Musings of a former chicken

I dare to ask.......

Can the left ever be united?

Oon Yaroo, you're enjoying your weekends (two days off work)

thanks to the struggle of many militant Leftists who fought in the streets to establish such living standards ( eight hours a day rule, resulting in forty hours a week standard). You're also enjoying many other social benefits based on such struggles. It's just that you probably have zero idea on cenception about just how such social reforms in the West were actually put into place:

They were put on the books and became the law of the land due mainly to the life and death struggle of the working classes.

Wouldn't  the term Namak Nashnas be correct to define your attitude in here?

For an informed analysis of the "World Left", please see below

Since this article was written and published just today, by the world renowned scholar Immanuel Wallerstein,  it is still not anywhere on the web. Thus I'm unable to just post the site , and need to post the commentary in its entirety. Hope it won't get deleted, cheers

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary No. 320, Jan. 1, 2012
"The World Left After 2011"
 
By any definition, 2011 was a good year for the world left - however narrowly or broadly one defines the world left. The basic reason was the negative economic conditions from which most of the world was suffering. Unemployment was high and becoming higher. Most governments were faced with high debt levels and reduced income. Their response was to try to impose austerity measures on their populations while at the same time they were trying to protect their banks.
 
The result was a worldwide revolt of what the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movements called "the 99%." The revolt was against the excessive polarization of wealth, the corrupt governments, and the essentially undemocratic nature of these governments whether or not they had multiparty systems.
 
It is not that the OWS, the Arab Spring, or the indignados achieved everything they hoped for. It is that they managed to change world discourse, moving it away from the ideological mantras of neo-liberalism to themes like inequality, injustice, and decolonization. For the first time in a long time, ordinary people were discussing the very nature of the system in which they lived; they were no longer taking it for granted.
 

The question now for the world left is how it can move forward and translate this initial discursive success into political transformation. The problem can be posed quite simply. Even if, in economic terms, there exists a clear and growing cleavage between a very small group (the 1%) and a very large one (the 99%), it does not follow that this is the political division. Worldwide, right-of-center forces still command something like half of the world's populations, or at least of those who are politically active in any way.
 
To transform the world therefore, the world left will need a degree of political unity it does not yet have. Indeed, there are profound disagreements about both long-range objectives and short-range tactics. It is not that these issues are not being debated. To the contrary, they are being debated heatedly, and little progress is occurring to overcome the divisions.
 
These divisions are not new. That doesn't make them the easier to resolve. There are two major ones. The first has to do with elections. There are not two, but three, positions concerning elections. There is one group that is deeply suspicious of elections, arguing that participating in them is not only politically ineffectual but reinforces the legitimacy of the existing world-system.
 
The others think it's crucial to take part in the electoral process. But this group is divided in two. On the one hand, there are those who claim to be pragmatic. They want to work from within - within the major left-of-center party when there is a functioning multi-party system, or within the de facto single party when parliamentary alternance is not permitted.
 

And of course there are those who decry this policy of choosing the so-called lesser evil. They insist that there is no significant difference between the principal alternative parties and support voting for some party that is "genuinely" on the left.
 
We are all familiar with this debate and we have all heard the arguments over and over. However, it is clear, at least to me, that if there isn't some coming together of the three groups concerning electoral tactics, the world left does not have much of a chance of prevailing either in the short or the longer run.
 
I believe there is a mode of reconciliation. It is to make a distinction between short-term tactics and longer-term strategy. I very much agree with those who argue that obtaining state power is irrelevant to, and possibly endangers the possibility of, the longer-term transformation of the world-system. As a strategy of transformation, it has been tried many times and it has failed.
 
It does not follow from this that short-run electoral participation is a waste of time. The fact is that a very large part of the 99% are suffering acutely in the short-run. And it is this short-run suffering that is their principal concern. They are trying to survive, and to aid their families and friends to survive. If we think of governments not as potential agents of social transformation but as structures that can affect short-term suffering by their immediate policy decisions, then the world left is obligated to do what it can to get decisions from them that will minimize the pain.
 

Working to minimize the pain requires electoral participation. And what of the debate between the proponents of the lesser evil and the proponents of supporting genuinely left parties? This becomes a decision of local tactics, which vary enormously according to many factors: size of country, formal political structure, demographics of country, geopolitical location, political history. There is no standard answer, nor can there be. Nor is the answer of 2012 necessarily going to hold for 2014 or 2016. It is not, for me at least, a debate of principle but rather of an evolving tactical situation in each country.
 
The second basic debate that consumes the world left is that between what I call "developmentalism" and what may be called the priority of civilizational change. We can observe this debate in many parts of the world. One sees it in Latin America in the ongoing and quite angry debates between left governments and movements of indigenous peoples - for example, in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Venezuela. One sees it in North America and in Europe in debates between environmentalists/Greens and the trade-unions which give priority to retaining and expanding available employment.
 
On the one side the "developmentalist" option, whether put forward by left governments or by trade-unions is that without such economic growth, there is no way to rectify the economic imbalances of the present-day world, whether we are talking about the polarization within countries or the polarization between countries. This group accuses their opponents of supporting, at least objectively and possibly subjectively, the interests of right-wing forces.
 

The proponents of the anti-developmentalist option say that the concentration on the priority of economic growth is wrong on two grounds. It is a policy that simply continues the worst features of the capitalist system. And it is a policy that causes irreparable damage - ecological and social damage.
 
This division is even more passionate, if that is possible, than the one about electoral participation. The only way to resolve it is by compromises, on a case-by-case basis. To make this possible, both groups need to accept the good faith left credentials of the other. It will not be easy.
 
Can these divisions on the left be overcome in the next five to ten years? I am not sure. But if they are not, I do not believe the world left can win the battle of the next twenty to forty years over what kind of successor system we shall have as the capitalist system collapses definitively.

 //www.iwallerstein.com/

Dear Red Wine! Very astute observation on your part!

In my opinion, almost all of the quasi-communists in the West want to pontificate, philosophize, and sermon others on the goodness of communism. You never see any practical utility of these folks:

In my 30 odd years of living in America, I have never ever seen:

1) A communist doctor*,

2) A communist police officer,

3) A communist executive,

4) A communist nurse*,

5) A communist manager,

6) A communist priest....!?

I have, however, seen communist teachers and professors! Ah ha...communist teachers & profs because they want to keep pontificating and theorizing without any practical use!?

* The only communist doctor and nurse I have ever seen were the ones in the move Dr. Zhivago!

Yes Iran needs a lot more than a "Simple Republic"

We need a Republic that would be willing and able to guarantee and protect not only:

-Political Freedoms (Free Speech, Right to assemble, organize,...) but also

-Economic Freedoms (jobs and employment for all, eight hours a day work rule, unemployment insurance, ...)

Call this whatever you please. The lable you put on it, is of the least importance. What matters is the substance of it.

...

جنابِ روزبه خانِ گیلانی...

ما خودمان به جمهوری اعتقاد داریم،یعنی‌ همین،بی‌ آنکه هم قافیه با چپ و سوسیالیسم شود،این جمهوری یعنی‌ حکومتِ مردم بر مردم،بی‌ آنکه دیکتاتوری در آن شکل گیرد (کوبا و کره شمالی‌) و یا سوسیالیسم بیاید و مملکت را بد بخت کند و تا خرخره به زیرِ قرض رود (اسپانیا،یونان،پرتقال ایرلند جنوبی و ...) . آیا ملتِ ایران به بیش از یک جمهوریِ ساده نیاز دارد ؟

نمی‌دانیم چرا هر بار بحثِ سیاسی با حضرات می‌کنیم،بلافاصله ترمه قاجار را به وسط کشیده و نخ نخ کنند ! ... قاجار تمام شد و رفت،منطقی‌ صحبت کنید تا بتوانیم حریمِ یکدیگر را پاک و منزه نگاه داریم.

با سپاس از شما .

عوامفريبان ليبرال

If anyone is experiencing any prosperity and freedom in the West, it is due to:

Red Army's defeat of hitler, and the 20,000,000 citizens of USSR it took to deafeat the Nzai Army. If it wasn't for that, after 1945 you would have had Sawstika flags rising from every capital in Europe.

As far as welfare and good life in the West (when it actaully did have it, for the past two decades not much welfare seems to be around), again if it wasn't for the Leftists struggle to acheive:

-8 hours a day standard

-Unemployment insurance

-strong unions (there are still a few of them around) 

and many other social justice acheivements.

All of you owe a lot more to the Left, than you could imagine.

Alas that peasant mind set is too small to comprehend.

بی حیا کمونیست

دوستانی که فشارشون بالا رفته در نظر داشته باشند که بی حیا کمونیست موقعی معنی دارد که عکس آن هم وجود داشته باشد.

اشکال کار اینه که:

از فداکاری خونین کفنان

بهره اندوز شوند اهرمنان

گر کسی‌ مطلبی بر ضدِ این مشاهداتِ ما دارد

جناب شراب سرخ

دوستان کمونیست نه فقطا که هیچ مشکلی‌ با رژیم جمهوری ندارند، بلکه حدود هفتاد سال که دارن خودشون رو برای تحقق‌ این آرمان مردم ما، رژیم جمهوری در ایران، میکشند.

بله، دوستان کمونیست با رژیم سلطنتی خیلی‌ هم مخالفند، چه از نوع قجر، پهلوی، ولایت فقیه یا کیم ایل جونگ  کرهٔ شمالی‌.

...

جنابِ روزبه خان ...

سلام به شما،درست میفرمایید،ایرانی در کوبا هست (یا بوده است!) بیش از ۹۰% برایِ تحصیلِ راحت در پزشکی‌ و مهندسی‌ آنجا بودند (آن ۱۰% باقی‌ مانده از خیانت‌هایِ پی‌ در پی‌ فیدل به تنگ آمده و مملکت را ترک و به سمتِ آمریکا و کانادا رفتند)،ما از این قبیل ایرانی‌ها دیده ایم،منظورِ ما اشخاصی‌ هستند که واقعا به این علمِ سیاسی اعتقاد دارند،نه‌ اینکه فرصت طلبی کنند.

...

اون یاروِ گرامی‌ ...

سلام و شاد باش برایِ سالِ میلادیِ جدید .

---

این واقعا درد آورد است که دوستانِ کمونیستِ ما که این همه از سلطنت و از جمهوری انتقاد می‌کند و خواهانِ سوسیالیسم هستند،خود به چنین عقایدی احترام نگذاشته و از کشورهایی که ساختارِ کمونیسم دارند،دوری میکنند.

بودند ایرانیانی که در آلمانِ شرقی‌،لهستان،روسیه،چک،رومانی و یوگسلاویِ قدیم زندگی‌ می‌‌کردند اما محض ِ رضایِ خدا هیچ کدام را شاد از این جریان ندیدیم،اگر کسی‌ مطلبی بر ضدِ این مشاهداتِ ما دارد،لطفا درینجا بدان اشاره کند بلکه دیدِ جدیدی به این جریان دهد.

آیا ایرانیانِ توده‌ای ،راهِ کارگر،چریک خلق،کمونیست و مارکسیست و ایضاً سوسیالیست،افرادی خوشبخت در کشورهایِ کمونیست بوده اند یا خیر ؟

---

با سپاس و از جواب و توجهِ شما .

اقای فرخ نگهدار...

حتا نماینده و سخنگوی سازمان پر افتخار چریک‌های فدائی خلق نیست، چه برسه به تمام "مارکسیست  ها" و "کمونیست های" ایران. درست به همون جور که هر بازمونده خانواده پهلوی یآا قاجار سخنگوی این خانوده‌ها نبودن و نیستند. و هر توله سگ فرنگ نشین ساواکی یآا اطلاعاتی که ادعای تودهی بودن میکنه تودهی نیست. 

پ.س. اتفاقا در کوبا ایرانی‌ هست، خیلی‌ هم هست...  

Dear Red Wine! May I address your question!?

First of all happy 2012.

The reason almost all of the leftist/communist Iranians live in the Western societies is because of the following factors:

1) Freedom and democracy,

2) Economic opportunities and prosperity,

3) Happiness in life in general.

Stay healthy & thirsty for wine my friend!

چند نکته و کمی بيشتر در باب يک مغالطه تاريخی-ايدئولوژيک

What this "cheap shot" blog forgot to check, is all those Leftists that oppose this type of "Socialist Monarchy."

Fred, how about all those Left critics of "Communist Monarchy?" You were so busy preparing for your double dose of daily drivel BS, you just couldn't find one. Well, here just one of those critics of North Korea, from a Iranian Left perspective.

چند نکته و کمی بيشتر در باب يک مغالطه تاريخی-ايدئولوژيک
به بهانه مرگ کيم يونگ ايل

قباحت وابستگی کره شمالی به شوروی و چين همانقدر است که زائده امريکا بودن برای دولت مافيايی مکزيک. مساله بر سر جان های بسياری است که در هزارتوی پيچيده آئين ها و مناسک های شبه مذهبی و قدرت طلبی های ذی قيمت فرماندهان کلّ قوا، جان می بازند و حتّی گاه عددی هم نيستند که شماره شوند و به باقی اعداد اضافه شوند. بله، کره شمالی به چين وابسته است و چين نيز ناجی امريکا در بحران اقتصادی گريبانگير و خريدار اوراق قرضه ای معادل نيمی از بدهی های امريکا است و اين چرخه به هيچ وجه با تحليل های غير عقلانی حضرات نمی خواند، حال آن که عوامفريبان ليبرال آژير سرخ را به صدا در می آورند و اين قربانی کردن ها را به نام "کمونيسم" سند می زنند تا بر جنايات بی شمار امپرياليسم در دنيا سايه بيندازند.

//www.roshangari.net/as/sitedata/20111231094459/20111231094459.html

...

با سلام به جنابِ فرد خان . . .

برایِ ما همیشه این سوال مطرح بوده است که چرا هم میهنانِ عزیز و گرامی‌ ما که کمونیست و مارکسیست هستند،در کشورهایی چو کوبا،کره شمالی‌ زندگی‌ نمیکنند ؟

چرا این خانمها و آقایِ بزرگوار در کانادا،آمریکا،سوئد،هلند و آلمان زندگی‌ میکنند ؟

این را میپرسیم چون در سفراتی که به کوبا داشته ایم،همه جور کمونیستی از کشورهایِ مختلف دیده ایم اما ایرانی ندیدیم !

پناه بر خدا !

با سپاس .

Of propagandists and spins!

I do not represent communists, but what I find odd here with this blog, is that it's trying to utilize a statement by a political group -- which does not represent the entire communist body of Iranian politics -- to spin it into painting an entire poltical current who have legitimate grass-roots support base among Iranian working class (especially in labour movement) as "bi-haya!" Tabrik!!! 

جواب به سوالات

۱ - همانگونه که مستحضر می‌‌باشید کشور کره شمالی‌ از توابع همسایه شمالی‌ خود که همان کشور جدید الکاپیتالیست چین می‌‌باشد بوده و در نتیجه از حمایت بی‌ دریغ ایشان بهره مند. "اکثریتی"‌ها که خود را از نوادگان راستین مارکس و لنین می‌‌دانند و در نتیجه به روسیه شوروی سوسیا لیستی سابق وفادار بوده و هنوز روزی پنج بار در جهت مسکو اقامه نماز می‌‌نمایند به پاس قدر شناسی‌ از  مهمان نوازی انگلیسی‌ها از این دو بزرگوار در کشور انگلستان رحل اقامت انداخته و همچنان به خدمات خود در راه "ارباب" کمر همت می‌‌بندند.

۲ - نرخ ودکای صادره از روسیه به "پوند" ارزانتر است تا به "ون".

۳ - خیر چون فاتحه سازمان از وقتی‌ که فرخ خان آب "تیمز" را میل فرمودند خوانده شده بود.

به این یکی‌ هرچی‌ میخوای بگو.............

جیم جیم جان، اجازه بده که بنده سهمیه دوتا بلاگ امروزم رو جایزه بدم
به این نازنین..............که حداقل توی یکی‌ از اونا، این نازنین، توضیح
بده که اگه خودش جای "نگهدار" بود، کدام یکی‌ را برای زندگی‌ انتخاب
میکرد؟ دیکتاتوری سیاسی کره، یا دیکتاتوری اقتصادی دنیای بقول ایشون "خِرَد
ورز" را.............