[Note by the Saker: I am posting this article with great reservations since I believe that, will all due respect, my friend Ramin fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Bolshevik ideology and the reality of the motives behind the Bolshevik policies following their seizure of power in 1917. I also believe that Ramin has a completely wrong understanding of the Christian view of power and I therefore, with Ramin’s authorization, removed a number of sections dealing with this from the article. Still, this article does make some very interesting and important points about Iran and the ideology of the Islamic Republic and about the fact that modern Socialism should, and largely has, dumped its misguided anti-religious stance. Since the good outweighs the bad, at least in its current version, I am posting this but with this caveat. The Saker]
by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker blog
Iran has rectified the biggest failure of the Russian Revolution by proving that socialism is undoubtedly compatible with religion.
The horrific persecution of religious people, the wholesale Bolshevik slaughter of clergy, the razing of churches, and their abominable intolerance of all religions was – in the least condemnatory terms – an unacceptable violation of both human rights and human nature itself.
Their foolish lumping together of religion along with capitalism and monarchy was a political catastrophe that enormously swelled right-wing reactionary forces, and directly provoked the rise of Mussolini in 1922, and then Hitler. Indeed, the USSR’s unprecedented total war on religion provided the single worst public relations failure in the fight against capitalism and bourgeois (West European) democracy.
What the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has done is to help reverse this enormous failure of 1917 Russia. Maybe one has to be a Muslim to see this clearly and without bias, but Iran has proven more than any other nation in modern history that religion can play a positive role, and even a principal role, in pushing society towards economic and democratic socialism.
Iran has done this more emphatically than in any Latin American country, where religion has also performed a very similar function in recent decades and where it will undoubtedly continue to do so. Indeed, anyone with any familiarity with Latin America would agree that it is absolutely unthinkable that leftism will progress there without the direct support of the Catholic Church and the myriad indigenous religions.
If Western leftists who detest religion could just take a clear-eyed look around, they would see that the leftist world has changed and it is they who are the outdated, reactionary extremists on this subject:
In the cloakroom of the Museum of the Revolution in Havana there is an easily-visible posted note from the Pope discouraging theft – that is not irony, but progress; Vietnam’s constitution has always recognized religion and a 2003 Communist Party resolution strengthened religious protections; China has given up their war on their religious culture and is promoting neo-neo-Confucianism (which has a cosmology and thus is definitely a religion, even if it is not one easily understandable in the usual terms of the Abrahamic faiths).
The jury is in and there is no longer any question: Socialists no longer hate religion, only extremists do. Certainly, only extremists deny other people the right to their chosen faith!
So in 2017 Iranian “fundamentalism” is looking simply “fundamental”…to Iran’s essentially unparalleled human progress since the end of the Iran-Iraq War: from the period 1990-2014 only capitalist/longtime military dictatorship/US-occupied South Korea had a bigger increase in their UN Human Development Index than Iran…and there is no economic blockade on South Korea.
The Western left’s “Iranian blinders” never cease to amaze me: Even true leftists in the West never seem to ask themselves why the same countries, cultures & ideologies who committed near-total cold war against the USSR and socialist countries are…also committing near-total, cold war against Iran!
LOL, it’s as if such leftists think this is some sort of unrelated coincidence! But it’s really because their anti-religion (and thus anti-democratic) and ethnocentric tendencies are so domineering that they cannot see Iran’s contribution to mankind’s modern democratic progress clearly.
But the Western left’s hatred of religion is outdated even within their own societies: with a few exceptions (Italy, Spain, Poland, etc.) I doubt many people in Europe believe that their churches play any real role in their national politics anymore? This makes their anti-religion attitude even more unnecessary, and twists it into the obsessive vigilance of a fanatic.
The ideological similarities between 1917 Russia in 1979 Iran are obvious to anyone: Anti-monarchism, anti-bourgeois (West European) democracy, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, support for liberation movements, anti-centralization, pro-economic equality, gender equality (an undoubtable success in Iran which is both statistically and culturally verifiable, but like all cultural issues parts of this must be viewed within the Iranian context and not a foreign, externally-imposed, “Amsterdam” version), explicit rights for minorities, respect for minority cultures, and on and on and on.
That’s almost 10 pretty darn fundamental socialist concepts which Iranian openly pursues and advocates…and that’s off the top of my head.
But we couldn’t have done it without the Russian Revolution first lighting the way – even if they got lost in the end.
The religious basis of opposing capitalism and imperialism
Any Muslim who learns about the moral injunctions and goals of socialism cannot help but be struck by many of their similarities with Islamic mores. LOL, this similarity is such a self-evident truth to Muslims – and often such a shocking revelation to Westerners – that I cannot help but be amused at the disparity between our cultural divides on this subject.
This is also why supporters of Iranian Islamic Socialism can honestly say that they are advocating both Islam and Marxism at the same time, whereas Westerner after Westerner has dogmatically insisted to me that I cannot be Marxist because I am also religious! After all these many years, all can say is: LOL! And then I point to Iran as proof that it IS indeed possible….
The inconsistencies, idiocies and inherited, illogical intolerances on this subject – this cultural chasm, this enormous divide in the perceptions of modern reality– is both so enormous and yet so insignificant that I am justified in ending this with a wave of my hand.
(Sidebar: Iran is the only regional country which incorporates and protects all of its minorities, and is obviously a huge advance from the Arab nationalism of Baathism. Iran is diametrically-opposed to the illegitimate state of Israel, and yet Iran protects the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel. Iran may not be not tolerant of all groups, but Cuba doesn’t tolerate Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Vietnamese ban similarly disruptive missionary groups, I would not encourage Scientology to seek a foothold in China – these are exceptions which prove the rule of near-total tolerance of modern socialist nations.)
The near-religious urgency of socialism – the religious urgency of Iranian Islamic Socialism
What 1917, the eight decades of modern history which followed, and the failure of the pan-European project have all demonstrated is that the People only rule in an ideologically-correct, socialist-inspired system.
I can assume that the many proponents of West European (bourgeois) democracy are bristling at the phrase “ideologically-correct”. “What does he mean by that?! Where is his tolerance and doesn’t he realize that no ideology should be considered ‘correct’?!”
No, I don’t agree, and this is why Leftism is losing in the West: it tolerates that which wants to kill it.
Their bristling is their problem because they believe, falsely, in the complete relativism of all political issues. Many of them go even further, I believe, to the complete relativism of all moral issues.
This refusal to decide – this refusal to admit responsibility for anyone other than themselves and, perhaps (and only “perhaps”) their most immediate family – is a cultural dilemma which Western European societies have been unable to solve and which has produced their terrible model of governance that nobody wants to emulate anymore.
Indeed, as socialism’s model continues to succeed and impress (China and Iran being the two stars, currently), the Western model will continue to fall into disrepute…although it can be easily disputed that the Third World would have accepted only a small measure of the Western model if it hadn’t been forcibly imposed by colonialism. Regardless, this West European (bourgeois) model will be swept aside by their own People’s revolution, although they will probably be the last region to modernize.
The key to remember here is that Iran has already had theirs: Iran has declared illegal the privileges unique to the Greek island despot. (Indeed, this privilege was always, and thankfully, unknown to the plains farmer used to living harmoniously in a compact with the land and his neighbour in Russia, China, India and in many other places…but we cannot blame the Greeks for living in isolated, atypical, idyllic Greece. Western Europe must, however, finally modernize their political value system from that antiquated model.)
The genius of the Iranian revolution was that it injected the urgency and faith-based stability provided by religious morality into these modern questions.
Indeed: God watches from all vantage points and at all times – one should not be permitted (or encouraged, as it often appears in the West) to choose immorally or anti-socially, and that definitely must go at the repository of all social power, collective unity, and socialist decision making: the ballot box. This combination of religion and democracy has been, few would object, most fully and most effectively realized in today’s Iran…and the results have been great for Iranians (and Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc.)
The Russian Revolution believed – in an egotistical Nietzschean fashion that was the trend at the time – that intellectual will is all that was needed to make moral choices. “Who needs a higher power? I am the highest power!”
Well, as Dostoyevsky and others proved: an over-estimation on the moral correctness of solely following one’s own will and will-to-power is quite dangerous for both the individual and society; the idea that humans will near-unfailingly choose the moral decision over the selfish decision without some sort of religious instruction or mandate is, it must be admitted, a historical aberration in human history. And the jury is in: the results have not been increased equality, peace, land and bread.
Frankly, it also remains to be seen if a modern education system – which necessarily promotes revolutionary democratic socialism and ardently dissuades from reactionary capitalism – can fully create this revolutionary fervour which demands correct behavior, immediately and permanently, without the moral imperative of religion? A society without any religious instruction is certainly another historical aberration.
Cuba, for example, has had the “advantage” of stimulating revolutionary fervor due to the decades of injustice which is atypically caused by living in on island under international blockade…but seemingly every household has either a Santeria shrine or a Catholic one, so it’s not as if religious instruction is absent – it is just not done at their schools.
Indeed, re-examining the utility of religion in the advance of socialism is something which the West and their leftists never even discuss informally, or even in formal educational settings!
What is clear is that religious righteousness was and is sufficient in Iran in order to produce the revolutionary fervor and stability which has produced a socialist, humane and modern society. It worked, and is still working thanks to this catalyst as you are reading this.
Disregard this section all you like, but on this issue there is no doubt: the repression of religion was the Achilles’ heel of the Russian Revolution, while the promotion of religion in Iran (and elsewhere) has produced undeniably progressive results, proven by their sustained attacks on capitalist, monarchist, autocratic, neo-imperialist and reactionary forces.
Russian Marxists made zero effort to win over the clergy to their side, such was their intolerance.
Why was this intolerance so absolute? The answer from the Russian Marxist seems clear: the clergy colluded with the 1% in order to preserve their special status.
That is not of interest in this article. What is of interest is this: You absolutely cannot make this claim against Iran’s clergy in the creation of the Iranian Revolution.
This is such widespread knowledge that I don’t even need to support it with proofs. Iranian clergy were on the side of the Iranian People, taking the same risks and demanding the same political and economic modernity. They were not in their ivory tower, eating well and performing ceremonies while the People suffered, starved and took all the risks.
However, you can absolutely make this claim against the French clergy today.
In 8 years of covering hundreds and hundreds of public protests I have never, ever, never, ever seen a priest at a (even remotely) anti-capitalist (like anti-austerity) or anti-imperialist demonstration. The answer I get is: France has a strict (purely informal cultural) law which keeps religion out of politics and street demonstrations.
Absolutely not true: Then why do France’s clergy take part in anti-gay marriage demonstrations? This is obvious hypocrisy, and one thing we should definitely take from this is: France’s clergy participate when they feel like it. And they only feel like it when they want to serve the essence of a fake-leftist function: to give the appearance of moral virtue and modernity but actually propping up the establishment. Also, choosing to primarily get involved in order to participate in the trap of divisive identity politics inherent in modern bourgeois (West European) democracies.
But again, and like some in Latin America, Iran’s clergy is fundamentally and repeatedly on the side of the People and true social righteousness.
It is incumbent on the Westerners to explain this reality for themselves: I do not have to try to explain the obviously superior political intelligence of the Iranian clergy. I certainly do not mean to sound superior here, but it is an objective fact that Iran’s revolutionary clerical leaders cannot be called fake-leftists, LOL.
The separation of church and state is a bourgeois-era concept (tap, tap – is this thing on?)
So many Western leftists do not seem to realize that they cherished separation of church and state is completely part of the dictates of bourgeois (West European) democracy! France’s influential law on secularity dates to 1905 – long before the Russian Revolution. The French Revolution’s, as important a step as it was, was a fundamentally bourgeois revolution, and not only because of its anti-Roman Catholic stance.
Indeed, if Western anti-religion leftists can sincerely take just one thing from this article – if they cannot possibly countenance the idea of Iran as a socialist or even remotely leftist culture – please realize that your adherence to secularism means you are adhering to a concept dating from the resolutely bourgeois era of European history: it is not modern.
The Russian Revolution made this same error.
Iranians, for cultural reasons I cannot take the time explain here, are absolutely unable to follow this anti-religion path. Anyway, our rejection in 1979 of bourgeois (West European) democracy also forces us to reject this pat in desire for democratic modernity.
Therefore, the only question for Western leftists becomes: No matter what your bias is against religion, or Islam, or our ayatollahs – are you opposed to us having our own form of democracy?
Because mixing religion and politics in Iran is the result of an undoubtedly democratic consensus.
A recent and seemingly solid American university poll showed that 76% of Iranians answered “a lot” (47%) or “somewhat” (29%) to the following question, with only 6% answering “not at all”: “In your opinion, to what degree should our country’s policymakers take religious teachings into account when they make decisions?”
76% is a landslide. But it’s actually more than a landslide, because we can also fairly add in the 16% who responded “not much”: when compared with a pro-secularity Westerner, “not much” translates into quite in favor of religion in government.
The reality is that 1917 Russia was probably the same way – it was just a supremely tiny minority who completely opposed religion in government.
Tragically, they thought they could change this near-universal fact of human nature simply by banning religion. They were totally wrong, because religion is no mere, short-term, fundamentally-empty “opium” in the slightest.
Western leftists compound this tragedy by refusing to learn the obvious lesson despite all the bloodbaths, sinning and political failure: people will pursue religion in their lives.
This may be your chance to leap ahead morally from 1917 Bolsheviks, just as they leapt ahead from the 1861 “emancipation of serfs is good enough” types: Now you may not pursue religion in your lief, but if you fail to accept that others do…then you insist on being totally undemocratic on this issue.
What’s certain is that by making this your “identity issue”, you will continue – and you deserve to continue – to lose in your fight for leftism in your Western country.
Iran – decades after the Russian Revolution, far away, a different culture and society – did not make the same error: they chose democracy.
It is fair to say that Marxism is a religion; it is fair to say that all politics is religious
The ungenius of bourgeois (West European) democracy is encapsulated by the saying “politics is the art of compromise”.
For the religiously faithful: there can be no compromise with capitalism, colonialism, inequality, racism, Zionism, militarism, etc. To compromise on these issues is to put your soul, and other souls, at permanent risk.
In this world, what this bourgeois compromise translates into is: a compromise made among those within the 1%. It is rule by the gentry/aristocrat/technocrat. For them, the compromise between peasant and king is called “president”; for them the compromise between the emperor and the debt-slave is rule by “wealthy technocratic ministers”.
This is all immoral in 2017. It was not immoral to the brute caveman, or the feudal lord, or the Nietzschean Superman, but it is definitely immoral in 2017. For many in the West, it took the Great Recession to remind them of socialism, class warfare and the necessity of toeing the political hard-line.
Russia in 1917 needed no such reminding, but it does today. Iran, however, needs no such reminding, thankfully.
What Iran has done on behalf of the entire world is to demand that all religions no longer play a parasitic role – it cannot sit on the sidelines of human activity.
This was perhaps a vitally important and necessary step: Perhaps in the 19th/20th century Christian world their clergy truly was a hindrance to progress? Maybe, for reasons perhaps inherent in Christianity or perhaps not at all, Christianity had been an oppressive force even though true faith is indeed liberating?
In short, Iran’s continued success should force the West to fundamentally re-examine its very limited conception of the role religion can play in politics.
Iran has proved that clergy can be a politically – and not just morally – revitalizing force which protects the People and encourages the People’s progress, and not just the 1%.
That’s a concept which the older generation in the West may not even want to consider, but the continued success of Iran means that younger generations will not be so close-minded: they will have to account for Iran’s stature as the only nation in the Muslim world which is not still a plaything of Western imperialism.
Again, in my visits to the 3rd World I hear respectful words for Iran again and again and again, while I hear only the contrary in the West (at least from White people). I hope the West comes around to Iran’s socialist success because they are really missing out, and shooting themselves in the foot by not learning from Iran’s success, and also by not supporting Iran.
The role of the People in 1917, 1979 and 2017 is the subject of the most honest histories
What followed 1917 in Russia is not the subject of this series.
Rest assured that if you are familiar with modern Iranian history, it was the same for the nascent Soviet state: international blockade, military intervention, the counter-revolutionary movement guided from abroad by traitors and chauvinistic foreigners, etc. Capitalist tactics do not change, nor can they if they aim to suppress socialism, democracy and modernity, wherever it may sprout.
A major reason that Iranian Islamic Socialism succeeded is that Iran benefited from the first steps and obvious mistakes of the Russian Revolution. Socialism was a new concept, and many changes needed to be made: indeed, the art of socialism is to be constantly changing, adapting, polling, voting, implementing, etc.
Iran was also a much, much richer country than 1917 war-torn Russia, and it was also richer than a Soviet economy which had been immediately devastated by Gorbachev’s perestroika – his unforgivable abrupt end to central planning of the economy (the “fatal error” of December 1987: to immediately cut to 50% from 100% all the products of industry), as well as the cultural upheaval caused by an unwanted unchaining of capitalist media, his declared end of the class war, his brutal abandonment of price subsidies and other measures which…keep a nation’s people from economic and spiritual (revolutionary) poverty.
What happened in Iran – the combination of religion and socialism – was indeed unprecedented, and violently opposed by foreigners, but it was not at Europe’s doorstep, like Russia.
And I don’t wonder why non-Muslim countries aren’t embracing Iranian Islamic Socialism for their own country – they aren’t Islamic. The war on Iran is far more motivated by the dictates of capitalism the war for or against religion; all the West knows about Islam, and Iranian Islam, is that “it is not Christian”.
So Iran’s revolution isn’t exportable to Europe like in 1917 Russia…but it actually is, and in a far more benign way: ending the bourgeois, capitalist concept of strict secularity.
The term “Islamic Socialism” is quite a lot for some small Western minds to handle, both the “Islamic” and the “Socialism” part, LOL. Human progress assures me that Westerners will have to get used to it – thankfully, Iranians are well acquainted with it.
And I am certain that if the Arab world’s neo-colonial puppets are ever toppled, what their people will democratically install is their own national version of Islamic Socialism which is been modeled in a significant way (but not total) on the Iranian model.
Is no wonder why Iranians rejected bourgeois (West European) democracy – it is outdated and not even democracy. Everybody outside of the West sees that their legacy of centuries of blood and violence and that their so-called “postwar democracies” are simply selfish capitalist aristocracies.
Only a few nations can claim to have actually picked up the torch of the 1917 Russian Revolution. China, Cuba, and Vietnam already had their revolutions; Burkina Faso was toppled in 1987 by France & the US; Venezuela has never had a revolution because they still keep playing by the rules and structures of bourgeois (West European) democracy; 2011 Egypt did the same as Venezuela and it turned out much worse, much faster; can you keep a straight face if you openly suggest that the post-Cold War pan-European project picked up the People’s torch?
Since the year 1979 almost nobody but Iran has dared to use the same methods – mass appropriation, mass redistribution, massive resistance on multiple fronts – which were employed by Russian socialists post-1917.
For those who want to learn more about Iran’s socialist methods post 1979, I encourage you to read this article I wrote: “Iran: Socialism’s ignored success story”. In short, I prove that Iran checks all the boxes of a socialist nation: An avant-garde party, central planning of the economy, control over the media, support for foreign liberation movements, empowering people via economic redistribution and democratization.
“But Iran is religious so it can’t be socialist yadda yadda yadda….” Yes, thanks for sharing that with me, but I have to wrap this series up.
This article was to make abundantly clear the obvious link between 1917 and 1979. The link is not perfect, because we are talking about two totally different cultures, but the bond which we can call “socialism” is a wonderful, justifiable fit.
Leftism, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, equality, democracy: Let’s now simply agree that all of these beautiful, necessary, peaceful ideas were present in both the 1917 Russian Revolution (excepting state-forced atheism) and the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
But Iran could never have done it without 1917!
And Iran has tried to, and will continue to try to, pay it forward: The capitalist war against Iranian Islamic Socialism has clearly failed to topple the revolution, and no amount of Trumpian rhetoric will ever make me believe that Iran can be toppled militarily – that was tried already, and it failed.
This means, if history is a guide, the world can look forward to decades and multiple generations of support for leftist ideas from Iran, just as the people of the USSR once provided the world.
Who’s ready for the upcoming Islamic Socialist century?! It will certainly happen in the Islamic part of the world, Inshallah. If the Islamic Socialist century is just a happy subset of the often-discussed Chinese Red Century”…why keep fighting the feelin’?
But, clearly, no hoped-for socialist century would have arrived anywhere without the sacrifices and successes of 1917 Russians.
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.
******************************************************
This is the final part in a 5-part series on the 1917 Russian Revolution which aims to put the role of the People first.
Here is the list of articles which were published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!
A People’s History of the Russian Revolution pits new scholarship vs. Mainstream Media
Who was not responsible for the Russian Revolution, and who was?
The fascinating People’s account of how the Russian Revolution was won at street level
Why anti-socialist talk about Lenin even more than socialists
Iran’s 1979 Revolution picked up the People’s torch first lit in 1917 Russia
Many thanks to The Saker for posting!
His “Editor’s Note” should be viewed as both refreshing honesty and proof of his open-mindedness:
Journalists are edited every day, and readers are never told what parts were cut out or why. Furthermore, most editors just entirely kill the stories they disagree with personally.
The Saker did neither of these things, and that says a lot. The Saker continues to show tremendous intellectual integrity, and for that I extend a sincere thanks and my sincerest salutation of respect. I completely approve of this final version.
And I hope you enjoy it!
I’m kinda curious to see what was edited, can you post the sections cut here in the comments?
None of the first 4 parts of this series has appeared here at all to my knowledge and this one has been expurgated. I hope an unedited version will be posted at Greanville Post. It would have been helpful to see each of these essays posted here in full with the usual lively commentary.
The links to the previous 4 articles in this series were kind enough to be added at the bottom of the article, so I hope that people – especially those in favour of socialism and interested in an atypical interpretation of the 1917 Russian Revolution – will check them out.
Posting the edited parts of the article in the comments section here… seems to go against the publisher’s edits – which were really rather minor. As The Saker wrote, they were mainly regarding my interpretations of the Christian view of power…and this article is almost totally about Iran and socialism. Therefore, it should be clear that my key points were – in my opinion – not at all affected. Certainly, this article aims to show the links between 1917 and 1979 – interpretations of Christian views on power are wholly tangential.
I would imagine that an unedited version will be published in The Greanville Post…but that’s up to the publisher, as is the case with all journalism everywhere! Again, very glad this was posted on this great website with a truly excellent readership.
Thank you, I look forward to reading the unedited versions.
I like Mr The Saker, and I respect his opinions. However I perfer to make up my own mind. And if nothing else, I appreciate different points of view. Thus, I’m happy I read Mr. The Saker’s intro, and I’ll read the pieces with his thoughts in mind. But, I suspect from what I know about Mr. The Saker’s family history, that the Bolshevik Revolution is an area where we might have different points of view. And we also have some different points of view about Christianity. Thus, he’s somewhat intriqued me with his opening to see what has been edited out.
Besides, ever since I read the unedited version of Mr. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, I always seem to prefer the unedited versions. :)
Thanks to both Mr. Mazaheri and Mr. The Saker, as both have taught me and enlightened me in recent times. Actually, a difference of opinion between two people whose writings I respect is hopefully an opportunity for me to learn more, as its such differences that are often enlightening.
Thank you Mr. Mazaheri! I’m now 2 of 5 into this excellent series. Thank you. :)
I went back and re-read Mr. Reed’s books earlier this year. The one thing I remember about his “10 Days that shook the world.” was this sense that the bigger forces were moving outside the capital. The Reeds (they worked as a couple) did what they could to document and experience what was happening in St. Petersberg. But there were always two looming questions over them.
What will the Peasants do? And what is the Army doing?
The fights of the Bolsheviks in the struggle to control the capital and Moscow is a key part of the story, and yes it was more than Mr. Lenin singlehandedly winning those key cities, but there was always the question of what’s happening with the Army. And there was a Soviet of the Peasants that took a short while to organize, so what will the peasants do when they meet is always a question that looms over the events in St. Petersberg.
The simple message that the Bolsheviks put out was “Peace, Bread, and Land”. And that is obviously aimed at these two large external forces beyond Lenin and his speeches and writings in St.Petersberg. The soldiers wanted Peace. They wanted Peace when the Czar was overthrown. They didn’t get it from the bourgeois who took power after the Czar. The Bolsheviks promised it . And the Army decided that’s what they wanted. The peasants wanted Bread and Land. The Bolsheviks promised bread and land. the bourgeois didn’t do anything about Bread and Land. The peasants decided they wanted Bread and Land.
If the Lenin and the leaders of the Bolsheviks got anything right, they got right that they offered the masses of people in the Army and of peasants what they wanted. And they saw that just maybe, in one of those chances that at best only comes to people in a place once in many generations, they took “Peace, Bread, and Land.”
In Mr. Reed’s tale of St. Petersberg, eventually word comes that the Soviet of the Peasants was with the Bolsheviks. And word comes that the Army is with the Bolsheviks. If they both had not been, then what had happened in St. Petersberg wouldn’t have mattered in the long run.
“Peace, Bread, and Land”. Maybe someone should run on that platform again? Worked once? Tell people that they can live in peace and that their family can be guranteed of at least survival and a chance to prosper. The wealth to do so is there. But these days the Generals and the Bankers take way too much of the wealth.
Ramin Mazaheri is a very good writer and obviously intelligent and informed – it’s always a pleasure to read what he posts here.
But does he really view the world entirely and always through the prism of socialist ideology?
Yes, I agree that the worst mistake (if it was a mistake, and not something eerily worse such as a crypto-Judaic assault against Christianity) made by the Soviet Union was to repress religion. The other was not to let people travel abroad and see for themselves the vices and virtues of other systems and then compare them with their own. That said, I certainly understand Ramin’s line of thinking because in the Roman Catholic tradition Theology of Liberation was the spirit and the bedrock of the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua (interestingly it triumphed on the same year, 1979).
Now there is something that intrigues me but that I can’t really put my finger on: that Polish pope whose name I won’t even spell out because it makes me cringe in disgust, suffered from two “phobias”: he certainly was Russo-phobic and also hated the guts of Theology of Liberation. So the question for our sakerisa international brigade would be: is there a link between the hatred of Russia and the hatred of a theology that integrates Christianity into Socialism?
Indeed there is a link. An excessively patriarchal interpretation of Christianity. Patriarchal to an Apollonian extreme that denies the feminine dimension of spirituality. That is carried to its highest extreme in the West and provides a psychological support for the Western bourgeoisie. Watch for the expressed fear of the feminine dimensions of spirituality. It is vital to bourgeois class domination
Wow, that’s a tough question. I’ll take a stab at it, though. Socialism as an ideal is thoroughly and obviously Christian: you only need to read Acts or visit a monastery to see this. The great Christian empire of Byzantium was certainly not Socialist. Neither was the Russian Empire, nor modern Russia. However, the Church, operating in Symphony with the government, was (and is today) Socialist. Liberation Theology is flawed mostly because it is a political system masquerading as a religion. It says much more about how to form and operate a government than about Christ … who by the way said an awful lot about obeying your government and nothing about opposing it. The current Pope is certainly a true believer in Liberation Theology, like almost all Jesuits, and they tend to be rabidly Russophobic. It’s practically in the job description.
That being said, the Roman “church” is simply a monarchy with no resemblance to Christian Socialism, and of course most of what passes for Christianity in the US is patterned after the extreme capitalism of the “Protestant work-ethic.”
So it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that there is no direct link between Russophobia and Liberation Theology, but rather a 2-axis plane, where you can be in one corner with JP2, in the opposite corner with Sut Vremeni, in the third corner with the current occupant of the Vatican, or the last corner with the radical Orthodox Ultra-nationalists. Or anywhere in between!
Saker. I always read and enjoy this website and find myself in agreement with 70% of what you say; but probably like many others, I don’t necessarily share all your beliefs. This particularly with respect to the Tsarist autocracy and the White Guard who collaborated with the foreign imperialist armies of intervention in 1918-20. And there should be a recognition that others might share my political views in this area.
Having made that point I believe there are bigger fish for us to fry. Palpably there is a broad popular alliance forming against the Anglo-zionist empire, an alliance which spans the whole political spectrum, including neo-nationalists, socialists, anti-imperialists and communists – and so forth, and it would be crass sectarianism to exclude any of these important groups even if your/our views are not in 100% alignment with other groups within this emerging coalition. These are unique times and de facto alliances which would normally be considered strange seem to be emerging. In this situation we cannot afford sectarianism, this is a luxury of those who simply want to wallow in their own purity (sorry about the mixed metaphor).
Yes, the leftist view of religion is misguided, intolerant and politically stupid. Even Lenin finally admitted that ”Religion is like a nail, the harder you hit it the deeper it goes in.” Unfortunately for atheists religion and the religious impulse exists a priori, and its denial represents an attempt to distort human nature. And it is not simply the soft-left that is the atheist, it is also the neo-liberal, neo-conservative gang who, through the godless, materialistic, narcissism of writings of philosophical gauleiters such as Ayn Rand extol the view that ‘God is Dead’. From their political standpoint, the worship of money, success, and power has replaced God.
Having said this, however, religion has also been a political force. Having been brought up in the Catholic faith and been told what a perfect Christian gentleman Francisco Franco was, left me with an abiding distrust of the Catholic hierarchy. This was fortunately counterbalanced by the development of Liberation Theology in Latin America, where the church campaigned often at risk of their own lives for the poor and dispossessed.
We are where we are, and everyone has skeletons in their respective cupboards, mutual recriminations aren’t going to help to defeat of the empire.
Chomsky:
“I haven’t been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years?
If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time.
Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time.
Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs.
Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don’t have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not.
The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds.
Who, in fact, is the audience?”
Well said Lee; The issue of spirituality and the political left is, in my opinion pregnant with potential for liberation and transformation. It is to Saker’s great credit that he provides such a mature forum for carrying the issue forward on a global level. We all have much to learn regarding this contradiction. I suggest that in facing this issue in a mature and open fashion it can provide an opportunity for a much sought after heightening of spiritual culture in general.
If one looks at European history it can be seen that the European bourgeoisie has twice destroyed a flowering of spiritual culture that is supportive of leftist values. The first was the bourgeoise suppression of the Romantic movement in the last half of the 19th century. Marx was actually a part of that. As was Hegel. The second time was the Nazi suppression of the Surrealists following the conquest of Paris. So that is twice now the political left has had its own spiritual culture deliberately destroyed by bourgeois class reaction. But the political left does actually have a spiritual basis. One can actually find it in the writings of Marx, provided it is read as a form of radical humanism.
The point I wish to emphasize is that the European capitalist class has an informed understanding that leftist spiritual culture must be prevented at all costs. And so it goes. However what has evolved in the West is a progressive reinterpretation of spiritual liberation that makes no direct claim to being politically leftist. This has the tremendous advantage of protecting it from political suppression. Who wants to be afraid of the FBI if they are considering learning to practice meditation or yoga. So the spiritual dimension of the Leftist values is for the moment safe and secure in the cultural underground.
After reading the editors note I would immediately write some comment to the Saker consideration that I respect but supporting the ideals and the wish at the root of socialism and communism doesn’t mean to support and justify each and every deed of socialist and communist people.
Communism is from my point of view a proto-religious ideology, if there is communism very easily religious feeling will grow, and this is the reason of the “…modern Socialism should, and largely has, dumped its misguided anti-religious stance.”
As a joke there was a lot more church-going catholic people in Poland under the communist rule that now.
Yes you are off-topic and should post this in the correct place. Any further off-topic comments will go to trash. Mod
Sounds Off Topic, but it affects everybody involved in Syria, including Iran. It is hard for me to believe that “Iranian Revolution” may stay alive, without Russian Support in the Region.
While Russia is withdrawing America has built up 10 bases, which are ,in effect Permanenet because they have never announced any withdrawals and in fact, they have stated, the opposite.
Brutal religious persecution continues in China, particularly in Tibet and East Turkestan. The Iranian revolution only accidentally ended up in a stable and successful society. The revolutionary fervour of the time was mostly random and it could have gone either way. The success of modern Iran has very little to do with its clergy, it is rather based on the strength and depth of Persia’s ancient culture. Not all Western clergy are ‘fake-leftist’ nor would I write off Western religious socialism just yet. Lastly, I would not exactly equate the Iranian state’s persecution of the Baha’i with Cuba’s intolerance of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
40 years of stability and success cannot be “accidental”. A few years, maybe 10, but not when Iran has had so many enemies lined up against it, too.
There is some disinformation here. JWs practice their religion freely in Cuba, with almost 100.000 members. On contrary, they are PERSECUTED on Iran, Russia and China. The practice “off the radar” on this countries.
No freedom of religion in this 3 countries.
So, I think that the current socialism supports or tolerate state religion so far. Russia government, since cold war has a nice deal with orthodox church, in persecuting any other form of religion. China with state confucionism and Iran with Islam.
The only socialist country who REALLY has freedom is Cuba.
Ramin, I loved to read your prophesy of the social renaissance of soul
which is the essential organ of religion in us, I specially liked your remarks to China and Confucian “neo” = ‘having a cosmology hence is a religion’
yes, I’ m stunned in respect to Iran the last three thousand years and more
and of the Muslim focusing + tolerance.
Myself, mundane-astrologer, influenced by Abu Ma’shar al Balki, experiencing my astrological life as essentially religion – each formulation I release
I do under the watchful eye and listening of ‘his voice’ within me –
but his love to the children gives me the cathedral of innocence called Pisces
in the unconscious underworld of the zodiac of our ancestors
I’m sometimes to old for very long texts but until your:
“That’s almost 10 pretty darn fundamental socialist concepts which Iranian openly pursues and advocates…and that’s off the top of my head.”
… I was in breathless concentration.
Did you read my words to Rouhani?
http://astromundanediary.blogspot.de/2017/11/november-22-3-presidents.html
The same forces that supported the Bolsheviks supported Nazi Germany. They were not in opposition until Stalin stopped the destruction of the Russian people. Hence he is reviled in “history”.
I have read an awful lot about the Bolshevik revolution and I was in Tehran during the revolution of 1978/79. There was absolutely nothing in common between the two events. The only commonality that I can find is that both were largely promoted and financed by external entities. The Bolsheviks were never a majority in Russia – except among the Jews. In Iran, the Mullahs have always had a great majority of the population on their side and they still do.
Lenin got his money from Germany’s Jewish bankers and government while Trotsky got his money from America’s Jewish bankers and Wall Street. Doubtless, the Mensheviks got money from somewhere.
In the case of the Iranian Revolution, Khomeini was undoubtedly supported by the French and British governments. The Americans were behind the Shah as in those days the “allies” were not as strictly controlled as they are today. Khomeini also made allies with Iran’s communists so presumably the Soviet Union also helped him. As soon as he could, Khomeini double-crossed all of them. By exposing themselves, the Iranian communists made it easy for him to eliminate them. Later, he disengaged from the Europeans and thereby earned their everlasting hatred.
The idea promoted in history books that you can start a revolution by standing on a soap-box and spreading pamphlets is total nonsense – serious money and logistics are necessary. The Americans admitted that they spent $5m on Ukraine’s Maidan – that is serious money which bought a lot of support. You cannot run a revolution on a shoe-string.
The Politically Incorrect Truth About the Russian Revolution
Part 1 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY9ZvOyo1qA
Part 2 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRJRG2mdk_Y
Part 3 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gUPB1f2K0s
Los de derecha feudal/religiosa(diferente a la nazi o liberal clasica) y los de izquierda anti reformista y anti liberal deberian dejar sus pleitos al lado y enfocar se en el enemigo numero uno de todos: el capitalismo sajon. Todos aliados contra el totalitarismo del mercado.
I do not feel as an Orthodox Christian and a Socialist that this true unfolding of human progress and true emancipation from tyranny is unique to Islam as such and in fact I rather feel more that it is something which grows from Orthodox Christianity. But that’s my opinion. The article is great and it’s refreshing to see spirituality among genuine Socialists. Indeed, we ‘Spirituals’ are the real engine-guided by God-of the unfolding of His social as well as personal love for humanity.
One may assume that the expunged passages were so offensive towards Christianity (despite the author’s minimization) that they were casting an unfavorable light on the motivations of ‘Socialism with Iranian characteristics’ (quite unvarnished Islamic propaganda, equating Islam with Communism).
I made friends, many, many years ago, with Iranian refugees from Khomeini’s paradise. They told me: ‘they are ‘commonists’ hiding behind Islamic verbiage, that’s why we left’ (there are about 2-5milion Iranians who fled Iran after the Islamic revolution).
Just to be clear – my passages about Christianity were NOT offensive: Per the Saker, they were a “wrong understanding of the Christian view of power”, in his view. I am certainly no theologian, but I certainly have never and will never offend Christianity.
The overwhelming majority of those who fled the 1979 Revolution were pro-Shah supporters, taking their ill-gotten money with them.
I knew some of those Pro-Shah Iranian Emigres when I was a young man in 1979-80, and you would be hard pressed to see a more materialistic, entitled, and out of touch group as the ones I saw. I imagine that most of the French and Russian Aristocrats were about the same kind of parasitic mentality as the Pro-Shah Emigres.
But they were ‘critical’, weren’t they?
If the figure of Iranians who fled the country is correct (millions) then the Shah had a very significant support (disregarding the fact that they were among the most skilled and educated sector of the population – the ‘brain-drain’ continued unabated since).
As a mater of fact the Shah was not that monster.
If the Shah had supporters strong and numerous enough and having conviction of belief, there would be a Shah in power in Iran to this day. As it was, feckless materialism and personal greed are not sufficient enough of a ‘glue’ to hold supporters together, so they came to their true home in the West where they can pursue lives as Western as they come.
The Shah was monster enough; even his supporters feared SAVAK. And if you need a secret police and torture to impose an alien culture and standards by force upon your population, then you are something of a Monster
The Shah was removed because of his increasing rapprochement to USSR and other Communist countries. E.g. “In 1972, a new treaty on developing economic and technical cooperation was signed which envisaged the participation of the USSR in the development of Iranian ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, oil-and-gas and petrochemical industries, irrigation, agriculture, power energy facilities, and grain elevators. Considerable attention was paid to cooperation in the field of personnel training. The treaty was concluded for a period of 15 years with automatic annual renewals for the subsequent five years so long as neither side formally requested its suspension… After the overthrow of the shah, the leadership of the USSR declared its intention to develop friendly and neighborly relations with Iran…However, subsequent events indicated that the new regime was curtailing its ties with the USSR. Immediately after the revolution, Iran made an appeal to the UN to denounce clauses 5 and 6 of the Treaty of 1921 and then announced a price rise for the gas supplied to the USSR. The Iranian-Soviet relations also suffered an important setback when the Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Like the United States, the Soviet Union was also branded and denounced as a “Satan.””
Add to that the Algiers Agreement of 1975, which resolved the Iran-Iraq border disputes. Iran stopped all support for the Kurdish rebels in Irak (even having the gall to request the CIA and the Mossad to end the military support of the Kurdish rebels – rings a bell?).
Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba’ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini’s call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. Khomeini rejected Saddam’s overture doubling down by calling for Islamic revolution in Iraq, against the ‘secular socialist Baath’ and encouraging again the Kurdish separatism in Iraq (in line with the secret goals of Israel to create a second Israel in Kurdistan).
The Left is having an extremely hard time seeing the enemy for what it is: a Liberal (the great liberator, in fact). They keep wanting to see a capitalist. The NFL is bleeding money, yet the head of the league receives a huge pay raise. Does that sound like capitalism? A grocery store trashes at least 50% of its product. Does that sound like capitalism? A homosexual cafe owner yells at a patron for being against “gay marriage”, then threatens to sodomize his “seat buddy” right there in the cafe. Is that capitalism?
Banking is not for capitalists, really. It’s a power play. Not defending the fascist here and saying “let’s be capitalists”; The hope is that the Liberal is made visible; bring him and his fake charity to light. For the Orthodox, this is easier to understand. A liberated man is unhinged, controlled by his passions: therefore completely demonic is the liberal man.
Moreover, can we have these people with socialist leanings please, please, please, start to take financing seriously. If Wallstreet and London bankers finance a revolution – probably a bad thing. If your movement receives money from “google” – a bad thing.
Very interesting. The title of the first piece intriques me.
It is perhaps more likely that Mr. Mazaheri has read it than Mr. Saker, but one of the staples of reading on the American Left, or at least until the recent insanity, was always Prof. Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States”. Its excellent reading. And its a topic that has always fascinated me. I’ve always loved to read history, but the vast majority of it is the chroniclers of noblemen and generals giving their view of what’s occurred, and its so refreshing to get a glimpse at times of what events looked like from the point of view of the people. It does tend to be a point of view connected with socialism, which at times tended to downgrade the noblemen and the generals and instead talk about the forces and tides of history, of the mass fortunes and desires and at times insanity of humankind, which oftentimes those who are later looked back upon as ‘leaders’ were those who were just more adept and agile at riding the waves of this history as it rolls along.
So, thank you to both Mr. Mazaheri for writing what appears to me to be several interesting articles about a subject which I find interesting, and to Mr. Saker for bringing these to my attention. And now I’m off to do one of my favorite things, reading history. :)
One thing about growing up American.
Pretty much every American has been heavily propagandized almost since birth with propaganda against words such as ‘communist’, ‘socialist’, ‘anarchist’ and others. But those three in particular.
If you talk politics with Americans, most of the breed show a Pavlovian response to these words. The know instinctively that they must hate these words and any people connected to them. But very few are able to give a reasonable explanation as to why. A minority of these haters will possibly give some fractured explanation that they got from the History Channel, but most will simply know that they must hate these words and these people.
The act of joining a counter-culture means that one is more open to questioning all of the stuff that the official culture has tried so very hard to shove into one’s brain. But along the way, it made me very aware of some of these heavily propagandized words and thoughts.
Then of course, there is the way the current society has twisted and distorted these words even further. That point was brought home to me one night a few decades ago. I’d been at a local anti-war rally planning meeting. I forget which war, but Bill Clinton and his cigars were in the White House, so perhaps this was during the crimes against Serbia. Anyways, President Clinton had been on TV with a speech, and then afterwards whichever news channel this bar had on featured talking heads calling Wall Street Bill a ‘socialists’.
If you want to understand how far the meaning of that word has been twisted, picture yourself drinking beer with local socialists after doing what we could together that evening for world peace, and then listen to the TV set call the President who’d turned the whole economy over to Wall Street be called a ‘socialist’ by his political opponents.
We saw something similar with the Hillary Clinton red-baiting campaign against Bernie Sanders. There is a political class in America that believes that simply by calling someone a socialist, that will gurantee their victory at the (rigged) polls. And that goes back to the fact that ‘socialist’ is a highly propagandized word in America where negative meanings have been pounded into everyone’s heads since they were first watching cartoons on TV and giggling and playing with dolls or wood blocks.
To claim that the current Iranian political system would not have happened without the Russian Bolshevik revolution just to explain how similar the two systems are, is ridiculous, with all do respect.
It is like saying that the Iranians started using airplanes because the Soviets were using airplanes….If it wasn’t for the Soviets using airplanes, the Iranians would never have used airplanes.
What kind of scholarly or scientific reasoning is this ??
Is it possible that Socialism and Islam have some positive overlapping natural and human qualities ? ….sure.
But to infer that without Socialism, Iran would not have existed in its current form makes no sense.
Iran in its current form as a nation state was formed after the collapse of the major empires, many colonial wars and occupation (including Soviet occupation), and later with a revolution incorporated Islam into its republican status.
I would like to remind the author and the readers that:
1. Islam is older than Socialism.
2. Muslims believe that Islam is NOT 1400 years old, but that Islam (the submission to the One God) has existed since the existance of man, and that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Soloman, David, Jesus and Mohammed, etc. (peace and blessings be upon them all) were prophets/messengers of God and were all Muslims.
3. And that Islam will remain until the end of mankind in whatever state or form…regardless of the condition the Arabs or Muslims are in and whether the nation state system stays or ceases to exist.
It is important to keep things basic and fundemental when you are making such inferances about ideologies, politics and history. Even if you plan to wonder off into deep philosophical and theoretical discussions and opinions.
This sounds more like national socialism where the nation is defined as the umma, hence the religious veneer. Comparisons to leftwing Marxist socialism are not really appropriate..
Ramin Mazaheri: Iran has rectified the biggest failure of the Russian Revolution by proving that socialism is undoubtedly compatible with religion.
I am not sure if Ramin is Shia or not or knows anything about the Shia Islam. All religions are socialism, but the Shia practice it since the birth of Islam. A excellent example is in NT, where Jesus feeds a whole village of about 10,000 people with 4 fish.
In Quran there is Zakat which the masses are aware of and it is incumbent on all Muslims. And there is Khums (Fifth), which is again incumbent on all Muslims and paid to the Prophet Household (umpteen children) who are called Syed, like Syed Hassan Nasrallah who wears a Black turban to show his status as Syed.
The Ummah did away the with the Khums (Fifth) on the demise of the Prophet, but the Shia of Ali continued till today.The Prophet thought his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali to use this money as socialism. The history of Fadak Farms (Town) is very long and still continues till today. Each and every Shia knows about the Fadak Farms. One can easily Google “Fadak”.
So, the umpteen children of the Prophet when they collect Khums (Fifth), from this money they feed and serve villages. Iranian revolution is about 25 years old, and Iran being a Shia majority country is about 300 years old. One can these examples of socialism in history, in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, and even in non-Shia majority Islamic countries.
Imam Khomeini and Imam Khamenei, both Black Turban wearing are both children of the Prophet and they know their father’s religion very good. Ali Shariati who is an Iranian, was an adviser for Imam Khomeini and a very good read. Just Google “Ali Shariati”
Both Zakat and Khums (Fifth) are in the Quran. Wonder, how many Muslims have read the whole Quran. Or the whole Bible.
About 1/5 of the Quranic verses deal with charity and helping the needy. Iran didn’t invent socialism, all religions did. Mother Theresa and the Soup Kitchens in USA are prime examples.
In Esfahan last year, Putin said that Russia will follow Iran! I believe he meant that church and state should co-rule. the fact that Russia had been building an average of 3 churches every day for 20 years is maybe a better indication of this change…
Observe, the during the Islamic Golden era, the Persians had some fairly significant pool of scholars, whose works are still studied today by the whole Muslim world (all sects). Names like Ibn Sina aka Avicenna (science/medicine), Al-Khwarizmi (father of algebra), Al-Ghazali (theology), Al-Bukhari (theology), Al-Termidhi (theology), Abu Dawud (theology), Muslim (theology), Ibn Majah (theology) … and more. Those familiar with Islamic hadith works won’t fail to notice the latter names, which constituted the majority of accepted hadith.
The basis of good governance for all matters spiritual, economic and administration were pioneered during this golden age, which naturally contained elements of socialism. It’s also interesting to note the resurgence of Islamic banking today, proof of its principles where both social and moral values are incorporated as mandatory, in addition to responsible banking. A far cry from western (Jewish) system.
All the above is nothing new to Iran, nor to any Muslims in general. After the Iranian Revolution, they simply moved along the same path as what had been carved centuries before – establish a true Islamic nation, where religion and social organization is intertwined and cannot be parted. They had already possessed the blueprint. All that was needed was some modifications to suit the modern age. To their credit, the Iranians had enough intelligence and common sense not to fall prey to extremism that harms itself (like Saudi Arabia’s version). So far it has worked and well done to them.
Bolshevik ideologies (if you mean socialist ideologies from Marx/Lenin), imo, are really copy-cats that stems from the stress of the industrial revolution. It’s the perfect natural human knee-jerk response to the feudal system during of that era. You can probably call it by an alternative name, anti-feudalism. If not Marx or Lenin, sooner or later, someone else would have come along and constructed the same ideological framework, where all that is necessary is some rational thinking and logic.
I would tend disagree with Saker regarding 1917. What the Iranian have is truly independent and divorced from 1917, it is a lot older. The original concept was pioneered hundreds of years prior, all it took a was a bit of reference work. They already knew it was successful. What they didn’t know was whether it would be successful today, which probably took some experimentation & refinement. It’s plausible the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90s may have added certain impact to Iran’s course, but by large, the primary argument (as far as I understood it) was the inclusiveness of religion to socialism. This never stemmed from the 1917 lesson. It was already mooted during the Islamic Golden era i.e. done decision.
Here’s an interesting titbit. Google how faith is hardwired into humans. There seems to be a “god” gene that plays a role in one’s spiritual experience – a variation in the VMAT2 gene. How prevalent, I’ve no idea. If you follow from here, logic dictates that any godless or spiritually devoid ideologies are doomed to fail (sooner or later) vs this gene. Hence the revival of the Russian Orthodox church, another outstanding effort from Putin.
“anyone with any familiarity with Latin America would agree that it is absolutely unthinkable that leftism will progress there without the direct support of the Catholic Church and the myriad indigenous religions…”
The Catholic Church’s role in popular movements is sometimes positive but many times suicidal.
Indeed, leftism can progress only where the support of the Catholic Church is not required.
The myriad indigenous religions, and African-originated ones, are important as cultural resistence for the minorities that follow them. But those are minorities.
Here is a very good film about the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXtx2213Baw (there was a complete versiion on youtube, but I can no longer find it).
It is evident that the Iranian revolution was influenced by revolutionary socialist movements and the various national liberation movements of the 1960s-1970s.
Also many Iranian communists participated into the revolution. The clerics eventually managed to dominate but the Islamic regime that they created still had many influences from non-aligned third world socialist / national liberation movements. A peculiar form of Iranian Islamic socialism emerged, like the Arab socialism that dominated Middle East into the 1960s and 1970s.
The post revolutionary governments even nationalised large parts of the economy and experimented with central planning. Iran had and still has very close relations with the remaining communist countries ( china, cuba , north Korea etc) , with the non aligned countries and with socialist oriented countries especially in the South America ( Venezuela, Bolivia etc ) . Iran is not fully integrated into neoliberal globalisation, it still had a national economy that operates under severe sanctions.
Instead of Marxist Leninism, Iran seems to follow an Islamic socialist variation. And like in the eastern bloc, there are internal differences between the more anticapitalist Islamic hardlines and the more liberal oriented westernizers. But there is one “party” on the top, in this case the revolutionary clerics .
A very interesting read indeed, mr. Ramin Mazaheri. Revolution, socialism and religion are more intertwined than many may realise.
As for the ‘edited’ parts: there is still a large mist around the 1917 revolution, I don’t pretend to know it better, but when leaving some fragments out produces a more focused article, then I can live with that. It only suits the integrity of the Saker and mr. Mazaheri that they have the courage to mention it.
I may highlight a particular sentence from the article, while so many in this world don’t know:
“Iran is diametrically-opposed to the illegitimate state of Israel, and yet Iran protects the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel.”
Khomeini declared that “We recognize our Jews as separate from those godless, bloodsucking Zionists.” and issued a fatwa decreeing that the Jews were to be protected. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews )
(on a sideline: the ‘communist’ China is spearheading to become the largest Christian nation in the world: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html )
Cheers, Rob
Ramin,
I always enjoy reading your political writing; Highly informative and entertaining.
Regarding this piece, I just wanted to share that I have met numerous Iranians while living in Australia. They all despise the Mullahs and the Islamic state. Some of them even liked the Shah, I guess they were the western quislings? People who leave Iran presumably didn’t like it there, so it may be a self-selecting group. Most of them are highly educated, and perhaps have more opportunities to make money here? Would you call them members of the bourgoisie, who are made worse off by Islamic socialism?
Anyway, though you might want to comment.
Many thanks Gary.
The Iranians who left are overwhelming pro-Shah, bourgeois and anti-democratic. They took their ill-gotten gains and ran, and if they came back they’d have to return their money! And probably be tried for their role in the Shah-era crimes.
A lot of them were educated – Iranian immigrants in the US are the highest-educated of all immigrant groups there, averaging a Master’s degree (!). Iran has a big “brain drain” problem, like so many non-Western nations, but it’s not as bad as it used to be.
Dear Ramin,
I read all your essays and I especially enjoy your pieces about Iran, which are indispensable must-reads. I am an American classical cellist living in Vancouver, BC where there is a huge Iranian/Persian population (there are maybe 10 sangak bakeries in the area!) and many Iranian owned shops.
If I were a younger man I would immerse myself in Iranian language and classical music and try to visit the country to be involved in a positive cultural exchange with the, unfortunately, intransigent and hostile West.
There is an Iranian/Canadian oud player here that has approached me in hopes of creating a duo or ensemble involving the cello, but sadly nothing has come of it so far. Your work has inspired me to make another attempt to revive this idea with him.
I very much hope you will be able to come here someday and do a PressTV report on the local Iranian community. The Saker has my email address if you would like to be in contact. Anything I can do to facilitate a proper understanding of Iran will be a pleasure as well as a duty given the prevailing malign ignorance (“malignorance” to coin the term) of the West.
PeaceAK
And I’d like to mention to Mr. Mazaheri that there was always a spiritual grounding for the People’s resistance to the Romanov’s and the Westoxified Bourgeosie in Russia, The Old Believers, or ‘Starovery’ Orthodox Christians, who represent and represented the Spiritual faith and authentic Eurasian culture of Russia prior to the Romanovs (or I should say, the Germanic Noble Holstein-Gotorp branch of the House of Oldenbourg, intermarried with the Germanic Windsors among others) Dynasty and their enforced Westernization efforts.
Interesting suggestion. The Old Believers as a ‘Eurasian’ crypto-Islamic sect!
The truth is that they were rather a millennialist judaized sect acting as a ‘fifth column’ against the traditional Orthodox Russia as the ‘de facto’ heir of the Byzantine Empire, which never claimed to be the ‘Third Rome’, the invention of the judaizer Feodor Kuritsyn, masquerading as the ‘obscure’ monk Filofei and peddling papal propaganda (a stream of papal officials traveled to Moscow in the sixteenth century to remind the Russians of their “Roman” heritage, telling the Muscovites that their church had succeeded that of Byzantium and therefore that they need no longer seek spiritual council in Constantinople. Papal emissaries also informed the Russians that by virtue of their Byzantine heritage they were OBLIGED to conquer Constantinople, or at least aid other Christian powers [read the Papacy] in doing so!). They were even endorsing the infamous forgery of the ‘Donation of Constantine’ to promote their claim!
The ‘theory’ of the Third Rome was taken over by the Neo-Romantic and idealist philosophers like Vladimir Soloviov, or Marxists like Berdiaev – who would devise the theory of the innate Russian ‘messianism’ to justify the bolshevik revolution and the Comintern and deflect attention from the real causes of the revolution.
I was suggesting nothing of the kind, of the Starovery being ”crypto-Islamic”, which is ludicrous in the extreme.
And Russia being the ”Third Rome”, as even Islamic scholars recognize, is in fact if anything an Anti-Papal stance as the Roman Empire is the ”Katehon” that restrains the personal Antichrist from overcoming the Faithful. The Roman Empire became and now remains an Orthodox Christian institution, which the Papacy and the Western Germanic warlords who rule Europe have labored for centuries to destroy.
I am not worried about a socialist Russia because the Russian people have moved on and they know that Jesus the Christ was a pure communist/socialist. The dialectic is at work in the human mind and in every nation. Socialism is evolving and Russia is no exception. The real question is the United States the only country in the world were the national religion is capitalism. Other counties have capitalism but only in the US is capitalism the state religion.
Iran to join in Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union in February! What that means is a single market, consisting of Iran, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Russia.
These nations will enjoy free flow of goods, services, capital and workers.
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/eurasian-superpower-iran-join-russia-led-economic-power-bloc/
I don’t want to offend, but I suspect that from our backgrounds that we have very different ideas on ‘the Christian view of power’.
I grew up in the American South, a bit to the north of where the Saker apparently now resides. From that background, I’d say the Christian view of power is something like the following.
“Might makes Right. Growing up in a almost fully Protestant South, this is certainly the view of most Christians. They may say something differently for an hour on Sunday morning, but for the rest of the day, they have the firm view point that Might makes Right.
The American government of today is a fully Christian government. The US military is almost entirely a Christian institution. Especially the USAF which runs all of its officer candidates through a very Christian air force acadamy. Thus, I have no problems believing that the US government and the US military are both practicing the Christian view of power, and this largely fits with my lifetime of experience of living around American Christians.
Since they believe that Might makes Right, American Christians also believe that if you are a Christian, then anything you do to obtain power is valid and moral. All one has to do is to declare that one is doing “God’s work”, and then anything neccessary to obtain the power that a Christian feels they need to do God’s work is fine and dandy in the eyes of their Christian God.
Christians will kill, christians will destroy property, Christians will enslave, Christians will impoverish others. Christians will condemn others to a live and a death of misery and poverty. Christian police will kill, beat and maim. Christian military regard themselves as Crusaders in the eyes of God (see the US air force acadamy again for extreme examples). Christian rulers will favor their friends and allies and shaft their political opponents (almost always other Christians). Christian politicians will act like absolutely anything they need to do to win an election is “God’s work”.
I have met some Christians who act differently. But they are never the ones who hold any real power in this Christian country. I’ve met african-american preachers who really work for the good of their congregation. I’ve met the Catholic priests and nuns who protests against torture and nuclear weapons. These rare people help inspire me and lift my soul. But one thing is absolutely clear, that they are as tiny a minority these days as back in Jesus time his little band of Christians was a minority in the Roman and Jewish societies of Palestine. The vast majority of Christian leaders in this Christian country only believe in grabbing as much power to themselves as they possibly can, and then using it for their own personal benefit and litterally saying ‘to hell with anyone else’. They’ll find some label to the ‘others’. They’ll hate them as immigrants. They’ll hate them as foreigners. They’ll hate them as communists. Simply put, they’ll simply hate the people who’s lives they are ruining in their own Christian quest for power and wealth.
Maybe its true that a rich man has about as much of a chance of entering Christian heaven as does a camel of getting through the eye of a needle. And hopefully some of us poor folks who have lived a decent life will be let in. ‘Cause I’m sick and dang tired of living around all of the Christian, well can’t say that, no, can’t say that either, lets just say jerks, the Christian jerks have killed millions, enslaved people, tortured people from the inquisition to the modern days, and now are generally destroying the world by changing the climate so that they can gain more power and more weatlh and frankly, I’m sick of being around them, and thus I hope heaven does indeed filter out the rich and the evil so I don’t have to be around them any more. But up till now, pretty much anyone who’ve I’ve known who is either rich or evil has also loudly proclaimed themselves to be a Christian.