May Day in Iran

by bs - SWP Wed May 03, 2006 19:23

This sort of provocation plays right into the hands of US Imperialism. The so called communists in the WPI are stooges of the US whether paid or not it is hard to tell. The WPI calls for the military overthrow of the Iranian Government so how else would they expect their demonstrations to be treated?

At this juncture all genuine socialists should be defending the Iranian people from US attack. Raising any other issues is a dangerous diversion.

by Tank Girl Wed May 03, 2006 19:46

I wonder. But its hard to parody the SWP given their attitude towards raising womens or gay rights in Islamic societies. Presuming for the moment that this is genuine then it shows a further degeneration on the part of the SWP. Now they are abandoning workers.

Workers join the list with women, gays, Kurds, Arabs. If you raise the rights of any these groups then you are an agent of Imprrialism. What kind of an Iran do the SWP want? For that matter what kind of an Ireland do the SWP want? One where May Day Demos are broken up by cops? Where women and gays are stoned to death? I'm just waiting for the SWP to announce a concordat with the catholic church.

by pat c Wed May 03, 2006 20:03

not sure its really the SWP. i'll just say victory the the iranian workers. down with imperialism and down with the mullahs.

by sean Wed May 03, 2006 20:07

really doubt that is a comment from an swp member. it should be removed

by Frances Thu May 04, 2006 17:46

Think this article from Socialist Worker about two months ago suggests everyone wrong about SWP's attitude to Iran. They are clearly against the regime, as well as against any attack on Iran. Isn't that the position of most of the left? And wasn't it the position about Saddam Hussein?

Iranian bus strike: for workers and against empire

by Naz Massoumi and Peyman Jafari

A courageous strike in Tehran has attracted the world’s attention

Trade unionists and activists across the world are calling for the immediate release of hundreds of bus workers being held in Iran’s capital Tehran.

Workers employed by the United Bus Company of Tehran (Sharekat-e Vahed) have been arrested and detained in Evin prison over the last week in an attempt to prevent a strike.

The workers are demanding a pay rise, collective bargaining, recognition of their union and the release of their union’s president.

On 22 December last year, 12 leading members of the Union of Workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company were arrested following their fight for better pay and working conditions.

Three days later 3,000 bus workers staged a walkout in protest. Police responded by making further arrests.

On 27 December all those detained were released except for Mansour Ossanlou, the union’s president. Calls for his release continued into the new year, with almost 5,000 union members gathering outside the Azadi stadium complex on 2 January in protest.

Six members of the union executive were summoned to court on 26 January, following the union’s call for an all-out strike on 28 January to demand the release of Ossanlou.

They were interrogated then sent to Evin for their refusal to cancel the strike. On the eve of the strike, the state arrested hundreds of workers as a preventive measure.

Nevertheless many gathered the following day. They were attacked, rounded up and also sent to Evin. Family members, students and activists supporting the strike were also arrested.

With reports last week of a hunger strike against detention, the workers are courageously struggling on. Family members and supporters staged a protest outside the Iranian parliament on 1 February calling for the immediate release of all those imprisoned.

In the last week, this struggle has paid off – around 200 workers have now been released.

But hundreds are still in custody and two other union executive members have now been detained. And those released have been refused reinstatement by the bus company.

The bus driver’s union was formed in 1968 and played an important role in the 1979 revolution. In the early 1980s it was disbanded by the state in order to crush its militancy. In 2004 it was reactivated, but is still not legally recognised.

The strike is a sign of the new mood developing inside the Iranian working class, defying not only the bosses, but also government officials.

Last year thousands of Iranian workers rallied in Tehran on 1 May, international workers’ day, chanting “stop privatisation, stop temporary contracts”.

The struggle of Iranian workers has the potential to gather broader forces around it in the fight for democracy and social justice. Students and women’s rights activists have been at the forefront of the pro-democracy movement that developed from the mid-1990s.

This has seen the formation of grassroots NGOs and other civil society organisations. Their struggles, linked to those of workers, have a far greater potential to bring radical change than that of pro-Western “democracies” in the region such as Egypt.

But that potential is being strangled by the US’s sabre rattling against Iran. Regime hardliners have capitalised on this US intimidation to rally support and to quell any opposition.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election campaign was centred on his promise to redistribute the country’s oil wealth to the poor.

Unable to deliver on this, he increasingly relies on an anti-Western and anti-Israeli rhetoric to strengthen his hand against other factions of the regime.

Campaigners in Iran, such as Nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi, have already stated their opposition to any foreign intervention or sanctions against the country.

But there is an imminent danger that their struggle is hijacked by pro-war forces and derailed.

Something like this happened in Ukraine just over a year ago. Popular anger against one corrupt president was used to put in place Viktor Yushchenko, also corrupt, but pro-US.

This is why activists in Iran are facing two challenges. On the one hand they are fighting to enhance the lives of ordinary people.

On the other hand they have to stand up against the military threats from US and Europe. And in this they urgently need the support of the global anti-war movement.

by Emily Thu May 04, 2006 18:05

"Campaigners in Iran, such as Nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi, have already stated their opposition to any foreign intervention or sanctions against the country.

But there is an imminent danger that their struggle is hijacked by pro-war forces and derailed."

So even if you oppose imperialism your opposition to the Iranian Regime might be hijacked by Imperialism. So the SWP will not call for any opposition to the regime. That is why the SWP oppose Iranian Communists who are fighting to overthrow the Iranian Regime.

Nowhere in any article by the SWP will you see a call for the downfall of the Mullahs. The SWP wont support a Revolution in Iran. Instead they attack the real communists and socialists who are fighting for workers, womens, Kurdish and gay rights. The SWP have called the Workers-communist Party of Iran Islamophobic!

by Topper Thu May 04, 2006 22:18

Not usually one to defend the SWP, but this is really a bit much. The article posted above paid tribute to the struggles of the bus workers and other anti-regime elements in Iran, while noting that the US would attempt to hijack their struggles for democracy for its own shabby motives, and pointing out that US sabre-rattling was undermining the genuine opposition and strengthening the mullahs.

What on earth is wrong with this, Emily? The SWP has often got it wrong over the question of fundamentalism in recent years. But you are beginning to sound like a broken record, obsessing about the SWP who, for all their faults, are hardly the greatest source of evil on God's earth.

Where are the "weasel words" you refer to? All I see is an expression of support for labour activists in Iran, and some comments noting that the US government is just as much the enemy of the Iranian people as the fundamentalist regime. There is nothing whatsoever in that article that a socialist should find fault with.

By all means, criticise the SWP when they deserve to be criticised (working with conservative Muslim groups in RESPECT, offering uncritical support to the Iraqi resistance without taking account of the fact that it involves criminal and terrorist elements). But this is too much.

by Emily Fri May 05, 2006 11:19

Mornin' Topper. I suppose I was poisoned by the SWP at too young an age. It made me cynical before my time. The reason I am making the above attack on the SWP is because they already accuse the WPI -Hekamet of being Islamophobic. This is because the WPI -Hekamet condemn the Islamists and raise the issues of womens and gay rights. The SWP have called the WPI -Hekamet Islamophobes here on Indymedia.

SWP members have also mocked Peter Tatchell because he got death threats from Islamists. A leading member of Respect, Adam Yosef, made homophobic comments about Tatchell and attempted to incite violence against him.

"Needs a good slap in the face to help him figure out what he stands for and whom he represents. Maybe he should attempt arresting Mugabe again, that would be worth seeing. Time he realised his craving for attention will not in any way help the gay community and so him and his queer campaign army should pack their bent bags and head back to Australia."
Adam Yosef, Jan 6th - Jan 12th 2006 DesiXpress

The SWP have not dissociated themselves from this nor have they demanded any disciplinary action against the Respect member who made the comments. I wonder if Ailbhe Smyth is happy with this and will she continue to work with the SWP in their PB4P front?

If the SWP are opposed to the Iranian Regime then all they have to do is say that it should be overthrown. They could call for support for the Kurds and Socialists who are fighting to overthrow the Mullahs. They could say that women and gays in Iran are entitled to human rights. I wont hold my breath.

by Topper Fri May 05, 2006 18:59

That's fair enough. I have no reason to love the SWP myself, and plenty of reason to dislike them, but criticism has to be fair. The point of criticising other people on the left is not to expose a particular organisation, it should be to challenge damaging ideas. The SWP have come out with plenty of those on the subject of Islam in the last few years, but we shouldn't lose our sense of proportion when criticising them - otherwise you'll end up like Nick Cohen or the AWL. Absolutely, they should be calling for the overthrow of the Iranian regime by its own people, and supporting the struggles of activists there, and if they equivocate over this they should be challenged.

There's an interesting debate between Alex Callinicos of the SWP and Gilbert Achcar of the LCR at this link: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/mot.php3?id_mot=37 . Judging by what he says, Callinicos is a little embarassed by the dafter things his party have come out with and would prefer to forget about them