While I know of some communist orgs still operate as rebels in various parts of the country on a small scale is there any semblance of a leftist camp in Iranian politics outside of the at best social democrat tendencies found within the reformists?
You already made a thread about this. You don't need two.
he's 100% right.
it's psychopathic to support the Iranian revolution and oppose imperialism, I guess most Iranians are psychopaths then.
i support the iranian revolution, but it's insane to call Tudeh "anarchist and trotskyist types"
If Tudeh wasn't Trots then, they are now.
Hi, Phil. Go fuck yourself, Phil.
take off that flag you tard.
lmao at phil arguing with groypers over the nature of the iranian islamic republic
Shut the fuck up, Phil. The second hegemony of imperialist countries collapses, I will advocate for invading these shitholes.
u mad. invasion by who, falseflagger?
Any Stalinist state.
oh yeah the "Stalinist states" that are just going to materialize out of nowhere but won't be receiving assistance from China the way all presently-existing traditional ML states do… you are totally brain damaged.
so he thinks khomeini was a communist but khrushchev was a capitalist? fascinating
I don't actually support capitalists with imperialist ambitions just because they are wearing red.
Communism is when you're anti-USA, and the more anti-USA you are the more communisty you are.
ok yankee chauvinist. hate to break it to you, but you are a leftcom.
a few Iranian ML parties published statements supporting the protests last month and got attacked by online MLs
To get away from the autism I don't know why there would be a left in Iran. Most Iranians are quite happy with the current order and those that aren't generally just want more American influence on a fairly superficial level (i.e. greater exposure to western culture; the US State is wildly unpopular). Maybe if the USSR still existed there'd be a reasonably sized communist movement there but as it stands communism serves no purpose. I disagree with Phil saying Iran is communist (for the same reason I'd disagree if Nasrallah or Khomeini said communists are actually Islamists) but he hits on something: Islamists in Iran fulfilled the purpose of communists in Imperial Russia, so why would Iranians look to a foreign movement when they have their own homegrown one that did the job just fine? Also I'm but I'm not the other tank guy itt.
Nice idpol, faggot. If USA turned ML, you have no idea how much I would be cheering for them.
The USA will be broken up by communist revolution.
They are no less "online" than their critics, since these are all parties in exile.
Russian Empire didn't. What makes USA so special?
In what way? The only similarity is that they were authoritarian monarchies. Iran threw out its pro-Western monarch for a bourgeois republic with theocratic elements. But Russia was an empire in its own right and toppled its monarchy for a proletarian atheist socialist state.
actually yes the Russian empire was broken up. but the USA is even worse because it is the world vanguard of capitalism and is in no way sovereign. USAians are intensely ignorant and chauvinistic (like you) and can't be trusted to govern a massive federation, at least until they have been thoroughly re-educated and a couple generations have passed.
tbqh so long as you make amends and set aside autonomous republics for natives, hawaiians, blacks etc like the ussr did in ukraine/central asia in the 20s, most of the usa would probably remain intact, like the russian sfsr did
It doesn't matter; ask a nostalgic middle-aged Russan or Serb or Albanian why they want socialism back and they'll probably just say because the quality of life was higher, no one cares that the state was irreligious or that the products in stores were manufactured by [socialist state industry] as opposed to [capitalist private industry]. And it's the same in Iran; tell the average Iranian "under socialism hijab wouldn't be mandatory and the factory you work in would be managed by the workers" and maybe they'd like the sound of it (or maybe not) but that isn't their primary concern; the Islamic revolution brought about a great increase in the quality of life so, as far as they're concerned, it's wonderful.
I'm not the tank guy you're arguing with but I'm not sure why the chauvinism of US workers (which I agree is a big problem) would necessitate a fracturing of what is now the US.
l 0 l
do you have autism?
But that's precisely why the standard of life was better. And I'm pretty sure people freed from the burden of the Orthodox church liked state atheism. Saying it doesn't matter is a way of glossing over critical differences between the nature of states in favour of same vague developmentalist technocracy. The working class held power in states like the USSR and Albania, but it doesn't in Iran, as shown by the unemployed youth protesting.
the economic problems of Iran are largely due to sanctions.
even unsanctioned it would be a deeply divided society with a clear ruling class
what does "deeply divided" mean? no different than any other capitalist society, correct?
ok, so what's your point?
That it shouldn't be romanticised or compared to socialist states.
I don't intend to romanticize it and my comparison of Iran to socialist states is based on its perception by its people
what is romanticization and who is doing it and how?
comparison is one of the basic tools of analysis, it should absolutely be compared.
people who think iran is socialist or that its revolution was communist like greaves. it's just wishful campist thinking. fine, just don't expect to find anything socialist without revising the meaning.
all he's saying (in an uncommon way) is that Iran is objectively a progressive historical force right now, which any credible Marxist analysis confirms.
opposing the Iranian government is what Trots do, yeah.
with this stockholm syndrome it's no wonder iranian commies got themselves slaughtered in the 80s
USSR should've invaded and derailed the "revolution".
how do modern pro-Iran communists reconcile the USSR's enormous materiel support for Saddam when he was fighting Iran?
What was wrong with Saddam?
oh no no
Ooga booga revisionists, not real communists. But "Islamic revolution is a communist revolution". They're fucking idiots, basically.
My support of Iran is more condemnation of USA's continual existence.
a lot of people say he was just a US tool i don't mind him personally, just find it strange how modern communist views of the middle east are compared to the official Soviet line
USSR made mistakes.
Literal CIA puppet at the time.
from what i have read the iranian communists helped the theocrats get into power. then they were all killed or exiled.
Turns out you can be right wing and also anti america
Iran barely had any Trots in the 70s either. Tudeh and others were proud ☭TANKIE☭s.
Crapitalist American and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia funded anti socialist Soviet and Assad fighting harcdoce Islamist gang is the best (and most left wing) gang!
Really, I didn’t realize that private property, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and wage slavery had ceased to exist in Iran. Don’t be retarded, if it’s a capitalist country then communism serves a purpose there, and organizing for socialist revolution is the immediate task of the Iranian left.
Out of curiosity, apart Iran, has there ever Islamic revolution that was not funded by the US?
Most of the time Islamist revolt it is against Leftsits
Afghanistan Libya Syria
Just from the top of my head.
Well Reagan traded arms to the Iranians and the CIA sold them weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, so by ☭TANKIE☭ logic this makes them American puppets.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Correct. Reagan sold Iran arms to fund right wing terrorists in the Latin America.
Qaddafi for one.
Well to call Kidafi's state "islamist" is misleading: it was more Islamic Socialist than outright islamist.
I'm responding to a post about Islamic Revolutions though. Not "Islamist."
Why the ban?
Hezbollah and Hamas haven't launched successful revolutions against Israel but both of them very well could, and both are anti-US (though Hamas sometimes can be useful idiots for the west like in Syria)
Not an Islamist even if he was influenced by Islam
*not an Islamic revolution, same thing
Shias aren't Muslim.
Doubt that Qaddafi was Islamic. He was pro Soviet leftist, that was, in fact, overthrown by USA sponsored Islamist's.
why do you think?
Fuck off, sunnis are reddit: the sect; shi'a are /ourguys/