All of the comments on that article are the usual pearl clutching drivel from pseudo MLs, bleating that ‘anarchists’ (collectively because anarchists are renowned for all thinking & behaving the same all the time!) are “rejoicing an imperialist power being instrumental in bringing down another oppressive govt” all based from a tweet from anonymous account that probably looked at another anonymous twitter account with an Ⓐ in it’s profile, while they were all “you need to vote blue to keep the orange man out” and do fuck all for establishing a vanguard movement in their own countries, or even are involved in any kind of mutual aid programs at the very least.
Those people are so unserious that it’s becoming harder by the day to distinguish them from the maga cultists
That’s the problem with a movement which has no leader. Everyone who picks up the logo can say things for it. And a lot of “Anarchists” have started saying they hecking love regime change. Are they mostly bots? Probably. But a few real figures have disappointed as well.
How are MLs any different?
Anyone can, and does, call themselves an ML and out of the myriad I’ve seen online there’s but a handful who have not only read theory but actually understand it, instead of regurgitating empty quotes and/or engaging in purity politics.
I don’t see MLs supporting regime change, nor rejecting the utility of leaders. I’m not sure who you count as the handful that not only read theory but actually understand it, but I certainly don’t see support for the Mossad/CIA influence in Iranian protests nor kidnapping Maduro.
How are MLs any different?
They’re on average more consistent on their positions, sure you can find plenty of self proclaimed MLs that are absolute clowns and nobody has the most pristine and most correct take about literally everything but in general they have more coherent positions on current geopolitics and are generally highly skeptical of imperialist propaganda, unlike anarchists who are all over the place.
purity politics
It is absolutely hilarious for a person who refuses on principle to support actually existing revolutionary movements and governments to accuse anyone else of purity politics
Point to on the doll where I’ve “refused on principal to support actual existing revolutionary movements”
Get your head out of your arse kid. Huffing your own jenkum at the source is messing with your head
Point to on the doll
Classic weird SA shit
refused on principal to support actual existing revolutionary movements”
You presumably self identify as an anarchist or ultraleftist of some kind, no?
kid
Huff my jenkum, loser
ML’s also quote Marx or Lenin when it comes to imperialism which are their leaders. I don’t think I’ve seen any self-proclaimed ML’s advocate for a military invasion of Iran so I guess that’s the difference here. Though a lot of self-proclaimed ML’s are not following those books as religiously when China does something contradicting them.
For clarity, geneva_convenience hasn’t read Marx nor Lenin but believes China is imperialist, according to Lenin, without actually proving how, purely because they abstained from the UNSC vote on the TRUST plan for Palestine. geneva_convenience blocked me after contextualizing it and proving that, while certainly not what I would have wanted the PRC to do, does not change that they are not an imperialist country.
For geneva_convenience, weak allies are enemies, and imperialism is being insufficiently anti-imperialist. When presented with this, they blocked me and spammed a bunch of unrelated Bad Empanada tweets. The importance of the distinction between weak anti-imperialism and imperialism proper is between working for and hoping for better anti-imperialism in the existing system vs actively needing to dismantle the PRC, which is why I felt it necessary to address in the first place.
Figured this targeted vaguery needed to be addressed, even if geneva can’t see it. The only reason I gently reached out in the first place was because they are generally more reasonable, but seems like they were poisoned by Bad Empanada thinking, just taking the most inflammatory stance possible and burning bridges with people over slight disagreements.
This isn’t even a “read theory” argument, it’s that geneva believes they can dictate who does and doesn’t understand Marx and Lenin based on watching Bad Empanada videos and tweets, without doing any reading on their own part or trying to come to a deeper understanding. This is also why geneva started claiming Hexbear is “Transzionist,” and that Hexbear defends contrapoints on Israel because she’s trans, which is blatantly false: Hexbear is anti-contrapoints and anti-Zionist. This corresponds with geneva_convenience’s love for Bad Empanada:
All in all incredibly disappointing to see from someone who usually has decent political instincts, such as not falling for Mossad and CIA propaganda surrounding regime change in Iran. They seem to love to argue and don’t block even the most reactionary of people, so the only reason I can think of for blocking me is because they didn’t want to confront the idea that they are mistaken about imperialism. The bright side is that I can still interact with their comments, even if they can’t see my responses.
how fucking dare someone say we like contrapoints
I know, spending 2 seconds on Hexbear and searching “contra” will get you mountains of complaints. This is why I say geneva is more concerned with mudflinging than actual anti-imperialism, and why they would especially benefit from getting organized and reading theory. It seems online debate is more of an outlet for them than something genuinely driven ideologically.
I am so embarrassed for u/geneva_convenience after reading this
Comrade Cowbee is one of the most patient and couragous members of this community
Thanks! Yep, it’s really disappointing, especially becayse they’re usually right about things. The problem is that they don’t take it seriously enough to study, and instead fill in the gaps on their own, which results in false conclusions from time to time.
Belt and road is pretty imperialist
It isn’t, assuming we are following Leninist analysis, and I’d argue that we should follow Leninist analysis of imperialism due to the depth of understanding it provides, how it works, why it arises, and how to stop it, all of which have been repeatedly tested in reality.
In short, BRI does not at all steal the surplus and prevent development of countries within the program, unlike what the West does, because BRI is about long-term cooperation and not about short-term superprofits. Capitalism can’t realistically fight the urge for immediate gratification, which is why it coups, bombs, and installs compradors, while socialist China focuses on win-win development that creates better contributors to the global market through shared development.
In other words, even the most cynical view of BRI, when viewed objectively, China’s strategy for personal benefit rests on long term delayed gratification, and it can make these choices because people have power over capital in China, rather than inverse in capitalist countries.
So it’s only imperialist if it’s for short term gain?
Imagine believing that they’re doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and don’t expect anything in return.
Why can’t you criticize anything they do, even when it’s naked imperialism?
deleted by creator
Marx wrote books about Communism (building on a lot of material from others but those don’t get any credit) and Lenin wrote on ways to practically start a revolution to bring it about.
Anarchism rejects authority which is probably why so many Anarchists probably don’t like the Iranian government which is obviously very authoritarian. Though some online Anarchists (and other leftists) seem to think that without any prior organisation or mass education on Anarchism, Iranians can just remove an authoritation government and instead of a deadly power vacuum, people will all magically join communal volunteering organisations.
Marx wrote books about Communism (building on a lot of material from others but those don’t get any credit)
Marx wrote very little on communism itself, Engels did more of that. Marx’s major contributions were in breaking from Feuerbach and flipping Hegel’s dialectic from idealist to materialist, then applying dialectical materialism to history and the class struggle. This in turn led Marx to analyze capitalism first and foremost, its contradictions, and use this as the basis for what capitalism was necessarily working towards, ie centralization of markets into the necessity of collectivized and planned production and distribution.
Marx’s prececessors, such as Adam Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, even the Physiocrats which were overall more wrong than Smith but got nearer to the truth of fixed vs circulating capital all get due credit. The reason these people are not studied as much as Marx is because Marx advanced upon them, and analyzing them is useful for better understanding the context of Marx’s advancements.
Lenin wrote on ways to practically start a revolution to bring it about.
Partially correct, but this is missing that Lenin’s greatest advancement was analyzing imperialism, and combatting the vulgarization of Marx by the second international that painted Marx more as a reformist than a revolutionary. Lenin didn’t really talk about starting a revolution, but preparing and organizing for one, as you cannot simply force a revolution.
This is just proving comrade RedSturgeon and myself correct, though. Purity tests are nonsense, especially coming from those unfamiliar with Marxism-Leninism.
Anarchism rejects authority which is probably why so many Anarchists probably don’t like the Iranian government which is obviously very authoritarian. Though some online Anarchists (and other leftists) seem to think that without any prior organisation or mass education on Anarchism, Iranians can just remove an authoritation government and instead of a deadly power vacuum, people will all magically join communal volunteering organisations.
I generally agree with this criticism of what some western anarchists are doing right now. There isn’t a mass organization in place in Iran that can both topple the government and replace it with a socialist one without Mossad and the CIA wrecking it, both of the latter 2 are far more organized in Iran from what I’ve seen.
This is why I critically support your posts and comments, if I may be cheeky. I know you can’t see this, but some of your takes are good. It’s your refusal to take analysis of the characteristics of imperialism seriously that leads you to working more with your gut instinct than any materialist analysis, leading you into false conclusions like claiming China is imperialist, and conflating weak anti-imperialism with imperialism proper. Same with your transphobic theories of “Transzionism” on Hexbear.
Partially true, but all the anarchist platforms (both on and offline) are mired in a “debate” about whether it would be better for Iran if the current regime fell without any established left power to take the reins and that in itself is a failure. Up until the Iraq war there was ZERO debate about whether a foreign government should fall or not. The movement’s members knew that their job is to stop the US/NATO warmachine and acted accordingly. Black blocs were tearing shit apart in major western cities and sabotage was a daily occurrence. Where is that kind of energy in today’s anarchist movement? Literally every time the US openly tries to bring chaos to a country the same handwringing bs is echoed all the fucking time from “anarchists” who then have absolute zero accountability when the regime whose overthrowing they cheered for “because it’s an opening to bring anarchy” NEVER gets swapped to an anarchist commune but usually an even worse, even more exploitative government that starts clearing space with leftist movements.
So while i might agree to some degree to your point about MLs, the article is completely right about those “anarchists” whose opinion gets paraded in mainstream media.
Iran needs as much independence and anti corruption safeguards as possible. It’s a complete clusterfuck and I don’t have high hopes.
Author of the article thinks its “punk rock” to support the blue capitalist party. It’s just not realistic to do anything except vote blue no matter who. You have to be an adult about this. Until Communist Jesus arrives and saves us from ourselves, it’s just not the right time to do anything except maintain the status quo. Very Smart author.
That’s not what Caitlyn Johnstone believes whatsoever. Either you’re confused about the author or very purposely sowing lies.
I’ll give the author some credit, he is probably not a lib. But in his own words:
Once the strength of the Iranian government has been collapsed there will be a power vacuum that is filled by whatever faction is able to secure control, and the strongest faction will be whichever one is backed by the US and its allies. There is no organic faction within Iran that is strong enough to stand against the installation of a US puppet regime at this time, besides the one that presently exists.
The best most perfect government just happens to already exist in Iran and there is no reason to change it. The status quo is fine.
I say it’s socialism or barbarism and Iran is pretty barbaric. Meanwhile, Iran becoming a pre-1979 US puppet state again isn’t going to happen, the current US Admin is too myopic for that, so I trust the persian people to do better. Do you?
-
Caitlyn Johnstone is a woman
-
She literally advocates AGAINST regime change in Iran?
-
This article is childish and naive.
The role of these articles is to distract from the fact that the Left is so incompetent that the only entity capable of profiting from an insurrection within a reactionary regime is the USA. The blame is on the Left, not on the insurrection.
This kind of content is just morphine for Leftists who want to keep the Left powerless.
Hey weren’t you crying a few days ago about people here opposing the overthrow of the Iranian regime because YoU’rE dEfEnDiNg a tHeOcRaCy
There are more than two sides. I side with the Iranian people, against the Iranian government and against the American government. People who think in “good vs bad” rather than power structures always believes there can only be two sides and it’s part of the naivete of this article.
Do you have evidence of organized left resistance in Iran that is capable of countering the CIA/Mossad influence? Genuinely asking, because without that, this is a pure color revolution. People do not spontaneously form socialist organization from thin air, which is why color revolution is effective, as you can simply wreck leftist organization and push for right-wing organization, like monarchism.
The reason MLs are cautious is because the west is very active in the Iranian protests, and there hasn’t been sufficient evidence of organized leftists poised to take power and resist that influence, mostly voices for a return of the monarchy and capitulation to Israel and the US Empire.
There’s none. I have ML friends who went to jail in Iran for student organizing and they also say it’s all very underground and fragmented. Nonetheless, they also acknowledge that the vast majority of people in Iran is both anti-USA and anti-government so the terrain is potentially ripe.
But that’s exactly my point: it’s pointless to blame the people for just wanting to live a better life when the responsibility of offering a viable path to structural progressive change should come from leftist organizing. Nobody sane, and this excludes armchair tankies on the internet, will ever think “I should stay put and obedient because even though I’m starving, expressing dissent might reinforce problems in the geopolitical scenario”. Have you ever seen an angry or a starving human? That’s not how they think, and it’s definitely not how they should be thinking. You cannot blame and punish the vulnerable individual for the lack of collective political organizing. The only result would be that you would be marked as an enemy (and maybe an idiot) and your political agenda will be ignored, as it systematically happens to micro-ML purist parties.
I’m not opposing the people, though. Their frustration is valid. I’m stating that, while the terrain for organizing is ripe, that organization isn’t there, so whatever takes place of the current government will be an Israeli/US puppet, ie worse. It isn’t because Iranians don’t care to organize, it’s because it’s difficult, and right now what non-Iranians need to do is oppose western interferance above all else.
all good until the last part. If the choice is between starving and western interference, guess what everybody is going to pick?
Most people seem to be opposing western interference, though it’s difficult to tell with the internet blackout. Iranians know that sanctions are more to blame for economic strife than anything else.
Both?
There’s been no guarantee or promise (regardless of it definitely being a lie) that sanctions will end if Iran is invaded, bombed, and a puppet government forcibly installed
deleted by creator
the power structure of the US and Israel would obliterate any peoples’ anything in Iran.
Lol, I do not know you managed to write that without realizing the extreme hypocrisy
Supporting one fascist regime because you don’t like another fascist regime is so progressive.
Removed by mod
Communist support for Iran’s government is critical. We certainly don’t want the shah, but we also don’t think there is enough organized leftist resistance that can resist the active CIA and Mossad influence, thus opposing the color revolution is the correct stance in the context of preventing the rise of a US/Israeli puppet monarchy and the fall of the most active opponent to Israel in the region outside of the Palestinian resistance forces themselves.
Removed by mod
Western media is widely reporting on what a US-based, NED funded “human rights organization” is claiming are massacres by the Iranian government, far exceeding daily killings in Palestine:
Meanwhile, outlets like Al Jazeera are reporting on arms smuggled in by the west for use by millitants, and all of this while the US Empire is performing fakeouts for air strikes and Trump is telling these protestors that “help is on the way.”
I do support the people of Iran, and I understand that there are legitimate grievances. I also understand that the west is actively trying their hardest to push these protests forward and steer them in the direction of installing a puppet monarchy. The US Empire has engaged in countless coups, bombings, and color revolutions, and while they usually do end up causing blowback, the damage is real. See reality.
Removed by mod
There is no organized left in Iran that can meaningfully resist the Mossad and CIA influence towards installing a puppet monarchy. Do you think it was a good thing to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, etc? Lessons from Iraq, Libya, and countless other interventions against reactionary governments have always resulted in far worse results. We have 1 million dead Iraqis to prove this.
Opposing a color revolution that is being actively steered by Mossad and the CIA, when said protestors lack an organized left that can meaningfully resist this, is indeed the communist take. An Israeli/US based puppet monarchy will be the result of toppling the Iranian government without an organized left resistance.
Removed by mod
Do you have any evidence of an organized left in Iran that can oppose Mossad and CIA influence and wrecking if the people topple the government? In the absence of one, toppling the government will result in a puppet monarchy. That’s why the west is operating on all cylinders to support the regime change.
Communists aren’t “believing in conspiracies,” you’re supporting something that has all of the evidence in the world of color revolution and no evidence whatsoever of an organized left that can solidly resist the west’s influence. We know Mossad and the CIA are active in Iran, we don’t know of any large leftist groups, which is necessary for revolution to be positive.
You should have to live in Libya.
now shutup with the tankie rethoric supporing the regime or nutjobs wanting the shah back
There is literally no third choice in this situation, stop being a useless imperialism-enabling liberal.
“tankie rhetoric” is when you don’t want to see Iran turned into another Libya/Syria/Somalia/any of the other countless countries that western liberals supported destroying.
