Words (almost) fail me

There is a site on the internet which goes under the name of Socialist Unity. Contained within it is this piece of writing on the current crisis in Iran. I don't know who Socialist Unity are, neither do I know anything about the piece's author, John Wight. Perhaps my fellow blogger Frank can enlighten me.

First of all, a very condensed summary of the article:

• Ahmadinejad supports the poor peasants and the working class, and is anti-imperialist. Mousavi represents the middle class and is supported by the west.
• The protesters are from the privileged middle class and have no support outside of Tehran or amongst the working class.
• The Iranian regime deserves some mild criticism in the area of women's rights, for example, but this only causes minor problems. "No democracy is without its imperfections".
• The Iraqi communists were wrong to co-operate with the American occupation (so by implication the current challenge to the Iranian government is organised by the West).
  
• The left should therefore support Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.

I really can't bring myself to relate any more of this drivel, if you don't believe me, or you want to confirm that it is even worse than this, follow the link above.

All right then, just one quote:

Furthermore, while women in the US and Britain can stand for election, even sit at the heads of their respective governments, the reality is that both of the aforementioned nations have been responsible for depriving women throughout the Middle East and beyond of a far more fundamental right – namely the right not to be slaughtered or see their families slaughtered in the cause of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.

No mention of course of the slaughter of Iranian women by their own government over the past few days. Perhaps Mr Wight believes the claims of the Iranian government that Neda Soltan's murder was organised by the expelled BBC journalist Jon Leyne so that he could make a documentary.

And perhaps, in Mr Wight's world, the unfortunate demonstrators who were paraded on Iranian state television yesterday, stating that the BBC and Voice of America made them "riot", were telling the truth rather than saying anything and everything they were told to say in order to avoid another beating, or worse.

Even the so called facts in the piece (no demonstrations outside Tehran, no support from the unions etc) are easily refutable by anyone who has enough independence of mind to carry out their own google search.

This is the old, old "anti-imperialist at all costs" refrain of so much of the left, taken to absurd and inhuman lengths. With friends like Mr Wight, the left destroys itself and abandons what little influence it has in the post-Thatcher/Reagan world. (And if Mr Wight's swivel-eyed amoral philosophy, of ends justifying means, gives us any indication of how a regime containing people like him might behave, that might be a good thing.)

Comments below his post rightly ask if he would have supported Hitler on the basis that the Nazis were challenging the established imperial powers.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are hard-won rights which Mr Wight enjoys to his own advantage and well-being (I doubt that the Obama or Brown militia will be battering down his door tonight, although if they did... no, let's not go there). Yet he would deny these same rights to Iranians, they should subjugate themselves to their oppressors in the name of anti-imperialism.

But even in terms of his own argument, he is completely wrong. Freedom of speech, freedom to organise, freedom of assembly, freedom to strike, these are demands supported by every socialist revolutionary throughout the ages. This does not change just because the President of the United States of America now calls for these things - that is a victory, for all but the most blinkered sectarian ultra-left.

Perhaps the reality is that Mr Wight has given up hope, perhaps he really believes that western capitalism has already won, and he just needs to assuage his guilt at having been born in a liberal democracy. No matter, for him, that price of the regimes he ends up supporting can be calculated in the blood of ordinary people.

Fuck off Mr Wight.

Irish Anti-War Movement silent on Iran

The Irish Anti-War Movement is to date silent on the issue. Rather than comment on events there it prefers to give space on its site to an article by John Pilger in which he outlines the evils of Obama. Good to see them aiming at the right targets and not being sidetracked by the demos in Iran which are of course, as the great anti-imperialist government in Tehran informed us today, inspired by David Miliband. For more, or should that be less, click on http://irishantiwar.org/node/515

More on George Galloway

British MP George Galloway hosts a weekly program on Press TV, an English language internet and satellite channel controlled by the Iranian government. He claims, on his program, to "shoot from the hip" on the essential issues of the day. On the edition broadcast at 9.30pm BST on Sunday 21st June, over 24 hours after the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan (see below), all that Galloway said on the subject of Iran was:

The story of the week as far as the western media are concerned, was the Iranian elections and the resulting street protests. If you ever believed that the BBC, that's the Bush and Blair Corporation, and the US media like Rupert Murdoch's Fox network were impartial, then here was the mountain of evidence against. Opinion masquerading as fact, at length, and usually on shaky-cam. For the record, here's my declaration of interest. Press TV is Iranian owned, but that doesn't influence my opinion, which is that until there is even a scintilla of evidence that the election was fiddled we have to accept the verdict of the Iranian People, however much some of us may not like it. But there's a track record of Britain and the US not accepting democratic decisions, as the starving people of Gaza, who put their crosses in the wrong places, can testify...

Now, it is more than justifiable (in fact it is essential) to point out the West's history of interference and support of despots, in order to question their motives, in, for example, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and their support of Israel's illegal occupations on the West Bank, etc.

But the current events in Iran are completely different to this. The demonstrations are not being orchestrated by Britain and America, however much the increasing deranged-sounding representatives of the Iranian government try to claim otherwise. Much to the likely disappointment of the Iranian leadership (and to the stated disappointment of the Neocon warmongers in his own country), Obama is simply making general remarks supporting the freedom to protest.

However disgusting the history of Western interference in the Middle East (and it is disgusting), it is no excuse for supporting criminals like the current Iranian regime. To do this is to do the same thing in reverse as was done by Imperialism when they supported Saddam Hussein and the Taliban against Iran and the Soviet Union respectively. If all sides in a conflict are wrong, then simply say so. There are no messiahs. That is the philosophy (such as there is one) of this blog.

Even if it wasn't morally repugnant (and it is), it does the left no favours at all when a leading spokesman supports, through his silence, the barbaric acts being carried out in the name of the "Islamic revolution". In fact, for many people, it will completely invalidate anything Galloway says about anything. To campaign against Israel's repression and murder of Palestinians and say nothing of the Iranian Government's repression and murder of its own people is rank hypocrisy.

The legitimacy (or otherwise) of the declared result of the Iranian election (we may never know the truth) is no longer the issue. The tear gas and water cannon and bullets and blood saw to that.

The most charitable thing that could be said of Galloway is that his understandable hatred of the undoubted crimes of the West is leading him into very dark places. But let's not be charitable. Instead, look again at the video of the death of Neda Agha-Soltan below, and then resolve to never listen to anything Mr Galloway says, ever again.

The Left and Iran: Galloway, the SWP and Tony Sanois dreaming of a Socialist Iran

The positions of the Left in the UK in relation to the Iran crisis vary a fair bit , but are all flawed. George Galloway seems to be emerging as an outright apologist which, to be fair, has more or less been his position for a while. For more on Galloway's position see here http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/06/22/galloway-v-chatham-house/

The Socialist Workers Party have it seems done a complete about face from their previous position as regime apologists and now loudly support the demos. For more see here http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18229 No doubt their North Tehran branch are busy printing the We Are All Neda Now! placards as I write. It reminds me of a similar, if rather less despicable SWP turnabout in 1990, when they suddenly came out in favour of non-payment of the poll tax, just as the movement was picking up speed, and proceeded to mop up the recruits.

The statement of the SWP influenced Stop The War Coalition indicates, though, some hesitation about supporting the uprising. They have this to say: “It would be wrong for us to take any position on the disputed outcome of the Iranian presidential election.” No it wouldn't. It is obvious from the figures released that the Iranian election was at least tampered with if not stolen. To stay on the fence in this way is like saying you'd need to hear all the facts before supporting workers in a dispute with their employer. Of course the SWP have also done this in their time, but that's for another day. For the full Stop The War Coalition statement see http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1310/1/

The Socialist Party (formerly Militant) comes out best in the sense that it is clearly on the side of the demonstators and, unlike the Stop The War Coalition, make no attempt to undermine their claims re: the rigging of the election. This is good. However, in his article on the issue Tony Sanois goes on to say this "The guarantee of democratic rights and a solution to the mass poverty and unemployment can only then be assured with the formation of a workers’ and peasants government on a revolutionary socialist programme to transform society in the interests of all working people." There is, it goes without saying, no prospect of the formation in Iran of "a workers’ and peasants government on a revolutionary socialist programme". Outside of the Socialist Party's dull collective mind, that idea has no reality to it at all. Worse though is the comforting lie (comforting at least for the Socialist Party) that the only hope for democratic rights in Iran is for a Socialist Party style regime to take power. To anyone who has experienced the internal machinations of said Socialist Party it is simply laughable to hear it argued that Mousavi is an opportunist and imposter, and what the Iranian people really need to properly achieve their democratic rights is an Iranian version of the dictatorship of Peter Taaffe. For the full article click on
http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/news/international/194-iran-mass-protests-erupt.html

Neda Agha-Soltan (1982-2009)

No comment necessary, except that anyone who even attempts to justify the regime in whose name this was done should never be listened to, on any subject, ever again.



A tribute site here includes the poem When I Die by 13th Century Persian poet Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī.

The Los Angeles Times has published an article on Neda Agha-Soltan's life and death here.

You couldn't make it up...

Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, spokesman for Iran's Guardian Council:

"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities"

Well that's all right then. Perhaps Messrs. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have more in common with some of the more unsavoury characters in American history than they would like to think, and their supporters are following Al Capone's purported advice to "vote early and vote often". It is also possible that they are following a more detailed guide, freely available at this website. The authors are really missing a trick by not charging for their advice.