by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker blog
I would like extend my thanks and appreciation to the World Socialist Web Site for publishing a response to my critical analysis of their coverage of the recent economic protests in Iran.
I think readers appreciate open dialogue between journalists. Open dialogue is the foundation of diplomacy, and thus also the foundation of politics. Dialogue means increasing understanding – not bickering – and I think we all agree that increased leftist unity is certainly lacking in the post-Soviet world.
The WSWS is a deservedly-appreciated site around the world, but their work in the English language is especially needed: true leftism is extremely difficult to find in the language of Shakespeare. I am not here to complain or make a laundry list of contradictions to their response: The WSWS is a group of professional journalists and/or committed activists, and readers will determine for themselves both the overall and the point-by-point validity of their response to my critique.
Calling me an apologist of a regime (Headline: The working class unrest in Iran: The WSWS replies to an apologist of the regime) does not invalidate my criticisms. Perhaps this calls into question my reputation or integrity, but I assume readers are unconcerned with either, and are more concerned with the analysis of much larger issues.
What is certain is that the WSWS is an entire organ which acts as an apologist for Trotskyism – the last paragraph of every article expressly declares that. I do not criticise this defense of an idea, and this open propagation of an ideology.
Indeed, I appreciate the openness. I think my support for an idea and ideology (more than one, of course) is self-evident in my journalism as well.
What I believe with certainty is that neither of our biases – declared or not – are unclear to our readers. Indeed, readers SHOULD be looking with a somewhat-jaundiced eye at all journalism which claim to be totally unbiased.
But pejoratively calling it the Iranian “regime” shows a fundamental rejection of the democratic, popular nature of the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution, and this is something which should be remedied on the WSWS. Fox News, the Economist, The New York Times, etc. – I do not expect them to stop calling us a “regime”, but the WSWS is doing great damage by misleading so many interested, learning, growing leftists about Iran. This not only more disharmony and damage – worldwide, and not just for Iranians – but it also makes non-Iranian leftists poorer and less able to wage their leftist struggles because the WSWS are encouraging them to dismiss one of the very, very few working socialist-inspired countries in the world.
Practically, this means they cannot implement some of our innovative policies steeped in the economics and democratic ideas of socialism: countries in earthquake-prone regions will not discover our democratic, highly-developed and highly effective approach to earthquakes, one of our major curses; or they must wait very long to find out about our leftist policies, such as rural health care, and thus denying their own societies an effective solution.
I can list other such positive policies, but instead I am often slowed down by the fight to disprove the false notion that Iran is a “regime”.
I stand by my fundamental criticism of the WSWS’s coverage of the recent economic protests, which I feel the WSWS did not address: At a time when the imperialist world was salivating at the prospect of regaining imperial control over Iran, the WSWS also adopted an anti-Iranian line because they seemingly believed that the economic protests were but a hair’s breadth away from turning into a Trotskyist revolution.
I will not list the many reasons why that is an incorrect view, and why such an editorial line was rather short-sighted, as that would be tedious to the reader. The reality was that the counter-revolution of a popular revolution was far more likely than a victory of any of the various 4th Internationals.
I believe the WSWS generally extends conditional support to Iran; I think they should extend far more support overall, but certainly when the forces of imperialism are making political and covert manoeuvres to implement the long-awaited neo-colonialization of Iran.
This led to the second, related key critique which the WSWS also did not address: why they did not engage in the socialist practice of “auto critique” instead of piling on Iran during the recent protests.
This point on criticism – and the time and place to do it – is something which I hope the WSWS discusses because there will certainly be other opportunities around the world to either “pile on along with the capitalists for not being Trotskyists”, or alternatively to “defend a socialist-inspired country under attack”. Because what is certain is that the imperialists adhere to this practice: one such prominent example is Nikki Haley, the obviously reactionary American ambassador to the United Nations. However, she at least shows the ability to effectively practice auto-critique, as she never criticises the US on the largest global political stage; the problem is, of course, that her ideas are not based on democracy, facts or international cooperation.
Readers must judge if my two main criticisms are valid, and if the WSWS disproved them.
Shariati is as Iranian as ghormeh sabzi
A WSWS phrase which requires a bit of correction is “Paris-educated sociologist Ali Shariati”.
Shariati and his political thinking was as fundamentally Iranian as ghormeh sabzi, perhaps our national dish. Yes, he did do graduate work in Paris, but he is a product of Iranian lower and higher education, of Iranian religious culture and especially of his own father, who was an Islamic cleric and intellectual. Shariati proudly stated his father was his foremost intellectual influence, and there is absolutely no disavowal of any of these influences in his work. Therefore, I ask that Iran can please not inaccurately lose Shariati to France or the West in a “posthumous brain drain”.
Shariati is a popular leftist name to drop, but I think that if many Western leftists would actually read his work…he might no longer be so popular with many of them!
The reason for that is because to read Shariati is to read far more about Islam than anything else. Certainly, reading Shariati is to find that he was 100% in favor of Islamic governance. How could anyone believe otherwise, if they had read this passage from “Martydom and Martydom”:
“Therefore, certainly the Imam must militarily or politically arise against the usurping government and destroy the powerful ignorance, govern through their revolutionary power, and establish truth in the community and keep leadership in his own possession.” (emphasis added)
And for Western leftists who favourably bring up Shariati, it’s almost as if they think that because his economic view was against capitalism and in favor of socialism…that he was somehow also in favor of Western secularism and their separation between church and state? (Also from “Martyrdom and Martyrdom”)
“Let me add – not for the reason that, as some people say, it is a defect for Imam Husayn to attend to politics and undertake a political revolution. No. This is the duty of an Imam.”
I don’t think Shariati could have been much clearer on either issue: the role of religion in government, and the role of religious leadership in Iranian society?
In my original critique I mentioned a poll regarding the view of Iranians on essentially the same issue: they agree with Shariati in a overwhelmingly democratic fashion. The only dispute is over “how much”, but that is an ongoing, shifting set of issues which Iran resolves democratically or with the aid of a religiously-inspired vanguard party explicitly promoted by Shariati himself.
I bring up Shariati because – now 41 years after his death – Western leftists still often cannot even comprehend the idea of a person being a devout Muslim and a devout socialist/leftist? This is not a problem just for the Iranian Islamic Revolution: this is a huge problem for nearly 2 billion Muslims. This is thus also a problem for the entire world, our peaceful coexistence and certainly the success of leftist economics.
Please, continue to popularise Iranian political thinkers like Shariati! But make no mistake that he would undoubtedly be supporting Iran in 2017.
I feel about Shariati the same way that Iranians tell foreigners about our beloved poets Rumi and Hafez (who makes Shakespeare look like a bucket of junk): You know, we have hundreds of other poets who write in the same style and are nearly as good?
Shariati is just one exceptional Iranian revolutionary thinker; for the WSWS and others to elevate him while denouncing wholesale his fellow revolutionaries Khomeini or Khamenei, as they did in their reply…appears a bit inconsistent to me, because they are all the same style: Islamic Socialism.
What Western leftists should finally learn from modern Iran is that that a Muslim society has not (and probably cannot) swallow European socialism without modifying it to the national tastes…but this is not appreciated by Trotskyism in general and perhaps the WSWS specifically. However, this is appreciated by Maoism, Stalinism, what I term “Iranian Islamic Socialism” and other schools of leftist political ideologies.
But beyond Shariati, Khomeini & Khamenei, there are many many other Iranian Islamic Socialist thinkers, millions of intelligent tea-house thinkers and many, many millions of Iranian people who democratically made and preserve their Islamic Revolution. Elevation of Shariati over the everyday Iranian is anti-socialist, and I denounced Lenin-worship (Trotsky too) in this article.
The only role of non-Iranians is to support the democratic will of the Iranian people… this is not very Trotskyist, but in a crisis the WSWS should make an exception.
‘The Iranian regime is not anti-imperialist.’
That is a quote from the response of the WSWS.
If I may be frank: No one in the Muslim world agrees with that. (And that is just one region of the world.)
In my visits, reporting and discussions with people of all religions living in the Muslim-majority states of the Middle East-North Africa region (and beyond, too), I am repeatedly told of their admiration for Iran’s hard line against American and Zionist imperialism. They are perfectly aware that Iran is extending moral, economic, military and political solidarity to places like Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, and not without sacrifices from everyday Iranians.
And yet the WSWS continues: “Rather, from the beginning its aim has been to establish greater freedom of action for the Iranian bourgeoisie within world capitalism, including by seeking closer economic ties to European and Japanese imperialism.”
I think we can all rather easily list key proofs that Iran has does not have this aim or seek these goals…certainly, the reality of the blockade campaign would suggest that if they are indeed doing that, then they have been terribly ineffective, LOL! I think such a claim is as easily ignored as the claim that Iran is “not anti-imperialist”; I also think that such claims are accepted only by devoted Trotskyists who subsequently get ignored for being so ideologically pure that they are out out touch with the masses.
To use an American phrase: such claims “won’t play in Peoria”. Or Palestine, or anywhere else.
Frankly, I found that entire section to be so rife with faulty claims, poor analysis, allegations of conspiracies, untrue accusations of racism and other errors that it would be mundane for readers to read a point-by-point rebuttal. However, may I add that if the WSWS wants to have any chance of winning over Iranian readers, I rather emphatically suggest that they not accuse Iran of starting the Western-foisted, -supported, (chemically) -armed and altogether horrific Iran-Iraq War. I think that is a rather enormous tactical error (and a factual/analytical error as well).
As far as my “intimidating the working class” – I had no idea I had such power! I imagine working class people worldwide quite disagree that I have that ability. Nor did I “slander the Iranian working class” – firstly because slander is spoken while libel is written – but I would like to publicly reject the assertion of such a libel. Regardless of my feelings, every journalist must ultimately rely on one’s work to prove or disprove an assertion that he or she is an opponent of the People.
But supporting the democratic will when it takes a nationalist turn – i.e. Iran looking out for Iran – is not Trotskyism. This is why one reason why I am not an apologist for Trotskyism. Nor will I apologise for openly defending the Iranian Islamic Revolution and trying to explain it to non-Iranians in my journalism: Iran has real, not theoretical, work to be done, and I hope my small contributions push that work forward a bit.
May I conclude with a return to Shariati: He was primarily a philosopher. That can make him occasionally a bit difficult to pin down, but it certainly freed him from the burden we journalists all share (and which we share with politicians): the need to suggest and defend policies which must be made right now.
Making policies right now – while under blockade, sanctions and Cold War – is the challenge faced by all Iranians. Iran’s economic decisions have clearly been primarily based on Islamic morals and obviously-socialist ideology, but they may not meet the strict ideals of what non-Iranians think is possible (often quite mistakenly) or should have been done.
What admirable leftists like those at the World Socialist Web Site can do is to support Iranian society during those rare times of crisis when seemingly all other English-language media is, unexaggeratedly, fomenting a counter-revolution.
Now that the protests have stopped – and their message obviously made – all of us will be reporting on Iran’s democratic response to the economic issues.
Again, I sincerely thank the WSWS, and also their reporter Keith Jones, for work that I have often found insightful and inspirational. I thank the anti-imperialist website The Saker and the resolutely leftist The Greanville Post for hosting my editorials.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.
Sir, I tip my hat to your excellent writing style; respectful and to the point. It certainly furthered my understanding of the (much-maligned) Iran. For many of us in the West, including me, Iran remains essentially a quaint black box. Therefore, it is refreshing to hear an educated and eloquently written opinion.
Considering these, may I please request that you write more about Iran? I would be especially grateful about an introduction to its political system, in a style accessible to laymen in the political field? I would also propose another introduction about the life of the middle class (access to goods, education, and job opportunities).
And, please, continue your writing in the same prose; it is refreshing to read cultured English.
I second that fully. I would like to add that Mr. Mazaheri should refer to the U.S. government as a “reg too for the simple reason that it is not any more democratic, open, transparent than the government in Iran. Furthermore, a government that decides on “regime change” in other countries & attacks them willy-nilly, something Iran does not do, cannot be called anything other than a “regime”.
For an introduction to Iran’s political system, begin with the link provided above:
/iran-socialisms-ignored-success-story/
Thank you Ramin for, once again, a balanced view.
The name Bronstein gives a clue to the religion of Trotsky. Naturally that religion considers itself to be the chosen one, and has no regard to any other. This is why the FUKUS nations considers themselves to be the chosen ones also as, they have been infected with the same disease as Bronstein.
Sigh…..
Its too bad that whenever someone goes to a right-wing site that one has to deal with racist comments about Jews. It really does discredit to the site. Hmmm, maybe that’s the idea? Take any thoughtful site that has right-wing views and readers and then try to discredit them with comments that have a lot of racist nonsense about Jews?
Does any thoughtful person really believe that you can tell about a person because of his name, or by asking the question “Who’s their daddy?”
Explain to us: where is the right wing? What makes the site – a right wing one? Is it allowed to criticize Jews, knowing how much they suffered during WW2? Or it maybe makes anybody, who criticizes them – a Nazi?
Besides, Nazism (the Hitler Project) was a provisory project of the Rothschild Zionists, set up by them after their pseudo-communist Trotskyite revolution, which still is their main project, to a great extent failed.
That the WSWS is an apologist of Trotskyism (i.e. Rothschild Zionist fascism-totalitarianism, as much as Trump or Hitlery) really ought to say enough.
Sigh….
Your frivolous “Who’s their Daddy?” comment provides insight into your anonymous persona.
That Trotsky, along with 80+% of the rest of the original Bolshevik leadership, was Jewish and that he changed his name from Bronstein for no obvious reason other than to hide his Jewish ethnicity from a gullible public are, in fact, of major historical importance, though both the WSWS and the Zionist Establishment go to great lengths to obfuscate such facts.
I had the temerity to engage this subject in he WSWS comments to one of their op-eds in January last year. My original comment was replied to in scathing terms by a ‘regular’. It was a classic illustration of the point I was making so I replied in scrupulously polite terms to say so. My original comment was left in place but the rest of the thread was removed. IOW WSWS are as blind and censorious as any other orthodoxy when it comes to unpalatable facts about their ‘Heroes’.
And to the article’s author. I enjoyed it and go along with pretty much all you say. Just a minor point though: Majestic and sublime as the works of your quoted Iranian Bards may be, you devalue them by your pejorative comparison with Shakespeare I’m afraid.
“the chosen one” – is this phrase racist or the reality it denotes?
Are you so ignorant or are you hunting ignorants, anon?
Please close down this conversation it is not only going off-topic but turning personal. Any further comments will go to trash. Mod
The Trotskyists absolutely cannot accept a socialist system or a system working towards socialism, with a nationalist and patriotic emphasis of self reliance, that takes precedence.
They are after permanent revolution in order to spread it internationally, to enable them to rule as the 1%, ruling over 99% of the world’s proletariat.
Trotskyism (was) is deep cover Zionism to rule over the Goy.
I agree with your statement.
To Ramin, In support of what you wrote I would like to add that it is a very old trick of the communists and not only to simply step over and bypass any inconvenient subject of the discussion which would undermine and expose particular side’s fake position. Or simply put, the argument they can not argue with. Keep in mind the basic rule “the dictatorship of …” it reminds me of someone else’s rule “surrender to our religion or die”
Rastislav,
Today, unlike in the 20th century, Trotskyism isn’t primarily about Zionist plotting. Zionism’s hard-core adherents have switched from Trot “Leftists” to Neocon “Rightists”, leaving the sorry Trots to their well-known pastimes of parroting the imperialist bourgeoisie. Doesn’t do much harm — only remains 100% despicable and repugnant.
Hi Ramin, I also have really got alot of education from this article – and I totally agree with Anon #1 comment that I would appreciate learning alot more about Iran and its political system and even history about the 1979 revolution from your perspective – everything to do with Iran would be great – its a big hero in today’s world –
I would just love also to ‘pipe up’ with this remark – agreeing with you about Iran’s so called (by MSM & WSWS) imperialist tendencies
– well, what defines imperialist ? a nation that is constantly getting more land and people under its control –
Iran isn’t doing this – its protecting countries from the reach of imperialists – and so therefore gets the name of imperialist –
A long time ago I read that the philosophy or ideology of the imperialist is IMPOSED on its enemies by the media and ideologues –
That is such a truth in today’s dialogues – especially by the most horrible thing that has EVER existed on this planet – the American government
Ann,
“especially by the most horrible thing that has EVER existed on this planet – the American government”
It would help if we-(meaning myself & other American citizens), Patriotic Americans, restored our Democratic Republic, that was destroyed-in a hail of gunfire, along with our last Constitutional President – John F. Kennedy, on November 22, 1963. That is our required task, before God, and our consciences. We may restore Sovereignty, along with Honor, to America, and a constructive Peace to the World.
“The WSWS is a deservedly-appreciated site around the world” writes Mazaheri, in an otherwise excellent intellectual exposé of one of the remnants of Leon Trotsky, (Lev Bronstein), and his 4th International.
I am unaware of just who has “appreciated this site.” Mazaheri, the WSWS, and the rest of the various bits and pieces of the Hollywood Marxists, are Agents. Agents… Did I write Agents? MOSSAD, their junior puppets-CIA, MI-6, add the French agencies, and even the Russian and Chinese may dabble in these Marxist Lemonists.
*Trotsky was a specially fascinating, and even charismatic Leftist. In 1905, he was one of the leaders of the St Petersburg Soviet, a prolific writer, as was with Rosa Luxemburg. Fast forward… In 1940, Trotsky was assassinated (after an earlier attempt by Siquieros and the Mexican Communist Party). The reason for the murder of Trotsky, and the authors of his assassination, remain unconfirmed.
**note to website: It would be nice if we were able to -Bold- some portions of our replies.
Durruti
RM
Very diplomatic reply to the critter. ;-D much more so than I have responded to the smears and obfuscating distortions of “keith jones” over the years. Besides his writing at, and speaking stints for, wsws, he patrols the web, as “keith”, spouting pretty much the same sort of nonsense he did in his article, using the same holier than thou writing style common with zionist fake leftists (he is an infrequent commenter on this site, and probably monitors this site regularly, which maybe why he targeted you for a smear job).
Hi Ramin,
Someone once asked me, a Christian lady, is the Islamic republic of Iran a utopian Islamic state? As in, in my opinion, is the Islamic republic God’s kingdom on earth? My simple answer was no. That in the Shia faith only the Mahdi will rule in the name of God.
For 1400 years the Shia clergy steered clear of politics. The 1979 revolution was the first time that a clerical government was formed. The Iranian government will succeed in putting down this unrest, I have no doubt. It does, as you point in so many articles, do a lot of good. But no matter how much good it does or how many people approve of it, inside and outside Iran, it will never be the right thing to have done: For clergy to rule. Perhaps even Shariati, if he were here today, in hindsight, would reconsider what he wrote earlier. You may argue that the clergy is not ruling. But there is a fundamental difference in the extent of interference or political involvement of Sistani in Iraq and Khamenei in Iran. And it stands out starkly.
Just to point out something from our history, until recently, none of the ulemas (scholars) of Shiaism were called ayatollahs (signs of God), that was a title for the divinely guided imams. And I have not read of any Ayatollah (before khomaini and Khamenei) referred to as imam (and i know that the meaning implied by those calling them so is not the same). Over centuries, there has been an increase in the role of the clergy in political life of the Shia population. But it has never been as extensive as it is in Iran after the revolution.
The system of taqleed (emulation) that we shias follow, was set up by the 10th, 11th, and 12th imam (during the lesser occultation). But an Islamic system of government was never left for the Shias to create, run, or establish.
For centuries, the clergy in Iran advised the Shahs and things were just fine. Yes there was injustice, but no Ayatollah was involved in it. Now, suppression of any dissent, the miscarriage of justice, the corruption by the clergy, all take people away from, rather than towards faith.
I have heard and read the arguments for clerical rule. They are just that, arguments. They are not sanctioned in faith. Yes there is voting in Iran, but it is a controlled exercise. And the Iranians (government) have no choice. They have to control it. They are forever stuck between a rock and a hard place, and nobody but they themselves put them there.
It may seem that this is off topic to your rebuttal. But it’s relevant in many ways.
Wonderful, wonderful comment.
The fate of Iran is in the hands of Iranians. External interference can have impact only if Iranian society is sufficiently divided and does a poor job at managing its problems. Can the Iranian government self-assess and make the necessary changes – maybe even fundamental changes as suggested here – required for the good of Iran and the sovereignty of the country? Ramin, your opinion on this would be appreciated.
Hmm, I am not arguing the point you made. I believe it reflects reality. But show me any political system where voting is not controlled some force. And, if you insist that such force does not exist, I’ll say you do not know what you are talking about .
Let’s start with the so called communist states, which they were not. Communists used to say: popular socialism is a stepping stone to the communism. All elections were tightly controlled by the party, in your vote your were voting for one of many apartchiks. Does that look any different than in the so called Free World? No it does not. Each party is controlled by the invisible controlling power, which funds them. Money rules. Just because you do not see it it does not mean it does not exist. Do you think it was any different in ancient Athens? No, Oligarchy ruled (the wealthy families).
So to come back to your argument, and I am an Orthodox Christian and not Iranian, I say if Khomeni or Khameni can keep the monster out the door, so be it, let them rule.
Actually, I had a second thought. They (the ayatolas) came to power with the help of the Iranian people on the wave revolution. Does the revolution need to be left leaning-socialist, or fake neo-liberal Iranian-Spring? No. It was a very conservative religious one. Nothing wrong with that. Vast majority of Iranians supported and still do the results of this revolution. And you are asking them to just relinquish the power because you say so? Oh, because according to you their power is not “Democratic”. Well I have a surprise for you. (mod-to note: deleted line – inflammatory and unnecessary to the discussion). In Greek the word Demos means people or the populus. You are asking the Iranian Demos to hand you the power just because you are invisible minority and you think the power should be yours? Iranian people say tough, live with it.
Partisan of Ali
Maybe you need to broaden your horizon about Islam, sincerely I do not mean it as an insult because you’re my brethren. We Muslim ( this include you) believe Islam can address any situations in every era till the end of time, from your assertion it appears you’ve not taken on the full meaning of this. Islam is flexible, pragmatic and logical, Islam will never tell us to fold our hands and not organise ourselves till the return of Mahdi and this will mean organising ourselve as a powerful force to reckon with such that we can give our Imam the needed supportsupport as followers to carryout his mission. Oh! Maybe you think we should only prepare our heart alone? What of having our own powerful and secure base or should we content ourselves with living under the governments of the corrupt GCC countries led by Saudi Arabia who will sell us all into slavery. In Islam we cannot separate politics from religion, and Islam does not leave us without a leader in every epoch.
In the case of Ayatollahs Sistani and Khamenei it has more to do with their environment than differences of opinion, even though the Shia are the majority in Iraq you cannot have Islamic governance along the line of Iran in Iraq without using force to implement it because other sectarian groups will kick against it as they also have large representation on ground and their outcry will be backed by the international community, in fact, through the Islamic revolution of Iran we are made to understand that it is the masses that called for Islamic governance not the other way round. So this negate your point.
Whilst the WSWS analysis of the United-States-engineered colour revolution in Iran is clearly flawed and potentially harmful, just over one hundred years ago, after the criminal slaughter in which 18 million died, humanity’s best hope of preventing a recurrence of that war lay with others who would have proudly worn the label ‘Trotskyist’ or ‘communist’.
Several times before August 1914, socialists prevented the outbreak of war by organising mass protests. In 1905, Swedish socialist Zeth Höglund prevented a war to stop Norway’s secession from Sweden. Popular protests organised by socialists prevented the 1911 Agadir crisis triggering a war. Popular protests organised by socialists also prevented the Balkan wars of 1912-13 from becoming a wider European war.
Whilst they were unable to prevent war starting in August 1914, they succeeded in November 1917 overthrowing one of the perpetrators of that war, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.
On a number of occasions between November 1918 and November 1923 German communists attempted to emulate the example of the Russian Revolution. Had they succeeded, Hitler would have become a small footnote in history.
Instead, humanity paid for their failure with the rise of Hitler, the Jewish Holocaust and the Second World War in which an estimated 60 million died, the theft of Palestine, all the wars started by Israel, the Korean war, the Vietnam War, the Iraq Wars, the invasion of Libya, the war against Syria, etc.
James, consider what has become of the Trotskyist movement under any of its names – and of just about every communist or socialist organisation today. The elites learned their lesson from a near miss and they simply infiltrated the entire movement, with paid organisers who recruit youth and then teach them to go round in circles, until they grow up figuring that revolt is not possible. One thing I don’t understand is how the ‘cell’ concept failed to prevent this. Any ideas?
The Euro-American “Left” is one thing: the left wing of the Euro-American Empire.
That’s all they are.
The sooner one realizes this reality and treats this so-called Left as such, the better.
One of the tasks pursued by the zio-“left” is to discredit the real left by mimicing the right. This discourages people from getting involved and also provides the right with ammunition for their anti left propaganda.
Well put. And Trotskyism is the most pathetic expression of this reactionary outlook. As if peoples, countries, and national leaders fighting imperialism were asking for any help and/or advice whatsoever from minuscule, arrogant, deluded Western self-worshipping sects whose second-guessing is endless, LOL.
A number of points need to be raised regarding the politics of the Trotskyist movement, although whole books have been written in this respect.
The first is the endemic sectarianism of these movements. Splits began almost as soon as the 4th International was founded. Not just splits, but reunifications followed by further splits. Secondly was the characterization of the Soviet Union: was it socialist, capitalist, deformed workers state, degenerate workers’ state – they couldn’t seem to make their minds up. The whole thing was like a Jesuitical sabbatical, and particularly vicious. Third, there were the internal political regimes of these organizations and the cult of the individual Messiah and show trials, speak from some experience having once been a member of one of these organizations. It would be true to say that political sects took on the features of a religious cult. And here was the great anomaly within these movements, namely, that they mimicked the worst practices of Stalnism; if anything could be characterised as a regime it was the internal politics of these organizations.
Mostly their position of the Soviet Union as a deformed/degenerate workers’ state was correct. There was at least the recognition the anti-colonial revolution would not have been possible, or at least more difficult without the existence of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the existence of a non-capitalist economic system offering an alternative to capitalism put a little backbone into western social-democratic parties.
There was one exception, however. The Socialist Workers Party in both the UK and the US took the position of writing of the Soviet Union as another capitalist country; moreover a particularly noxious capitalist country worse than the West. The ‘state-caps’ as we called them drifted into anti-Communism and many into neo-conservatism. In the US in particular a groupd of New York intellecutals including Sidney Hook, Iriving Kristol and lately Christopher Hitchens went over on mass to US imperialism.
RM, the “MEK” came up recently on a kindred blog.
I followed the link provided and was interested in the cult claims and connections to the KSA.
https://www.sott.net/article/373185-MEK-Terrorist-Death-Cult-Meet-Washingtons-Iranian-Opposition
What are your thoughts and how much relevance (if any) does it have today (a) in Iran; and (b) in global geopolitics (e.g. with the usual suspects etc)?
Excellent set of clarifications. I agree with the important emphasis on Shariati, and the interpretation given.
Many thanks.
I’m surpised the Evil Iranian Regime hasn’t renamed Shariati Street in Tehran to something more acceptable.
I guess WSWS has been co-opted like all other ‘opposition’ outfits.
In terms of ‘co-option’, I think many underestimate both the power of money and how much of it is available to suppress opinions and movements viewed as unfavorable to those who have the money.
Lets just imagine a young and committed activists who wants real change. They of course have to live in a capitalist society, so they must have money to pay rent, buy food, etc. Someone comes along and offers them, lets say $100,000 as an upfront payment and a stipend of $50,000 a year if they only do their bidding while still pretending to be a committed activist?
My point is with these numbers are that…..
1) Its a very large amount of money to the young activist.
2) Its chicken feed to the large corporations and the very wealthy who want to continue to control and dominate a society. If an organization is making billions of dollars a year from the existing system, do you think that paying out $0.0001 billion is going to seem like an outrageous expense to keep the billions flowing?
Not everyone may take the offered money. But some will. And those some will then have resources in order to take over small organizations that rely on a lot of volunteer effort. So, even those that do not take the money will find themselves opposed by others within the organization who do take the money.
Ali Shariati wiki
His articles from this period for the Mashhad daily newspaper, Khorasan, display his developing eclecticism and acquaintance with the ideas of modernist thinkers such as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal of Pakistan, among Muslims, and Sigmund Freud and Alexis Carrel.
Alexis Carrel wiki
Alexis Carrel (French: [alɛksi kaʁɛl]; 28 June 1873 – 5 November 1944) was a French surgeon and biologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1912 for pioneering vascular suturing techniques. He invented the first perfusion pump with Charles A. Lindbergh opening the way to organ transplantation. Like many intellectuals of his time, he promoted eugenics.
Ruhollah Khomeini wiki
On 17 January 1979, the Shah left the country (ostensibly “on vacation”), never to return. Two weeks later, on Thursday, 1 February 1979, Khomeini returned in triumph to Iran, welcomed by a joyous crowd estimated (by BBC) to be of up to five million people.[96] On his chartered Air France flight back to Tehran 120 journalists accompanied him,[97][98] including three women.[98] One of the journalists, Peter Jennings, asked: “Ayatollah, would you be so kind as to tell us how you feel about being back in Iran?”[99] Khomeini answered via his aide Sadegh Ghotbzadeh: “Hichi” (Nothing)
I’m sure most readers can make the connections themselves.
Please see what has actually become of modern Iran, at the highest levels, via the pictures at the link below.
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-extravagant-lives-of-the-rich-kids-of-tehran-are-fueling-irans-protests-%E2%80%94-take-a-look.600284/
Obviously these carefully selected images were meant to foment discord within Iran. Business Insider had an article which included these and several other provocative pictures but after the government of Iran ordered Instagram be blocked inside of Iran, for some reason, Instagram decided to make these images unavailable to the rest of the world.
Here is the original article from Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-protests-rich-kids-of-tehran-2018-1?r=UK&IR=T/#the-wealthy-of-iran-have-no-problem-flaunting-their-money-around-1
How is it the revolutionary government of Iran can order the removal of pictures from Instagram unless the Iranian government is not itself a Masonic project created to mould Iranian society according a long running Zionist plan?
None of the people presented to us a heroes are any such thing, although it did seem as though at least one Iranian politician, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, was never made a party to the plan.
Ahmadinejad arrested for ‘inciting violence’ in Iran: report
https://nypost.com/2018/01/07/ahmadinejad-arrested-for-inciting-violence-in-iran-report/
The question of religion and socialism is a complicated one that arises from history.
Russia, at the time of the early 20th century revolutions, was a European feudal state. And, like the rest of the European feudal states, their was a close working alliance between the King/Czar and the official state church. The preachers of the state church, because of their close alliance to the King/Czar, preached against anyone or any group trying to organize for political change.
Thus, the priests of the state church were often seen as a large part of the system that was oppressing the people. And as such, as a revolution rejected the rule of the feudal state, at the same time it rejected the role of the state church’s priests to tell the people what to do.
Of course, this got locked into dogma on both sides. It became routine for the bankers and the industrialists who wanted submissive slaves to attack the revolutionaries as ‘Godless’. And it became dogma that the revolutionaries were opposed to these conservative churches that demanded that everyone remain slaves to the King/Czar and of course to the Church itself.
To my eye, when the Church decides to take on the role of helping to keep the people oppressed by an oppressive government, they should not be surprised that when there is a rebellion against that government that it is also a rebellion against the church that supported the repressive government.
But it is fascinating how sites like the WSWS ignore the many instances where leftist change has taken place in places without seperating from a conservative church that opposes change. In South and Central America, it took the form of ‘Liberation Theology’ whereby the local priests caused anger both within the represive government but also within the conservative Papal church by preaching doctrines that were closer what Jesus actualy taught.
Socialism could have gotten a lot farther on Planet Earth if it hadn’t been tied up with the German-Marxist obsession with “replacing religion.”
Recently I feel much more sympathetic towards Islam than Christianity…
Wsws have a cultrual marxist retoric, because they are cultrual marxist. I think it is better to make that clear instead of writing a very long article without that conclusion.
Thanks Mr Ramin for your articles, first on these reckless protests which may pose a serious danger to Iran’s sovereignty, next for your justified criticism of the WSWS’ trostkyist stance, based on their ‘holier than the pope’ sense of socialism, in support of these protests against the interest of the majority of the Iranian people, and thirdly for your justified rebuttal of their response. Thanks also for the various insightful comments from the Saker community, as usual on this site.
If I understand it right the core of WSWS’ animosity against Iran is their rejection of what you brand as ‘Islamic socialism’, which they consider against the interests of the ‘working class’, apparently because of ‘hybrid’ capitalist elements in the Iranian economy. I agree fully with your arguments concerning the necessity of Iran’s economic policies under the circumstance of decennia of economic and financial warfare against the country waged by the US and their vassal cronies.
I quote from your second piece: ‘ Do Trotskyists realize that a key step is ‘preserving’ actual socialist gains?’ You mentioned the positive scores of Iran UN HDI index, for instance, ignored by WSWS. For the interest of your readers I would like to refer also to Iran’s outstanding policy on Social Protection and Safety Nets. Readers may kindly refer to a detailed IDS study from December 2015 which is available at http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/social-protection-and-safety-nets-in-iran
The study notes that there are 10 articles on SP in Iran’s Constitution. About 10 million Iranian citizens benefit from ‘non-contributary’ welfare services, paid for by about 20% of the State budget (only 0,7% of the population are below the ‘poverty line’ of 1,25 USD / daily. About 22 million citizens benefit from various ‘contributary’ social insurance and safety net provisions which are coordinated by the State Management and Planning Organisation in collaboration with sectoral departments and NGO’s. In addition, the state provides for energy and fuel subsidies to the population.
My point is simply: the protests which appear to be economic but are kindled from outside (including WSWS) to trigger ‘regime change’ do not only put at risk Iran’s sovereignty, but do also threaten to destroy the actual socialist gains which were achieved over the last 40 years.
Hello, Ramin: there are no doubt several approaches to forming a reply to a critique, such as the one of the WSWS to your article. By using facts that the WSWS can not deny, that support your case, you have grounds for an insurmountable presentation. e.g., facts such as the nature of Iranian banking, and other industry details, that proves the soundness of your claims – the following lines from wackypedia, although known as a propaganda source, provide ample grounds for the soundness of Iranian socialism:
“Following the Islamic Revolution, Iran’s banking system was transformed to be run on an Islamic interest-free basis. As of 2010 there were seven large government-run commercial banks.” (references given there)
Anyone with economics background will be able to see that this is not an exploitative capitalist system, nor some crack pot regime of despots.
WSWS is parroting American regime Newspeak when it describes the Iranian government as a “regime.”
In general, the Anglophone nations like the American Empire specialize in using weasel word phrases for their CIA-style “perception management” campaigns.
It works like this:
-Governments of nations on the American Empire’s hitlist are to be demonized as a “regime.”
-Governments of nations that are vassals …I mean… allies of the American Empire are to be described with more neutral terms like “administration”, “government”, etc.
-The government of the American Empire should be described as the Leader of the Free World.
Everyone here should be sure to follow these helpful guidelines for American DoubleSpeak in the future. Thank you. ;-)
What we are seeing on the Left today is socialism against socialism and I think there is something either mad or something very deeply cynical about it. As imperfect as leaders like Gaddafi and Assad and Khameini may be, or maybe much worse than imperfect, they seem to lead quasi socialist systems that make some significant effort to care for their peoples, in ways that put the supposedly enlightened West to shame. And lets not even talk about the evils committed by Western regimes and the ways those regimes are dominated by oligarchies to the exclusion of real democracy, or the way the Western Hegemony puts into power and supports some of the most vicious regimes in the world (eg. Honduras). Never mind all that, because it seems that socialists can always find a way to attack other socialisms. John Cleese, not a very nice human being politically, nailed it in Life of Brian where he spoofs lefty groups as oblivious to the carnage in the world around them while they mainly focus on attacking each other.
Well, if you want self criticism from WSWS, you will be waiting for H-ll to freeze over, but your demand for it was in the tradition of polemical retort for their labeling the current dictatorship of the Mullatariat a “regime”. It is how they see it. You would think that they could support Iran versus a world imperialist attack while they call for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Give Conditional support at least. That they gave to Russia even with Stalin running things as ruthlessly and I daresay incompetently as he did. So this gap in their analysis as they pride themselves as “internationalists” is what irritates me about the WSWS position.
As for Westerners liking Rumi or Hafez and not going deep into Persian culture: chill! Guilty as charged. My job ( of a scholarly non scholar) this lifetime does not involve learning Farsi or specializing in Persian literature. My bad ( self criticism here). Your growling side issues while understandable merely are a self indulgence which distracts from your otherwise admirable points.i.e. go deeper into Shariati and deepen your understanding at least of the question at hand.
No system is immune to incompetence and corruption ( Mullahs or technocrats or deep state bureaucrats). From what I understand in Iran there are several power bases which work together to run the country in a rather unique way. Certainly Iran is not immune from corruption. Is Ahmadinajad the Steve Bannon of Iran? ( sloppy comparison, I admit) I think not–he has always had popular support of the poorest of the poor. So he was arrested. Let us see if we have a Stalin-like show trial of the man or if he just “disappears” into the bowels of some dank prison.
This economic protest was not a “green revolution” much to the disappointment of the neocon elites: The Iranian urban middle class which is doing reasonably well and has a more direct interest in national stability was profoundly disinterested in joining it and so they did not. Let us see if the reformists among them speak to the economic issues and issues of corruption in the next elections to the political body which represents their interests.
Maybe you could delve ,if you are so interested , into the movement of liberation theology that swept the Catholic Church during the 1970’s and 1980’s and why that attempt at the union of religion and politics of socialism ( at a local grass roots organizing level) failed. And why it is presumably succeeding in Iran.
Here is another article on the arrest of Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, from the Daily Telegraph.
Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is ‘arrested for inciting unrest against the government’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5243667/Former-Iranian-president-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-arrested.html#ixzz53cP9Wdof
Given the extraordinary context of the arrest of a popular former President of Iran, who was in no way directly tied to the initial protests organized by pro government ‘conservatives’ in Mashad, and futher which came as a direct result of what appears to be an intentional provocation made by current President Hassan Rouhani, who specifically attacked conservative/’Principalist’ sources of financing in a budget statement one day before protests errupted, and further that it occurred on the heels of so much US rhetoric aimed at destabilizing the Islamic Republic, including threats to fully renounce the nuclear agreement, the situation inside Iran can only be described as the work of people who are themselves determined to overthrow the currect Iranian system of government from within.
Is it any wonder Russian leadership has such mistrust for the government of Hassan Rouhani?
I want everyone to do some very serious thinking about the implications of such a move, arresting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by the supposedly beseiged ‘regime’ of Hassan Rouhani. For my money the only reasonable explanation is that Rouhani and the people behind the Reformist camp he leads has purposely instigated these protests with the objective of using the ensuing crisis as an excuse to destroy their anti Imperialist political opponents, including perhaps even the power of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, just at the moment when victory in Syria and Iraq seems assured.
If so, what extraordinary treachary this would represent!
The conclusion stated above is pratically the only one available when you consider the original ‘surprise’ election of Hassan Rouhani, made possible with outside and specifically Western Zionist support and also in that instance using social media, including the infamous ‘happy dance’ psyop that went viral again using social media, and which galvanized support amongst youthful Iranians for the most pro Western of all candidates.
There can be no question: Hassan Rouhani is in league with the supposed enemies of Iran, and this has always been the case.
Hammering home the case, various individuals tied to the current Iranian ‘regime’ have laundered huge sums of their stolen monies in the West over the last several decades, this even while sanctions have reigned, which they partly aquired as war profiteers during the Iran-Iraq war which killed perhaps 700 000 of their countrymen, including children forced to make World War style charges at entrenched Iraqi military positions, and all this accomplished in concert with the main players involved in the weapons-for-oil-for-drugs and for murderous Nicaraguan rebels during the Iran-Contra Affair, is it not sufficiently clear to everyone that Hassan Rouhani is a pure psychopath and satrap of Western Zionists?
Please read the information below to confirm what I have said regarding Iranian money specifically invested in Canada.
RE: Mullah Rafsanjani and his family’s foreign investment in Canada
http://iranzamin2500.blogspot.ca/2007/01/re-mullah-rafsanjani-and-his-familys.html
And these very same individuals in charge of Iran signed an agreement with the United States which effectively cost the Iranian people close to 100 billion US dollars, which the people of Iran will never get back, while they made a killing for themselves.
We can discuss socialism and revolution for the ‘workers’ until the cows come home but the current Iranian ‘regime,’ the absolutely correct name for the so-called ‘Reformist’ government fronted by Hassan Rouhani, is a monumentally corrupted party of kleptocrats, and also unfortunately pure collaborators with the very people who claim they will destroy Iran if it does not comply with their demands.
Further, using these intially economic protests as an excuse to arrest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the main political enemy of Zionist Imperialism not just inside Iran, but possibly in the whole world today, does this not demonstrate the possiblility that Reformists have intentionally over-played their hand and by arresting a popular man of the people they will cause the current round of protests to be reignited? Perhaps then leading to a replay of the events of 1979 and a new Iranian revolution, or counter-revolution in this instance, only this time with a view to bringing in a new and 100% neoliberal Zionist regime to Iran, in line with the demands of the Trump Administration and of Israel?
No offense Rahmin but I haven’t the slightest regard for, or interest in, what the Trotskyte filth rag known as WSWS has to say about anything regarding Iran and the fate of it’s impoverished working people. To me it seems like classic misdirection at the precise moment one of the great scams of history is attempted, and as ever, on the backs of impoverished and working people.
For me it looks like the WSWS is just the typical far-left “idk why communism failed every single time it got tried”-propaganda outlet.
They are just making things up at this point.
I bet that it is just as simple as:
“Iran supports Assad and Assad does not want Rojava, therefor Iran is against Rojava and therefor Iran is evil”
Just ignore them. Even the alt-right is a better source than them.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/01/04/while-pundits-condemn-iran-honduran-police-kill-street-demonstrators
Here it is folks, the terrifying thought process of an average neocon:
And who, pray tell, trains and equips said Honduran police and army? Oh yes, the USA . well then it is OK that the people get killed but in the case of Iran it is because the police are bad, bad, bad to the the bone .
Why? is killing people protesting any “better” in Honduras? well, ummm because , because the CIA intervened in the Honduran election because the Russian favored candidate was about to win so it’s OK that ummm the police are shooting people protesting a ..wait a minute it’s the Mexican elections that the Russians fixed so ummm people should be shot for not protesting the outcome in the streets.
http://news.antiwar.com/2018/01/07/mcmaster-russia-meddling-in-mexicos-election/
Who will win? A bunch western intellectual snobs with syrupy liberal internationalist ideas or the centuries long process to create a patriotic Islamic Iran, a process that started roughly a thousand years ago with the Shuubiya movement and which was aided by the Safavid dynasty? I know where I’m putting my money guys.
‘Islamic socialism’ lol. The governance of the Iranian government go is based on Islamic Ideals. If some ideas of socialism match with some ideas of Islam, this doesn’t mean that it should be called ‘Islamic socialism’. If certain ideas of communism match with certain ideas of Islam, will you call it ‘Islamic communism’?
“What I believe with certainty is that neither of our biases – declared or not – are unclear to our readers. Indeed, readers SHOULD be looking with a somewhat-jaundiced eye at all journalism which claim to be totally unbiased”.
Dear Ramin … I got little further than this phrase and decided to take up cudgels in defence of your right to be at odds with people accusing you of being an apologist. Your article and the libellous WSWS response are too long for me to read to do either of you justice fully. To give WSWS some credit, we can have our doubts about the sincerity and the patriotism of the comprador class in Tehran. On the other hand the WSWS use of the smear term régime when talking about Iran’s sovereign government is suspicious. That said, I’d need to broaden drastically my knowledege of Iran to be able to write intelligibly about the deeper issues.
It seems the bone of contention is more cultural than political. You and them are using different prisms and your inside knowledge of your native country puts you at an advantage regarding outsiders who appear willing to sacrifice national concerns to make them fit into a procrustean bed compatible with their westernised idealogy.
Iran isn’t an Islamic Republic for nothing. I enclose links (Cf. infra) to two documents on Hezbollah which will give Saker readers some insghts into the sympathy Hassan Nasrallah commands among Maronite Christians and Sunni Moslems and I suspect that some parallels can be drawn with the hope that first Iranian and then Russian interventions in Syria offered to religious minorities throughout Western and Central Assia.
You write as a patriot. By definition Trotskyists and their offshoots, Neoconservative Globalists, have no grasp of a need for patriotism.
Trotsky’s miguided Utopianism (and I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his driving motives) has led to the Dystopia which assails humankind the world over. Stalin for all his faults remained a patriot and I believe I am right in saying that Russia’s working classes, who suffered terrible hardship under Yeltsin before Vladimir Putin came to the rescue, look back with nostalgia to the Soviet Era.
Meanwhile don’t bash the language of Shakespeare. Thanks to Edward I, nicknamed Longshanks and Malleus Scottorum, «le Marteau des Écossais» – who kicked out the Jewish usurers brought to England by William of Normandy, Edward II, poets Geoffrey Chaucer and John Gower, Henry IV and his son Henry V – les premiers rois anglais à baragouiner le français – yonder archipelago isn’t having to get its knickers in a twist to master an Anglo-Norman dialect. But I jest.
I don’t always agree with your analyses. But such abysmal ad hominen attacks on you are shameful. I’m surprised they didn’t put the boot in by accusing you of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’.
PS “But we will not allow the Iranian bourgeoisie and political flunkies like Mazaheri to intimidate the working class, and those wide sections of the middle class who would be inclined to support it, by labeling the emergence of working-class opposition to the Islamic Republic as “sedition.” We will instead fight to arm this movement with an understanding of its political tasks the working class must oppose imperialism, forge its independence from all factions of the Iranian bourgeoisie, and rally the toilers behind it in the fight for a Workers’ Republic and, in unity with Arab, Jewish, Kurdish and Turkish workers, a Socialist Federation of the Middle East”. WSWS
What crap … Class warfare : just what the doctor ordered as Iran struggles to survive a blockade. Possibly next WSWS will be suggesting the people of Gaza should rise up against Hamas (admittedly initially favoured by Israel to weaken Arafat and the PLO) to free them of their tyranny and embrace Zionism ?
How can the WSWS not see the ‘invisible’ handiwork of Soros, NED, USAID who are ‘fishing in troubled waters’ ?
Ramin a political flunky ? Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you. All the best TMWNS
Le mystère Hezbollah Un film de Jean-François Boyer et Alain Gresh https://blog.mondediplo.net/2008-03-12-Le-mystere-Hezbollah
Durée : 52:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdaZ_Jqa5Bo
Published on Jan 12, 2017 Documentaire réalisé après 2006, l’année de la guerre d’Israel contre le Liban Documentaire sur le Hezbollah
Syrie-Hezbollah, cauchemar de l’impérialisme Bruno Guigue mercredi 27 décembre 2017
https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Syrie-Hezbollah-cauchemar-de-l-imperialisme-49112.html.
Parlement : Mot former de deux verbes “parler” et “mentir” …
PPS Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is ‘arrested for inciting unrest against the government’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5243667/Former-Iranian-president-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-arrested.html#ixzz53cP9Wdof
I look forward to hearing your take on this recent development … TMWNS
There is a multi-pronged pincer attack on Iran from the West.
The right wing and Western Governments attack Iran in the name of “human rights” (which they love to bring by missiles, drones, and bombers), hate its “Mullahs” (successful revolutionary leaders earlier, democratically elected politicians now), and generally view Iran as a dishevelled, distasteful, and “extremist” country (will they dare to speak the truth that the extremism of Iran is simply an extreme will for independence?).
From the left, the Western socialists (mostly Trotsky followers like the WSWS) disdain the Iranian revolution because it was not carried out under the banner of their brand of socialism. They will gladly feed to the imperialists any movement or country that lacks socialist virtue as defined by them. Are they not the useful idiots of empire?
And from the progressive centre come attacks from the “liberals” (always liberal with other peoples’ lives and money), the avant-garde progressives who mock Iran for its religiosity and its intolerance of gays and identity politics, and shrieks of pure hatred from the liberal media, calling for the destruction of Iran and/or its “regime”.
It is quite pointless to reason or talk with any of these. Iran (and the so many other countries in a similar predicament) have to see through these “Tweedledums” and “Tweedledees” of empire, for, in essence, they are all cut out of the same cloth and are all out to destroy Iranian freedom.
There are always ‘the Good Germans’ who willingly join in while things are going good, then when it finally collapses, they pretend they had no idea what crimes they were so happily cheering on.
I guess one thing this shows is that the outbreak in Germany in the 1930’s didn’t have anything to do with the German race. Now we are seeing it again in America. Or, as American novelist Sinclair Lewis warned in the 1930’s, “It Can Happen Here”.
Nazi Germany was essentially an act of plagiarizing successful Anglo-American imperialism, with the aim of creating social cohesion at home by plunder and genocide abroad. Sadly, Stalin and the USSR that he led would not have it. The Trots and their glorious Western fourth internationals are in a state of permanent madness ever since.
Its funny how political language changes over time.
In my political lifetime, there were ‘the liberals’. This was back in the 1960’s, when many of them took risks to try to stop the murderous attrocity known as the Vietnam War. They marched for civil rights in the south.
By the 1990’s, the Clintons had changed the term ‘liberal’ such that it then meant their turning the economy and the government over to Wall Street, and that they were pro-war in helping the Pentagon and the Deep State search for the next big enemy that justified the huge piles of money they took every year. Clinton was so pro-war he was willing to launch air strikes to try to push the story of Monica’s blue dress off the front page. Who cares how many people die, as long as the country isn’t talking about that dress tommorrow.
As the corporate Democrats and the Clintons changed the word ‘liberal’ so far from its original meanings that it was virtually the opposite of what it was before, what Sen. Wellstone called ‘the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party’ started calling themselves the older term of ‘progressives’. Harkening back to the turn of the century and that earlier populous movement for change.
Obama and Hillary then adopted the term ‘progressives’ for themselves, and like before they twisted the meaning so that it meant something far different and almost opposite of what it originally meant. Under Obama and Hillary, it meant more rule and by now complete subservience to Wall Street. It mean killer drone strikes that killed many civilians. It meant supporting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria. It meant bringing back fascism to the European continent. And finally it meant the return of Red Baiting and McCarthyism in the 2016 election and its aftermath.
I’m old enough to have once liked the original liberals and progressives. What the terms originally meant. Back when it meant large crowds protesting to try to stop a horrible war. Back when it meant equal rights, where each person is judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. So, I object to some of your slurs against liberals and progressives. But I also have to admit that you are right in the people you are denouncing. Its just when I hear those terms I think of the protesters trying to stop the Vietnam War and Senators like Paul Wellstone. But those people aren’t around any more. And these days the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ now refer to pro-war, anti-democracy, pro-banker shills like Obama and Hillary. And them I’m with you in opposing.
More from WSWS on this, and no better than before.
They only focus on the number of deaths. They ignore the fact that some of this body count were IIRC police killed by protesters. Or that a number of the deaths occured when protesters tried to storm a police station to get weapons. Of course, try that in almost any country, you are likely to end up dead. Especially in the US where the police kill over a thousand people a year who aren’t involved with trying to attack the police and their police stations.
They ignore the pro-governments completely.
And all of this to make the claim that the only reason the protests have abated is mass repression by the government. They claim hundreds have been arrested. In other words, roughly the same number that were arrested for protesting the inaguration of President Trump.
Sometimes in the past, I’ve noticed that when talking about Trump they sometimes fall back on just regurgitating Democrat and Deep State propaganda. And in this case, they again seem fixated on promoting the version of events favored and created by the Deep State. I can understand that somewhat. When living in a heavy propaganda barrage, sometimes it takes some real mental discipline to keep it out of one’s thinging. But still, its a bit disappointing to go to the WSWS website and feel like you’ve mistakenly wandered into CNN.
In general, one thing I try to do is to remember which writers and which outlets turned out to be correct. In a world of fake-news, its a good thing to try to remember who’s been correct in the past. Of course, that does not mean they’ll always be correct in the future. But it does tend to separate those who at least try to be right and who have the competence to succeed in that occaisionally from those who just regularly propagadize and don’t really worry about facts and being correct. The people who let their ideaology set their opinions will only be correct as often as a broken clock.
From that point of view, I’d say its score one for Mr. Mazaheri. It turns out that what he’s said about the Iranian protests was largely correct. From reading Mr. Mazaheri fine work here on The Saker, what’s happened in Iran over the last week or so has seemed relatively predictable. Especially the mass crowds of protesters supporting their revolutionary nation in its time of crisis.
As to the WSWS’ predicted rise of the workers united in the next stage of world revolution, well, that doesn’t look like such a great prediction these days. They are now whining that a few deaths and a few hundred arrests is a wave of mass repression that defeated their incipit revolution. But, most of the successful revolutions in the world have faced far stronger repression and struggled through it to succeed. I’m sure the British tyrants in their American colonies killed more than 20 dissidents, and arrested more than a few hundred, and that doesn’t seem to have stopped George Washington.
Its one way to sort through all the fake news and decide whom to give your attention. Pay attention to those who are occiasionally correct, and who help you understand and anticipate what’s about to happen in a place on the other side of the world about which you realize that you don’t really know all that much about. Those people who are able to do that, those are the ones to pay attention to in the future.
Thank you Ramin Mazaheri! :)
Even at their height, the protests were small, the largest around 2000 people.
Iran’s Protests & Why They Failed
A short summary of six days of protests
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48543.htm
A detailed article on the protests, their numbers and the social media put to use by the zionazis in their attempt to exploit them. One of the interesting results of the zionazi interference was when they got their proxies and dupes out projecting regime change and engaging in violence, and western colonial regimes proclaiming their support of the protests, their usual routine, the numbers of people protesting began to decline.
Well, I find the rather cultish attitude to Iran to be a bit much. Here is some realism from Philip Giraldi, at Unz.com: “The fact is that Iran is being targeted because Israel sees it as its prime enemy in the region and has corrupted many “opinion makers” in the U.S., to include Stephens, to hammer home that point. To be sure, Iran is a very corrupt place run by people who should not be running a hot dog stand, but the same applies to the United States and Israel. And there are lots of places that are not being targeted like Iran that are far worse, including good friend and ally of both Jerusalem and Washington, Saudi Arabia.”
Also, saying that compared with Persian Sufi poets Shakespeare is a “bucket of junk” says volumes about the author’s intellectual acumen and personal refinement.
Someone just told me about a book which I am now reading online, The Great Conspiracy Against Russia.
https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/great-conspiracy-against-russia.pdf
It is one of the most shocking books I ever read, almost as much as the Unauthorized Biography of George Bush (the father of Dubya), which goes into the Nazi ties between the US government and the Nazis. For example, Prescott Bush, financer of the Nazis, and the Dulles brothers, who collaborated with Nazi before, during and after WWII. That was my first real wake up call to the real state of affairs.
This book, written in 1946, goes into tremendous detail about the efforts by Trotsky to destroy the USSR, going so far as to collaborate with the Nazis, to destroy the USSR, in order to take over Russia. Reading this book and seeing how destructive Trotsky was, I am totally mystified why the World Socialist Website lionizes Trotsky, and demonizes Stalin, especially since many of the charges against Stalin have been shown to be as factual as the charges against Assad, Chavez, and other leaders who have resisted Western Hegemony.That is, they were false charges.
And on the other hand, how Russian opponents of the Soviets were willing to do anything to prevent or to destroy the Revolution. The book points out that White Russians essentially invited an invasion of USA, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. And the intent of the invaders was to carve up Russia, a project that has been ongoing for at least 100 years. Shocking.
I haven’t finished the book but the fact that so many people were working to sabotage Russia as the USSR, for basically either ideological or flat out selfish purposes–to maintain their position or get rich at the expense of the Russian people tells a lot about the events happening now. The same tactics used 70 and even 100 years ago, being replayed now.
I now have less sympathetic view of WSWS, which does seem to act in a divisive way against any other form of social movement. Ramin Mazaheri has been highly diplomatic in the face of the same slash and burn language that wsws uses. Copy and paste the link above to see what the book is talking about. What is more revealing is that it was written by Americans with a forward by a long time serving Senator, when apparently Senators had some integrity.
The interactions between Keith Jones at the WSWS and Mazaheri have been very interesting. I understand where Jones is coming from. But it’s easy to criticize the Iranian government when you’re a leftist living in the West and don’t have to worry about sanctions and regime change. Mazaheri also makes a valid point about secular Western democracy. It’s simply unreasonable to expect people to abandon their own religion and culture. The atheist left is always snubbing their nose at American Christans, especially at poor whites in the South. This is condescending enough but it becomes grossly elitist when they also direct it towards poor Muslims in countries affected by US imperialism. This attitude does not win people over.