the right who don’t think imperialism matters: could you fuck off please? you are not helping anyone attain clarity.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Well it is an unusual (but dare I say it welcome) experience to agree with everything johng writes.
As for John Wight…your politics may make sense to you but you have clearly lost all vestige of humanity. And although I am not a socialist, I can see that a basic humanity is supposed to underpin all socialist politics. Otherwise what is left?
Comment by Dave Rich — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:16 am
“More significant were the large numbers of lower class women in the cities who participated in street demonstrations during the latter half of 1978 and early 1979. They responded to the call of Khomeini that it was necessary for all Muslims to demonstrate their opposition to tyranny.”
John
Forgive me and I am not deliberately being offensive, but you display yourself as a bit of a middle class twit, by using the term lower class women, if that were not bad enough you portray those WORKING CLASS women of Town and Country who came out onto the street against the Shah as unthinking automatim’s, but portray those middle class women who did much the same, as understanding perfectly well why they were demonstrating. When I have no doubt both groups of women understood perfectly what they were out on the street protesting about. Try and show some respect please, you are after all a socialist, not Polly Tyonbee’s intern. You may think I am being to pendantic, but we working class people are portrayed far to often as unthinking clones these days, even by people on the left;)
On the article itself, whilst I am cautious about giving any support to the Mousavi clique as behind him is the odious Rafsanjani, you are mistaken when you claim Ahmadinejad represents the interests of the [economically-MH) poorer sectors of the Iranian nation.
What happened during the Presidencies of Khatami and Rafsanjani was the middle classes, especially the business elite were given a special status and privileges in Iran, whilst the working class and rural ‘poor’ were made to pay for the failure of the economy which had been placed by the aforementioned on a neo liberal footing. (This is why the West loves Mousavi)
This worried a section of the Iranian ruling elite that revolves around Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who understood that it was mainly the blood of the working classes and rural ‘poor’ which first established the Islamic Republic. After the rumblings of discontent from this section of workers came to the surface during the Khatami regime, the Khamenei clique decided to place their support behind Ahmadinejad who at the time was a popular Mayor of Tehran.
What I am saying is Ahmadinejad is a creature of the ’supreme leader, not an independent minded supporter of the working classes. He is just as likely to turn on them as any of the murderous clique who rule Iran from behind the scenes. Although to be fair, unlike Mousavi he does not have a track record of doing just that. Yet?
Comment by mick hall — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:17 am
It is becoming increasingly clear that for the likes of John Wight imperialism is simply a rude word for US foreign policy, and its central mechanism is the CIA plot.
Exactly. I’ve read John Wight’s comments here and elsewhere. He thinks that everything is a malicious plot dleiberately run by a small conspiracy of the Western powerful. He seems to have just misunderstood his Marx, and would rather blame the CIA for things than socioeconomic forces.
John’s worldview is not progressive (in the sense that most of us would understand that word) and not leftwing. In fact, in his elevation of political Islam and opposition to what he calls ‘cultural universalism’, he’s politically closer to paeleoconservatives.
Comment by unseen — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:18 am
“Women are debarred from standing for office, which is certainly regressive in itself. However, this differs from democratic elections in the West only in the sense that debarment here is based on economic status rather than gender.”
Indeed, and this is why I would be indifferent to any attempts by the BNP or others to bar black people from standing for office or voting in Britain. I would explain to my black friends that this would simply be a recognition of the realities of the present system, which effectively bars them from holding office on the basis of their lowly economic status. In fact, given what John has said I would be completely unphased if the farce of competitive elections were to be abolished altogether.
While we’re at it, I wouldn’t be particularly bothered by the introduction of slavery; in what significant way, if you please, would this markedly differ from the present reality of ourl lives under capitalist wage slavery? Und so weiter….
Comment by wighty is my hero — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Obviously I wrote my last comment before reading #28
Comment by Dave Rich — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:35 am
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/06/2201.html
for a better analysis, i think.
Comment by Jota — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:40 am
I do actually think the fact that John Wight roots imperialism in the machinations of the CIA (imaginary or real) as opposed to social and economic structures is not only a flaw, but possibly neccessary if you are going to follow stalinism without stalinism (the belief that an odd combination of Russia, China, Iran will provide an international backbone for movements for social justice globally). Avoiding any kind of serious analyses of social and economic forces becomes a bit of an imperative in these situations.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:50 am
some interesting stuff on the topic: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/a-reply-to-a-challenge-over-iran/
Comment by Entdinglichung — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Duly chastened by Andy’s extruded lengths of Chairman Mao, I feel impelled to make a self-criticism. I was wrong to imply at the end of my [justly] irate post at 18 above, that John Wight should be banned. This discussion, and similar argument with the admittedly more nuanced [or confused?] position of Yoshi at Lenin’s Tomb is turning out to be most instructive on what are key issues for the left globally. Let 100 flowers bloom!
Comment by Stephen Marks — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
It is extremely bracing to find that I agree with just about everything johng has to say. I don’t think I have ever seen him support the oppressed in a conflict with an authoritarian regime before, I hope the experience encourages him towards a more progressive politics in future. Feels good being on the side of the light for once, doesn’t it John! Imagine if it was always like this!
Comment by John Meredith — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Clearly John you’ve never followed my arguments defending those facing Israli military occupation in the occupied territories or those facing coalition military occupation in Iraq. But..oh yeah! They don’t count right?
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
I have to say, I’ve never come across such a sustained outburst of Islamophobic rhetoric masquerading as progressive politics as in the posts on this thread. It smacks of the intellectual justification used to support a history of western imperialism and colonialism - i.e. that we indeed are a superior civilisation as a consequence of manifest destiny.
Rudyard Kipling would indeed be proud.
This nonsense about the article suggesting a western conspiracy is truly baffling to me. There is no conspiracy. When our ruling classes in the West weren’t exposing their agenda and machinations with propaganda used to prepare the ground for military interventions and the overt and covert subversion of governments that happened to stand in the way of their interests, people like the Bolsheviks were exposing them with the publication of ’secret treaties’ such as Sykes Picot.
The British and US left have a disgraceful and shameful record in succumbing to the narrative of cultural hegemony and Orientalism promulgated by their respective govts.
Sadly, it is a record that continues.
Comment by John Wight — 24 June, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
“The British and US left have a disgraceful and shameful record in succumbing to the narrative of cultural hegemony and Orientalism promulgated by their respective govts.”
Not quite sure what that means. But the Islamic Theocracy of Iran have a shameful record of murdering their own people.
Comment by Henry Dubb — 24 June, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
John Wight:
When you talk nonsense, repeating it in longer sentences does not make it correct. It just makes it equally wrong and even more verbose. Crying ‘islamophobe’ at anyone who disagrees with you does not help.
It just makes you look repetitive, verbose and insulting.
Political Islam is as old as Islam. Stop being such an orientalist and interpreting Islamic events through a Hegelian lens.
Comment by Robert Browne — 24 June, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
John I understand that its useful to focus on the right (who are not the left) infiltrating these threads, but you might comment on what some on the left have said. For example your eager embrace of a western narrative of these events (civilised cosmopolitan liberals standing up to a bigoted backward regime backed by the uneducated lower classes) which you respond to by simply inverting normatively. This picture simply does not stand up to empirical scrutiny. There is zero reference in anything you wrote to sociological reality on the ground in Iran, just a set of unsubstantiated metaphores drawn from the Latin American instance. This is irresponsible especially in an article which effectively legitimates the repression on the ground in Iran as we speak. It is as good an example as anything of the kind of highminded irresponsibility that you accuse the rest of the left of.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
The real Islamophobic narrative on this thread comes from John Wight. The Iranians I have seen speaking for themselves from the front line on the streets of Teheran cry ‘Allah huAkbar’ when they see the cops and basij retreat; they denounce the conduct of the regime as ‘unislamic’ and they compare the repression to the IDF in Gaza.
But of course that is what they were told to say by their CIA minders, I suppose. A white atheist in Scotland knows better than they do what is and isn’t ‘Islamic’. He just knows that it is Ahmadinejad who speaks for the ‘real’ face of Islam. Which is what the real Islamophobes also keep telling us.
As I’ve said before, f he didn’t exist Harry’s Place would have to invent him - indeed right now they are giving him full coverage so they can smear the whole left by association.
Comment by Stephen Marks — 24 June, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
“39.Clearly John you’ve never followed my arguments defending those facing Israli military occupation in the occupied territories or those facing coalition military occupation in Iraq.”
I thought I had John. In fact I am sure that in Gaza you support an armed group of ideological anti-semites with an explicitly genocidal political programme and in Iraq you were a booster for the militias busily blowing up working class Iraqi men, women and children. But I am still delighted that you have managed to support the people of Iran. I like to believe that nobody is entirely morally squalid, so seeing you defend the oppressed against the brutish gives me a lift. More rejoicing in heaven, and all that.
Comment by John Meredith — 24 June, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
We Love You John Wight - thanks !
Comment by Harry's Place — 24 June, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Well Wight deserves all he gets as far as I’m concerned. I’m quite glad though that nearly all the Leftists here are opposing the Iranian theocracy and vehemently disagreeing with him.
Wight’s problem is that he is mired in the cultural relativism that has destroyed the Left since the 60’s and is unable to see the logical absurdities such thought produces. Marxism is supposed of course to be the ultimate “cultural universalist” creed. Why has such intellectual confusion been allowed to flourish ?
Note Dave Osler’s view on this :
http://www.davidosler.com/2009/06/the_eighteenth_brumaire_of_mah.html#comments
“Like all projects located within a Hegelian problematic, Marxism is necessarily a culturally universalist doctrine par excellence.”
Discuss.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 24 June, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
John Wight has “never come across such a sustained outburst of Islamophobic rhetoric masquerading as progressive politics”
when I read the thread above there were very few references to Islam at all, and practically none at all to muslims as muslims. Is John W trying to claim that arguing for secular democracy and against theocracy is somehow Islamophobic? Is supporting the Iranian people against a repressive and regressive regime?
What does he think ‘Islamophobia’ means? I think it means (in common use) a hatred of muslims. If John Wight thinks that it means opposing the rule of Iran by unelected Islamic scholars, then by his definition every socialist or democrat is an Islamphobe.
Comment by unseen — 24 June, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
unseen:
What does he think ‘Islamophobia’ means? I think it means (in common use) a hatred of muslims. If John Wight thinks that it means opposing the rule of Iran by unelected Islamic scholars, then by his definition every socialist or democrat is an Islamphobe.
Reply:
The irony here is striking. Perhaps you’ve forgotten, but we also have an unelected head of state. It’s called the monarchy, and it has available for use its crown powers, which can be rolled out every once and a while to dissolve the govt. There’s also an unelected privy council, which plays a more than merely symbolic role in the affairs of this country. In fact Blair had recourse to the crown powers, bestowed on him by the monarchy, to take us to war in Iraq, if he failed to receive the support of the parliament.
That the nature of Iranian society is inextricably linked to decades of western intervention seems to me self evident. Colonialism and imperialism distorts the social, economic and political landscape in those societies which fall under its control. The emergence of the Islamic Republic was a reflex against this state of affairs, and until the impact of imperialism is removed such distortions will continue.
Seeing images of protesters on the streets certainly evokes an emotional response. But it is folly to allow emotion to cloud the faculty for objective analysis based on the facts. The Iranian working class hasn’t joined this movement in signficant numbers. As of now this is a movement driven predominantely by the middle class and western leaning students, with access to twitter, facebook, and other means of private communication.
It is their narrative we’re responding to, not the facts on the ground.
Comment by John Wight — 24 June, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Would you have supported nazi Germany JohnW?
Comment by communist — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
#50 - Congratulations. You win first prize for the most asinine comment of 2009.
A pair of tickets to last year’s FA Cup Final are in the post.
Comment by John Wight — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
John there is nothing objective about your analyses. In particular your attempt to equate the undemocratic aspects of the Islamic Republic to the British Monarchy and Privy Council are the purest of pure emotionalism. You refuse to respond to any empirical discussion at all and continue with your entirely imaginary excercises in analogical Latin Americanisms uninformed by the slightest interest in Iranian society or the slightest interest in what Iranians might have to tell you about it. I don’t think you should agree with anyone just because they are in struggle. But I do think you might actually try and find something out about the societies you claim to understand so well. As opposed to writing the appalling eurocentric gibberish you seem to have descended into above.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Actually the most asinine comment of the year was your effort to enlist the Queen as evidence for the defence of the Iranian system of government. If that is all you have got, then you really are onto a loser.
Comment by Dave Rich — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
In December/January almost everyone but hard core Zionist apologists who saw pictures of the dead the injured and the terrified in Gaza, sympathised with the ones being brutalised. In June the same thing goes with the severe violent crackdown on the protests. Those who sympathise with the people doing the brutalising find themselves out in the wilderness, howling to no-one. In one way this is actually a good thing, as it clears out from the left the people who are not really left in any meaningful sense.
if you’d like to characterise this as Islamophobic, you’re welcome to talk me through it.
Comment by apollo — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
JohnW,
You support the Iranian regime solely because the US and UK governments are currently in opposition to it and because you believe that the Iranian regime is standing in opposition to the current international status quo.
Nazi Germany was in conflict with the US and UK governments. At times, nazi Germany made use of “anti-imperialist” rhetoric and it could be argued that nazi Germany was in opposition to the international status quo of the time.
Therefore, asking you whether you would have supported nazi Germany - and if not, why not? - is a fair question JohnW.
Comment by communist — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
We are comcerned with the fate of the Iranian people precsiely because we are leftists and believe in universal human rights. We take Andy Newman’s points, but not this extended detour.
“Islam will be here long after socialism, communism and capitalism have gone.”
To whomsoever posted this: we atheists were there long before you and la Revolution Francaise will be known to all the people of the world long after your hangmen have perished.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
#50 Whenever I hear people shouting about Hitler, it’s usually when I’ve cut up a cyclist at the traffic lights, or I’m on Harry’s Place.
Comment by Calvin — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Sorry, that should have been at #55, not #50
Comment by Calvin — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
John, first of all, while our monarchy have various problems (and most people on here would gladly see them removed) they do not compare to the Iranian rulers who interfere a lot more than old queenie ever has? when was the last time people were banned from standing for election because of the tastes and beleifs of our queen? don’t be so absurd, there is no comparison. i would also suggest that as she is ceremonial rather than being directly political it seems absurd to say we have an unelected head of state as that is in effect the function of a Prime Minister. anyway now that we can disgard that nonsense we can look at some of your other ideas.
the fact that these demos are largely organised via the internet and mobile phones etc is probably one of the key reasons why there is a much larger middle class educated pressence as it doesn’t take a genuis to realise that they are statistically more likely to have acccess to the internet and mobile phones etc
a report published by St Andrews University found that turnout is some regions eclipsed 100%, this coupled with the various other articles which have cited major ‘inaccuracies’ would suggest that if the election was not completely stolen then we can at least conclude that it was fixed (not that that matters as the intent was the same regardless) to suggest that these things should go unpunished on the grounds that it’s middle class people who are highlighting this fraud is just stupid (equally i would bet more middle class people protested against Bush’s election than traditionally working class people)
we are not discussing something which is a little bit off, running a country by dictatorship or trying to rig elections is immoral in all cases, whether in America or in Iran. the comparison with chilie and venuezwela are both bogus becuase they had legitmamite elections which were recognised as such at the time (and quite rightfully too)
the cultural moralising is something i’m uncomfortable with, because iran is run by a barbaric dictatorship that doesnt mean people consent to it, they are just as capable of living in a democracy as you or i. anyway i dont think it’s moralising to say that elected governments and more legitamite than unelected ones and that governemnts who kill their own people for protesting are worse than ones who don’t.
fundamentally John what you are ignoring is that the current protests are a genuine threat to the dominance of the vulgar iranian government, if they weren’t then we wouldn’t be seeing the brute force of the state police on show in the way in which we are and we wouldn’t be seeing the media black out which has been imposed on Iranian people and the international media. when a government goes as far as to ban the internet (not least sites like this) for the great majority of people and send out brute force then it’s a sign their on the ropes. the question is black and white, do we support the people waving the truncheons or the ones who are being beaten for simply demanding a democratic election?
Comment by andrew — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
I don’t think the reference to Hitler is that far-fetched if you keep in mind Trotsky’s defense of the Vargas dictatorship in Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain, a scenario that brings today’s Iran to mind. But let’s not forget what else Trotsky said in this article titled “Anti-Imperialist Struggle” that can be read at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm.
“In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred.”
“If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.”
In other words, Trotsky was backing Brazil in a military conflict with Great Britain, not trying to prettify a brutal dictatorship.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
John W- the more you say the more I despair.
What do you actually mean by Islamaphobia? If somebody were to say to me that Islamaphobia means that you object to the forcible supression of women by a regime with literally medieval politics and who have a track record of imprisoning and murdering socialists in the name of Islam, then |’m an Islamaphobe, just as if someone tells me that objection to the concept that the state of Israel has the right to wage war on an innocent people who they have already robbed of their land is anti-semitic, then I’m anti-semitic.
But it doesnt, so Im not, so where doeds that take us ?
The USA lost so much moral highground in the Islamic world when they just abandoned the people of Afghanistan, having admitted that they won the cold war there and not in Berlin.
Were you so bothered about islamaphobia then?
Comment by Armchair — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
John Wight:
“The emergence of the Islamic Republic was a reflex against this state of affairs, and until the impact of imperialism is removed such distortions will continue.”
Palpable orientalist nonsense.
1400 years of Islam, and in particular Shiism had a far greater effect on the Islamic republic than a couple of hundred years of western influence, whether benign or malignant. A perceived common enemy simply provided a rallying point.
“But it is folly to allow emotion to cloud the faculty for objective analysis based on the facts.”
I love the irony of this. From what I have read of your posts your left wing belief system starts with a theory of capital and class and everything afterwards is an interpretation of the facts based on that bias. I have seen little objectivity from your work and a great deal of subjectivity.
Until you interpret the events in Iran involving the government there from the perspective of the Twelver Shia philosophy you will not understand it.
If you apply western communist philosophy to a Shia Theocracy you are in serious danger of making a public fool of yourself.
Comment by Rob Browne — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
It would seem that the regime is using foreign volunteers to help brutalize and attack the demonstrators fighting for democratic rights.
John W- here is your chance to show your true devotion to the “anti imperialist” cause of the Iranian Islamic regime.
In any event all supporters of the Iranian Islamic dictatorship should be excluded from the socialist movement.
sandy
Newspaper Roozonline has an interview (in Persian) with one of the young
plainclothes militiamen who have been beating protesters.
The Guardian’s Robert Tait sends this synopsis:
The man, who has come from a small town in the eastern province of Khorasan
and has never been in Tehran before, says he is being paid 2m rial (£122) to
assault protestors with a heavy wooden stave. He says the money is the main
incentive as it will enable him to get married and may even enable him to afford
more than one wife. Leadership of the volunteers has been provided by a man
known only as “Hajji”, who has instructed his men to “beat the
counter-revolutionaries so hard that they won’t be able to stand up”. The
volunteers, most of them from far-flung provinces such as Khuzestan, Arak and
Mazandaran, are being kept in hostel accommodation, reportedly in east Tehran.
Other volunteers, he says, have been brought from Lebanon, where the Iranian
regime has strong allies in the Hezbollah movement. They are said to be more
highly-paid than their Iranian counterparts and are put up in hotels. The last
piece of information seems to confirm the suspicion of many Iranians that
foreign security personnel are being used to suppress the demonstrators. For all
his talk of the legal process, this interview provides a key insight into where
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, believes the true source of his
legitimacy rests.
Comment by sandy — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
I’ve just remembered that a week ago, John W was denying that the regime would take any brutal, violent, repressive action. So one strike, down.
Comment by apollo — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Btw - John W is wrong but the actual islamaphobes and apologists for Zionism and imperialism are the enemy.
Comment by Armchair — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
I would second Armchairs remark. They are all over this thread with their insane gibberish. Unfortunately John is playing totally into their hands. One reason for this is that his world view, precisely because it is so manchien, doesn’t really differ fundementally from theirs.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Islamaphobia seems a very slippery term. Are the Iranian socialist left who fight against the forces of political Islam and call for the destruction of the Islamic republic islamaphobes? I think not
Marxists are of course opposed to religion ( even more so state sponsored religion) but we also defend religious freedom
Islamaphobia does exist in Europe and the USA but it is really just a code or cover for racism and on that basis it must be strongly opposed. However those deluded fools on the left who support political islam as “anti imperialist” often use the term to slander real communists, socialists and democrats because progressives actively oppose political Islam and support democratic rights
Comment by sandy — 24 June, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
“Whenever I hear people shouting about Hitler, it’s usually when I’ve cut up a cyclist at the traffic lights, or I’m on Harry’s Place” exclaims Calvin.
But neither he nor JohnW have answered the question I asked at post number 27 earlier and repeated twice at posts 50 and 55.
If being at odds with the governments of the US and UK were the only criteria for support - and JohnW seems to argue just that in his article - then a similar argument, using the same perverse logic, could be constructed for support for nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany oppressed its own people but challenged the existing international status quo - also on occaision using “anti-imperialist” propaganda and rhetoric - so would you have used the above argument in those circumstances too?
Comment by communist — 24 June, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
johng,
You really are a joker. You accuse others of having a Manichean world view when you are a supporter of Trotsky!
That really is very funny.
Comment by Mikey — 24 June, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
#68 Uh? Why are you addressing the question to me? I haven’t contributed to this thread, nor expressed the opinion that you seem to attributing to me.
Comment by Calvin — 24 June, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Solidarity with the movement of the Iranian masses – Statement of the Revolutionary Marxist Current (Venezuela)
http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-solidarity-iran-statement-cmr.htm
By Revolutionary Marxist Current Wednesday, 24 June 2009
In response to recent statements by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan Revolutionary Marxist Current has issued this statement. They express their support for the movement of the masses in Iran and explain the differences between the revolutionary movement in Venezuela and the counter-revolutionary regime in Iran.
The Bolivarian Revolution and Iran
In Iran we have a situation in which the opposition denounces electoral fraud, in which this allegation gets support from the imperialist powers and in which there are street demonstrations against the election results. It is understandable that many revolutionaries in Venezuela will draw parallels between what is happening in Iran and situations we have lived through during the Bolivarian revolution. In Venezuela, more than once, the reactionary and oligarchic counter-revolution, with the support of imperialism, has attempted to create a situation of chaos in the streets with the excuse of an alleged “electoral fraud” in order to de-legitimise the election victories of the revolution (during the recall referendum, in the 2006 presidential elections, during the constitutional reform referendum in 2007, etc).
However these parallels do not correspond to reality.
continued
Comment by sandy — 24 June, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
70 My question was addressed to JohnW in response to the thrust of his article, but equally to anyone else who shares his “my-enemy’s-enemy-is-my-friend” analysis.
Comment by communist — 24 June, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Demonstrating Muslims in Iran have been arrested, tortured, teargassed, water-cannoned and shot to defend Ahamdinejad’s regime that is in turn defended by John Wight. But, in Wight’s world anyone here who criticises the regime are clearly Islamophobes.
I read Alice in Wonderland years ago and thought it was wonderful. John Wight’s sequel is as bizarre but not as engaging as the original.
Many of the people posting here in the last few days have expressed their solidarity with the protests and the support for the protests by Iranian leftists. They trust the insights of Iranian leftists and trade unionists over the regime. Why don’t you John?
Comment by David Rosenberg — 24 June, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
The statement from the revolutionary marxist current in Venezuela is very good. It explains why many in Latin America would have been confused amongst other things. Why John Wight would still be coming out with this gibbberish is less clear though. Its not as if he has not been exposed to discussion on the politics of the Middle East and Imperialism over the last decade.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Post 54
In December/January almost everyone but hard core Zionist apologists who saw pictures of the dead the injured and the terrified in Gaza, sympathized with the ones being brutalized.
Apollo
Yes, this is true, but the majority on the left did not move from that position to one of supporting Hamas, which is the equivalent of what many comrades have done over the latest outburst of violence in Iran.
By throwing in their lot with Mousavi and no matter how much they have denied it that is what many have done, or did for a time, they have sided with reaction in much the same way as those who have given support to the Ahmedinejad/Supreme leader section of the regime.
Take the young women who ‘appears’ to have been was shot, no one seems to have questioned who shot her, yet given the record of Mousavi when PM and Ahmedinejad at times, this is a vital question to ask.
Patience is an important attribute in politics, it seems to me we need more info before we start choosing sides, after all who ever comes out on top in this current kerfuffle, Mousavi/Rafsanjani or Ahmedinejad/Supreme leader, sadly the islamic republic will still be killing its citizens. It is simply not enough to say I support the masses as if all those who think differently are somehow betraying them. Especially as those who are protesting make up only a tiny minority of ‘the masses’, what ever that may mean.
Without knowing the full situation if the recent spate of color code demos have taught me one thing it is to be cautious, but this does not stop me condemning the Iranian State’s reactionary, violent and atrocious behavior as demonstrated over the last week or so.
Comment by mick hall — 24 June, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
“Take the young women who ‘appears’ to have been was shot, no one seems to have questioned who shot her, yet given the record of Mousavi when PM and Ahmedinejad at times, this is a vital question to ask”
Are you sick or something?
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
#76
It seems a reasonable question to ask to me.
No-one is defending the deplorable killing of a young girl, but it does seem relevent to ask who actually shot her. re you sayng it is inconceivable that it coudl be a false flag shooting to further destabilise the government?
It is terrible whoever did it, but surely we shoudl ahve no illusiosn on what ether the cuirrent government or Mousavi/Rasfanjani are capable of.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
http://hopinewsfromiran.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/another-day-of-bloodshed-and-resistance-in-iran-june-24/
Another day of bloodshed and resistance in Iran – June 24
Comment by Chris S — 24 June, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
I think its best to just ignore the weally wadical tarquins on reflection. Richard has just put this up on the Tomb in relation to the story just posted by Chris S.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=197172215230&h=bw3sB&u=PscX0&ref=mf
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
sorry for the sensible people not on facebook…
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/06/acts-of-violence-in-baharestan-square.html
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
interesting analysis of the internal politics of the regime here;
http://tehranbureau.com/the-leaders-of-iran’s-election-coup/
Comment by Stephen Marks — 24 June, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
John Wright,
I read all the posts and did not find one Islamophic comment. Being opposed to a repressive regime that’s killing and torturing its people is not Islamophobia. If it were, then all the Iraniain Marxists who oppose the regime would be Islamophobic, including hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are against the regime. You think when someone says the regime is autocratic and repressive, he’s being islamophobic - not true. There are even Muslim clerics in Iran who say the same thing.
So if this same regime in Tehran allied itself with imperialism and you therefore started opposing it, you can be called Islamophobic? Is opposing the dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan islamophobia? Calling people who diagree with you islamophic does not strengthen your arguement but in fact weakens it.
On a separate issue, you argue that the fate of women in Iran is no worse than those in the US or Great Britian. First of all, that’s insensitive at best and offensive at worst to Iranian women, regardless of class - yes sexism and racism must be looked at regardless of class, John. Secondly, what does one have to do with the other? How does one justify the other? Are you suggetting (seems like you are) that because women don’t hold as many offices as men in the West due to economic reasons, then we should not oppose a regime which bans them from holding office? The logical, let alone Marxist, argument is that the women in the West need to struggle, too, not that the women in Iran should shut up because they haven’t got it any worse, which is not true, anyway.
You say: “The opposition movement in Iran is not supported by the vast majority of the population. Evidence for this is the fact that there have been no sustained mass rallies across the entire country…” This is not true as I pointed out before. I have personally seen pictures of huge demonstrations in many cities. Large demonstrations have been held in all major cities.
You say the opposition is mainly made up of the middle class. So what? The anti-imperialist revolution of 1979 also started by middle class students and only later the working class joined. Besides, just because we’re Marxists and advocates of working class doesn’t mean we should look at the middle class with disdain. When we talk about “masses” (or “Tudeh” or “Khalgh” in Farsi) we don’t mean the middle class can go to hell.
You’d be right if the opposition wanted to overthrow a regime to install a more reactionary one such as the monarchy that was overthrown 30 years ago, or if you knew that what will come out is going to be a puppet of the US which would also preclude any chance for democracy, anyhow. But, that’s not the situation here. And as I said before, this is not Venezuela of 2002, either.
You’re confusing two different things. We should defend the regime against imperialism and its threats and intervention, not against its own people who rise up and start a movement for more freedoms. In fact, if imperialism were to attack (Israel attacking is the same as the US attacking) then the Iranian people - working and middle class - would join forces with the bourgiosie to defend the country. In that case, people would not wait for you to tell them to oppose imperialism. But, for now, they’re defying the regime and sorry to say you, and are fighting for democratic rights much like yours who gets to write and publish articles without having your nails and teeth pulled out.
Sako
Comment by Sako — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Sorry for misspelling your name John.
Comment by Sako — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
I should say Sako, and no doubt you know this, John is not representative of the socialist and anti-imperialist left in Britain. I’m sorry I had to say that because this is so deeply shameful. Its also true that the right wing pro-interventionists are loving his position and using it to misrepresent the whole left. It is, as stated, shameful.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
JOhnG
How exactly is fraternal debate well served by you passing judgement on other comrades’ opinion as being “shamefull”?
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
I’m sorry Andy but it IS shameful. Objectively. And it is important that those on the Iranian left understand that those who hold these opinions do not represent the left in toto. Far more important then anything else about this ‘debate’.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
“Shameful” was first used by John Wight in post #40 about his critics on the left.
Comment by M — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
Well, the SWP have adopted plenty of “shameful” positions over the years, for example supporting the islamists in Afghanistan against the socialist government; I just don’t think it is a very fruitful way of debating. And personally i would have thought that the Iranian left had bigger fish to fry than worrying about what John Wight argues on a blog, which you think is “terribly important”
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
I should say not just the left but the left that consistantly opposes imperialist intervention and war mongering. Otherwise the range of political choices really starts to narrow. Dangerously so. Angry Arab has written both critically and fraternally about the movement in Iran from the Palestinian point of view, pointing to problems in the arguments of both sides. That is a solidaristic discussion that needs to be initiated. The kind of pseudo-wadical rubbish that sadly John is coming out with now is anything but. Its insulting. Especially at a moment when the repression is reaching the highest pitch yet.
Comment by johng — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
Sako #82
I have to say that for someone I used to respect I fear that you’ve suffered a monumental political collapse on this issue. I know it is particularly sensitive for you, being Iranian and having friends there, but you are on the wrong side of the barricade on this.
Firstly, when people attack the Iranian regime, they are attacking the majority of Iranian people who support it, predominately the lower strata of the working class and the rural poor. This is the sector of society which Ahamdinejad has oriented towards since coming to power. Even Forbes magazine admits this in the quote I included with my piece.
Where is the mass strike action in support of the protesters? Where is the split within the armed forces - made up of workers?
None of the aforementioned has taken place, which points to the the incontrovertible fact that this is NOT a movement supported by the vast majority of the Iranian working class, which as you surely know cannot be substituted for by the left, no matter how much we wish it were so.
The analogy I point to with the Iraqi CP is apropos here
With regard to Islamophobia throughout this thread, when people start bandying around words like freedom and democracy so liberally, I feel like I’m reading something from NED or the Soros Foundation. Iran is a democracy. It may not be the form of democracy that we have in the West, but I tell you, if your notion of democracy has altered to mean the dictatorship of the rich that we live under, then I can only assume that you no longer consider yourself a Marxist.
As I’ve said already, the middle classes and more privileged layers of society, economically, are every bit as capable of taking to the streets as the working class and the poor when they are politically and economically denuded.
Imperialism thrives on division and destabilisation. Iran has been in the crosshairs of the West since Ahmadinejad was first elected in 2005.
Isolation, sanctions and the real threat of military attack has been the result, placing enormous pressure on Iranian society which is reflected in the current crisis.
Have we learned nothing from Iraq? Have we learned nothing from a brutal history of imperialism?
You keep saying that Iran is not Venezuela, without providing any analysis of the socioeconomic forces involved to bolster this claim.
Of course, no comparison can ever by symmetrical, but the similarities between both are there.
As for getting to write articles without having my nails and teeth pulled out, this is true. I happen to live in an imperialist centre which doesn’t exist under sanctions, doesn’t have thousands of hostile troops on its border, doesn’t have thousands of missiles within striking distance, isn’t under the threat of military attack from the most powerful empire in human history.
Just ask the Cuban Five about your notion of freedom though? Ask all those victims of the War on Terror, those who’ve been renditioned, tortured, water boarded, kept in isolation for years, beaten, invaded…
I stand with them. As for you, I have to tell you, I’m not sure I can tell anymore.
Comment by John Wight — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
#87
JOhn did not use the term shameful to refer to individuals, but rather on the general record of the British left over its luke warm internationalism. Hardly the same thing as JOhnG seeking to delegitimise an individual’s point of view
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
#91 Actually, he began his post talking about “the posts on this thread”, said the history of the left was disgraceful and shameful, concluded that “the record continues” and added for good measure that Kipling would be proud.
Clearly no attempt to delegitimise points of view there.
Comment by M — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
And now at #90 he directly accuses a poster of standing on the side of the War on Terror because they don’t agree with him about Iran.
Comment by M — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
M don’t be a bore.
Whether or not you agree with John Wight or not, he is arguing his corner,
There is no symmetry with the attempts by JohnG to delegitimise in his patronising way the very right of JOhn Wight to express his opinions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
“Take the young women who ‘appears’ to have been was shot, no one seems to have questioned who shot her, yet given the record of Mousavi when PM and Ahmedinejad at times, this is a vital question to ask”
Are you sick or something?
Comment by johng
Johng
You really are an arrogant know all little shit, I asked a perfectly correct question that only a small child would find offensive, If you cannot see it is important to understand who fired this shot then it is impossible to take anything you say seriously, as you not only have no idea what is really going on in Iran, but you have no wish to search out the truth.
Not all of us were born yesterday or have the memory of a nat, during the invasion of Kuwait a young woman told the world via the western media, that Iraqis had been taking babies out of hospital incubators and stealng them and leaving the baby dead on the ground. (or some such) She turned out to be a Saudi or Kuwaiti Princess under the Control of the Saudi ambassador to the USA, who was a close friend of GW Bush and later became head of Saudi intel.
Before you run off at the mouth again, I am not denying the woman was shot, I am asking by whom and why. Or are you one of those who just does not care as you believe it is perfectly acceptable to distort the truth for political advantage?
If you had read the rest of my post, instead of polishing your own ego and telling the world that your own shit does not stink, you would have seen I am an opponent of the regime in Iran and all those who make it up, which ever leadership faction they belong to and in truth that is the difference between you and I.
By the way, if you seriously believe the Iranian left gives a hoot about the tiny UK left, then it is time you got out of the phone box you clearly inhabit.
Instead of trying feebly to bash and howl comrades into submission, why not try debating, you never know you may even learn some thing.
Comment by mick hall — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Incidently, over at lenin’s Tomb, Richard suggests that the current level of repression suggests that the regime is in deep crisis.
i can’t see that myself. Firstly, from what I have seen (admittedly all second hand) the level of repression is not actualy that great compared to other comperable situations, for example the much higher level of violence that followed the disputed Kenyan electon in December 2007.
But secondly, such levels of violence suggest to me a government that now feels secure enough to sweep the opposition off the streets and end the uncertainty by attempting to decapitate the movement on the streets, as part and parcel of brokering a deal at the elite level.
Of course my readng of the situation is just as much speculation as richard’s. Also, nothing I say here should be interpreated as either supporting the government, condoning the violence, or dismissing the real suffering of the protestors and their loved ones.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2009 @ 12:02 am
Wight: Firstly, when people attack the Iranian regime, they are attacking the majority of Iranian people who support it, predominately the lower strata of the working class and the rural poor.
Compare: Firstly, when people attacked the American regime of George Bush, they are attacking the majority of American people who supported it, predominately the lower strata of the working class and the rural poor.
Also - Wight: As for getting to write articles without having my nails and teeth pulled out, this is true. I happen to live in an imperialist centre which doesn’t exist under sanctions, doesn’t have thousands of hostile troops on its border, doesn’t have thousands of missiles within striking distance, isn’t under the threat of military attack from the most powerful empire in human history.
Translated: the poor Iranian mullahs just can’t help it. You know how it is. They have a bad day, they start feeling cramped, and before you know it they start pulling nails and teeth.
Comment by driver — 25 June, 2009 @ 12:03 am
“which doesn’t exist under sanctions, doesn’t have thousands of hostile troops on its border, doesn’t have thousands of missiles within striking distance, isn’t under the threat of military attack from the most powerful empire in human history.”
Good to know you think our governments are doing a good job of protecting their peoples.
Comment by Robert Browne — 25 June, 2009 @ 12:25 am
John Wight: “You keep saying that Iran is not Venezuela, without providing any analysis of the socioeconomic forces involved to bolster this claim.” Are you kidding me? It’s like you asking me to prove God does not exist. You claimed it’s like Venezuela of 2002, so you should back it up with facts. Where are your facts showing that it is? You’re comparing a regime where 80% of the decisions are in the hands of one “Supreme Leader”, where there is no freedom of speech or assembly or the right to form a union or to strike, where women are flogged for violating dress code and are considered half that of a man in a court of law, where leftists are jailed and tortured with Chavez’s Venezuela where he was enjoying the backing of the vast majority of the people and whose opposition were CIA backed wealthy individuals? Then, you tell me I don’t have facts to prove that it is not Venezuela of 2002? At least show some degree of modesty and say you don’t know all the facts instead of responding with such ferver and anger about something you don’t know that much.
Everytime you add comments here, you make it worse. John Wight: “The analogy I point to with the Iraqi CP is apropos here” Again, you must be joking. Is the Iranian left which is opposing the regime and wants to reform it to make it more democratic the same as the Iraqi CP which welcomed an imperialist invasion? As a matter of fact, there was an imperialist-backed invasion of Iran after the Islamic revolution, and none of the Iranian left supported the invasion. So, you can’t lay that one on us. It won’t stick.
You add: “It may not be the form of democracy that we have in the West, but I tell you, if your notion of democracy has altered to mean the dictatorship of the rich that we live under, then I can only assume that you no longer consider yourself a Marxist.” If you want to say you don’t consider me a Marxist, go ahead and say it, you don’t have to twist your words, but without calling you a non-Marxist, I have to tell you that wanting bourgois democracy is not contradictory to Marxism unless you consider Lenin a non-Marxist, too. You’re using the wrong argument in the wrong place and against the wrong people. How do you guys say it? “barking at the wrong tree?” If there were a dictatorship of the proleterait in Iran and then I were advocating democracy for all (including the bourgiosie), then you could call me non-Marxist. Again, you’re angrily using insults because you’re being disagreed with and apparently are having a hard time supporting your position. But, nevertheless I still consider you a Marxist and I still “have respect for you”, not “used to”. I respect and admire your dedication to the left and socialist movement. I just disagree with you on this.
You say: “the middle classes and more privileged layers of society, economically, are every bit as capable of taking to the streets as the working class and the poor when they are politically and economically denuded.” Is that what you think is happening in Iran? The privilaged layers are denuded? This is not a revolt of the rich against a president who’s attending to the poor. If that were true 2 million people would not march in protest. Do you know why there was an 85% participation in the elections? Because people wanted change. When people want change, they first put their hopes on the ballot box; only if that does not work, they take it to the streets.
John: “Imperialism thrives on division and destabilisation. Iran has been in the crosshairs of the West since Ahmadinejad was first elected in 2005.” No, Iran has been in the crosshairs of the West since the revolution of 1979, not since Ahmadinejad took office. Secondly, you should of all people know that I myself wrote for Workers World organ a few years ago defending Iran against US threats under a very similar title to yours: “Iran in the crosshairs of the US”. I still say Iran should be defended against imperialism. But, there is now a people’s revolt for democray - yes, bourgiois democracy - and not by just a small number of wealthy people.
John: “As for getting to write articles without having my nails and teeth pulled out, this is true. I happen to live in an imperialist centre which doesn’t exist under sanctions, doesn’t have thousands of hostile troops on its border, doesn’t have thousands of missiles within striking distance, isn’t under the threat of military attack from the most powerful empire in human history.” You sound like you’re talking about Cuba, not Iran. It reminds me of the time when Cuban officials cracked down on CIA backed counter-revolutionaries and we on the left were definding Cuba. We would use the same words as you. Except now you’re imagining me on the side of imperialism and yourself against. You must be feeling good for being such a consistent anti-imperialist even when your former comrades have abandoned Marxism.
Wait a minute, you do imagine you’re talking about Cuba because right after the above statement, you go on: “Just ask the Cuban Five about your notion of freedom though?” You stand with them? That’s good John. It’s a relief. All is not lost.
Sako
Comment by Sako — 25 June, 2009 @ 12:39 am
But secondly, such levels of violence suggest to me a government that now feels secure enough to sweep the opposition off the streets and end the uncertainty by attempting to decapitate the movement on the streets, as part and parcel of brokering a deal at the elite level.
They seem to have waited until all the international media were out of the country beforeing moving more harshly. You could argue that the government didn’t move sooner due to feeling unsecure rather than secure; it didn’t want to make a mistake and provoke a full blown revolution. The level of protest in Iran has been unprecidented for that country and its system with his secret police; that it is still going on at all is astonishing.
Comment by Ed D — 25 June, 2009 @ 12:51 am
I would like to add my voice of condemnation, once again, to John Wright’s Henry Kissinger style approach to the situation. Whatever happens, his instincts were wholly wrong and he has deserved the consensus of criticism he has justly received. Never again must this be allowed to happen on a socialist website.
Comment by Ed D — 25 June, 2009 @ 12:52 am
Cracking down is always s sign of insecurity and weakness not the opposite. Banning all coverage, jailing journalists, shooting at people with cell phones in their hands and cutting off text messaging and internet does not show feeling secure. Just the opposite.
The only reason the British, US and other Western governments allow demonstrations is because they feel secure. If they felt insecure, they’d ban them, too. There are indeed many precedents for this. Just look at the movements of the 1930’s and 1960’s in the US, to give but two examples.
Only when the ruling class feels insecure, they start cracking down. Cracking down shows fear - fear that the opposition will succeed and will overthrow the government.
Comment by Sako — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:01 am
Sako#99 - I have not and do not suggest that the Islamic Republic is similar to Venezuela. What I do say is that the nature of this crisis has similiarites.to the one which engulfed Venezuela in 2002. I think you know this is what I meant.
And, sorry, I’m not having a difficult time supporting my position. Far from it. You continue to make unsubstantiated assertions that suggest the contrary in fact.
Where is this people’s revolt, Sako? I’m sorry, I don’t see one. I don’t see mass strikes, nor do I see the working class or the poor on the streets.
This is supposition on your part.
Iran has been in the crosshairs of US imperialism since 1979, yes, but this has been ramped up with the rise of Ahamdinejad to power. The Islamic Republic has always been perceived as a threat to the Saudi kleptocracy, Israel, and US interests in the region.
But Ahamdinejad has raised the stakes. In conjunction with Khameni, he’s pushed forward Iran’s nuclear program, he’s forging alliances with other nations opposed to US economic hegemony, and he’s replaced the dollar with the euro when it comes to international transactions. This last move sets a particularly dangerous precedent as far as US hegemony is concerned, given the fundamental role of the dollar in that. Indeed, it was one of the prime reasons the US was keen to invade Iraq, after Saddam made the same move back in 2000.
You also assume that Ahamdinejad’s election victory was rigged. I don’t. The basis for my assertion is the fact that polls carried out by western polling organisations in the weeks leading up predicted an Ahamdinejad victory. These organisations certainly have no love for Ahamdinejad. Nor has any hard evidence been produced which proves such a fraud took place, and certainly not on the massive scale we’re talking about.
The contradictions with regard to Iranian society are certainly there, and the violence that is currently taking place is deplorable.
Women being beaten for dressing a certain way is also deplorable. But here I am mindful of the claims by women in Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation that babies were being ripped from incubators by Iraqi soldiers.
Please provide citations for such statements, otherwise, given a history of the demonisation of governments and regimes which stand in the way of imperialism and western geopolitical and economic interests, I will remain circumspect.
You said in a private correspondence when I asked you to provide a source for previous assertions that you didn’t have one. Links to facebook pages, twitter, and so on must be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when we consider what’s at stake.
Comment by John Wight — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:13 am
“Furthermore, while women in the US and Britain can stand for election, even sit at the heads of their respective governments, the reality is that both of the aforementioned nations have been responsible for depriving women throughout the Middle East and beyond of a far more fundamental right – namely the right not to be slaughtered or see their families slaughtered in the cause of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.”
Right. So the ideal is Scandinavia, France, Germany…Y’know…One of those wild countries which never invaded Iraq yet still have enjoyed the benefits of feminism.
Comment by James — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:24 am
#102 “Cracking down is always s sign of insecurity and weakness not the opposite.”
Well that clearly isn’t true. the repression of the June 4th movement in China 2o years ago this month was an expression of confidence by Deng that he had secured his position in the politburo. In that case protests had continued due to a paralysis of a divided politburo, once that power struggle was resolved, the PLA swept the protest movement from the streets, and the result was increased stability for the CCP rule - not least because Deng’s victory resolved which of several options the CCP would take
In Britain, the level of police violence at the Stockport messenger dispute and Wapping was not becasue the state or the employers thought they were going to lose the strikes, but becasue they were completely confident they were going to win, and wanted to make the defeat for the unions as demoralising as possible.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:25 am
John Wight,
but you know that Mousavi, who has vowed to continue Iran’s nuclear plans and support the Palestinians, would be far harder for the international community to oppose than the present anti semite guy. How is that not obvious?
How long do you have to keep going back in history and claiming Iran should be in a permanent national security state? Another 100 years? Iranians aren’t stupid; anti imperialism is a huge part of their culture; they’re not going to go along with, or be fooled by, some western coup. This reality make the protests all the more credible.
Why don’t you trust the people of Iran? I very much doubt that they would elect leaders that didn’t want to continue some of their present policies which you approve of, but even if they did, what gives you the right to put your interests over their wishes for the sake of a geopolitical battle you are having with the US? Isn’t that extremely selfish and cruel?
Comment by Ed D — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:44 am
“only a small child would find offensive”. Really Mick? You really believe that do you? I mean really? You really think repeating grotesque regime propaganda like this in the face of a movement being broken (in these very hours)by that same regime, only a “child” would find offensive? I have tried debating Mick. But John absolutely refuses to engage with argument or empirical reality. He simply ignores anything which does not fit his bizarre conspiracy theory world. As do you. Its a sad sight actually. Utter degeneration politically, morally, and, well just rationally really.
Comment by johng — 25 June, 2009 @ 2:00 am
Whither Iran? by Babak Zahraie
Babak Zahraie was editor of the weekly Kargar (Worker) published from 1979 to 1982 in Tehran for which he was incarcerated from 1983 to 1989 in Iran. On April 11, 1979, debated Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr (first president of the Islamic Republic) before a live TV audience on the topic of Islamic economics vs. socialist economics. The debate was viewed by 22 million people. Spoke at meetings which were attended by many thousands during the first years of the Iranian Revolution explaining proposals of the independent working class & socialist politics for various social, economic, political, and cultural problems faced by the country.
He currently works as a data architect providing enterprise solutions for data and information technology services abroad.
Comment by Dave Riley — 25 June, 2009 @ 3:36 am
Open letter of support to the demonstrators in Iran,(signed by Chomsky, Judith Butler, Zizek and others)
Friday 19 June 2009
This morning Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanded an end to the massive and forceful demonstrations protesting the controversial result of last week’s election. He argued that to make concessions to popular demands and ‘illegal’ pressure would amount to a form of ‘dictatorship’, and he warned the protestors that they, rather than the police, would be held responsible for any further violence.
Khamenei’s argument sounds familiar to anyone interested in the politics of collective action, since it appears to draw on the logic used by state authorities to oppose most of the great popular mobilisations of modern times, from 1789 in France to 1979 in Iran itself. These mobilisations took shape through a struggle to assert the principle that sovereignty rests with the people themselves, rather than with the state or its representatives. ‘No government can justly claim authority’, as South Africa’s ANC militants put it in their Freedom Charter of 1955, ‘unless it is based on the will of all the people.’
Needless to say it is up to the people of Iran to determine their own political course. Foreign observers inspired by the courage of those demonstrating in Iran this past week are nevertheless entitled to point out that a government which claims to represent the will of its people can only do so if it respects the most basic preconditions for the determination of such a will: the freedom of the people to assemble, unhindered, as an inclusive collective force; the capacity of the people, without restrictions on debate or access to information, to deliberate, decide and implement a shared course of action.
Years of foreign-sponsored ‘democracy promotion’ in various parts of the world have helped to spread a well-founded scepticism about civic movements which claim some sort of direct democratic legitimacy. But the principle itself remains as clear as ever: only the people themselves can determine the value of such claims. We the undersigned call on the government of Iran to take no action that might discourage such determination.
Peter Hallward
Middlesex University, UK.
Alberto Toscano
Goldsmiths College, UK.
This letter is also signed by:
Alenka Zupancic, Institute of Philosophy of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Alexander Garcia Duttmann, Goldsmiths College
Etienne Balibar, Paris X, Nanterre, and University of California, Irvine
Eyal Weizman, Director, Centre for Research Architecture, Dept. of Visual Cultures
Goldsmiths, University of London
Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley
Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor (retired), MIT, Cambridge MA USA
Philip Pettit, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University
Rada Ivekovic, Prof., Collège international de philosophie, Paris.
Slavoj Žižek, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and the European Graduate School
Also signed by the following academics:
Adam Bieniek, PhD, Jagiellonian University, Chair of Arab Studies, Institute of Oriental Philology , Cracow, Poland
Agnieszka Zuk, University of Nancy
Aleksander Glogowski, PhD, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
Ali Banuazizi, Professor of Political Science and Director, Program in Islamic Civilization and Societies, Boston College
Ali Rezaei, Dept. of Sociology, University of Calgary, Canada
Nader Hashemi,Assistant Professor of Middle East and Islamic Politics
Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver
Arang Keshavarzian, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, New York University
Asia Bochenska, Department of Kurdish Studies, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
Beata Kowalska, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Dan Sperber, Institut Jean Nicod, CRNS, Paris
Eric B. Ross, Visiting Professor of Anthropology and International Development Studies, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Farideh Farhi, Department of Political Science, University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Farifteh Tavakoli-Borazjani, Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Iranistik
Farzin Vahdat, Vassar College, New York
Hossein Ziai, Jahangir and Eleanor Amuzegar Chair in Iranian Studies, Director of Iranian Studies, UCLA Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Los Angeles, CA
Isabelle Dolezalek, Freie Universität Berlin
Jadwiga Pstrusińska, Head of Department of Interdisciplinary Eurasiatic Research, Institute of Oriental Philology, Jagiellonian University, Cracow
Jean-Paul Martinon, Department of Visual Cultures, Goldsmiths College, UK
Joanna Bochenska
Jolan Bogdan, Department of Visual Cultures, Goldsmiths College, UK
Juan R. I. Cole, Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan
Kazem Alamdari, California State University, Los Angeles
Nayereh Tohidi, Professor, California State University, Northridge
Linda Herrera, Institute of Social Studies (The Hague)
Asef Bayat, University of Leiden
Lynn Schibeci, Dept of History, the University of New Mexico (retired), Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mark Gasiorowski, Political Science and International Studies, Louisiana State University
Martin Steinseifer, Universität Giessen
Martin van Bruinessen, Chair of Comparative Study of Contemporary Muslim Societies, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, Utrecht University
Martina Tissberger, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Educational Sciences and Psychology
Michael McIntyre, International Studies, DePaul University, Chicago
Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, Professor of History and Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto
Norma Claire Moruzzi, University of Illinois at Chicago, Political Science, History, Gender and Women’s Studies
Scott Hibbard, DePaul University, Chicago
Seyla Benhabib, Seyla Benhabib, Eugene Meyer Professor of Political Science and Philosophy, Yale University, New Haven
Jesse Lemisch, Professor Emeritus, History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, USA
Stephen Engelmann, University of Illinois at Chicago
Talal Asad, Graduate Center, City University of New York
Van Bluemel, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in Worcester, MA
Vera Beyer, Kunsthistorisches Institut der Freien Universität Berlin
Comment by apollo — 25 June, 2009 @ 9:04 am
John Wright
I am still waiting for you to pull back from calling people like me and mine lower class, I am not being pedantic here as this type of terminology betrays a middle class pro capitalist methodology and a contempt for billions of people. I accept that is not your intention, but it is there all the same.
Keep wearing that hard hat;) to other comrades I would suggest this, we on the left have to learn to embrace debate.
Comment by mick hall — 25 June, 2009 @ 9:09 am
Mick #111
I’m certainly not someone who would disparage anyone in the working class. Why would I? I am of it, and believe me I identify and come from its lowest strata.
So I don’t know where you feel that I’ve been in any way insulting on that score?
In fact, and with every fibre of my being, I am someone who very much adheres to the sentiments expressed by Eugene Debs in this regard, just before he was sentenced to 10 years in prison:
‘…years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.’
Comment by John Wight — 25 June, 2009 @ 9:15 am
What about the souls who are in prison in Iran put there by Iranian regime who is defining them as a criminal element? Are you of them?
Comment by apollo — 25 June, 2009 @ 9:38 am
John W #103,
You said the protests are not national. When I said they are, you challenged me to show you my sources. Here is one. There are others that you can just google and find in spite of the news blackout in Iran:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2996958.stm
As for the split in the ruling clergy, I did cite proof. See the following link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election as one example.
To see the scale of the protests, including one with over a million people in Isfahan (not national?), follow this link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi1388
After seeing the photos, you tell me if you’ve seen a demo as big as those in your life - and I know you’ve been to a lot of them - and tell me if the protests are not massive or national. The regime calls them a bunch of terrorists and hulligans and has set up special tribunals to try them. See if you agree.
What I said I can’t prove to you is a split in the Revolutionary Guard. Sorry, I preferred to believe my friends in Iran than you. But, I’ll let that one go. Let’s see if you’ll modify your position and ackhnowledge the protests are massive and all over the country.
The people protesting and now being killed on the streets as we debate are not being controlled by the West; they’re not asking for intervention by the West; they’re not even asking for change of major policies, and they’re not islamophobic. They just want freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, accountability, transparency, justice, etc.
Oh uh! I’m going to get another lecture from John about bourgios democracy. But, I won’t let you get away with it. I asked you a question which you did not answer. Would you call Lenin a non-Marxist since he defended and advocated fighting for bourgios democracy when none existed? “You don’t defend lack of democratic rights for people which includes workers in a capitalist country even if it has differences with imperialism. You defend lack of democracy for the bourgiosie in a socialist country or one that’s moving towards socialism” [quotes are for emphasis only].
Now, if you had said you defend Iran against the threats by and sanctions imposed by the West, or that they have the right to produce nuclear energy and even atomic bombs, I’d have no disagreements with you, but you seem to be defending the indefensible, namely, beating and killing and imprisoning of peacful demonstrators who want to reform their capitalist (not socialist) state. How does that intefere with or agitate your sense of anti-imperialism? If these people were cooperating with the CIA or wanted to bring back a puppet regime, I’d agree with you, but that’s not the case.
Lastly, you made no mention again after I replied (in #99) to your earlier comment: “The analogy I point to with the Iraqi CP is apropos here”. Do we agree on that now? I just want to know because that’s important. It’s important for the left outside Iran to know that the Iranian left, whatever is left of it, is not the same as Iraq’s CP who participated in the coalition government set up by invading Americans. If we support the protests, that does not make us Iraq’s CP.
When you answer, please, try to answer point by point as I do, rather than some general statements such as: “You continue to make unsubstantiated assertions.”
Speaking of making unsubstantiated assertions, you first compared today’s Iran with Venezuela which, from an analytical point of view, implied it’s qualitatively the same situation, but when I pointed out it’s not, you said there are similarities. Yes, sure; there are similarities between a lot of things. The question is are they similar enough to warrant similar conclusions? I’m not trying to give you a hard time. I just wish you’d be a little more rigorous in your analysis.
Comment by Sako — 25 June, 2009 @ 9:50 am
I just tried to post a reply to John’s reply and got flagged as spam and told to contact the administrator of this web site. All I was trying to do was provide proof for my assertions which John had asked for.
Comment by Sako — 25 June, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Sako
Feel free to send your proof and sources to me privately and I will post them up.
Comment by John Wight — 25 June, 2009 @ 10:13 am
Why do they have to be vetted by you first?
Comment by apollo — 25 June, 2009 @ 10:16 am
I just tried to provide links to sites to prove my points that John Wight had asked for, but got flagged as spam and prevented from being posted. These sites included pictures of demonstrations that show the protests are national and massive - over a million. I also included a link substatiating my claim that there is split in ruling clergy.
Comment by Sako — 25 June, 2009 @ 10:17 am
#115
Sako
The spam filter blocked you becasue there were three links in your comment, which is the magic threshhold.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2009 @ 10:28 am
“but you know that Mousavi, who has vowed to continue Iran’s nuclear plans and support the Palestinians, would be far harder for the international community to oppose than the present anti semite guy.”
“Other volunteers, he says, have been brought from Lebanon, where the Iranian
regime has strong allies in the Hezbollah movement.”
So why do you think that those who daily face the bullets, the rockets and the massacres of the Zionists have come to help defend the revolution? How is it that the president has demonstrated the Zionist and American links behind the private industry backing Mousavi? Why is it that Mousavi has not pledged to continue cooperation with socialist Korea on missile technology, but described it as a ‘disaster’? Instead we are presented with film that shows nothing and asked to sympathize with demonstrators as wealthy as those who protest Chavez and Morales.
We are all Hezbollah - yesterday, today and always.
Comment by terry smith — 25 June, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Sako #114
I utterly dispute your assertion that I have not offered a rigorous analysis of the crisis in Iraq. On the contrary, in my original article and in subsequent comments, I have provided historical and geopolitical context, and of a depth which has been glaringly absent from your own comments (apart, that is, from a grudging lipservice to the role of imperialism in this crisis).
In a previous post, I stated some concrete facts as to why Ahamdinejad has come under such a sustained assault from without (I’ll get to within in a minute). I pointed to the fact that he’s just attended a summit in Russia to push forward plans for a counter hegemonic trade, political, and security bloc to that led by the US. I pointed to the fact that he replaced the dollar with the euro with regard to Iran’s international transactions back in 2006. His close ties with another US enemy, Venezuela, which is leading a second front against US imperialism in Latin America, is also germane in this aspect.
Hezbollah’s ability to withstand Israel’s assault, preparatory to an intended military strike on Iran, back in 2006, would not have been possible without Iran’s support and material aid. The same with Iran’s moral and material support for the Palestinians.
Yet you, in a dialectical somersault, have stated that Ahmadinejad is actually good for US imperialism and Israel, as it encourages them to attack Iran.
As I said to you then, therein lies the road to slavery and colonisation.
Now, internally, Ahmadinejad is certainly no progressive in the mould of a Chavez or a Morales. How could he be? He’s presides over an Islamic State. No one is advocating a theocracy as a progessive society. But we simply cannot ignore or place aside the concrete material conditions from which Iran emerged and in which it exists.
These have created contradictions between aspects of western society and a rejection of certain of those values associated with a history of colonialism and imperialism in the region. The internal pressure and tensions within Iranian society are absolutely linked to the huge external pressures I’ve already mentioned.
The role of cultural imperialism cannot be ignored either. There is a large pro-western element to these protests - perhaps not politically (though I think it’s hard to tell as yet) but certainly culturally. The cultural values of the United States dominate in line with its economic system. It was largely this aspect of US imperialism which ate away at the ability of the Soviet bloc to survive. I have to say that the Iranian left may have succumbed to this cultural imperialism, alebeit unwittingly.
Moreover, it is entirely understandable that they would see this as an opportunity to carry out unfinished business against a regime responsible for their near decimation. But nothing I have read or observed has convinced me that this protest movement is not driven by the middle class and western leaning students. Nothing.
As for Lenin, you’ve attempted here to draw a historical parallel by ripping completely Lenin’s stance on the Constituent Assembly out of its proper historical context.
Russia was an imperialist power, engaged in a struggle with other imperialist powers over colonial possessions, an important one of which was present day Iran. Iran today is NOT an imperialist power, is not an economy which extracts surplus value from other states and other economies under its dominion. It has no troops occupying neighbouring countries, much less countries thousands of miles away. It has no nuclear submarines policing the world’s oceans. And it has no fleets of battelships and aircraft carriers deployed within striking distance of Britain and the US. As such, this protest movement is a destabilising factor in the struggle against imperialism, not an advance in this struggle.
With regard to Islamophobia, the propensity of much of the left here and in the US has been to point the finger at states and societies like Iran, without taking into consideration the pressures they exist under, and cry barbaric and uncivilised. There is much about the Islamic culture that is certainly regressive. There is also much that is not. However, what about our culture? Are we any more civilised or less barbaric in the West? The US holds a full quarter of the entire world’s prison population in its vast network of gulags. It executes juveniles and the mentally ill. Police brutality is rife, especially against blacks and other minorities. Indeed, you and I have both demonstrated against police brutality when we were active together in LA.
Freedom in our society means the freedom to be unemployed, to be homeless, to go hungry, and to respond to the alienation wrought through developing mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, and other such maladies. The impact of such economic and cultural values throughout those nations in the developing world whose ruling elites have adopted them has been catastrophic.
Look at Colombia, look at Haiti, The Dominican Republic, look at sub-Saharan Africa - look at those nations who’ve been unable to resist the neoliberal juggernaut and the cultural values it spreads. They’ve been decimated, with the emphasis on eradicating the poor rather than poverty, the hungry rather than hunger.
I recommend you read Galeano’s ‘Open Veins Of Latin America’ in order to get an idea of the scale of this catastrophe.
This, I contend, is what is what is at stake in Iran at present.
Comment by John Wight — 25 June, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Andy,
Could you then please, delete one of the links (preferably the second) and post the rest I submitted? Thanks.
Comment by Sako — 25 June, 2009 @ 11:46 am
John Wright is taking a blood and soil nationalist type of line. He knows very well that Ahmadinejad has been a gift for the Americans in Iraq, where he was easily blamed for lot of things, and manner from heaven for Israel with his anti semitic conferences, making it much easiler for them to isolate Hamas and Hezbollah due to painting them as having backing from this madman type figure, and for them to justify military action in the Spring. But because Ahmadinejad gives it to them in a thuggish type manner, he still gets Wright’s vote. And Iranians? Well who cares about them.
Just so selfish. At the very least it shows you are politically braindead if you believe this stuff. How can we trust you on anything else if this is your judgment?
Comment by Ed D — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
#122
No need, it is all there at #114.
The three links limit is the threshold for the automatic spam fliter to block it, but I manually overrode it, and published it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
NEWS: Second US amphibious strike group arrives off Iran’s shores
[On Jun. 20, the day the crackdown began in Iran, the U.S. expeditionary strike group known as LHD-5 Bataan or “Amphibious Group Two” passed through the Suez Canal, military sources reported Tuesday.[1] — The commanding officer of the USS Bataan called the group “a versatile force that’s able to respond to tasking at a moment’s notice.” —
Stratfor’s naval update map showed the group to be in the Persian Gulf as of Jun. 24.[2] — PR human interest stories from the Bataan assault group failed to mention where the group was or where it was headed.[3] — The Daily News of Jacksonville, NC, reported that the group deployed (from its homeport of Norfolk, VA) in May before training had been completed for its maritime security mission.[4] —
http://www.ufppc.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
Comment by John Wight — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Yeah I know who’d a thunk it. The US in the Persian Gulf. It obviously shows that the demonstrations were all part of a well laid plan. Doesn’t it. Er…
Comment by johng — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Lets be honest - the regime appears to have pretty much crushed the demonstrators now. John Wright can no longer panic. They’re all either dead, in jail or on the run, and the very quiet Mousavi is probably having his toenails pulled out somewhere. The democratic revote has been put down.
I suspect we haven’t seen the last of them though. These people seem to be very brave.
Comment by Ed D — 25 June, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
http://tehranbroadcast.com/We-are-at-a-critical-point-Request.html
Comment by Ed D — 25 June, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
#127 Lets be honest - the regime appears to have pretty much crushed the demonstrators now.
They’ve stopped unsympathetic foreign journalists from reporting, but it may be premature to say it’s all over.
Comment by skidmarx — 25 June, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
John Wight-I dont understand your problem per se with people being against the Iranian masses if they are against the government, as you suggest.
Your approach appears to be based on the idea that what really matters is not the political choices people in any country make or wish to make but the objective interests of the global struggle against imperialism. That’s why you’re not swayed by the views of the Tudeh or the Iranian trade union militants who have been quoted on this post.
So if the regime had a different (pro-imperialist)foreign policy and yet still had the support of the masses (as you state), would you be so bothered about being against the masses?
If it could be proved that the Polish working class in their majority were behind Solidarity in 1981 would you say that Jarozelski was right to clamp down?
The question is most poignant in relation to Afghanistan, which brings me to Andy Newman- yes the SWP were wrong to side with the Islamists against the government during the Soviet intervention, but Afghan socialists and feminists who now support the imperialist occupation are also wrong, as you will obviously agree. This shit works both ways.
As for Ed D- I’m pretty sure you’d be a cheerleader for a US invasion of Iran, so your opinions in this discussion are academic to say the least.
Comment by Armchair — 25 June, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Who are we defending against Imperialism? Regimes or people? I mean why are we against imperialism in the first place? John’s remarks would leave any reader deeply baffled.
Comment by johng — 25 June, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
I’m pretty sure you’d be a cheerleader for a US invasion of Iran, so your opinions in this discussion are academic to say the least.
I would not because there is no basis for one on any level. In truth I don’t think it has ever been desired by anyone in the US - even at the neocons highest point immediately after the Iraq invasion, the focus was shifted to Syria, not Iran. This only changed after walking PR nightmare man got into power.
Comment by Ed D — 25 June, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
JohnW would you have supported nazi Germany?
Comment by communist — 25 June, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
johng #74:
“…why many in Latin America would have been confused amongst other things. Why John Wight would still be coming out with this gibbberish is less clear though. Its not as if he has not been exposed to discussion on the politics of the Middle East and Imperialism over the last decade.”
Johng, you clearly imply that President Chavez and other Latin American leaders are (a) confused, and (b) have not ‘been exposed to discussion on the politics of the Middle East and Imperialism over the last decade.’
With all the respect that is due to you for your no doubt very good activity on many issues, it’s you that’s talking ‘gibberish’.
Hugo Chavez made another statement yesterday, in which he emphasised his view that: “behind this [the events in Iran] is the CIA, the imperial hand of European countries and the United States.”
He added:
“We call on the world to respect Iran because there are attempts to undermine the strength of the Iranian revolution.”
Now, you are perfectly free to disagree with Hugo Chavez on this, or any other matter. But to suggest that he is ‘confused’, or is lacking in experience of Imperialism and involvement in discussion on the politics of the Middle East is utterly ridiculous.
Comment by Noah — 25 June, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
‘communist’#131: “JohnW would you have supported nazi Germany?”
Ah, so now Ahmadinejad = Hitler!
A discourse which one recalls from other previous & current ‘democracy promotion’ campaigns.
Out of several examples- Yugoslavia under Slobodan Milosevic, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Gaza under Hamas. All likened to the Nazis in order to close down critical discussion.
Comment by Noah — 25 June, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
Noah, Ahmedinejad is not the same as Hitler.
Ahmedinejad’s clerical fascism differs from Hitler’s nazism in many respects.
But the point of my question - which none of you present-day fascist sympathisers have answered - is that your justification for backing clerical fascism in Iran today could also. Have been used to justify support for nazi Germany.
The only reason you give for supporting the Iranian regime is its opposition to the current international status quo - you disregard the regime’s oppression of its own people.
Nazi Germany also opposed the then international status quo while also oppressing its own people.
By the same perverse logic, would you therefore have supported nazi Germany?
Comment by communist — 25 June, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
@ ‘communist’ @ 134. You do rather seem to be proving my point. A liberal sprinkling of the word ‘fascist’, the allegation that anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘fascist sympathiser’…
And you pursue your absurd parallel between Nazi Germany and Iran.
May I point out a few (out of many) faults in your analogy. Nazi Germany was the most industrially advanced economy in Europe, the leader of a hugely powerful imperialist bloc, engaging in enormous wars of conquest to enlarge its territory, annihilating many millions of people on grounds of racial inferiority.
None of which apply to Iran.
Comment by Noah — 25 June, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Noah he clearly is confused about Iran and is clearly seeing everything through the lense of the Venezuelan exparience. Its the wrong lense. I think the Morning Star has it about right when it suggests that some of this diplomatic gladhanding that the left would be foolish to take as any kind of guide for their own orientation. Incidently I’ve just heard from a Lebanese friend that those who have disgracefully taken part in the murder and beating of unarmed Iranian citizens in Tehran are thought to be Amal: not Hezbollah. Tehran it appears uses sectarian thugs for its dirty work rather then liberation organisations who no doubt have more important considerations in mind. Hezbollah played a very progressive role in undermining US attempts to whip up sectarianism in the Middle East. The same cannot unfortunately be said for the Iranian state which was quite happy to undermine unity in the resistance to the US to further its own geo-political ends. The relationship between Iran and genuine movements of resistance is no less conflicted then that between the old PLO and the various Arab regimes which paid lipservice to Palestinian liberation at the same time as betraying that struggle at every possible juncture. Your own political forfathers were blind to that as well.
Comment by johng — 25 June, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Yassamine Mather ‘Beginning of the End’
http://hopinewsfromiran.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/beginning-of-the-end-by-yassamine-mather/
Comment by Chris S — 25 June, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
johng #136: “Noah he [Pres. Chavez] clearly is confused about Iran and is clearly seeing everything through the lense of the Venezuelan exparience.”
Really? But Hugo Chavez travels widely & studies extensively; Venezuela has particular links with the Middle East oil-producing countries due to its leading position in OPEC; and I would hazard a guess that Chavez’s knowledge of Iran would rival that of you, me, or most other contributors to this forum.
Without a doubt, Hugo Chavez is considering the overall global situation & is taking into account recent historical episodes, eg the various ‘colour revolutions’ etc.
None of which proves that Chavez’s point of view on this is correct. But clearly, it’s not a naieve or uneducated point of view.
Moreover. There is a remarkable global division in the content & tone of media reports and the statements of politicians on the current struggles in Iran; with not only much of Latin America, but also Russia and China, declining to align with the anti-Ahmedinejad campaign.
Why? For one reason among several, people in much of the world are highly suspicious of ‘regime change’ movements backed by the Western countries.
Comment by Noah — 25 June, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
Noah#138: “But Hugo Chavez travels widely & studies extensively; Venezuela has particular links with the Middle East oil-producing countries due to its leading position in OPEC…” Traveling and studying doesn’t mean he can’t make a mistake about Iran. In fact, the odds were he would. I could have in fact guessed his position. Being the head of a state which is in the US’s hemisphere and for so long under her domination, and trying desparately to find alliances against the US imperialism can and does distort his point of view.
Let’s face it, he’s a popular and dedicated leader for the Bolvarian Revolution and we all respect and admire him for it, but it doesn’t mean he’s strong analytically. Not his positoin by itself as the revolution’s leader, nor the fact that he travels and reads a lot, or even the fact that he probably does know a lot about Iran. I can show you many people who know a lot about Iran, but who don’t have the proper understanding of the social forces and contradictions.
It makes political sense for Chavez to make an alliance with Ahmadinejad and the “Supreme Leader”. Why wouldn’t he, espicially in the immideate, but the Iranian people also have the right to put their rights on the front burner, too, and the Iranian left likewise should defend them, as long as it does not signifantly modify the balance of forces to benefit imperialism which in this case I submit it doesn’t.
Now, that probably leaves us without clear answers. Chavez has his problems, and the Iranian people theirs, but I would think when a people revolts and starts a civil rights movement on a massive and national level which includes all sectors and age groups but especially women who are particularly oppressed against a repressive capitalist regime which then starts slaughtering and jailing the people, at least some sympathy should be driected towards them.
Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are not all that different politically or even as far as their economic views. Ahmadinejad believes in hand-outs especially to the rural population, whereas Mousavi seems to be emphacizing jobs creation which is understandable given the fact that the unemployment rate for the age group of 15 to 29 is 70%. The overall unemployment rate is 53%. As for international policies, they’re not that different.
Comment by Sako — 25 June, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Noah in Iran workers taking strike action are arrested, tortured and imprisoned, women are officially treated as second-class citizens with strict rules on their conduct, gay men are publicly executed and left or secular political organisations are not allowed to organise or stand for election.
A regime such as this displays many hallmarks of fascism.
Of course there are key differences to German nazism, south American military rule and the fascist BNP - fascism takes on different forms in different nations.
Describing the Iranian regime as “clerical-fascist” is accurate, its fascism has a mainly religious origin.
And supporters of this regime - not “everyone who disagrees with me” but supporters of this regime Noah -are fascist sympathisers.
You claim that Iran is not fascist because it does not rank among the world’s leading industrial nations, is not engaged in wars of conquest and does not aim at the annihilation of other racial groups.
So, as long as a regime opposes the existing international status quo, is not among the world’s leading industrial powers and does not engage in wars of conquest, then it can oppress its own people as much as it likes and you will still support it?
Comment by communist — 26 June, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Sako:
Ahmadinejad believes in hand-outs especially to the rural population, whereas Mousavi seems to be emphacizing jobs creation which is understandable given the fact that the unemployment rate for the age group of 15 to 29 is 70%.
Reply:
Subsidies to the poor are handouts and liberalisation is job creation?
This could have been written by a free market ideologue with designs on the welfare state in any industrialised country.
Comment by John Wight — 26 June, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
From Al Jazeera..
“Ahmad Khatami, a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, told worshippers during a sermon at Friday prayers that Iran’s judiciary should charge such rioters as “mohareb”, or one who wages war against God.”
Disagree with a cleric and you disagree with God. It seems John Wight is on God’s side on this matter.
Comment by Robert Browne — 26 June, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
John, I’m not knocking subsidies or handouts. OK subsidies. And I’m not saying Mousavi’s plans are good. I don’t really care about the difference between them. My point is and I can’t say it any clearer than this: Mousavi is an “accidental” leader who was at the right place at the right time and was called upon by the people to lead a civil rights movement.
This is about the people. You seem to disregard them. They are the reason why we’re opposed to imperialism.
Also, the working class are the biggest beneficiaries of such a civil rights movement, not Washington, London or Tel Aviv. There is a massive national civil rights movement and you’re dismissing it out of hand because imperialism might come out the winner? You don’t know that they will. Show some sympathy for a genuine people’s movement. I sent you the links to some pictures so you could see it is what I say it is.
One more thing, do not compare this movement with the “color” so-called revolutions of the recent years. Most of these young people who are revolting come from poor and working-class families and their aim is not closer ties with imperialism. What’s happening is separate from imperialism. It’s not for or against. That’s what civil rights movements are. I’m going to stop talking because I don’t think you’re listening.
Comment by Sako — 26 June, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Communist#140, I agree with Noah on this that we have to be careful about using the word fascim. Although the regime does show some similarities with fascists as you pointed out, showing similarities is not enough. That was one of my arguments with John Wight who was arguing that there are similarities between Iran now and Venezuela of 2002 to which I replied there are similarities between many two things; that doesn’t mean we have to treat them as if they’re the same because they’re not.
Comment by Sako — 26 June, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
#143 “I’m going to stop talking because I don’t think you’re listening.”
Yes, quite. I think this subject has been given a good airing this week and John W, Noah and one or two others are very isolated on here now.
They are, of course, entitled to their views, but I think most of us find what they have been saying is shocking really. But I don’t think that they are going to change their minds now.
I think though that any Iranian leftist who has read this debate will be quite pleased with the general balance of the argument. Far more comrades want to solidarise with the movement than are opposed to it.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 26 June, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Sako #139: “Traveling and studying doesn’t mean he [Chavez] can’t make a mistake about Iran… etc etc”
I’m very happy for you to take issue with my points, but please take the trouble to read them properly; and if (as in this case) the post of mine to which you refer is a reply to assertions made by somebody else, please also take the trouble also to look at the assertions to which I am responding.
My post was a rebuttal to Johng, who clearly implied that President Chavez and other Latin American leaders have not “been exposed to discussion on the politics of the Middle East and Imperialism over the last decade”, and who added that “he [Pres. Chavez] clearly is confused about Iran and is clearly seeing everything through the lense of the Venezuelan exparience.”
If you will do me the curtesy of reading my post, you will note that I by no means claimed that Hugo Chavez ‘can’t make a mistake about Iran’.
In fact, what I said is this: “None of which proves that Chavez’s point of view on this is correct. But clearly, it’s not a naieve or uneducated point of view.”
With that out of the way, I really need to take you up on your suggestion that Hugo Chavez is not ’strong analytically’.
While I’m very certain that all of us on the global left- including its most prominent international leader- could do with analytical improvements, I regret to have to say that this remark of yours is reminiscent of the man in the Bible who was rebuked as follows: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Specifically, your characterisation of the situation in Iran: “when a people revolts and starts a civil rights movement on a massive and national level which includes all sectors and age groups…etc” is strong on enthusiasm, romance and cliche, but remarkably weak in its analysis & grasp of fact.
‘When a people revolts’? Please!
Surely, amongst other various matters, both the pre-election opinion poll conducted by TFT / New America Foundation, and the main location of the post-election riots & demonstrations against the election result, indicates that this is hardly a revolt of ‘a people’, but of a minority, based largely in the wealthier districts.
And then you say: “Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are not all that different politically or even as far as their economic views […] As for international policies, they’re not that different.”
In which case, it would indeed be very hard to divine what the fuss is all about- or indeed why you think it is important to ‘take sides’ on this matter- unless you are one of those people who believe that lots of people demonstrating on the streets is ipso facto a ‘good thing’, unleashing possibilities for progress, never mind the supposed lack of any significant difference between the political / global / economic positions of the main protagonists.
If so, you have yet to put forward a convincing argument that this is the case, or to explain why the global imperialist media is so unanimously keen to encourage the present / recent unrest in the streets of Iran, if that is likely to lead to positive developments for either the working & poor masses in Iran or the global struggles against imperialism.
Comment by Noah — 26 June, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
@ ‘communist’ (#140). It is common ground here that many of the social policies of the regime in Iran are extremely negative. It is by no means clear that the overthrow of Ahmedinejad, & a victory for the forces around Mousavi & Rafsanjani, would result in an improvement in the position of the majority of people in Iran.
Your attempt to smear those who decline to support the anti-Ahmedinejad campaign as ‘fascist sympathisers’ has a bit of a problem.
If we put aside people with neglible influence such as you, me, John Wight, Johng, other posters on this site, members of left-wing sects in the imperialist countries, & left-wing groups in Iran who very sadly have little or no influence or purchase on the events taking place there; we find that were we to accept your characterisation we would have to conclude as follows:
That the ‘fascist sympathisers’ are the governments & left-wing movements of Venezuela, Cuba & the rest of Latin America, plus the SCO countries particularly China and Russia.
Conversely, the main ‘anti-fascists’ would have to be be the media & governments of the USA and Western Europe.
That’s where your ridiculous analogy with the 1930s takes you. As it has taken others, who have ended up in Harry’s Place.
Comment by Noah — 26 June, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Noah can I suggest you read Morning Star political editor John Halett’s article Shades of Grey, which explains quite clearly the difference between state-to-state diplomacy and support for the regime by individuals and organisations.
This difference has also been explained by Andy Newman and others on other threads dealing with this subject.
(And where is “Harry’s place”? What does that mean?)
Comment by communist — 26 June, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Sako I agree we should not use the term “fascist” carelessly, but I do believe it’s appropriate in describing the Iranian regime. It’s fascism with a religious basis - clerical-fascism.
And Noah once again, no-one here is supporting the defeated candidate, we’re supporting our comrades in the left and workers’ movement in Iran.
Comment by communist — 26 June, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
@ ‘communist’ 148. I disagree with a lot of what John Haylett says, but his article offers you no succour whatsoever.
Take the example of Hugo Chavez. He has gone far beyond anything that could be required by diplomatic niceties. His clearly enunciated point of view is- and much more emphatically than John Wight or myself have put it- that the hands of US & W. European imperialism are behind the anti-government protests in Iran.
So where does that leave you in your ridiculous attempt to portray as ‘fascist sympathisers’ those who disagree with you on the issue of the current struggles in Iran?
Comment by Noah — 26 June, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Simply this Noah you’re supporting a clerical-fascist regime against the left and workers’ movement.
Therefore you’re a fascist sympathiser.
Comment by communist — 26 June, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
@ ‘communist’. OK, you got me. I mistook you for a geniune but very misguided poster. Obviously I should have realised a while ago that you are a troll.
Now please fuck off back to Harry’s Place where you belong.
Comment by Noah — 26 June, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
Noah you and JohnW have been thoroughly trounced in this discussion and left utterly isolated.
And from your position in a minority of two in this debate, what the fuck gives you the right to claim ownership of this site and decide who is or is not genuine and who may or may not participate?
And who the fuck is this “Harry” you keep going on about?
Comment by communist — 27 June, 2009 @ 7:36 am
Stockwell Pete:
Yes, quite. I think this subject has been given a good airing this week and John W, Noah and one or two others are very isolated on here now.
Reply:
Well, Pete, we may be in the minority on this issue on this site, but I hardly think it gives you a license to shit in the street.
I do feel that Noah and myself have more than held our own and I mean that sincerely. Not that it’s a competition, but you did see fit to inject this aspect into proceedings. Unfortunate, I’d say, but there you go.
Pete:
They are, of course, entitled to their views, but I think most of us find what they have been saying is shocking really.
Reply:
Likewise.
Comment by John Wight — 27 June, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Why do you think that you’re in a minority, John? Do you hve any explanation as to why your ideas have achieved so little traction (true also on Lenin’s Tomb)? Apart from Galloway it’s hard to think of any leading figures on the left who are not supporting the protests.
Comment by apollo — 27 June, 2009 @ 7:59 am
apollo - Many more people read this list than take part in its discussions. Let me tell you, in the past few days I’ve personally received quite a few private messages from people offering their support for my analysis and views on this.
As for my ideas receiving so little traction on Lenin’s Tomb, you may be shocked to hear this, but I don’t look upon debate and discussion as a popularity contest or as an opportunity to make new friends.
As long as I’m satisfied that I have stated my views honestly and in a manner that accurately reflects my thoughts, as well as considered the views expressed by others, I’m more than happy.
Socialists should always be prepared to stand in the minority if they have to. I think you’ll find that most of those worthy of respect have at certain points.
Again, I reiterate, I do feel that my analysis is correct, based on what’s unfolding at present. If, on the other hand, I’m wrong, I hope I have the balls to put my hand up and change my views.
But I really do not think I am.
As for leading figures on the left, one of the most startling things I’ve noticed throughout this discussion is the way in which people have attempted to delegitimise those they disagree with, a symptom perhaps of an inability to refute the intellectual arguments.
Galloway is very much a leading figure on the left. More than that, he’s an international figure who travels extensively throughout the world, but in particular the Middle East and Near East. Consequently, I don’t see how anyone could argue that he doesn’t know the people, the pulse of the streets, the regimes, and the political terrain of countries such as Iran. He knows it better than any other single western politician I can think of, and certainly more than others so-called ‘leading figures’ whose experience of the region is through the lens of the BBC, CNN, Guardian, and other such filters.
Then, of course, another leading figure you forgot to mention whose views I share on this issue is Hugo Chavez.
He only happens to be the leader of another nation that stands in the way of US hegemony; the inspiration, I’m sure most would agree, behind the leftward shift that’s taken place throughout Latin America, a man who has quite literally stood at the head of a movement that has transformed the lives of millions, who has faced down a determined, western-backed and western-oriented opposition within his own country as a result, who knows that the masses in Venezuela and any developing country are not those who speak English, have money, access to private means of communication, and so on. He’s faced down a coup attempt and has been elected more times than probably every other leader combined in the past few years.
Yet, despite all that, we’ve had a concerted and ludicrous attempt to delegitimise Chavez - with people on this thread having the temerity to suggest that Chavez ‘isn’t strong analytically’, that Chavez’s analysis is that of a head of state and therefore can’t be taken seriously, that he’s only supporting Ahmadinejad out of some mercenary or dishonest motives.
I mean, really, it’s been laughable.
Chavez’s credentials both as an anti-imperialist and as an internationalist are second to none. As are Galloway’s, who by the way is currently in the process of raising yet another aid convoy to Gaza as we speak.
So, to sum up, the fact I find myself in accord with George Galloway and Hugo Chavez (not to mention the vast constituency of people they represent between them) on this issue is hardly a reason to be despondent.
Comment by John Wight — 27 June, 2009 @ 8:33 am
We’ll see what the future holds. I haven’t heard any commentary coming from inside the country which believes that the protests have fizzled out. In my view it is very difficult to maintain a strangehold on the will of a sizeable minority through brutal repressive means (threats of execution) while the eyes of the world are watching. Short of a bloodbath, something has to give. Israel lost a huge bloc of credibility and public support in 2007 with the invasion of Lebanon and in 2009 with the attack on Gaza. The same has happened in Iran. Galloway and Chavez will have lost some credibility because of their support for the beatings, torture and killings.
In the longer term I believe you will be disappointed in the outcome of the events that have taken place in the past two weeks.
Comment by apollo — 27 June, 2009 @ 8:55 am
JohnW it seems as if you know the game’s up on Iran and you’ve given up trying to defend this indefensible regime so now you’re attempting to shift the debate to one over Hugo Chavez.
Chavez is not the issue here JohnW, very few people on the left would oppose him in general terms.
As for his statement on the Iran situation, this has been explained to you time and time again. Chavez speaks as a head of state and has to observe certain diplomatic protocols. He is not in the same situation as you and you simply appear deluded when you try to present this as “me and Hugo Chavez.”
As for Galloway, well you’re welcome to him. A fading celebrity desperately seeking attention to revive his career. Far from being a “leading figure on the left” he’s a joke outside the ranks of Respect.
Comment by communist — 27 June, 2009 @ 9:00 am
I see John’s point about there being no shame in being in a minority, and a minority can always win over the majority - this is the case in every successful progressive struggle. But in your case you have a regime which is beginning its descent, which is ruthlessly suppressing protest with brute force, and with a deepening opposition. In such circumstances the likelhood of winning a majoirty of others over is very slight despte a couple of high profile supporters.
Comment by apollo — 27 June, 2009 @ 11:26 am
I think we could all agree that the outcome of the situation in Irand depends on the active intervention of the working class.
In that vein, I reproduce the following leaflet that was distributed by the Iranian supporters of the International Marxist Tendency, signed by Maziar Razi:-
“It is necessary to form clandestine strike committees for general co-ordination. By coordinating together these committees can organize the day and time of factory strikes, and stop work together in various parts of Iran and put forward workers’ demands. You have had very significant experiences. These experiences must be used. A few years ago there were the experiences of the Baresh factory in Esfahan and Kashmir factory, and last year the protests of the workers of the Haft Tapeh factory, Kurdistan textiles and Iran Khodro factories, and so on, all of these can be put to use.
“The right to strike is your absolute right. This slogan can be put into effect until all your demands have been achieved. Trade union demands like: payment of back pay, pensions and so on. Democratic demands like: the release of all political prisoners, freedom of speech, assembly, press and the right to strike and to form independent labour organizations and so on. These demands can be combined with transitional demands like workers’ control, the sliding scale of wages in line with inflation and so on. If the government blocks these basic demands, you can occupy the factories and bring them under the control of the workers themselves and throw out the useless managers. Control over production and distribution can be implemented by the powerful hand of the workers themselves. The experience of the revolution against the royal despotism proved to the workers that within a few weeks, without any previous experience, they can form workers’ councils and bring about workers’ control. In the present crisis, when the capitalist government is split and a huge mass of people that is independent of the ruling establishment is in the streets every day, the honourable workers of Iran can quickly achieve their demands.
“Your actions will show the ways and means of anti-government struggles to the youth. In the presence of a workers’ leadership, the youth will quickly break with the reformists and move towards more radical demands. Action by you, the workers, can today bring about a different future to the present movement. Your active presence in the organization of a general strike with the aim of defending yourself and supporting the democratic rights of millions of Iranian people is the most important action that is on the Iranian workers’ agenda today.”
Comment by prianikoff — 27 June, 2009 @ 11:31 am
apollo #155: “Why do you think that you’re in a minority, John? Do you hve any explanation as to why your ideas have achieved so little traction…”
Hmmm. This is a list whose posters are overwhelmingly from the UK & other imperialist countries. Imperialism is united on its position of support for the anti-Ahmadinejad movement.
The view in much of the Third World is very different. Let me remind you again that China, Russia and most of Latin America is distinctly unenthusiastic about the attempt to overturn the election result in Iran.
Comment by Noah — 27 June, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Prianikoff #160: “I think we could all agree that the outcome of the situation in Irand depends on the active intervention of the working class. In that vein, I reproduce the following leaflet that was distributed by the Iranian supporters of the International Marxist Tendency… etc”
Sorry to be the one who has to break this to you, Prianikoff, but for extremely tragic & quite well-known reasons, the working class left in Iran has been reduced to the status of minor sects with very little purchase or influence on the events there.
The conceit promoted by some posters on this site, that the present conflict between elite factions in Iran- with one side backed by imperialism and having enthisiastic support in the more affluent districts- was going to open a way for a socialist upsurge, was (sadly) only a fantasy.
Comment by Noah — 27 June, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
‘Let me remind you again that China, Russia and most of Latin America is distinctly unenthusiastic about the attempt to overturn the election result in Iran’
The goverments of these countries or the people?
Comment by apollo — 28 June, 2009 @ 9:43 am
#162 Noah, that doesn’t answer the question.
You are ignoring the fact that such a conflict can be utilised in its favour by a leadership with a clear policy. Just as the desire by German Imperialism to take Russia out of WW1 was utilised by Lenin and the Bolsheviks to overthrow the Provisional Government in 1917. The Mensheviks and SR’s of the time accused him of being an agent of German Imperialism and this accusation is sometimes repeated by right wingers today. People like James Petras are a modern variant.
If the cap fits wear it.
These are the questions you need to answer if you want to develop a policy that’s anything more than tail-ending sycophancy towards the current Iranian regime.
* What is your class definition of the Iranian state?
* What attitude do you have towards the independent unions in Iran?
* Do you support the jailing of the members and leaders, or stand for their release?
* What policy would you promote if you had members or sympathisers of the fragment of “Straight Left” you come from in Iran?
* Is it some form of workers and farmers government?, or a variety of “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”?
Should the working class in Iran therefore try to form a left wing in the Majlis and seek to influence the mullahs and Ahmedinejad, with the long term aim of winning a socialist majority?
Khomeini referred to those in the Muhajedin who had a similar policy as “Marxists with a Bismillah” and had most of them executed.
If I was being unkind, I’d say your role with such a policy will always be Igor to Doctor Frankenstein.
Comment by prianikoff — 28 June, 2009 @ 10:07 am