July 5, 2009

On Iran

Lil Joe



Rep. Jim Moran: "Iran won the the war in Iraq" (30 June 2000)
Lackey Reese Erlich: The leftist critics must answer the question: Whose side are you on?

"We take the side of the Iranian people to have human rights, to have the freedom that we deem universal." McCain, who holds a warmongering line on Iran, also took one further bold step in questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian government. "The fact is that the Iranian government is now illegitimate."

"When I returned from covering the Iranian elections recently, I was surprised to find my email box filled with progressive authors, academics and bloggers bending themselves into knots about the current crisis in Iran. They cite the long history of U.S. interference in Iran and conclude that the current unrest there must be sponsored or manipulated by the Empire. ... This is no academic debate or simply fodder for bored bloggers. Real lives are at stake. A repressive government has killed at least 17 Iranians and injured hundreds. The mass movement may not be strong enough to topple the system today but is sowing the seeds for future struggles." -- Erlich

"We want the Iranian people to be able to stay one step ahead of the Iranian regime, getting access to information and safely exercising freedom of speech and freedom of assembly online," said [Senator Joe] Lieberman, who is among the US Senate's fiercest hawks.

These statements of urgency from McCain, Lieberman and Erlich are but demagogic manipulation of the unfolding political conflicts taking place in Iran.

American demagogues play the humanitarian card by means of which under the rubric of "the people" America's political and ideological representatives of US capitalist ruling classes and their economic imperialist campaigns are presented through flowery rhetoric, buzz words and loaded terms and phrases that manipulate the ignorant, the gullible and the naive to believe US imperialism is good, that it is benevolent and the motives of its government in international affairs are altruistic in the promotion of what it calls implimentation of its 'democratic values' - and promotion of 'human rights' and 'freedoms'.

US imperialist's politicians, the print and electronic media propaganda and NGOs present America as "unique", as a nation founded upon ideas and ideals: human political equality, endowing every man with 'rights' to 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' and 'government by the consent of the governed': ignore the empirical data -


Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Moussavi are nothing but front man for demogogues the same as were Stalin and Trotsky, concerning the same issue in the Soviet Union in which Stalin represented the privatized economy (New Economic Policy and NEPmen) the economist for which was Nikolai Bukharin and Trotsky the expansion of the State sector, represented by the economist Yevgeni Preobrazhensky. Each had a power base in different departments of the State or economy. [see http://www.answers.com/topic/scissors-crisis ]

Ideological conflicts are components of political conflicts based on conflicting material interests. The so-called "human rights to life, liberty and pursuits of happiness" has never been the priviledges of the appropriating classes, in possession of means of production and distribution to do with their exploitation derived wealth from appropriated laboring classes as these possessing appropriating classes see fit to dispose of it. That is the definition of private possession of the productive forces and the objective of 'privatization'. Privatization is the program advocated by:

Payvand's Iran News ...

1/23/07
Rafsanjani: Privatization plan key to Iran's development

TEHRAN, Jan. 22 (Mehr News Agency) -- Iran will not develop unless the Article 44 privatization plan is implemented and the private sector becomes involved, Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said here on Monday.

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei issued a decree in early July to privatize state industries by amending Article 44 of the Constitution, which had banned private ownership of state institutions.

"The Supreme Leader expects the Article 44 policies to cause an economic revolution in the country," Rafsanjani told a national seminar on the major policies of Article 44 of the Constitution.

"The Leader has stated that after the (1979) Islamic Revolution, the situation did not allow us to take an appropriate measure for (future) economic developments, but at this stage we should harmonize our economy with the global economy as soon as possible," he added.

As the Leader has said, Iran should become a center of economic development in twenty years, he noted.

Rafsanjani said that the privatization initiative is based on using the private and public sectors and cooperatives, but no serious progress has been made in these areas.

The private sector has great potential which should be used, he added.

He criticized the three branches of the government for failing to formulate serious plans to implement the privatization scheme.

"Unfortunately, no serious measure has been taken since the Supreme Leader announced the plan. Even the Expediency Council, as the supervisor, has done nothing serious, like all other bodies in charge of implementing the plan."

The Judiciary has failed to approve appropriate laws to guarantee the financial security of those who want to work in this area, he said.

The parliament has not approved proper laws, based on which the administration can take useful measures, he noted.

"The administration has also failed to implement the Leader's orders quickly. And all this has held us back.

"We should bring about a noticeable change in the country. Otherwise, the countries which are less developed than us will surpass us," the former president warned.

"We should activate the private sector in such a way that people can feel assured that the government will fully support their major investments."

He went on to say that there is an enormous amount of capital in Iran but "we have not been able to use it properly because we have not adopted the policies necessary to encourage investment in the country."

"We should take the private sector seriously... We should draft regulations to guarantee people's (financial) security and eliminate the laws that could create obstacles for them," Rafsanjani suggested.

Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel told the seminar that the three branches of government should be coordinated so they can implement the Article 44 plan.

"A supervisory committee should also be established to permanently supervise the three branches and report to the Supreme Leader," he added.

The parliament has warmly welcomed the plan and has established a special committee to follow up its implementation, he said.

He emphasized the importance of investment, saying, "We should draft laws to facilitate investment in the country."
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jan/1275.html


The Khamenei - Ahmadinejad faction, basing itself on the poor, retreated from privatization, which became the central plank of the wealthy represented by Rafsanjani and Mousavi. Therefore, American foreign policy as concerned with 'human life' as contrased to materialistic crude economic self-interest and power hungry political advantage are not the real motivation for American capitalists, which determine which opportunist [politician] they will place in Congress and make President support the Rafsanjani-Mousavi faction and opposition to the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad faction. Yet, we are to believe that it is grand humanitarian motives and committment to lofty ideal of 'freedom' and 'democracy' that motivated US foreigh policy, and is why US imperialism has promoted advancing their own political agenda with flowery rhetoric:

"We take the side of the Iranian people to have human rights, to have the freedom that we deem universal." McCain, who holds a warmongering line on Iran, also took one further bold step in questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian government. "The fact is that the Iranian government is now illegitimate."

The Senators also said they aimed to boost opposition in Iran through funding news broadcast into the country. "We want the Iranian people to be able to stay one step ahead of the Iranian regime, getting access to information and safely exercising freedom of speech and freedom of assembly online," said Lieberman, who is among the US Senate's fiercest hawks.


So-called "human rights concerns" and "democracy" matters is no more than an ideological cover for the advancement of the interests of US imperialism in opposition to a government the US wants to overthrow or country it wants to invade, in both instances the actual motivation is material interests: for economic domination of the country or geopolitical strategic location, or both: US imperialism claims to be opposed to "radical Islam" in its opposition to the "Islamic fundamentalist" government in Iran, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia and the government in Sudan.

U.S. imperialism in this connection claims it is concerned with 'human rights abuse' of women in Islamist countries. US governments claim concern for 'women's rights' - particularly for women in "Islamist" countries having the 'right' to wear mini-skirts, pants and go bare headed.

In the US warfare economy in response to and as solution of the Great Depression by relocating men from the production department at home into the maiming and killing departments abroad engendered an array of unexpected/ accidental conditions that required women to enter the labour forces.

World War II determinated the changed circumstances that produced the economic need to replace skilled [male] workers who were taken from the economy and forced to be soldiers abroad. In this country women in the 1940s entered the labor force in war related boom industries feeding the military-industrial complex. Working class women in America begin to not just find work in typical 'woman's jobs' categories as assistants of male employers and superiors [secretaries, nurses, maids].

Yet, even being hired out as secretaries, nurses, maids and so on presented women with a certain empowerment, money and a sense of ability to do more. Women found out that they not only could survive on their own but recognized their ability to do anything and everything a man can do: the jobs mailman, doctors, mechanics, lawyers, single moms, electricians, political organizers, physicists, machinists, professors, masons, astronomers ... This transition reached its culmination in the late 1960s early 70s modern socialist feminism.

American working class women merged into the economy achieved vis-a-vis working class men an economic financial emancipation from an economic power-dependence relationship of political and ideological dominance of fathers, big brother and finally of husbands in the politics of the home a dominate-subordinate relationship were now by this economic emancipation of women free from it. Yet, U.S. imperialism sells tons of military equipment to the most feudalistic politically as well as ideologically reactionary regime of the entire 'Islamic world' and the Middle East: the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to keep that oppressive male dominated culture in place and that by keeping the repressive regime in power.


A typical day in the life of women in Saudi Arabia-hidden under a veil, banned from driving, and lack of freedom. www.sheikyermani.com

Were secularism and the condition of women in opposition to governments based ideologically on Sharia law commentary and Quranic verses, in opposition to democracy and women the basis for US opposition to the government of Iran, it would have instead long ago declared war on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where governments are royal dictatorships based on heredity and women are officially, as well as culturally by feudal fundamentalist religious tradition rendered second class citizens, if at all. Instead, US imperialism has defended these feudal Islamist kingdoms and went to war on their behalf - the Gulf War, and has armed these kingdoms to the teeth, ostensibly against "Islamist" Iran.

Israel Signs off on US arms sale to Saudis
updated 6:23 p.m. PT, Sun., July 29, 2007

JERUSALEM - In a break from historic Israeli opposition to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday his country understands Washington's plan to supply state-of-the-art weapons to Riyadh as a counterweight to Iranian influence. The United States, knowing that Israel is sensitive about such arms sales, is also offering a sharp increase in defense aid to Israel and has assured the Jewish state it will retain a fighting edge over other countries in the region, he added."We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran," Olmert told a weekly Cabinet meeting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20003692/


In the 15 August 2005 issue of Business Week Stanley Reed, writing in London wrote:

For 10 years, King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's new monarch, served as de facto regent to King Fahd, his incapacitated half-brother. During that time he bridled at not having full power to enact the reform agenda that he and his Western-educated advisers, including Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, thought was needed. Will things be any different now that Abdullah has taken the throne after Fahd's death on Aug. 1?

The answer is hell no! The royal family is not about to give up the privileges of this ancien regime. Nor has there been any fundamental changes to the feudalistic concept of law and order as articulated through Sharia and Quranic verses.


Basic Law articulating government's rights and responsibilities issued by King Fahd in March 1992. Includes provisions declaring Islam official state religion and Quran and sunnah the Constitution; that "[t]he state protects the rights of the people in line with the Islamic sharia; and assert independence of the judiciary; and that administration of justice is based on "sharia rules according to the teachings of the holy Qur?an, the sunnah, and the regulations set by the ruler provided that they do not contradict the holy Qur?an and sunnah".? Art. 9 states that "the family is the kernel of Saudi society, and its members shall be brought up on the basis of the Islamic faith". Art. 26 provides that the state protects human rights "in accordance with the Islamic Shari'a". http://www.law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/saudiarabia.htm

"American values", "human rights", "democracy" and imperialist concern for advancing "the 'rights of women'" is imperialist propaganda that in actuality is nothing but flowery rhetoric for domestic consumption - "all politics is local". Dupe- use gullible Americans to supporting US imperialism: make US them think they are in the right although U.S. imperialism by bombing, maiming and killing millions all over the world has proved to God it really doesn't give a damn for the 'rights of women', so-called 'human rights' or 'democracy': neither in Iran nor anywhere else.

The European Union and China are displacing the US and Britain as the dominate economic power in those regions, and because they are at the same time oil producing/exporting regions upon which the EU and Chinese industrial production are dependent, to control these oil flows is an economic necessity for US/British imperialism.

Iran is no military threat to US imperialism, Israel and certainly not to NATO. Rather, US imperialism is a threat on Iran's borders. Iran is a problem for US imperialism because it is an independent country with a bourgeois nationalist government that places the regional interests of the Iranian capitalist and ecclesiastical classes prior to those of US imperialism, Britain and Israel. In a region of neocolonial lackey and quisling regimes doing the bidding of US imperialism in exchange for military aid to maintain their cliques power over their respective country, Iranian capitalists and governments relations with German, French and Italian capitalist transnationals on one hand, and political associations of the Iranian government with the governments of China and Russia on the other - two nuclear powers in their own right - enables the Iranian government to refuse to bow, scrape and obey US imperialism the way the regions lackey and quisling regimes do.

The Iranian State is not a military threat to US imperialism or to its Zionist garrison colony. The Iranian ruling classes and their political representatives have no intention of development of nuclear weapons to strike Israel or Europe, which case Israel already has hundreds of nuclear bomb carrying missiles and planes already aimed at Iran, and Iran is surrounded by the nuclear bases and ships of US imperialism in its lackey countries and quisling state territories and the regions of the Gulf.


The European Union and China are displacing technologically US and Britain dominate economic power in the oil producing regions in Middle Asia and North Africa, which explains every regional conflict. EU and Chinese industrial production are dependent on these oil flows is an economic necessity, the advances of what challenges US/British imperialism. U.S. imperialism has established military has colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability, including such locations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan,
http://schema-root.org/region/americas/north_america/usa/government/branches/executive/departments/defense/bases/

The European Union and China are displacing the US and Britain as the dominate economic power in those regions, and because they are at the same time oil producing/exporting regions upon which the EU and Chinese industrial production are dependent, to control these oil flows is an economic necessity for US/British imperialism.

Techno-economic necessity determine political activity and ideology is an expression of it. The problem confronted by the American capitalist ruling classes is that US industrial base of domestic capital is declining relative to the new capital technology in the European Union. Ahmadinejad represents politically the faction of Iranian capitalists in bed with European capitalists, and therefore has been favorable to the European bourgeois by his anti-American stance and rhetoric.

Companies Doing Business in Iran Look for Quick Resolution
By MARCUS WALKER in Berlin and STACY MEICHTRY in Paris

While young Iranians take to the streets calling for change, many European companies active in Iran are quietly hoping the country resolves the crisis soon. Investors say their greatest fear is that neither the Iranian authorities nor the opposition back down over the contested June 12 election, potentially leading to a violent suppression of protests -- and more pressure on foreign businesses to stop trading with Iran. Most of these companies, aware that their investments in Iran are politically contentious, decline to talk openly about Iranian politics.

A number of business officials in Germany and Iran's other main trading partners in the European Union said they believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will remain president -- peacefully or after a bloody crackdown on protesters. "Destabilization and shooting would lead to much more political pressure" on companies to stop trading with Iran, said a German business official.

A new, reformist government might usher in a thaw in relations with the West and open up more of the economy to foreign capital in the long term. But in the shorter term, changes of administration can mean uncertainty for existing investments as new officials might cancel or change business contracts. "Ironically an Ahmadinejad victory means more short-term to medium-term stability," says Amir Cyrus Razzaghi, head of Ara Enterprise, a Tehran-based business consultancy that advises foreign companies.

European businesses have long done business in Iran, even though some governments have tried to curb activity there.

The German government has been trying to discourage firms from trading with Iran through verbal appeals and by scaling down export-credit guarantees by more than 90% since 2004. It hasn't had much effect: German exports to Iran have declined only 10% since their peak of 4.4 billion Euro ($6.11 billion) in 2005. "Present political complications have no effect on our business dealings," says Helene Rang, a consultant and chief executive of the Near and Middle East Association, a club for German companies that trade with the region. Among the German companies doing business in Iran is Siemens AG, which sells Iran equipment for its energy and medical sectors. Siemens declined to comment on the political situation.

Italy, whose government hasn't stood in the way of investment in Iran, is its largest European trading partner, with 2.2 billion Euro in exports to Iran and 3.9 billion Euro in imports last year. A wide range of Italian companies, ranging from car makers to pharmaceutical companies, operate in Iran. A spokesman for Eni SpA, which operates one of Iran's biggest oil fields, declined to comment on how the election outcome could affect their business. Fiat SpA, which produces passenger cars in Iran, also declined to comment.

France has taken a stronger line with Iran. In 2007, the country enforced United Nations and European Union sanctions against Tehran, banning the export to Iran of certain products -- essentially military equipment or equipment with dual use. Late last year, the French government further restricted trade. Among the main French companies doing business in Iran are PSA Peugeot Citroen SA and Renault SA, which produce cars there through joint ventures. Neither company would comment.

Italian knitwear maker Benetton Group SpA has shut down stores in parts of Tehran. Members of Benetton's key clientele -- young, middle-class Iranians -- are joining protests. "We have the maximum respect for the Iranian government," said company spokesman Federico Sartor. "We can confirm the interest in staying in Iran, because it's a young and dynamic market for us." - David Gauthier-Villars contributed to this article.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laborpartypraxis/message/23394


Incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the Iranian presidential election with 24.5 million of the votes, over 62%. Ahmadinejad's main challenger, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, came second with 13.2 million votes, followed by Mohsen Rezaei with more than 630 thousand votes and Mehdi Karroubi with 320 thousand votes.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi represents politically the faction of Iranian capitalists that want to break from its isolationist policy vis-a-vis with US capitalists. Mousavi is presented by US Republcan politicians and all the capitalist owned print and electronic media propaganda as a "reformer", however he was prime minister during the 1980s when the regime committed some of its worst atrocities. In other words, Ahmedinejad and Mousavi are partisan of the same regime and hold similar positions on major political and ideological issues.

Really, the outward political body of government is secondary and subordinate to the authority of the ecclesiastical ruling councils. What is happening in Iran is a war between different economic classes figting to keep, or overthrow political power. Religion is really a pseudo political 'issue'. Here are some details about how Iran's political system works:


The chart of Power Structure in Iran

* SUPREME LEADER:

-- Iran's 1989 constitution expanded the powers of the presidency and eliminated the post of prime minister. It also gave ultimate authority to the Supreme Leader, a position held by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini until his death in June 1989.

-- Under the Islamic Republic's system of clerical rule, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has held ultimate authority in Iran since then, giving him the final say in all matters of state, including nuclear policy.

-- He also sets the outlines of domestic and foreign policy and directly controls the military and intelligence agencies.

* THE PRESIDENT:

-- The president is popularly elected for a maximum of two four-year terms and is completely subordinate to the Supreme Leader. His freedom of action is also curtailed by a range of unelected bodies mostly controlled by clerics. These bodies, including the Guardian Council, have backed Ahmadinejad since he was elected in 2005, but thwarted his reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami.

-- The president is responsible for economic policy and, along with his cabinet of ministers, daily management of national affairs.

-- The president also chairs the Supreme National Security Council, which coordinates defence and security policy. He can sign agreements with foreign governments and approve ambassadorial appointments. On bigger issues he defers to the Supreme Leader.

* THE GUARDIAN COUNCIL:

-- The Guardian Council is a 12-man body - six senior clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader and six Islamic jurists - which must ensure all laws passed by the Majlis agree with Islamic Sharia law and Iran's constitution. It also vets aspiring candidates for presidential elections, and must approve the election results.

* MAJLIS (PARLIAMENT):

-- The elected Majlis, or parliament has 290 seats sitting for four years. Parliament has powers to introduce and pass legislation, summon and impeach ministers or the president. These powers are checked by the Guardian Council.

OTHER BODIES:

* ASSEMBLY OF EXPERTS:

-- The 88-member assembly founded in 1982 is a clerical body that supervises, appoints and can sack the supreme leader, although it has never knowingly intervened in policy. Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is now its head.

* EXPEDIENCY COUNCIL:

-- The Expediency Council, also headed by Rafsanjani, was set up to mediate in rows between parliament and the Guardian Council. Sources: Reuters/Statesman's Yearbook 2009: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLG537000



According to Iran's Constitution, the Supreme Leader is responsible for the delineation and supervision of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran," which means that he sets the tone and direction of Iran's domestic and foreign policies. The Supreme Leader also is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and controls the Islamic Republic's intelligence and security operations; he alone can declare war or peace. He has the power to appoint and dismiss the leaders of the judiciary, the state radio and television networks, and the supreme commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He also appoints six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians, the powerful body that oversees the activities of Parliament and determines which candidates are qualified to run for public office.

Who and what the factions are:

Ayatollah Khamenei

In January 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini appointed Hojatoleslam Khamenei as a member of the Revolutionary Council. And in March of the same year, in collaboration with his four brothers, established the Islamic Republic Party. He likewise served in the Central Council of the Party, and as deputy of the Ministry of Defense and representative of the Council in the Ministry, Commander of Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps. Ayatollah Khomeini appointed him in 1980 to be the leader of the Friday congregational prayers in Tehran. He was also elected as a deputy of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) in the same year.

In the summer of 1981, after delivering an important speech in the Majlis which led to the dismissal of the then President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, an attempt was made on his life by the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (an armed opposition movement) while making a speech in a mosque in Tehran, and his chest and hand were badly injured. Following the President Mohammad Rajaee's assassination in 1981, Hojatoleslam Khamenei was elected president of the Islamic Republic with 95% of the votes cast in his favour. He was president for another four years. During this time, he was chairman of the Supreme Defense Council and the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council. In 1989 he received the title of "Ayatollah" from the Theological School of Qom; and on June of same year, by the death of Ayatollah Khomeini's, he was elected Vali-e Faqih (Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic) by the majority of votes of the Assembly of Experts. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/akhamenei/ali_khamenei.php

Rafsanjani was a key member of Iran's Revolutionary Council at the beginning of the new Islamic Republic, together with Mohammad Javad Bahonar, Mohammad Beheshti, Morteza Motahhari, and Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardebili ... Rafsanjani is a relatively moderate Iranian cleric who served two terms as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, from August 17, 1989 to 1997.

As president, Mr. Rafsanjani sought to encourage a rapprochement with the West and re-establish Iran as a regional power. His influence in Lebanon helped to bring about the release of Western hostages there in the early 1990s. Domestically, he has sought to move Iran from the state-controlled economy of the war years to a more market-based system.

Rafsanjani was the first president of Iran to step down officially after finishing his term. In 2000, in the first Parliamentary General Election after the expiration of his two presidential terms, he did candidate himself for the Parliament seat, but was not among the 30 representatives of Tehran successfully elected, as announced by the Ministry of Interior. The Council of Guardians then ruled numerous ballots "void" and was able to get him chosen as the 30th candidate. He became a member of parliament again, but resigned before swearing-in as an MP. He explained his reason as "being able to serve the people better in other posts". In 2002, Rafsanjani was appointed and currently is the Chairman of the Expediency Council that arbitrates and resolves legislative disputes and issues between the Parliament (Majlis) and the Council of Guardians and advises the supreme leader on matters of national policy. In 2005 Rafsanjani again ran for the presidency, but despite support from reformists in the runoff election he lost to Tehran Mayor and conservative candidate Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/arafsanjani/akbar_rafsanjani.php

US imperialism is in a conquest mode of dominating the oil regions of Middle Asia and North Africa. These political and militarial conflicts are the result of material economic and geopolitical interests.


Based on its advanced technology and economic power, the European Union, and also Japan, are becoming political powers and are beginning to demand that the U.S. remove its occupation forces from their respective countries. Being an economic powerhouse brings with it political power and diplomatic clout. The European Union along with Japan, having the world's most advanced technology and strong economy, political power and ambitions are inevitable, as was the case of the United States in the 1950s and 60s.

Technological economic power is "political power." But national political power is expressed, inevitably, in military capacity. When a nationalist gang of capitalists achieves technological and economic parity with a country that has been subordinating them, it will rise up inevitably in opposition to the now relatively weakened country that has subordinated them.

In the 1950s and 60s the world's undisputed technological, economic, political power in the West was the United States. Although the Soviet Union had military parity, the U.S. had the most advanced economic technology, with which American capitalist rebuilt European industry with their state of the art technology, and also Japan (e.g., steel production facilities supplied American forces with military related hardware used by America in the Korean War). The Soviet Union was surrounded by hostile capitalist states (which were homes U.S. military occupation garrisons) with advanced technology.

In these decades, and especially in the 1980s "Reagan Era" -- so-called Reaganomics - the so-called "Laffer-Curve" (alternately called "supply-side") economics in the era of a Permanent Arms Economy (PAE) encouraged investments in military related production, mobile cruse missiles, SDI, etc. - which however wasted a lot of capital in this PAE in that it produced "goods" that could be neither consumed (outside of nuclear war) nor sold as export capital nor commodities.

At the same time the high government deficits, which resulted from tax cuts to capitalists and government spending in the PAE, made the American government an international borrower, and a strong dollar made U.S. commodities less competitive both at home and abroad.

The "arms race" that bankrupted the Soviet Union undermined Americas economic global supremacy. The European Union is the real "winner of the 'Cold War'," and is today the strongest economic power on earth. The United States has but its military supremacy to fall back on.
Thus the wars in the Balkans were to anchor NATO as permanent and positive, which in fact would make the United States the modern Nazi occupation power in Europe, in the same regions of Eastern and Central Europe (minus France).
"Diplomacy is warfare without bloodshed." But the possibility of warfare as a continuation of politics by other, i.e. violent means, has to be prepared for, especially in a world dominated by a rogue superpower, the United States.

On 20 November 2000, European Union Defense Ministers met in Brussels and agreed to the creation of a European Union Rapid Reaction Force through the Military Capabilities Commitment. The force, at least initially, will consist of up to 60,000 troops. This army will be independent of NATO and committed to operate on the behalf of the EU.

This is a follow-up on the establishment, on November 13, 1987, at the 50th Franco-German summit in Karlsruhe of a Franco-German Brigade, announced on that day by President Mitterand of France and Chancellor Kohl of Germany. The 5,000 strong Franco-German Brigade is the core of the emerging European Army.

Dominated militarily and politically by the United States, NATO is deliberately excluded from participation in this European army. Thus, strategically, the United States is incorporating into NATO former WARSAW Pact countries - including Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia (on the one hand), and Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia (on the other).

What all these countries have in common, in addition with recent conflicts with the former Soviet Union, and fear of Russia is a history of oppression, wars, and occupation by Germany. These countries, which supported the Anglo-American war against and occupation of Iraq, besides being economic basket cases have a political incentive to join NATO as a check on the Franco-German military alliance. The Bush regime called these poor, desperate countries the "New Europe," as against the "Old Europe" - that is, the powerful European Union with its own army, anchored economically in the technology and economic strength of the combined economy of Germany, France, and Italy, and others.

The U.S. has military forces in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. With its occupation of Iraq, the U.S. is positioned to blackmail the European Union with the oil that it is economically dependent upon to keep its modern industries a humming.

The United States has put in place a quisling regime that it wants to send to OPEC, to manipulate OPEC to the advantage of American capitalists to the disadvantages of its economic rivalries, not just the European Union, but Japan and South Korea as well.

In fact, the U.S. initiated, and "led," NATO wars in the Balkans - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo - were directly related to the threat the U.S. perceived regarding the Germans and the French plans to reconstitute a military presence, a common European army. The technological and economic superiority of the economies of Northern Europe in comparison to the United States, is capable of providing a superior military power as well.http://laborpartypraxis.org/PaxAmericainDecline.html

Conditioned through education and by socialization acculturated word-response mechanisms [as in Manchurin Candidate] the masses of Americans are non-thing tools. Presented in the American media and by its politicians as promoting "freedom", the 'emancipation of women', 'democracy', in the languages of flowery rhetoric, catch phrases, platitudes and buzz words to which Americans have been made patriotic and arrogant nationalist [fools] to respond to as though Pavlovs bell.

This is the ideological presentation of the 'enlightenment'. This is/was used by the neocon ideologist's presentation of the concept of 'clash of civilizations' qua Enlightened [Christian -Europen] West vis-a-vis the East of the 'Arabs' and Muslims' still inhabiting cultures of Dark Age of 'mediaval Islam'. This rhetoric manipulate gullible American masses who don't even know that the Enlightenment was in actuality directed against Christian religion as superstition and philosophy its antagonist. The very premise of 'clash of civilizations' was based on a lie.

The Struggle of the Enlightenment was against Christianity, the Bible, theology and metaphysics, including the Reniassance metaphysics and mechanical materialism which it considered Superstition and ideological props for Monarchy, Aristocracy, and the Church's hiararchy.

Material interests and conflicts of interests between economic classes are manifest through individual embodiments of, in and between those classes no matter what the existing mode of production and appropriations class dominance has presented interests in the form of ideas characteristic of a culture that subjects the appropriated class by individual acculturation, that is internalized by those individuals which constitute their respective ideology. Micheal Jackson is nothing but an extreme case in point.


There are no communist trade unions in Iran because the collective efforts of union bourgeois property forms in the collaborations of the nationalist capitalist classes, represented by religious ideological political agents - the so-called 'Islamic Revolution' were all rich mullahs and political anti-communists sent to destroy the real revolutionary worker's trade unions and communist parties:


Ahmedinejad represents the policies of the Guardian Council is opposed to Poland like privatization. The Expediency faction led by Rafsanjani and promoted in the President candidacy of Mir-Hossein Moussavi is the overthrow of instititutional representatives nationalist State capitalism. These conflicting economic camps are fighting to determine the direction of the Iranian economy, which are politically represented using theological language to promote what are in fact earthly positions of wealth and power of sector against sectors. Conflicts of material interests concerning the possible direction of the economy and its international relations are played out in political theatre through presidential elections and post election conflicts, in which Ahmedinejad is the lackey of the faction led by Ayatollah Khamenei and Mousavi is the lackey of the faction led by Rafsanjani.


Iran: Khamenei's faction expose astronomical plunders of Rafsanjani's faction
Thursday, 11 June 2009

Khamenei's faction expose astronomical plunders of Rafsanjani's faction, a trend reflecting the incurable crisis facing the entire regime

NCRI- Fars news agency, affiliated to the Iranian regime's Revolutioanry Guard Corps (IRGC) close to mullahs Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's faction, in an unprecedented revelation exposed parts of astronomical plunders of the rival faction, especially Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of the regime's Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts, and his family. The latest revelations take place in the course of heightening internal feuding within the clerical regime in the run up to the regime's presidential election.

The 9,500-word report named Rafsanjani's family as the "Mafia of wealth and power," "Excellencies of Mafia" and a "deadly infected tumor." The report stresses that if Rafsanjani's faction does win the presidential seat then "the country will take a down trend and the national interest will be threatened."

The report enumerates some of the measures by the "Hashemi Rafsanjani's dynasty" to include "complete control over the country's life line in areas such as the industry, money circulation, energy sector, export and import of goods, housing, ..." It threatens to continue with the revelations.

Direct attack on Rafsanjani and settling accounts with him as a person who has played a key role since the inception of the clerical rule and currently heading the mullahs' Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Council, unveils the depth of incurable crisis facing the entire regime in its final phase.

The report states, "Ending of the war...establishing free economy and ... benefitted some of the government officials and families of some officials. They gained economic privileges and Hashemi Rafsanjani's dynasty made greater benefits compared to others due to various reasons." http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/6462/154/


After the elections were finished and the ballots counted with Ahmedinejad declared the winner. This was followed by protests by Mousavi and street demonstrations, backed by the US and British press and media calling the elections rigged. The Supreme Leader, backed by the Guardian Council, the Revolutionary Guard and the army it was reasserted by the still dominate Khamenei faction that their lackey Ahmedinejad had won and the Rafsanjani faction's lackey Mousavi had lost.

This was in principle no different than in the contested 2000 US presidential election, where the Democrat's candidate Al Gore's camp called foul and the Republican dominated US Supreme Court intervened on behalf of the Republican candidate George Bush. What was different, though, is that American politicians have a long history of being political lackeys of the ruling classes, and place that as primary, so Gore didn't call for street protests to overthrow the Supreme Court's authority. This was not the case in Iran, where Mousavi did in fact call on his followers to take to the streets in confrontation with the State.

Of course there was violent repression. This violent repression was a propaganda bonanza for US imperialism, its politicians and print and electronic media had a field day, 24/7 presenting themselves as humanitarians and democrats who pretend they are shocked that a State would be violent "against its own people".

I say these U.S. politicians and media propagandists pretend to be shoked, and ostensibly out of love for humanity and abstract concerns for "freedom", "justice", "fairness" and "democracy" put on a show of being moved to a fake righteous indignation, because the ruling classes and their political representatives and ideological lackeys know that in every economic mode of production and corresponding form of appropriation that the possessing classes are ruling classes: thus the most powerful, economically dominate classes are thereby the most powerful, politically dominate classes.


'Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy,' in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state--nobody says that--but force is a means specific to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions--beginning with the sib--have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" (Max Weber).


The product of irreconciable economic class conflicts produced by every mode of production based on class exploitation, every corresponding social power State exist as an apparatus of violence wheresoever civil society is class society. It is the bureaucratic institutions-military apparatus by means of which the possessing/ appropriating classes coerce the corresponding appropriated working classes and toiling masses to submit to the given mode of production and appropriation.

Max Weber and Micheal Bakunin understood this universal principle characteristic of exploitative relations of production to be a repressive power of the economically dominate class, the same as did Lenin and Trotsky that a State is an apparatus of political violence within the kingdom or nation or empire. This is neither new knowledge nor is it limited. In fact this was explicated through the policies &/or writings of e.g. Sargon and Hammurabi, Menes and Moses, the Thirty Tyrants and Plato, Aristotle and Alexander, Caesar and Saint Paul, Constantine and Saint Agustine, Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes, Karl von Clauwitz and Karl Marx and Engels, Alexander Hamalton and Edmond Burke, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Beard.

The American Continental Congress was under domination of the British Empire, and those who wrote the Declaration of Independence grasp the truth, that political power grows from the barrel of guns, and once they won their independence from Britain as the possessing classes in the new republic they Republican State solidified its detachments of bodies of armed men, with prisons &c. at their disposal to keep in check the slaves, yoeman farmers and propertyless proletarians, as well as to use against external enemy States as well as genocidal wars in the Westward expansion.

What is therefore really is shocking is not that there are socialist and communist individuals and organizations that recognize the political candidates in the Iranian election contest to be a contest between factions of the possessing classes, and therefore that since the proletariat has no dog in that fight refuse to be pressed by capitalist media to take sides, but to the contrary the shock and awe is that there are socialists and communist organizations and individuals in the US and Britain that join the imperialist politicians and the print and electronic media propaganda campaign pretending shock and awe that the Iranian capitalist faction that has State power at its disposal would use that power against rival factions and their politicians, and the demonstrating supporters of those politicians.

It will we shown further on that the street fighting in the streets of Iranian cities in the aftermath of the recent elections, between the State and protesters are an expression of conflicts between sectors of Iranian capitalists that are in their respective struggle for domination are respectively represented by the rising Rafsanjani-Mousavi faction, which wants to accomodate the economic interests of American capitalists in the oil regions of Middle Asia and North Africa, as opposed to the nationalist Khamenei -Ahmedinejad.

The conflict between the rival interests struggling for economic domination and corresponding political hedgemony of State power is what needs be recognized and critically analysed, rather than being manipulated by demogogy and flowery rhetoric of US politicians, partisan print and electronic media propaganda into the taking sides of either capitalist camp's political and ideological representative team.

Gullible Americans inhering in patriotic delusions of grandeur that US imperialism operating and invasion and occupation of a foreign country that the noble motive for this invasion and occupation is to defend or promote "freedom", "democracy" "human rights" &/or to prevent "genocide". Americans are manipulated into gung ho supporters who are by politicians and the press and media tricked into self-sacrifice believing it is America's god given duty to export "truth, justice and the American way".

What I am doing is a Marxian materialist analysis of the elections in Iran from the international proletariat's interests instead of joining imperialist politicians, print and electronic media regurgitating all the clap trap about the protestors for the Rafsanjani faction's lackey Mousavi presented as innocent "pro-democracy protestors" as an ideologico-political basis for denouncing the Khamenei -Ahmedinejad hold on government as "dictator".

This word engenders fear and condemnation in acculturated educated sopps of American culture: a buzz word that demonize foreign head of . So the phrase endorsing and approving of US imperialism: "moderate" and "pragmatic" &/or "pro-democracy" are terms and phrases used to manipulate gullible Americans with one politician against another, while not knowing it is with one faction against another.

US imperialism presented its entry into the First imperialist war [World War I] as a "war to make the world safe for democracy". The follow-up second imperialist war [that established US global domination in much of the world] (outside the Soviet sphere) and China was presented as a fight against fascism and the subsequent establishment of US occupation forces in Germany and Japan presented as containing the spread of 'godless communist dictatorship'. This was used to win popular support for its imperialist wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Similarly, Americans were told, and even now believe that the extension of US imperialism into Kuwait was to 'free it' from Saddam's dictatorship, and in the process established permanent military &/or air bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, that the invasion to displace the existing government was/is a 'war on terrorism' and by calling that government 'the Taliban' and the national army 'militias', 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' enabled US imperialism to both displace the government as if it was displacing a group of 'Islamists', and to violate the Conventions determing the treatment of Prisoners of War, by calling the Afghan army 'terrorists', 'unlawful combatants' and 'detainees'.

POWs are protected by agreements to not have to give any information other than name, rank and serial number, but 'terrorist's &c. are 'arrested' rather than soldiers of a national army captured and subject to Geneva Conventions. They are tortured.

The liberal clap trap advocating advancing these Afghan and Iraqi POWs 'rights' according to American laws concerning treatement of American arrestees, is also against the Geneva Accords. Afghan government and military are not 'criminals' arrested for this or that violation of American law.

Taliban members of government are government ministers and government hired soldiers are rightly POWS. It therefore is a violation not only to hold them in the Gitmo Concentration camp 'without trial' and tortured, but also illegal under international law to try these POWs in an American occupation's courts. The Obama adminstration and the media pundits who are paraded as reversing the policies of the Bush adminstration by bringing these POWs to trails as criminals in American courts are in actuality a continuation of the Bush administrations violation of its own signed Geneva Aggreements.

On the other hand, the same Geneva documents that US imperialism is violating by not recognizing the governments of Afghanistan and its army as soldiers, but declaring them along with the deposed government of Iraq, and of Hamas in Palestine to be illegitimate and 'terrorist organizations', to the contrary the Geneva Agreements recognize both that the deposed governments are legitimate governments in exile and that the resistance forces in the occupied countries are soldiers at war with an invader, which therefore has the right of armed resistance against the invading occupation forces.

In this connection Iran is within internationally recognized rules of engagement in its recognition of e.g. the Iraqi resistence, the Hamas government and its armed forces, and Hezbollah with its armed forces as legitimate governments and their respective resistence forces as the legitimate armed forces of thaose national governments, no different than the US government's the French government and its army of resistance to German occupation in World War II, the Soviet recognition and aid to the government and army of resistance in Yugoslavia, and the US and Soviet recognition and aid of the Chinese Kumangtan and Communist Party/People's Liberation Army as legitimate in opposition to Japanese invasion and its occupation of China.


Reese Erlich, wrote in his article 'Iran and Leftist Confusion':

Snippet: "When I returned from covering the Iranian elections recently, I was surprised to find my email box filled with progressive authors, academics and bloggers bending themselves into knots about the current crisis in Iran. They cite the long history of U.S. interference in Iran and conclude that the current unrest there must be sponsored or manipulated by the Empire. ... This is no academic debate or simply fodder for bored bloggers. Real lives are at stake. A repressive government has killed at least 17 Iranians and injured hundreds. The mass movement may not be strong enough to topple the system today but is sowing the seeds for future struggles."

Of course the Iranian government is repressive and killed those who challenge it: Its called war - 'war is a continuation of policy by other [i.e. violent] means' (Karl von Clauwitz).


"War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes. ... ("Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War"
(December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.)

and:

"War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means." When politics develops to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by the usual means, war breaks out to sweep the obstacles from the way.... When the obstacle is removed and our political aim attained the war will stop. But if the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue till the aim is fully accomplished.... It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." ("On Protracted War" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 152-53 )

Erlich is of course is obviously no Marxist. If he was he would speak in terms of class war against capitalism, in which case it is the task of socialist, communist and anarchist workers to 'overthrow their own bourgeoisie'.


Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm


We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm


This doesn't mean national isolationism or preclude proletarian cosmopolitan solidarity and mutual support in accomplishing this revolution.


The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm


American workers must be made to recognize the myth of American exceptionalism and patriotism to be the last refuge of US capitalists to manipulate them into supporting American capitalists domestic and foreign policy, to instead side with the working classes and toiling masses in their struggles against capitalism and transnational corporations. It is to side with the working poor of Niger Delta, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and yes, Iran.

The political forces with whom Erlich is as an American in America siding with are those of US imperialism's meddling in Iran, because US imperialism support the Rafsanjani-Mousavi faction, which wants to accomodate the economic interests of American capitalists in the oil regions of Middle Asia and North Africa, as opposed to the nationalist Khamenei -Ahmedinejad faction, which is more oriented to China and Russia and the European Union in economic relations.


US Senator John McCain (R) and Senator Joe Lieberman
Three hawkish US Senators claim that Iran's election has been 'rigged' after Tehran firmly warned against any interference in the country's internal affairs. Two Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain as well as independent Joe Lieberman said on Thursday that the recent presidential election in Iran was rigged, promising to support the protesters of the election results. McCain,

President Obama's rival in the US election, said that Washington does not "take the side of either candidate" but "the Iranian people", rejecting Iran's claims of US meddling in the country's affairs. Three hawkish US Senators claim that Iran's election has been 'rigged' after Tehran firmly warned against any interference in the country's internal affairs. Two Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain as well as independent Joe Lieberman said on Thursday that the recent presidential election in Iran was rigged, promising to support the protesters of the election results. McCain, President Obama's rival in the US election, said that Washington does not "take the side of either candidate" but "the Iranian people", rejecting Iran's claims of US meddling in the country's affairs.

"We take the side of the Iranian people to have human rights, to have the freedom that we deem universal." McCain, who holds a warmongering line on Iran, also took one further bold step in questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian government. "The fact is that the Iranian government is now illegitimate."

The Senators also said they aimed to boost opposition in Iran through funding news broadcast into the country. "We want the Iranian people to be able to stay one step ahead of the Iranian regime, getting access to information and safely exercising freedom of speech and freedom of assembly online," said Lieberman, who is among the US Senate's fiercest hawks. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99084§ionid=351020101

There are no "Iranian people" in the abstract. In its political concrete reality it is the Rafsanjani-Mousavi faction's opposition to the election results, calling it rigged, and calling for its backers and supporters to take to the streets in protest. This is not a generational issue, either; its bare knuckled factional politics on behalf of the Rafsanjani-Mousavi faction against the Khamenei -Ahmedinejad faction.

TEHRAN, Iran—Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi has vowed he will stand by the protesters whose week of defiance has deeply shaken the country, but says he won't allow their lives to be put in peril and says the security forces that bloodied them are their comrades. The statements by Mousavi, posted on Web sites of his allies during the weekend, underline the by dangers and strategic dilemma facing the throngs who rose up last week to protest disputed election results that showed his hardline opponent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, overwhelmingly winning a second term.


So, Erlich is doing nothing but siding with US imperialism's partisan support of the Rafsanjani-Mousavi faction against the Khamenei -Ahmedinejad faction when he mimic the sentiments of the "two Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain as well as independent Joe Lieberman", quoted above, when he writes:


"When I returned from covering the Iranian elections recently, I was surprised to find my email box filled with progressive authors, academics and bloggers bending themselves into knots about the current crisis in Iran. They cite the long history of U.S. interference in Iran and conclude that the current unrest there must be sponsored or manipulated by the Empire. That comes as quite a shock to those risking their lives daily on the streets of major Iranian cities fighting for political, social and economic justice."

This language does no more than parrot the flowery rhetoric of Graham, McCain and Lieberman:


"We take the side of the Iranian people to have human rights, to have the freedom that we deem universal." McCain, who holds a warmongering line on Iran, also took one further bold step in questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian government. "The fact is that the Iranian government is now illegitimate."

"The Senators also said they aimed to boost opposition in Iran through funding news broadcast into the country. "We want the Iranian people to be able to stay one step ahead of the Iranian regime, getting access to information and safely exercising freedom of speech and freedom of assembly online," said Lieberman, who is among the US Senate's fiercest hawks. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99084§ionid=351020101

The difference is that in place of the word "freedom", Erlich inserts the word "justice". These are nothing but abstract terms, that are in reality hollow and without empirical content, sophistry. The demonstrations which took place in Iran were empirically specific political particulars, defined by their objective that is to displace Ahmedinejad by Mousavi as president of Iran. The use of terms like freedom and justice are irrelevant.

When Erlich writes therefore that:

"A repressive government has killed at least 17 Iranians and injured hundreds. The mass movement may not be strong enough to topple the system today but is sowing the seeds for future struggles."


The political context defines the meaning of it. The phrase 'mass movement ... to topple the system' in regard to the street protests against the recent election result in Iran is demogogic and misleading. The opposition by the Mousavi forces to the election result wasn't a mass movement to topple the 'system', but a partisan movement by one faction of the ruling circles to displace another: to preserve the 'system' [capitalism] and its ruling classes by placing Mousavi at the head of its political government. Mousavi was no more leading a mass movement to overthrow the capitalist system in Iran than was the Gore people in 2000 a mass movement to overthrow imperialism by their contesting of the election count in Florida.

If there is a case in point of any 'mass movement' with the potential to 'topple the system today' it is the present waves of general strikes and mass protest rallies of millions of French workers in opposition to the current capitalist economic crisis and the French government's mismanagement of it. Proletarian strikes and demonstrations are indeed "sowing the seeds for future struggles".


LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe