Iran and the NCRI

Post Reply New Topic

ok, i've beenkeeping track of the upheaval taking place in Iran and wanted to know a) what if any opinion anyone had and b) if anyone was familiar with the National Council of Resistance of Iran (which appears to have been heavily slandered by the Ayatollahs intel service and the oh ever so reliable Human Rights Watch.

Well the MEK (the largest group within NCRI) was one of the groups involved in the Iranian revolution. The Iranian revolution wasn't primarily about being a theocracy, which was seized upon. MEK were/are Marxist they fell out of favour with the Iran government. They moved to Iraq, Saddam supported them. They have committed terrorist actions abroad. US still classifies them as a terrorist group, EU has taken them off the terror list, there is even been signs of cooperation behind the sense since before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The important thing is they are kind of a distraction; they are not really the people protesting on the street. Or at least not many of them MEK has been barely represented in Iran for a number of years. People on the street a mix of liberals and support a religious element in governance, but want it to take more of a back seat, even conservative people who don't like Ahmadinejads flashy style and aggression.

^^ true, idon't think they'll really get anywhere without a general strike though and that would push the outcome beyond what the conservatives or non-secularists want - unless my memory of history fails me I think it was ultimately the strike of oil industry workers which brought about the 79 revolution.

Also had a more in depth look at the MEK - to call them bloody handed mercenaries would probably be a compliment it seems.

This sort of comment really s**ts me. The MEK far from being Marxists are and have always been nationalistic Islamic radicals. The idea that Marxism and the proletariat can be subjugated by religion is an anathema, Revolutionary Shiaism is no more Marxist than the worst aspects of Stalinism. By mixing elements of Marxist thought with Shiaism, Dr. Ali Shariati did not enhance those elements he destroyed them. As Lenin wrote ''Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course ….. in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non class or above class ideology. Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology''

On Iran check out

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/iran-d22.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j07.shtml

You are talking about idealism here, not my prerogative. MEK had a schism early on and Marxism not religious statism prevailed. Bourgeois is a very vague concept/insult, kind of like how the Russian establishment calls any opposition fascistiod (why fascist won't do who knows), despite it being them that is colluding with oligarchs, and arresting those who get in their way.

Got any evidence to support this?