Roozbeh_Gilani

Agreed: +1 to Tabarzin (Stalin killed 30 million BTW)

by Tabarzin on Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:41 AM PDT

Comrade, as a professed Marxist-Leninist your dialectical analyses of historical forces leaves much to be desired. You wax sarcastic about Stalin and his murderous Soviet state but don't acknowledge that the foundation of Stalinist terror was with Lenin himself.

----

Stalin murdered 20 million kulaks

by Tabarzin on Tue Aug 23, 2011 09:35 AM PDT

And dislodged and relocated entire peoples. The Soviet state was the most brutal and violent totalitarian dictatorship the world has ever seen 

Roozbeh, I think the real true problem is not Iranians

Our actions and reactions are the end result of something else,

We are on the receiving end of the national interests of the most powerful nations and most dictatorially run mulitinationals.

Look at the future for Libya...

Once the rebels finally win the alliances primary goal was for them to start fighting each other and starting a civil war for who will be in charge after the Gaddafi Regime falls.

Yet you don't read this published anywhere.

The US unstated goal is to establish a coming civil war in Libya,
which it with Nato has financed. So far they have trained a number of
people/terrorists who will be killing one another in days to come.

The USA is not exactly after supporting good people who want
democracy and freedom and Macdonald’s like Reza Pahlavi, their goal is
the Africanization and obliteration of oil producing countries in 1979. 

They
don't care if Libya doesn't produce oil for 5 to 10 years, so long as it
is sent back to the dark ages.  That will help with weapons sales and reconstruction projects and ensure Libya will always be under ther control.

You may believe that the problem is the dictatorial regimes, but its not, its the powers that put them there, keep them there, until their economies have problems and then are ready to liquidate those societies.

Yes they use the muslim brotherhood, yes they use the mek, but the people of these societies are ultimately in no position to do anything, but die for the benefit of the west.

Reason Shah is unlikely to ever be in a position to return is because they ultimately don't want freedom, progress or development for oil rich countries.  They want full spectrum domination and regressive forces to take up arms with their support.

Roozbeh

VPK:

I already covered Soviet Union in detail.Of all the rest I'd only consider Pinochet to be a fascist dictator. But Pinochet situation was very similar to Shah. he was brought to Power through a US sponsored coup (I will right a blog about it, thanks for reminding...) and was highly dependent on US. Due to that very fact Pinichet  was finally replaced by a democratic governmen, SK, and Tiwan were military dictatorships, again very dependent on US. Both are democratic societies.

On south Africa, I agree with you, a racist apartheid regime, similar to Iran, albeit much more advanced technically and economically. SA was brought to it's knees through a process of crippling sanctions and guerilla attacks by military wing of ANC, led by Mandella. Remember, when all that was happening, mandella was in a SA jail. Now just imagine a similar situation in Iran :)

I'd say fascist is a very respectable term to use in describing the islamist regime. Dont you think so?

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Can I cordially invite...

...Our friend Tabarzin to write a blog on the USSR, whichever version?

No sarcasm intended.

Regarding dislodging dictatorships

I have not read all the posts I was away. But I did read this one:

I can not ignore the fact that not a single fascist dictatorship (Hitler, Mosoulini, Saddam, Gadaffi ) has been dislodged with at least a degree of foreign military intervention.

How about:

• Soviet Union
• Pinochet
• South Korea
• Taiwan
• South Africa
• For all the Shah hater I remind you he went without a foreign military intervention. But of course I do not consider him a fascist.

All the above (with the question of Shah) were some kind of dictatorship

Your point was blatant revisionism

And you had earlier articulated the same crude Leninist revisionist take on Soviet history on another blog, where I had also corrected you.

Good. Keeping religion completely out of politics is the way to go. I will personally hold you to it if and when the regime in Iran finally goes and certain blocs of interests you seem to be quite cushy with attempt to insert themselves into the political process at such time.

hazrat tabarzin////

You took one aspect of my response to another comment and decided to do a deep dive, and did a poor job of it per MG response.

To put your mind at ease, I for one am not envisioning a soviet style state for Iran after the regime is gone. But a secular democratic state where religioun is kept completely out of government.

Now the topic  of the blog was and still is : how to get there..... 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Your words, no?

Soviet leaders were actually very pragmatic ideologs who seeing the
bankrupcy of the system made the choice to give up without blood shed.
Actually once the baltic states of USSR (aquired by Stalin after WW2)
fell due to internal unrest Soviets leadership gave up.

Key difference: USSR a dictatorship it was, but not a fascist dictatorship. Islamist regime is a Fascist dictatorship

==

Now kindly point out personal attacks made by me and why what I said is irrelevent. You brought this up and I set you straight with history. Setting the historical record straight is not the kind of personal attacks you engage in with other posters.

Jenaab Aghaye" tabarzin", I asked to you once, very politely....

That you are welcome to contribute, but please stick to the topic and obey the site rules.

But you seem to be hell bent on diverting the blog to another completely unrelated topic, with clear intent on personal attack, rather than constructive debate focused on or related to the blog topic.

I assume you can read and process the written information cognetively, hence, I ask you once more.

Please stick to the topic of this blog which is written in plain english and has absolutely nothing to do with the random topics you are bringing up. In plain english, behave yourself, you were only banned  from this site a couple of weeks ago for similar personal attacks and disruptive behaviour.  Grow up, act your age.......

"Per.sonal business must yield to collective interest."

I've glansed at it

And wasn't impressed with what I saw. Then I read reviews about the book and points made by the reviewers said it all for me. Apologists for Lenin and Bolshevism are historical revisionists who live in la-la land. It is not name calling. It is calling a spade a spade. In Iran there are dime'o'dozen revisionists for Khomeini as well. Revisionists for Lenin are of the same deluded species as revisionists for Khomeini.

Happy afternoon icecream with the kids :)

It would be nice if you actually read the book

and cite specific refutations point by point. Have you actually read the book? Calling names and trading insults is not exactly enlightening!  Got to take the kids out for their afternoon ice cream, outta here for now, cheers

Farber

Has been criticized as a revisionist. He is to the history of the USSR (specifically its earliest years) what Holocaust Deniers are to the Holocaust. Look, even Trotsky's own History of the Russian Revolution acknowledges the excesses of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, while attempting to gratuitously justify his own role in it. Who is Farber to second guess Lenin's right-hand man and the War Minister himself: Leon Trotsky?

Aghay Tabrzin: History of early USSR is a lot more complicated

than you make it.

Lenin as well, was just a bit more complex than a one sentence insult. Let's just say Lenin was able to provide a self-criticism of his own own thoughts more than once. Hence the dynamic of his life and acheivements. Like any other human being he did have his limitations and mistakes. As far as democracy in the new Soviet state was concerned, Lenin was actually an advocate of democracy and people's partaking in decision making at all levels. See below:

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

This book provides an historical study of democratic life and
institutions and their decline in the early years of the Russian
Revolution. Rather than an event-by-event description of this period, it
is an attempt at interpretation and synthesis of the vast and
relatively recent specialist literature on a subject usually neglected
by those analysing Soviet politics for the public at large.

While
attempting to synthesize a wealth of historical materials, Farber also
assesses the extent to which the disappearance of Soviet democracy was
due to objective circumstances, for example, the impact of the Civil
War, and the extent to which it was the result of Bolshevik politics and
ideology. In this context, the author shows how there were, contrary to
later Stalinist and Cold War mythologies, considerable and significant
disputes within the pre-Stalinist Bolshevik camp on matters relevant to
the preservation of the substantial democratic elements of the October
upheaval.

As the processes of glasnost and perestroika in the
Soviet Union find a response from below in a movement for democracy that
may not be willing to respect the limits of Gorbachev's programme,
Farber's work acquires a timely quality for those who, inside or outside
the Soviet Union, are searching for a usable past in which to root the
new Soviet Spring.

In presenting data known only to specialists
to a larger public ion an original, novel and accessible interpretative
framework, Farber adds an important new dimension to our thinking about
the Russian Revolution and the origins of the Soviet state.

//www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745607917

Flawed dialetics

Comrade, as a professed Marxist-Leninist your dialectical analyses of historical forces leaves much to be desired. You wax sarcastic about Stalin and his murderous Soviet state but don't acknowledge that the foundation of Stalinist terror was with Lenin himself. Now either you are frozen in the 1930s or you are not really a Marxist at all as you claim to be because in the West, at least, all the diehard Leninists changed their minds after the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 or died out. In the West, at least, Leninists are looked at by most contemporary Marxists as freaks!

Now regarding your cynical comment about Stalin's monastic training in Georgia as being responsible for his murderous Soviet regime, can you explain why within weeks after the Bolshevik coup de'tat against the White Russian government of Alexander Kerensky, Lenin established the secret police known as the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky in December which unleashed a reign of "red terror" all over Russia? Can you explain why Lenin violently put down the revolt of the sailors at Kronstadt shortly after that? What was his justification for establishing the first Gulags in the USSR? What was his justification for violently persecuting the Anarchists, the Social Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks and every other political group and dissdent voice? What were Lenin's justification for the genocidal policies of the Red Army in rural Russia during the Civil War with the White Russians? How about the execution of the Tsar, the Tsarina and their entire family in Ekaterinburg, ad nauseum.

Lenin was a murderous thug and a political opportunist as Plekhanov and a whole host of individuals once explicitly observed about him. The seed that grew into the most murderous regime history has ever witnessed was planted by his hands. He was a secular Communist version of what Khomeini was in religious garb, and Khomeini studied well from the playbook of Lenin with his own reign of terror on Iran. That is the relevence here when you sit with a straight face and spout revisionist nonesense about the USSR thinking only you know what you're talking about.

Tabarzin: Thanks for the contribution

Although completely unrelated to the topic of blog.

But i do agree with you, Stalin's policies caused many death in USSR. Not sure about the numbers or if he killed the 20million with his own AK47. You know , some blame Stalin's murderous behaviour towards the Soviet citizens on his religious training in a monestary, where he was being trained to become a "man of God"....

Now  back to the blog topic... 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

amirparviz jaan, i agree on need for unity & reconciliation...

The starting point would be to let go of this constant debate about Mossadegh vs Shah and let the history be their judge.  I actually think that a lot of these debates are initiated by regime supporters pretending to be either Mossadegh or Shah supporter.

What do you think??? 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Stalin murdered 20 million kulaks

And dislodged and relocated entire peoples. The Soviet state was the most brutal and violent totalitarian dictatorship the world has ever seen,

Esfand: USSR & IRI; not apple with apple comparison

 Soviet leaders were actually very pragmatic ideologs who seeing the bankrupcy of the system made the choice to give up without blood shed. Actually once the baltic states of USSR (aquired by Stalin after WW2) fell due to internal unrest Soviets leadership gave up.

Key difference: USSR a dictatorship it was, but not a fascist dictatorship. Islamist regime is a Fascist dictatorship

Iran under the islamist leadership is under much worse political and economic situation than USSR before it's collapse. In fact evidence is suggesting that IRI is very worried to end up like USSR. hence the constant internal purges of anyone considered to be moving to a "reformist position ". IRI will not go peacefully...

On military intervrention, I agree with you and oppose that. I only presented my fact based observations

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

We need to start based on Unity backed up by the truth.

One Plan is to create lies around Mossadeghs removal to weaken iranians and cause division and make them more controllable, this has been shamelessly done for years now.

In order to do this they are actively using techniques from Joseph
Goebels propaganda approaches, take the 1953 mossadegh history as
portrayed/retold to many iranians ...

To be Factually Correct, it was Not a Coup in 1953, According to the
accepted law of the land, when parliament is dissolved the shah legally
has the right to replace prime minister and pick his own.  Therefore by
definition it was not a coup. Yet most iranians have at least heard
there was a coup 999 times so far in their lives.  Big Lie/Much
repetition.

The Myth that a Coup Occurred is in harmony
with Joseph Goebbels teachings, the lie needs to be Big and time and
again it must be repeated again and again for it to get traction.

The lies are intended to lead to division not unity for iranians, by
calling mossadeghs 1953 removal a coup, this moves away from fact
towards dishonorable fiction.  The Shah did request US assistance,
mainly political.  It was his own forces that removed mossadegh and he
personally ordered his officers to see to it that all money given by cia
to help organize the removal of mossadegh were not used but returned to
the cia. 

So the goal is to ensure a
lack of hambastegi, by giving people a weak glue to unite them (lies) instead of a strong glue the truth. 

Unity behind lies will not serve Iranians but cause division, Unity
behind the truth is the honorable way to proceed because by definition
it gives rise to the least future conflict and retains peoples unity.

Was Soviet Union dislodged by military intervention?

Roozbeh you see somehow the military machine has put it in everybody's psyche that war is necessary.  Like corporations advertising and making you buy certain brands without you even knowing it!  

In Iran I don't really think there is a need for foreign military intervention.  Islamic Republic is doing a good job itself taking the country to economic ruins.  There will come a time that even those who are in charge of silencing the opposition will join the opposition.  How many have joined the opposition who were against it just a few years ago?  Why mess with something that is working?  If it's not broken leave it alone!  i.e. use military force and lose the downward momentum this regime has achieve all by itself! 

Everything is sacred

.....

Thanks for comments friends.

 Soosan khanoom: My numbers could be wrong. The one million I quoted is a very generous estimate of the number of the people who'd be ready and willing to pick up an AK47 and fight an armed assault on the regime, by the people. The core support of regime, the poor urban and rural devout muslims are abandoning the regime due to mostly economical issues. I disagree with you, the peaceful way to change the regime has unfortunately failed. The Green movement is suppresed. That was the point of my blog.

COP: Each time I visit Iran, I feel refreshed by how people, specially young, are different from the somehow sterile iranian community I am myself a part of in this region of USA. lets not even talk about "iranian.com community", which i am now fully convinced is infiltrated by etelati cyber brothers on a massive sacle, mostly following 80-20 rule (80% of time attack regime to gain credibility amongst other users, use the other 20% to attack any opposition group, individual, idea with real threat to islamist regim)........ Back to Iran zand leadership, all the obvious potential leaders have been either killed or demonisedby the regime. But an ever growing social and economic hardship, industrial unrest amongst the poor, unemployed will in time create a situation where one of many potential leaders would take charge. an uncompromising, leader with revolutionary outlook Most revolutionary leaders are actually relatively unknown figures, with relatively small yet highly dedicated and disciplined following,  who posses the key qualities of being able to take charge of a revolutionary situation through their sheer self confidence, leadership qualities, determination and cunning ability of taking advantage of an opportunity. Our own Khomeini and Mr Lenin are both good examples of such leaders.. How do we move forward: we need to be clear about objectives and not shy away from making difficult decisions, the ones which would go against our general, let's say, ideology...

VPK: Wishful thinking!. The "existing constitution" is inherently created by people who believed in VF, with in built mechanism to exclude secular forces and democratic progress. go read it. BTW, if you dont mind me saying, try not to think about MKO for one hour. You might start feeling a lot more better, believe me :)

Esfand: you are making a very important point which I delibrately left out in my blog: the involvement of NATO. Despite my inherent objection to foreign forces intervening in my countries affairs, I can not ignore the fact that not a single fascist dictatorship (Hitler, Mosoulini, Saddam, Gadaffi ) has been dislodged with at least a degree of foreign military intervention. In fact Germany was virtually destroyed. The only brief period of democracy in our country was immediately after allied invasion of Iran during WW2. I think and I'd like to align the foreign policy of USA in an aggressive manner towards the interests of Iran and Iranians. The chalenge is how to do it, given the existing lobies of groups from MKO to NIAC all claiming to represent "iranians", but really with their own agendas. I'd like to hear from you and other posters, even if they support NIAC or MKO, or who knows, there might be one supporting them both, there is always one!

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Comparing apples and oranges.

Libya vs Iran = NATO involvement vs no NATO involvement! 

Syria vs Iran = 12% Alawitte religious minority ruling party vs no such divide in Iran.

I wrote more here >>>

Everything is sacred

Yes, less emphasis on people

and more on ideas is great.

Unfortunately, for societies like Iran, there needs to be a leader, someone to follow - to emulate!

Why can't we hope to have another Reza shah? What's wrong with someone like Ataturk, etc., etc.? I am not sure who such leader is today, but he (or she) is out there.... Imagine, a female Iranian  leader...that'll be the day.

I say less emphasis on RELIGION and more on COUNTRY is what we need.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Regarding the leader

We are better off not having a single leader. Have ideas instead of leaders. Our leader should be "freedom" and those who want it. Definitely not Rajavi; or Mousavi. 

The less emphasis on people and more on ideas the better. We should be putting nationalism up; and differences down. Agree that there will be frequent changes in leadership and no more canonization of saints. 

Actually

I think there is a great deal of room for progress:

• The current constitution may be revised to remove the VF and clerical branch. Leave the regular parliament in place and you are done!
• For start have a bunch of different parties. Including one run by Karroubi; one run by Ebadi; one by Reza Pahlavi and not the least one run by me! 
• Most Iranians are sick of dictatorship. Those who support VF may have a symbolic one in Quom. I say make a Vatican where "VF" may tend to Shia issues while the parliament governs.
• Most Iranians are pretty tolerant. We have also got a lot of experience with secular democracies in the West. And with religious dictatorship at home. So we know which one is better.
• Many debates like Shah and Mossadegh have no bearing on now. Let the old geezers debate who was better. Who cares? They may sip their tea and argue for the rest of time!
• The biggest trouble makers are the MKO. There is universal agreement among Iranians that MKO has to go. But they have money and willingness to create mayhem.

roozbeh

How do we march on? Who's the leader? Is there a leader? Does anybody agree on anything among the so called opposition? Exactly, who is (are) the opposition and does it (do they) have a clear goal?

Look at the I.com community here. If this is a representation of the cross section of Iran and our psyche, then we are royally screwed if we ever hope to have enough unity to work for the betterment of Iran, not just ourselves.  Centuries of fracture among the populous have created an atmosphere where unity and the "all for one, one for all" notion is meaningless in Iran. For us, the idea of representative government, what we really need to fix Iran, is an alien concept.  (my thoughts, of course) 

Of course, having said all this, old man khomeini thundered onto the stage from being a nobody to Imam status in a few short weeks. I suppose, one can expect anything to happen in Iran......with little advance notice!

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Dear Rozbeh

The bad news is , whether you like it or not, there are still many people in Iran supporting VF. They are the people of Iran too.  And their numbers are much more than Gadhafi and Assad's supporters combined.  I am not sure where do you get that 70 millions. I wish it was true so things would work out perfectly.

We need to win the hearts and minds of people and non-violence movements are the only way.  Otherwise, the opponents and their imaginary friend NATO are going to stay in it for a long time and even if they win the entire thing , it is not going to be permanent. If they set up a true democracy and allow for true election to take place, there are still many who  WILL favor the hard liners and if they block those votes, then what type of democracy it's going to be? Each country has its own political spectrum and can not be compared to the other...

just my two cents