Iran

It is I’d have thought a basic given that socialists would side with the people against a dictatorship, witout giving any political support for Mousavi, but giving at the least solidarity with the masses under attack and for democratic rights- whilst also arguing that only grassroots organisation and organised self-defence of grassroots democratic organisations can lead to ustainable and lasting change.

The Iranian working class has of course its own revolutionary history crushed for a time by the bloody counter-revolution of Khomeini… but not crushed forever.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 17, 2009 at 5:50 pm

Jason, you wrote: “a basic given that socialists would side with the people against a dictatorship,”

you’d think so, yet why are so many “anti-imperialists” blogs seemingly slow to support the people against the regime?

If these events had happened in France or Turkey then they’d be plastered all over the place, yet the coverage has been surprisingly slow, as if people are still trying to decide who to support before putting out a line.

LikeLike

Reply

Liam

June 17, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Here’s my take on the counter revolutionary regime now in power. GG can answer for himself.

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2005/11/01/the-iranian-revolution-socialism-and-theocracy/

LikeLike

Reply

Stuart King

June 17, 2009 at 10:10 pm

But Liam, George Galloway is YOUR MP, the MP representing Respect in public. He says the elections are “Fair”, that the opposition will “fizzle out” (he hopes). Lets not forget he is a well paid servant of Press TV the Iranian regime’s mouthiece.

When is Socialist Resistance going to come out and publicly distance itself from George Galloway? Silence is complicity, so is saying “he can answer for himself”.

LikeLike

Reply

johng

June 18, 2009 at 2:28 am

Posted this on SUN. I think it fits here:

I’m all in favour of people overthrowing their own rulers. Its imperialist intervention I oppose. The one is a good answer to the other and gives the lie to the idea that the only solution to repressive regimes is to advocate invasions by western countries. I think George is, on this one, confused, as he believes that the only way out of the neo-liberal global regime is alliances of states, movements from below being seen as utopian and unrealistic by comparison. He is not alone in this belief, which often flows out of desperation as much as any perfidy.

It leads however to the misrepresentation of an intra-elite squabble about how to divide the spoils of liberalisation with a challenge to neo-liberalism. If in Venezuela the Chavez government is supported by the left (albeit domestically sometimes critically) and those campaigning against neo-liberal models, in Iran, anyone doing this would be jailed. There is therefore an important difference, and Chavez’s statement is a step backwards.

It is important to be aware of social tensions between different forms of opposition: Ahmedinajad belongs to that faction of the elite which wants to preserve the gains of privatisation in the hands of sections of the state: his propaganda therefore emphasises his links with those sections of the population who stand to lose the most from an opening up to global capitalism, as has been seen in a number of other countries, ranging from the poor to sections of the Bazaris. Unsurprisingly his campaign against corruption has turned out ineffectual as a result.

The other section of the ruling class wants to see the benifits of privatisation spread to other sections of the capitalist class through a bigger opening to global capitalism: they seek to build a base amongst those fed up with the repressive state apparatus and the kinds of corruption that Ahmedinajad doesn’t talk about (whilst preserving their own of course).

All the signs are that Ahmedinajad is losing his base amongst a section of the bazari class, the core of his backing, which, as in the Iranian revolution, acted as a bridge between the clerics and the popular classes. In a number of cities outside Tehran the agitation has spread to them.

Its also clear however that the elite politicians who unleashed the opposition are now terrified by the possible consequences, whilst the state being forced to re-hold the elections points to the widespread nature of these agitations, and the way in which they are moving beyond the simplistic oppositions which formed the stuff of the official dispute between the two fractions of the political class.

Its just a mistake to think that in this situation its possible for anyone to predict exactly what constellation of forces will emerge, or what exactly the result will be. But it does truely give the lie to the idea that Iran is a dead, non-political society. This it seems to me should be the perspective of those concerned about imperialism: not backing for a state against its own population. The whole point is that it is up to them.

Correctly pointing out that Iran is by no means the only or even, arguably, the most repressive state in the region is perfectly legitimate. It is not however a reason to back that repression or oppose movements against it. Indeed the very possibility of such a thing is an indication that Iran needs neither military intervention or imported democracy promotion. And indeed that should be the argument if such things are attempted.

Comment by johng — 18 June, 2009 @ 12:48 am

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 18, 2009 at 2:56 am

so what does that mean?

1) do the SWP think that the election is largely free and fair? Or not?
2) do the SWP support the uprising? Or not?
3) do the SWP want the end to the theocratic regime? Or not?

LikeLike

Reply

johng

June 18, 2009 at 9:42 am

Modernity if you go to SW you will get your answer, which is 1) No, 2) yes, 3) yes.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 18, 2009 at 9:46 am

Why should socialists support the Mousavi movement in Iran any more than they should support Ahmedinejad? Even from the standpoint of formal democracy, its entirely concievable that Ahmedinejad could have won the election. Polls taken before the election by pro-Western, American organsations indicated that Ahmedinejad was ahead of Mousavi and expected to win by a 2-1 margin.

Its also equally conceivable that the result was concocted by fraud. There is no way of being certain either way. The Mousavi supporters are just as capable of being liars as their opponents about this.

There is a fracture between two wings of the Islamic regime. A split between the more socially conservative, but economically populist/welfarist, wing around Ahmedinejad, and a more neo-liberal, but possibly more socially libertarian, element around Mousavi.

There is no overwhelming reason for the working class to support either Ahmedinejad or Mousavi.

Ahmedinejad’s programme – welfare plus greater repression of women’s rights etc. Mousavi’s programme – starve the poor, but at least let women have a bit more freedom while they starve.

Not an attractive choice.

There may be an opportunity given the fracturing of the mass base of the Islamic republic into two camps, each trying to mobilise large numbers against each other, for independent working class activity to launch a movement for something fundamentally better than either side offers. I.e. workers power and full democratic rights. That is what the left should be standing for.

And of course, the neocons who hang around the fringes of the left indulging in Muslim-baiting should be dismissed with contempt. We should firmly oppose all imperialist strategems to exploit this situation to conquer Iran for the imperialist globalisation project. These cretins would be quite happy to support the terror bombing of Iranians just as they did with Iraqis.

LikeLike

Reply

skidmarx

June 18, 2009 at 9:54 am

Stuart King – do you really have to keep pointing out to Liam that George Galloway’s politics are incompatible with those of revolutionary socialism, now that the campaign against the Iraq war is no longer a reason for them to co-exist? I’m sure Liam is an intelligent man who will soon figure this out for himself without you having to ram it down his throat every five minutes.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 18, 2009 at 10:15 am

More to the point, why is Galloway to be condemned for working for, say, Press TV, as opposed to writing for the Scottish Daily Record? Presumably its OK to work for a bourgeois newspaper in an imperialist country, but not OK to work for a TV station run by the state in a country targetted by imperialism? And why not condemn anyone else on the left who works for a bourgeois newspaper or electronic media organisation?

There always has been a whiff of jingoism about these attacks on George Galloway for this political activity. You don’t have to agree with everything GG does to defend him agaisnt these attacks, which are reactionary in their essence.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 18, 2009 at 12:36 pm

“why is Galloway to be condemned for working for, say, Press TV, as opposed to writing for the Scottish Daily Record? “

Presumably, because the Daily Record in Scotland doesn’t push the views of neo-Nazis (as PressTV has done)?

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 18, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Yeah yeah, the usual neocon crap. Go back to your mad bomber friends at Harry’s Place.

LikeLike

Reply

johng

June 18, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Mass demonstrations have just been reported in the workers districts of southern tehran. As stated I strongly suspect that the cliches of the elites about each other are rapidly going to become irrelevent.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 18, 2009 at 2:44 pm

ID,

if you don’t think PressTV pushes neo-Nazis, then check out the evidence:

“In his essay, Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom argues that the alleged massacre of Jewish people by gassing during World War II was scientifically impossible. “

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56287&sectionid=3510303

Most antifascists know that Nick Kollerstrom is a neo-nazi but to save you the trouble of working it out, here’s another link:

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/04/21/sieg-heil-de-heil/

Kollerstrom also a 9/11 truther, etc.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 18, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Such nonsense appears in the media throughout the Middle East. Its a sign of massive ignorance about European history, and morbid hatred generated by imperialist and Israeli crimes over decades that such people get the time of day. That doesn’t change the fact that Iran, as well as many other countries, mainly but not only Arab ones, in the Middle East, are targets of imperialism and need solidarity against imperialism and Zionism. It is perfectly principled to work for and with their media despite such idiocies, and does not imply any approval for them whatsoever.

As Modernity well knows. It’s all part of the drip drip of neocon propaganda .. anyone who defends Iran against imperialism/Israel is a neo-Nazi sympathiser, you see. Rancid, insulting to the intelligence, but par for the course.

Incidentally, I woke up on Sunday morning and found the BNP’s Andrew Brons spewing forth on the BBC’s magazine programme ‘the Big Question’. Pretty disgusting, especially as the BNP’s direct target is ethnic minorities in Britain, unlike this kind of crap in the Middle East which is mainly aimed at mobilising popular hostility to an aggressive external enemy. Will Modernity similarly smear anyone who works for the Beeb? I doubt it, given the Beeb’s pro-Israel bias is so blatant that it refused to even run a charity appeal for Palestinian civilians this spring. Come to think of it, I doubt the BNP’s newly-minted pro-Israel positions would be too offensive to Modernity in any case.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 18, 2009 at 4:33 pm

ID,

Er, how does that relate to the very specific issue of PressTV pushing neo-nazis?

Look at the evidence, please.

I would hate it, if you and others made the same mistake of defending racism (remember the Atzmon debacle ?) simply because you can’t see it, are too lazy to read the links or don’t want to admit the obvious.

Another reminder of PressTV and neo-nazis, Lady Renouf apparently is a regular guest and contributes to them, see http://tinyurl.com/ox3636 [a cached link to her filthy site, be warned]

Antifascist will remember Lady Renouf, associate of David Irving and occasional friend of David Duke, more recently she was seen giving her support to the Holocaust denying, Bishop Williamson.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/lady-renouf-backs-renegade-bishop-20090226-8jae.html

Oh, I forgot to add she’s a great supporter of Ernest Zundel, another neo-Nazi.

So there’s a fair amount of evidence of how PressTV pushes neo-Nazi’s views, that’s if you wish to digest it 🙂

LikeLike

Reply

Jason

June 18, 2009 at 7:21 pm

ID it is not a choice between Mousavi and Ahmedinejad.

It is a choice between the masses and the dictatorship- in that socialists should clearly back the masses,

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 19, 2009 at 9:07 am

The fact that the BBC ‘pushes neo-Nazis’ doesn’t bother you then, Modernity? Typical hypocritical cant. The state of Israel gained its nuclear weapons from collaboration with apartheid South Africa – that state whose who entire racist ethos was derived from Nazism – but that doesn’t bother Modernity whose adultation of the Israeli state is obvious from a glance at his website.

Israel slaughtered Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila using the Nazi-derived Christian Lebanese falange as its instrument. Israel acted as a quartermaster for fascist death squads – including ones run by people who idolised Hitler – to massacre and torture the left in Latin America for decades. Do you ever hear a peep from the ‘left’ neocon scumbags about that?

No … just Goebells-like propaganda using the racist stupidities that exist throughout the Arab and Iranian media and body politic as a backward mirror image of imperialist/Zionist racism, to argue that those who work with the media in such countries to oppose imperialist attacks on those countries are in some way sympathetic to Nazism.

It doesn’t wash with those who are not already embracing imperialism. Which makes you wonder why the likes of PR are taking the side of the ‘left’ neocons in an argument like this.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 19, 2009 at 12:33 pm

ID, you wrote:

“The fact that the BBC ‘pushes neo-Nazis’ doesn’t bother you then”

As far as I know the BBC nor its web sites do NOT actively push neo-Nazis in the approving way that PressTV does.

If you have evidence of the BBC deliberately publishing Holocaust denial material or consciously utilising the skills of neo-Nazis to aid their propaganda, please do produce it.

Whereas PressTV does exactly that, as shown above in the links.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 19, 2009 at 12:45 pm

So having Andrew Brons as a main speaker on a chat show is not pushing neo-Nazism?

Note he does not dispute the rest of my points about Israel.

Yet he still has no problems supporting Israel.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 19, 2009 at 1:04 pm

ID,

If you have such evidence that the BBC promotes Brons’ ideas, approves of them and consciously pushes his racism then please, do provide links and evidence.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 19, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Whether or not it approves of them, it certainly propagates them. It did so last Sunday morning. Whether or not Press TV wholly approves of this stuff is also doubtful.

There is a lot of confusion and backwardness about European history in the Middle East. Comes from having a ultra-militaristic, expansionist state on your doorstep that behaves like Nazi German or at least old Prussia, while wrapping itself in Jewish symbolism and claiming to represent all Jews.

But Modernity will have a very hard time convincing anyone with any decency or anti-racism that this kind of thing means it is verboten to work with Arab or Persian media where this stuff intrudes. The main perpetrator of genocidal racism in the Middle East is Israel. Being smeared as pro-fascist by supporters of a state that has provided material aid to fascists in many parts of the world for several decades is pretty ironic.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 19, 2009 at 2:12 pm

again, ID, you have produced no evidence, merely made assertions.

The BBC for all of its many faults DOESN’T propagandize Holocaust Denial, whereas PressTV does, as the evidence shows.

In fact, I believe that the BBC has had a few programs attacking the BNP, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/default.stm

Whereas PressTV has never, as far as I can tell, attacked or repudiated the view of the neo-Nazis that it pushes, see Lady Renouf.

So there is a big distinction between the two.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Actually, the BBC not only allows neo-Nazis to propagate their views on its programmes, it propagates pro-war, anti-Arab, or anti-asylum-seeker, you name it, bigotry quite often. It also censors left-wing critics of such things. It even censors charity appeals for civilian victims of atrocities whom at some level it believes deserve what happened to them.

Modernity still hasn’t shown that anyone who doesn’t agree with his monomaniacal view that Press TV is some kind of Nazi outfit, has any sympathy with neo-Nazi ideas at all.

And he won’t be able to do so, because the idea is simply nuts.

Still no criticism from Modernity of Israel’s decades long arming of fascist killers around the globe.

See no evil, hear no evil, know no evil, eh Modernity?

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Anyway, I think the point has been made, PressTV pushes neo-Nazis and their ideas, the above links amply demonstrate that.

In response, no evidence has been produced to substantiate the ludicrous comparison with the BBC.

But one further point, even if, hypothetically speaking, the BBC had done all that ID has suggested, they would be wrong as well.

No one in Britain, Iran, Germany, Austria or any other country should aid these neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. Period.

PressTV’s actions are their own, they are not children or without any form of agency (as suggested above) and the desire to deflect valid criticism from them is pointless and rather silly.

LikeLike

Reply

Fabian from Israel

June 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Short ID:

“Antisemitism (if it exists) is bad, but the Jewish State produces it. So lets kill the Jews in the Jewish state because they are “Zionists”. Therefore we will have killed only 41% of the Jews in the world and you won’t be able to accuse me of antisemitism (which is defined by me as not liking the Neturei Karta)”

LikeLike

Reply

Fabian from Israel

June 19, 2009 at 6:19 pm

“Even more, we will have killed 41% of the Jews in the world, but not because they are Jews, but because they are “Zionists”. So, there. I am not antisemitic!” (continues ID)

LikeLike

Reply

martin ohr

June 19, 2009 at 9:00 pm

ID’s criticism of Israel that attempts to link with fascism is a tired old red herring, trotted out by anti-semites at every opportunity. It’s the same train of thought that tries to blame jews for the holocaust; and that makes an exception out of the things that Israel does compared to the US, Russia, China, in fact every imperialist or would be imperialist country.

The ID of the Sparts or even in the early part of his descent to stalinism via the weekly worker would have been sharply critical of the rubbish he writes now.

Ian do you really think there is any equivalence between the BBC and Press TV? Even on the simple matter of the holocaust, Press TV positively revels in hosting denial debates, and giving excessive airtime to self professed jew-haters. Galloway is in the fortunate position that he doesn’t have to work for them to earn a living, so I can see no reason not to condemn him for working for a broadcaster who is little more than a mouthpiece of fascists.

LikeLike

Reply

David Ellis

June 20, 2009 at 7:18 am

Of course, Martin Ohr takes the opportunity of the emergence of potential mass movement in Iran to schill for Zionist terror against the Palestinians. He ain’t helping. And China, imperialist? You rob the working class of finding a socialist way forward. Do you seriously think a workers revolution in Iran is going to accommodate to Israel? A democratic socialist movement in the Middle East will sweep Zionism away and guess what, progressive Jews will join that movement.

Ohr is interested in one thing only, trashing Galloway. He has no concern for the Iranian masses after all his grouplet was asking under what possible circumstaces could we condemn Israel if it nuked Iran only a couple of months ago.

LikeLike

Reply

johng

June 20, 2009 at 9:04 am

I thought this was a very interesting article:

http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/06/why-are-iranians-dreaming-again.asp

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 20, 2009 at 9:04 am

Woo-hoo, Modernity’s mates have arrived. Now the Zio-fash mafia from Harry’s Place (and their friends in the AWL) are gunning for me. I’m scared, I’m really scared;-)

Fabien from Israel is a stalwart of Harry’s Place. He was %150 percent in favour of the terror-bombing of Gaza in December-January.

Just the sort of person Martin Ohr should be trying to recruit to the AWL.

It’s an honour to be denounced by someone from a political cult that distinguished itself when the inhabitants of Gaza were being massacred by turning up on Palestinian demonstrations waving Israel flags.

Which I suppose is roughly equivalent to turning up at a synagogue waving a swastika flag.

LikeLike

Reply

jason

June 20, 2009 at 9:13 am

ID is dissembling here.

ID, Israel’s racist oppression of the Palestinians, bulldozing of houses, creation of millions of refugees, is an outrage and all socialists should support the palestinains struggle for justice…

just like all socialists should support the uprising of the Iranian people against the dictatorship…

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 20, 2009 at 9:39 am

I don’t just jump to attention when the imperialist media proclaim that a particular political movement is fighting for ‘democracy’ and against ‘dictatorship’.

Given the vocal support of vicious enemies of basic democratic rights for the peoples of the Middle East, such as some of the ones on display here, a modicum of caution seems appropriate.

There are a range of possilities here, some of which bear a resemblance to other so-called ‘revolutionary’ movements that were pro-imperialist, such as in Lebanon.

If it becomes clear that independent working class activity has broken out, then that is a different ball game. But at the moment, the protangonists are Ahmedinejad and Mousavi. If that changes, then my attitude will change accordingly, but at the moment, as far as I can see, they are the protagonists.

LikeLike

Reply

johng

June 20, 2009 at 10:49 am

ID I suggest you read the article I posted.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Whatever OTHER issues there are they are not relevant to the simple issue of PressTV and Holocaust Denial.

Most people would agree that it is a poor state of affairs when you get a leading member of Respect, such as ID, defending PressTV, who pushes the beliefs of neo-Nazis and happily indulges in Holocaust denial.

The wider issue is that ID sees this as incidental, random, something that just happens, rather than use the deeper understanding that socialists had over the years, which is that ruling classes (including the one that runs Iran) often actively use racism to divide the (international) working classes and solidify their rule.

Ahmadinejad uses racism in his speeches, it helps him stir up hatred and increases his popularism.

The shame is that modern day political leaders, such as ID:

1) can’t understand that
2) try to defend the dissemination of this racism.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm

I couldn’t care less what Modernity thinks of me, and I’m not accountable to him. I don’t consider him to be in any sense a fellow socialist, so he can stick his hypocritical appeals to socialism and anti-racism somewhere I don’t want to think about;-).

I defend Iran against imperialism and its predatory allies, such as Israel. What Ahmedinejad or Press TV thinks or says is irrelevant to that, except insofar as such stupidities as do arise are used as propaganda by pro-war, pro-imperialist propagandists such as this crowd of scumbags. In which case it is necessary to counter this and stand up for the countries targetted by imperialism.

Despite the pressure of chauvinist propaganda which tries to portray less-developed countries that are targets for imperialist agression as in some way equivalent to the Third Reich and wars of imperialist conquest as in some ways having the character of wars against ‘fascism’, etc.

So yes, I’ll defend Press TV and other Middle Eastern media, and the right of the left in the West to work with them, against reactionaries like Modernity, despite such stupidities.

Socialists should proudly defend Iran against imperialism, and to those ‘socialists’ who capitulate to the jingo outcry, I think again the words of the Red Flag are appropriate
“while cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we’ll keep the red flag flying here”.

Just on the link John G posted. I’m not in a position to draw definitive conclusions on some of the detailed stuff, but I would be cautious about this item: this is Mousavi and his followers trying to appeal to the Western left for support.

If that’s all they are doing that may be a sign of some opening up to the left, but one point worth making that it is not necessarily suspicious that Ahmedinejad is claimed to have gained more votes this time than last time.

Both left-wing and right-wing governmental figures in various places have managed that feat as I remember, including such people as Chavez, and unfortunately George W. Bush (not to mention Thatcher).

His account of Ahmedinejad’s economic policies seems at odds with what I have read about the redistribution of revenues from oil sales to the poorer sections of the population. I’m somewhat sceptical about the progressive character of Mousavi’s movement, but I’m quite willing to be proven wrong.

It seems to me reasonable for the left to demand a re-run presidential election, this time with a free nomination of candidates, so that left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist candidates can stand and campaign. That is taking advantage of the split in the regime to push forward the interests of the working class. It may be that what is behind the apparent groundswell behind Mousavi is that sentiment in disguise – if that is true, then the SWP may be right to look on this movement with a sympathetic eye. But for the moment, I don’t think we should take up the cudgels for Mousavi.

There are dangers also, and that should be borne in mind. There is nothing inherently ‘anti-imperialist’ about political Islam – it may also produce a wing that would be prepared to do a deal with imperialism and act as stooge under a ‘democratic’ flag – and Mousavi could concievably play that role.

I’m cautious – too often there are people on the Western left who write great long theses on some distant country and give the impression that they know all about it. Only for them to be wrong-footed by events, usually because much of their knowledge is gained in an dry, academic way. So I’m not going to pretend to have my finger on the pulse of what is going on to the extend of making premature, definitive judgements on this situation. A cautious attitude is correct, I think, bearing in mind that the overwhelming duty of socialists in an imperialist country such as this is to defend Iran against imperialism.

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 20, 2009 at 6:06 pm

It is rather bizarre.

ID, a leader in Respect and a socialist for decades, questions the motives of others in a heartbeat.

Yet he just can’t bring himself to ask elementary questions of the Iranian ruling classes and why they push racism?

LikeLike

Reply

jason

June 20, 2009 at 6:08 pm

ID, you say it is about Mousavi and Ahmedinejad. However, there are hundreds of thousands on the street many of whom have been beateb back by armed police and some of whom havew been shot.

Supporting the right of Iranian workers to demonstrate, to strike against the dictatorship does not entail supporting Mousavi. In addition we should call for and actively support workers’ self-organisation.

This is true in other countries such as ethiopia where there was a stolen election despite almost zero press interest here. Just because the imperialists try to exploit it for thier own purposes allowing the dictatorship to clothe itself in fake anti-imperialsit colours does not mean we should eb neutral when working class people are being shot.

Interesting statements here

Iranian Bus Workers’ Statement on the Demonstrations

Students beaten, tortured, raped and killed in Iran – Statement of surviving students arrested in Tehran University Dormitory

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 20, 2009 at 6:36 pm

Israel as a state is founded on the racist expulsion of the Arab population from its homeland. Modernity is an obsessive supporter of Israel as his blog reveals to anyone who reads it. No need to ‘question’ his motives – they are obvious. I don’t need lectures on ‘racism’ from hypocritical racists.

The usual hackneyed abstract calls for ‘workers self-organisation’ from Jason. Just like he counterposed ‘workers self-organisation’ to No2EU. Its an abstraction, actual workers self-organisation grows out of concrete battles waged by actual people in actual concrete conditions. Simply calling for it irrespective of time, space or opportunity, means nothing.

Anyone would have though I had endoresed shooting people on the streets of Iran, or something. I am talking about a political attitude to a movement, which may have to be nuanced since the character and thrust of that movement is not clear – and nor is its claim of a stolen election clear in my view.

Evidently it does not matter to Jason what the thrust of the protests is, or whether the election was stolen or not, or whether they are for something better than the current situation or perhaps something worse. For Jason, that matters not a jot, and nor does it matter whether attacks on those who defend Iran against imperialism puts them in a bloc with chauvinist witchhunters such as Modernity.

LikeLike

Reply

Jason

June 21, 2009 at 5:25 pm

“The usual hackneyed abstract calls for ‘workers self-organisation’ from Jason. Just like he counterposed ‘workers self-organisation’ to No2EU. Its an abstraction, actual workers self-organisation grows out of concrete battles waged by actual people in actual concrete conditions. Simply calling for it irrespective of time, space or opportunity, means nothing”

ID- it is rather ironic that you say this is abstracted from timke, space or opportunity- working class people in iran are being killed yesterday certainly and right now probably.

The regime is viciously anti-working class and has suppressed workers’ struggles, arrested na dkilled workers’ leaders- so it is not at all an abstraction.

Was the election stolen in Iran? Certainly hundreds of thousands of people in the urban areas think so- that does not of course prove that it was but it proves that ordinary people have no trust of the disctatorship. Are they right or wrong? It is not correct to say thatthis is abstract, meaningless or irrelevant.

It is perfectly possible to support workers organising in Iran right now and people on the streets right to protest and demand a recount and to organise against self-defence ..

The trajectory of the protests is also important- but ID dismisses workers’ self-organisation or democracy as irrelevant.

Given the wealth of links on the website http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2741 some of which i linked to before it seems perverse to say this is a debate being carried out oin the abstract.

As for no2eu it is actually far more relevant to look at concrete battles being carried out by working class people now such as the wildcat strikes in support og the LIndsey sacked workers- whihc should be a rallying cause for the whole left and an issue much larger than whether no2eu was a mistake or not.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 21, 2009 at 5:46 pm

“The trajectory of the protests is also important- but ID dismisses workers’ self-organisation or democracy as irrelevant.”

Er no, Jason, I dismissed your abstract sloganising as irrelevant. Slight difference. The trajectory and thrust of the protests is indeed important – central in fact when determining our attitude to them and the real, not abstract but real, possiblity of workers self-organisation in whatever form emerging from them. Or not.

LikeLike

Reply

Jason

June 21, 2009 at 6:47 pm

I’ve already ansered that point though ID that in the midst of an uprising the call for workers getting organised is not abstract at all.

And as posted before there are workers’ organisations like the bus workers who have put out information.
You however have made a series of points about how the demonsttrators may not be good on the back of an article by Galloway claiming that the demonstrations are the work of an urban elite that will soon fizzle out.

Galloway’s statements are a disgrace. They should be disowned by socialists.

We should support the right of ordinary Iranians to demonstrate, should call for workers’ organisations to strike and support those supporting the demonstration- none of this means endorsing Mousavi, as for example this statement by the busworkers’ union makes clear
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/06/432675.html

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 21, 2009 at 7:26 pm

No you haven’t answered anything Jason, you never do. Just keep repeating the same old abstract drivel.

It is quite possible that Ahmeninejad won the election. It is also possible that he did not.

Supporting a movement to overturn the election if he did certainly amounts to supporting Mousavi unless the movement has escaped the control of Mousavi and now has another objective altogether. I see no evidence of this. There is no basis at this point for the left to take either side.

Nothing I have said implies any refusal to support the right to strike or demonstrate. But I repeat – the main task of revolutionaries in Britain is to defend Iran against imperialism, especially since Iran is probably the country in the world presently under most threat from imperialism.

You may think any caution over the possiblity that this movement may have a reactionary aim and thrust scandalous. That’s your choice … and the kind of allies you have in this endeavour can be seen by reading up this thread.

As it happens, I don’t agree with Galloway’s comments but I dont agree that they are a ‘disgrace’ either. I think some of the comments made by your comrades such as Stuart King are a disgrace, are indistinguishable from the likes of Martin Ohr, and you still haven’t made clear from your ‘revolutionary’ standpoint why it is verboten to work for Press TV but Ok to work for the bourgeois media in this country. We have heard the neocon bully-boys express their views on this, but we haven’t heard from the ‘revolutionary’ PR. Why is this?

LikeLike

Reply

Jason

June 21, 2009 at 7:42 pm

Of course we should support Iran against imperialism- imperialist powers will certainly intervene if they think the masses are getting the upper hand.

But opposing imperialism does not mean supporting the dictatorship or the government of Iran- it is that position (which I’m glad you say you don’t support) that is a disgrace
“You can count on the fact election was fair
By George Galloway on Jun 15, 09 06:46 AM in
…there are absolutely no grounds for the cats’ chorus of criticism”

Was the election stolen? I already answered that we don’t know and probably have no way of finding out but that we know the regime which shoots people for demonstrating for striking for organising- we can certainly not count on them being fair.

Opposition to imperialism does not mean supporting the regime and its oppression fo the working class- a very basic point, albeit one you call abstract drivel.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 21, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Sorry, but given the fact that Iran is, as I pointed out, the country most under threat from imperialism in the world, and given the fact that there are real grounds to be suspicious of the possiblity that this could be a ‘colour coded revolution’ of the Lebanon type, I find his attitude wrong and defensive, but I can well understand why an opponent of imperialism might take that defensive view.

I don’t agree with his approach, but don’t find it as wrong as those who without caution trumpet their support for this movement and try to scandalise those who take a more cautious approach.

LikeLike

Reply

Stuart King

June 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm

Yes Ian, real anti-imperialists will continue to trumpet their support for the workers, students, and women on the streets braving the attacks of police and thugs of the Iranian regime.

It is a situation where all genuine socialists take sides. And you and George Galloway have clearly refused to support the masses in their struggle, you prefer the “anti-imperialism” of the islamic regime.

Actually Iran is not the country most under threat from imperialism, North Korea is. No doubt you would hum and hah if the masses came out to oust that foul stalinist regime as well (just as you refused to support the Polish workers in Solidarnosc in the 1980s).

Its the anti-imperialism of fools. But no doubt it goes down well with your new pals in the CPB!

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 22, 2009 at 10:23 pm

A blast from the past from Stuart King.

Not very relevant to today’s issues. Still fighting flawed battles from 30 years ago. Many of the participants in today’s debates, on all sides of the argument, have widely varying views on events from those distant times.

Stuart still hasn’t answered my question about Press TV. Why is George Galloway to be denounced for working for that media organisation, but not those on the left (including not just GG but also, for instance a very well-known former comrade of Stuart’s) working for the home-grown media in an imperalist country?

How is Stuart’s denunciation of GG for this different from the denuncations which come from the AWL?

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 22, 2009 at 10:36 pm

I thought the point had been made before, but surely, the question is:

Should ANYONE be working for a media organisation that pushes neo-Nazis, their beliefs and makes a concious effort to mainstream Holocaust denial?

I would have hoped that 99.99% of socialists could answer that in one second with a, NO.

If you think that there’s some doubt on this question, ask yourself:

would you ever ally yourself with David Irving/David Duke?

I would hope not.

It is that basic.

LikeLike

Reply

ID

June 22, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Right on cue! Modernity’s appearance will do Stuart King a world of good when he considers how to reconcile his Galloway-baiting with his ‘revolutionary duty’ to defend Iran and oppose the kind of chauvinism Modernity is such a sterling example of.

LikeLike

Reply

Andy Newman

June 22, 2009 at 11:29 pm

If you think that there’s some doubt on this question, ask yourself:

would you ever ally yourself with Modenity?

I would hope not.

LikeLike

Reply

Stuart King

June 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm

One important difference is that George Galloway is an MP, your elected MP representing Respect and its politics. Press TV is the mouthpiece of a dictatorial regime, one currently repressing workers and students. Galloway, a paid servant of this TV station, has sided with the regime.

Do you not see a problem with this?

Socialists have sometimes taken positions as commentators in the bourgeois media in the UK. I would see no problem with GG going on Talk Sport if he has complete freedom to say what he likes (and donated his income above a workers wage to the party that got him elected). But no organisation with any principles would allow their MP to be a paid employer of Press TV.

Paul Foot, as an SWP member had a column in the Daily Mirror for years. It became a real problem when the Mirror led a campaign of denunciation of Arthur Scargill in the middle of the miners strike. We said at the time Foot should have used his column to denounce it and defend Scargill, even if it meant being sacked – that’s what revolutionaries do. Foot remained silent and was defended by the SWP at the time.

The BBC does not allow its leading commentators to be members of any political party, and the ‘former comrade” you refer to had left us before he joined them.

But back to the main point. Ian, look at the picture at the start of this article – which side are you, Andy Newman and George Galloway on?

I think it is fairly clear to everybody.

LikeLike

Reply

Jason

June 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Pertinently enough Galloway himself mentions his role in Iranian state TV before declaring how fair the Iranian media is.

“I have been more closely interested than normal in this poll.
I present two weekly shows for Iranian-owned Press TV.
As such, I know that, uniquely for a developing country, the Iranian broadcast media went to extraordinary lengths to be fair to all four presidential candidates.”

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2009/06/you-can-count-on-the-fact-elec.html

LikeLike

Reply

Andy Newman

June 23, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Modernity above:

PressTV pushes neo-Nazis and their ideas, the above links amply demonstrate that.

In response, no evidence has been produced to substantiate the ludicrous comparison with the BBC.

Sorry to shhot your fx, but here is a link showing the police investigating the BBC for just that very thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8105785.stm

LikeLike

Reply

modernityblog

June 23, 2009 at 8:05 pm

I am glad that ID has found a lackey in the form of Andy Newman.

I won’t argue about it other than to say, if you think that the BBC is the same as PressTV then you’ve lost what little grasp of reality that you had.

LikeLike

Reply

martin ohr

June 23, 2009 at 8:18 pm

this debate is well and truly crazy.

Before I was banned from the Socialist Unity website I would read regular denunciations from Andy Newman on how out of touch with regular people the left is; aside from a few cranks and ID no one in the world believes that the bbc is the political equivalent of press-tv.

All of this is beside the point, Galloway’s recent comments on the Iran protests are despicable, he’s put himself clearly on the side of the ruling class in Iran while most of the rest of the world sides with the workers, students and women on the streets.

For Respect it’s a stark contrast- unless there is some almighty fudge, this cannot fail to lead to a split. Surely the ISG comrades who produce the monthly paper will not keep quiet either about the protests or about criticizing Galloway; surely the ex-SWP who work for Galloway must feel very uncomfortable about what he is saying.

LikeLike

Reply

martin ohr

June 23, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Almighty fudge wins again: http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/iranian-election-a-learning-experience/

LikeLike

Reply