The Iranian Revolution that Wasn't for working Iranians:

[Political Heretic]

Note: I have the permission of the author, Peter Symonds, to post the article in its entirety.


For a socialist, not a “color” revolution in Iran
22 June 2009

The protests in Tehran over the weekend have served to highlight the limited social base of the political opponents of the dominant faction of the Iranian clerical regime. The opposition movement has not only failed to drawn in broader layers of working people, but has markedly weakened.

From the outset, the color-coded campaign to replace incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Mir Hossein Mousavi has been a highly orchestrated political operation backed by the US and managed by dissident elements of the ruling elite—in particular, former president and billionaire businessman Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani—for their own ends.

There is nothing progressive in their aims. Insofar as they have differences with their erstwhile associates, Mousavi and his supporters are seeking to shift policies further to the right through a more rapid accommodation with the US and a drastic acceleration of the program of market reform. They make no appeal to working people, for whom such a program can only mean economic devastation, and base themselves on sections of the bourgeoisie and more privileged and frankly selfish layers of the urban middle classes.

Having lost the election, Mousavi has flatly rejected anything less than the annulment of the results and a re-run. The opposition camp has provided no evidence that the poll was rigged and is seeking to leverage its international support in the media and among Western governments into what is tantamount to a palace coup. They may even be seeking a confrontation with the state apparatus that would then be used as another lever in the internecine struggle against their factional opponents.

Undoubtedly, many students, young people and others support Mousavi in the naïve belief that he will bring about democratic reform. They ignore the fact, however, that Mousavi is a longstanding member of the regime who also has blood on his hands. The twentieth century is littered with examples, not least of all in Iran, of movements that have been subordinated to one or other “progressive” faction of the capitalist class and betrayed. The whole history of Iran demonstrates the organic incapacity of any section of the bourgeoisie to establish basic democratic rights, let alone provide working people with an adequate standard of living.

The rise of the Islamist movement in Iran was a direct product of decades of betrayal by the Stalinist Tudeh Party, which failed to mount any opposition to the Shah and promoted illusions in the character of various factions of the US-backed regime. In doing so, the Tudeh Party ceded influence in the growing movement against the Shah to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers, and paved the way for its own destruction. The political upheavals that led to the ousting of the Shah in 1979 swept over the heads of the Stalinists. The new clerical regime quickly repressed the Tudeh Party and other left-wing organisations. As prime minister throughout most of the 1980s, Mousavi was directly responsible for killing thousands of leftists and imprisoning many more.

The political lessons have to be drawn. The establishment of genuine democratic rights is impossible outside the fight for socialism against all factions of the bourgeoisie. The working class is the only social force capable of leading such a revolutionary struggle for the refashioning of society as a whole to meet the needs of the vast majority, rather than the profits of the wealthy few. Any attempt to sidestep the difficult task of constructing the necessary revolutionary leadership in the working class leads to dangerous adventurism and political disaster.

It is worth recalling, 20 years on, the outcome of the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the absence of a socialist alternative rooted in the lessons of the struggle of the international Trotskyist movement against Stalinism, the most grasping elements of the bureaucratic elites, backed by the US and Western powers, were able to politically prevail. Their promises about democratic rights and the great prospects of the capitalist market rapidly evaporated as corrupt new bourgeois regimes sought to integrate their economies into global capitalism as quickly as possible, resulting in an unprecedented regression in the living standards of ordinary people.

The formal dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 ushered in a series of “color revolutions” that bore no relationship to any real popular movement for democratic rights. The “Bulldozer Revolution” of 2000 that toppled the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was the forerunner to the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia in 2003 that brought Mikhail Saakashvili to power, the “Orange Revolution” in the Ukraine in 2004 and the pink and yellow “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan in 2005.

The characteristics of all these “revolutions” were similar. Dissident pro-Western sections of the ruling elites mounted a carefully-managed and well-financed campaign to topple their rivals that drew in frustrated sections of the middle classes and youth. Various non-government organisations, in some cases with direct connections to American think tanks and foundations, prepared the ground, establishing connections with student groups, trade unions, the local media and other groups and laying out the marketing plan. In every case, the opposition parties lost an election, which then became the pretext for a frenzied bid for power on the basis of unsubstantiated ballot rigging—all with the backing of the international media.

The outcome has been pro-US regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union that are no more democratic than their predecessors. The guiding principle of these “revolutions” has not been the needs and aspirations of working people, but the aims of US imperialism to extend its domination, particularly in the former Soviet republics in the energy-rich Caucuses and Central Asia. Reestablishing a dominant influence in Iran, which lies at the intersection of these regions with the Middle East, has been a longstanding American ambition.

The Obama administration’s objectives are no less predatory than those of its predecessors. In fact, a major factor in significant sections of the American political establishment throwing their weight behind Obama’s election campaign was that the Bush administration’s reckless and criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan generated broad anti-US sentiment around the globe, undermining Washington’s diplomatic and political leverage. Over the past three years, more color revolutions failed—for instance, in Azerbaijan and Belarus—than were successful. A new face was needed to mask reactionary aims.

Those who claim that the current “Green Revolution” in Iran is any different are either deluding themselves or have ulterior motives. The central political task is the fight for an independent political movement for a workers’ and farmers’ government and a socialist Iran as part of a United Socialist States of the Middle East and internationally. That requires the construction of a revolutionary party of the working class armed with a scientific socialist program based on all the strategic experiences of the twentieth century.

Peter Symonds
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pers-j22.shtml


I now anxiously await the chorus of people who will not address any of the points or historical analysis made, and instead simply ridicule the source. :hi:

I'm proud to post from this source - its one of the few places that actually tells the truth about what's going on.

[JI7]

1. there are people in the regime who wanted to get reforms but were not able to

because of the hardliners. Khatami was being held back from doing what he wanted to.

but looks like this time the reformists are sticking together in standing up against the hardliners.

[malaise]

2. Excellent article

Quite frankly I'm amused at the excitement.

[cali]

3. wsw; the worldnutdaily of the left. lots of claims in this pathetic screed

and not a scrap of evidence. typical wsw shit. all dogma, no substance. Particularly pathetic now that Iran state media is reporting that in 50 cities, the vote totals were greater than the number of registered voters. So the moronic claim that there's no evidence or proof of chicanery, is null and void.

You have to be a real idiot to feed at the trough of the wsw. they're even more full of shite than the MSM. And that's saying something.

[Political Heretic]

20. If all 3 million votes in of the 50 counties were discarded, it still wouldn't change the election

I'm neither saying the election was fraudulent or fair - but no evidence has been presented of its fraudulency. Even Obama doesn't call it fraudulent, saying that we didn't have observers on the ground so we can't know what happened.

Basically Cali, if you oppose it then I know its great. Because you stand, in virtually every way, polar opposite to what I do.

So if I've managed to get you spam posting all over a thread in outrage - I'm probably doing something right.

[cali]

24. uh, it's evidence of vote tampering. duh.

And Obama is smart enough to not set up the U.S. or his admin as a convenient target.

I must say, that your comment about how if I oppose something, you know it's great, is most amusing and sums you up perfectly- reactionary and without any thought let alone critical thinking skills. I'm adamently opposed to the DP. That means you're a rah rah DP supporter. See how stupid that is?

[DLnyc]

38. If by "no evidence" you mean "abundant evidence":

o Results announced immediately after voting closed, before there was time to count the (hand-counted) ballots.
o Results directly opposite to polls before the election
o Percentages not varying from precinct to precinct
o Votes totaling more than 100% of voters in 50 different cities.

[Kurska]

46. The point is if there was MAJOR OBVIOUS voter fraud in 50 cities.

So major that they reported more votes then there were voters, How is it not logical to assume that other cities might be equally as tainted? All this paired up with weird Illogical results like the candidates losing their home towns and the incumbent winning in areas that were traditionally very unfriendly to him casts real doubt not on just those 3 million ballots, but the entire election.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

77. An embarrassing but predictable Pavlovian reaction to "wsws"

Are you incapable of arguing any of the assertions made in the article?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. To me, this comes off as very patronizing to the Iranian protesters.

It seems to be saying that they just don't know what's good for them.

[tekisui]

45. When people stand in front of bullets and risk their lives to have

a peaceful march, I will default to their judgment. I is also easy to hold a position against a theocracy. I have no illusions about Mousavi, he is clearly a politician. But, this isn't about him. It may have started with supporters of his, but it is not about him.

[NashVegas]

68. They Deserve Leaders Who Will Put THEIR Interests First

Not the corporate capitalists and multi-nationalists.

[Zodiak]

75. No, it is not about him

I have the privilege of hearing about this event from a person who is from Iran and left the country less than a year ago. He says that the opposition is about stolen elections, lack of responsiveness from the government, and the power of the supreme leader (who wants what little fetters that are on him to be lifted).

This is one of the main reasons I reject the OP's premise. I am not hearing about these events from a Westerner's point of view....the West likes to cage revolutions in their own experiences with it, but this is a different culture.

I do not see any evidence that the US is directly involved in this action. I would not be surprised if there are not US-backed propaganda campaigns to increase Western influence there, but I see no DIRECT support.

Those other colored revolutions are not the same as this one, but I do agree that colored revolutions in the past have always opened up the door to corporatism. However, I am not convinced that it is a matter of design as much as opportunism. A newly "free" nation is very inexperienced with free markets, and it is easy for the multinational snake oil salesman to come into River City, rob them blind, and leave the country with destitution as their first "free market" experience.

Persians are not so easy to fool, I believe.

[Regret My New Name]

47. Well it's true.Western communist revolutionaries know what's best for those silly little Iranians.

Duuuuh. ;)

[NashVegas]

69. Yep. Sex Slavery, For Instance

It's all the rage in Kosovo.

[sufrommich]

5. Another arm chair revolutionary declares the Iranian

revolution not revolutionary enough.
It's very disconcerting to log on to a site which claims to be for liberal Democrats and see this crap repeated over and over again. How about we let the Iranians decide whether or not their revolution is legit?
I'm ashamed of DU right now.

[cali]

7. there's no more a dogmatic source than the idiot wsw.

they aren't remotely interested in facts- merely in pushing there agenda. And they consistently print lie after lie after lie.

Love their spirited defense of theocratic oppression.

[sufrommich]

11. "Love their spirited defense of theocratic oppression."

It's a truly sickening thing to read here.

[cali]

13. it's an unsurprising thing to read here. the article is a de facto defense

of Ahmadinejad, the Supreme Council and theocratic oppression. And the same braying DUers who rail on about the religious right here, are the staunch defenders of this shit. Pathetic and stupid. To some class A morons, the U.S. is behind every evil on the face of the planet.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. "How about we let the Iranians decide whether or not their revolution is legit"

Standing. Ovation.

[cali]

6. Mr.Symonds is on the ground in Iran, right?

[conscious evolution]

8. Good article

It amazes me that so many here on DU are clueless when it comes to spotting massive propaganda campaigns.Even more so when the campaigns keep using the same playbook time and time again.

[cali]

10. the article provides exactly no evidence

for its claim, and one central claim is patently false. Iranian state media is reporting that in 50 cites, vote totals are greater than the number of eligible voters. It amazes me that some people simply slurp up blatant dogma and propaganda- and that's the bulk of what's printed in the lame wsw. It's no better than the MSM.

I don't know exactly what's going on in Iran, and obviously the author of this slop, knows even less than I do.

[leftstreet]

34. Oddly enough, the people quick to spot it are the ones who support it

Interesting

[EFerrari]

59. The last time I said that, I was called a heartless traitor. lol

[woo me with science]

12. Oh, please.

:puke:

[RandomThoughts]

14. I think the article is propaganda to hurt the USA, and hurt Iran

The economic or socialism of Iran is not important to most people, they worry about people suffering. How Iran runs is none of our business, it is for the Iran people to decide.

The point is the results were falsified, and citizens are being treated with violence.

I would guess articles like that are posted by Chavez/Iran coalition or their supporters to spread false info.

[cali]

16. Do you mean Iran?

And no, I doubt it was published by some "Chavez/Iran coalition. This is just standard mindless boilerplate from wsw. predictable as the sun rising in the east. It's filled with speculation, short on facts and lacking any intelligence whatsoever. wsw is the left equivalent of worldnutdaily. it has an agenda and it shoves everything into that template.

[RandomThoughts]

18. yea, Iran, (a bit tired.)

the news paper is world socialist, you just know they are very Chavez style government friendly.

my point is not that world socialist put it out, it is that it gets posted as if it has some value.

When the Fox makes things up I mention it, so I mention it here to.

The support Iran gets from America is because people should not be beaten up or arrested when asking to vote.

The support does not come from a capitalist conspiracy, its a bunch of average people that know it is wrong.

[BolivarianHero]

15. WSWS is very ultra-leftist

They consider Chavez reactionary, though their Ortega-bashing is right on the money. Does the fact that every Marxist party in Iran supports the movement even matter to these people?

[cali]

17. it's the endless rank stupidity that they publish that bothers me

along with endless dishonesty.

[Political Heretic]

21. Ultra-leftist is the privileged establishments term for whatever they don't sanction.

It's interesting though that we (the United States) have a clear and well-documented history of pushing, orchestrating and supporting this very sort of thing over and over and over again - a history that now hardly anyone even tries to dispute because there's just too much admission out there - but all of thus sudden the idea that a pro-western market power base attempts to latch on to the rhetoric of "democracy" and stir citizens up enough to get into power is "crazy."

It's pretty much the norm. If something else happened in Iran, now THAT would be news of historic proportions.

[cali]

25. I'm opposed to the ultra dogmatists and the ultra stupidists.

groups you enthusiastically support and contribute to.

[Political Heretic]

26. Ok. We're done.

Since all you seem to be able to generate is petty name calling and one liners, I done engaging.

Be the only person on my ignore list, I guess.

[cali]

27. glad to be on your ignore list

you can dish it out, but you sure can't deal with it when it's handed bact to you.

[Odin2005]

37. Looks like you just proved his point.

Throwing a temper tantrum because your beliefs are being criticized.

[Political Heretic]

49. Yes, that's my M.O.

Think if you look around you'll see me engaging quiet thoroughly with plenty of people who disagree. In this instance, watching this person responding to me is an exercise in mostly deleted posts. That's indicative of someone I should simply not engage (which is far from "throwing a temper tantrum" - that would have included a lot of foul language on my part) rather than provoke or allow to provoke me.

Pretty simple, really.

[cali]

19. the author provides no evidence for his claims. none, zero, nada

zilch. not about Iran or any place else. And he makes claims that are simply not true- as I've pointed out in other posts in this thread.

I anxiously await your brilliant defense of this tripe.

[Political Heretic]

22. The last person on this whole earth that I feel the need to defend myself to is you.

Something about... casting pearls before swine I read once.

[cali]

23. bwahahahaha. hypocritical much? lame much?

cliche ridden much? convenient and transparent little excuses is all you ever offer. So why does the jackass author claim that there's no evidence of election tampering when Iran itself has admitted that there is? Why does a protest have to be led by "workers" to be valid? Who the fuck are YOU or the asshole author of the piece you're slobbering over to dictate that? How western imperialist of you. how dictatorial of you. It's not your country or your life on the line, dear.

[jojou]

28. Re: The Iranian Revolution that Wasn't for working Iranians

Certainly no need for ridicule, however Peter Symonds assessment of an "unprecedented regression in the living standards of ordinary people" in the former Soviet bloc countries of eastern Europe is just a bit silly. Has he visited Poland or the Czech Republic recently to see how they are doing? The 'ordinary people' would certainly beg to differ.

[Political Heretic]

30. It's a pretty checkered assessment of those eastern block countries.

It's certainly a mixed bag - some are fairing better than others.

[Odin2005]

29. Orthodox Marxist-Leninist ideological pablum

Ideologues trying to force what's going on into their narrow worldview. As if class distinctions that made sense in the 19th century West and the West's cultural context have any relevance here. :eyes:

[cali]

31. yep.

the idiots can only see through such a narrow perspective that they might as well be blind.

[PVnRT]

33. Vis a vis Foucault. QED. (n/t)

[blindpig]

41. Hardly narrow.

If you can't see the class warfare inflicted on the majority then you're probably on the side of the minority. The denial of the issue of class is the first clue.

[Odin2005]

42. Just because I reject Marxism doesn't mean I think there is no class conflict going on.

I just have no need of shoving the sociological dynamics of class conflict in a particular society into simplistic Marxist molds. Things are far more complex than a simple 2-way class conflict, especially in non-Western countries. Also, the Marxist notion of history as a progression from primitive subsistence to slavery to feudalism to capitalism to communism is simplistic nonsense that dismisses culture as merely an epiphenomenon of economics of technology.

[blindpig]

43. Of course there are other classes, or subclasses.

But it is the workers who produce and the bourgeoisie who appropriate who are the main players. All are eventually on one side of that divide or the other.

Everything derives from production, without it we're dead, from starvation or exposure.

[cali]

44. who are the workers?

are they only those who actually do physical labor?

[Political Heretic]

50. I question whether you even know what you're rejecting

Because you keep referring to "marxism" without a recognition of the spectrum of views and interpretations that would fall within the range of "marxist" thought.

[Odin2005]

54. I know that there is a spectrum of views, doesn't matter, because I reject Dialetical Materialism.

I reject the notion that everything in a society, including culture, can be reduced to being the result of the material conditions of the society. Marx's conception of history is a Eurocentric Epic Fail as well.

If you want to understand my thinking read up on the late American historian Carol Quigley.

[Political Heretic]

66. Not all streams from marxism embrace dialetical materialism.

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

73. I thought DM was the core of Marxist ideology.

Part of Marx's "turning Hegel on his head" and all that? :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

76. So to be fair, this depends on what one considers to be part of the stream or what...

..one considers to be a "break" from Marxist ideas.

So there are lots of streams of sociological theory that have their roots in marxism, particularly embracing conflict theory. But as times have advanced so have articulations of the ideas. A postmodern critical theory, for example would have a very different idea about theoretical foundations than a orthodox marxist. But depending on who you ask, some would lump various critical theory into a broad category of either marxist influenced or just marxist.

I realize wikipedia is a cheap, lazy source. But well, I'm cheap and lazy, and for the purposes of this discussion, this works as a quick example:

Marxist criticisms of dialectical materialism

Dialectical materialism has been criticized by many Marxist theorists, including Marxist philosophers Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci, who proposed a Marxist "philosophy of praxis" instead. Other thinkers in Marxist philosophy have had recourse to the original texts of Marx and Engels and have created other Marxist philosophical projects and concepts which present alternatives to dialectical materialism. As early as 1937, Mao Zedong proposed another interpretation in his essay On Contradiction, in which he rejected the "laws of dialectics" and insisted on the complexity of the contradiction. Mao's text inspired Althusser's work on the contradiction, which was a driving theme in his well-known essay For Marx (1965). Althusser attempted to nuance the Marxist concept of "contradiction" by borrowing the concept of "overdetermination" from psychoanalysis. He criticized the alleged teleological reading of Marx as a return to Hegel's idealism. Althusser developed the concept of "random materialism" (matérialisme aléatoire) in contrast to dialectical materialism, a move which grew out of Althusser's project of 'anti-humanism,' or the "philosophy of the subject." In an attempt to approach the problem in a new way, Italian philosopher Ludovico Geymonat constructed a historical epistemology from dialectical materialism. Althusser soon backed the epistemological method centred on the rejection of the dichotomy between subject and object, which makes Marx's work incompatible with its antecedents.

Incidentally many who would at least label themselves as "marxists" also made some of the criticisms you (I think rightfully) make - such as the criticism of eurocentrism (multicultural critiques) or a patriarchal bias (feminist critical theory)

You and I could at least agree that orthodox marx, without any further work, is insufficient and flawed. I would be with you on that.

[Odin2005]

80. My thinking is more derived from the functionalist sociological tradition.

This site gives a good summary of the ideas of Carol Quigley, the historian I mentioned:

http://www.draftymanor.com/bart/h_quigle.htm

I'll point out that the guy who runs that website is a bit of a libertarian so be aware that his take on Quigley is biased in that direction, but it is otherwise a good summary.

[JackRiddler]

78. redbaiting

Are you suggesting the working people and poor people in Iran do not have their own interests, for example in not having a neoliberal "free market" program imposed?

[Zynx]

32. I would never pretend that Mousavi is some savior who will make Iran some

shining beacon of prosperity and freedom. I simply think he is better than the alternative. Any progressive who supports Ahmadinejad in any way needs to re-examine their beliefs.

[AntiFascist]

35. The Shah had all of the support of anti-communist elements of British and American intelligence...

they even went so far as to install former Nazis into power, and had the blessing of some clerics. This only reinforced the "anti-Zionist" message adopted by the Islamic Revolution which rose to power later. This very same message echoes today in the sermons of the Ayatollah. I believe that the activists are beginning to understand the dynamics of the power play taking place in the Middle East. Neocons would like nothing more than to wage a holy war against all of Islam.

Keep in mind also that socialist movements focusing on the plight of the poor, and particular that of rural folk and farmers, can also be taken over by leaders with goals that are anything but socialistic. You should look into the history of how National Socialism took root in Germany (by appealing to rural and folkish elements) and how it evolved into Fascism.

[supernova]

36. A message from Tehran (x-post from science forum)

This author speaks for himself about the meaning of his own revolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5898110

[Kaleko]

48. That's an infinitely more informative piece

than the outdated socialist rhetoric of this ridiculous OP.

Not to mention it is a first-hand account by an Iranian who used to be able to post on DU and may no longer be able to do so because of censorship, because of death threats even as the Khamenei regime is losing its grip.

[Political Heretic]

51. Neither piece is in conflict with each other.

I have little doubt that the people in the street want something real.

I have greater doubt about the massive amount of money being funneled into Mousavi and am unable to ignore the realities of history, which make me feel as though it would be responsible of me to support the spirit of people who cry for democracy while at the same time, scrutinizing with great skepticism those "leaders" that claim to say "I will represent you"

[Kaleko]

56. There's no conflict

because the OP is an ossified ideological turd compared to that post by 'Akbar', who confesses to being a former Basiji thug before he was transformed through contact with the outside world - the virtual world of DUers exchanging ideas, for example. His is a moving and dignified personal account, very humble... and therefore inspiring/transforming for me as well.

[Political Heretic]

65. In other words, emotion based.

[Kaleko]

70. Careful now, there is such a thing as emotional intelligence.

It denotes a more multi-layered apprehension of the meaning of events in contrast to mere intellectual comprehension. Emotional intelligence is precisely what's missing in both, right-wing and far left-wing, authoritarian thinking.

[blindpig]

39. k&r n/t

[Jennicut]

40. Not everything is black and white. Many of the young people in Iran

are growing up feeling repressed and its finally spilling over. The demographics in that country alone spell doom for keeping the people under such fanatic control. They are young (under 35) well educated and have use of the internet. That seems to be playing a role in their ability to organize themselves and to spread messages to each other. There is something more here then any outside country could attempt to control. There is 30% unemployment there. Many are simply dissatisfied and fed up. Not every thing is socialism vs capitalism. Its just the younger people are fed up there.

[AntiFascist]

52. I agree, this is clearly not socialism vs. capitalism...

with that much unemployment their system simply is not functioning. The Supreme Leader's sermon focused on defeating the enemies of Islam with the old rallying cry of "death to America". The only form of socialism they can promote out of their revolution is military socialism. It also creates all too convenient of an enemy for the neocons.

[Jennicut]

53. We have a tendency here to overlook small things that change the course of a country such as Iran

Simple unemployment and less opportunity for the younger well educated class in Iran is a big contributing factor in my opinion.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

55. I agree. I don't understand what this author is trying to accomplish

[libodem]

57. kinda makes ya go

hmmmmmm?

[EFerrari]

58. I don't have any smart critique but will say, I haven't seen many

working type people in those demonstrations.

[sufrommich]

62. I love to know how you can tell from looking at pictures of

thousands of people marching which of those people are "working types"? It looked like a broad spectrum to me.

[EFerrari]

71. Well, I mean most of those people look like they have the time and money

to take care of themselves and to buy more expensive clothing. It's hard to finger, actually, good question. But I haven't heard that labor groups or the merchants are joining the protests. Have you?

[JI7]

64. what do "working type" people look like ? considering the high unemployment rate

in the country not many would be "working types" so it's understandable.

[EFerrari]

72. I'm not really talking about people who have jobs but about

people who aren't more or less comfortably middle class and / or college types.

Working class people don't wear clothes or haircuts that are as expensive. They don't have the latest cell phone. Most of them can't stay on the street for a week either because they have to work to feed their family. And before you fall on my head, lol, I've been both.

[JI7]

81. how do you know how much the clothes and haircuts cost ?

iran has a high unemployment rate also .

[Dutch]

61. Well, if you pick a ridiculous source, what can you expect?

[MadHound]

63. The thing is, this isn't an economic revolt, nor is it a progressive revolt,

The people in Iran are revolting because they perceived that their election had been rigged from the beginning, and they want their votes to count, much like many on the left wanted in '00 (but we were to gutless to get out in the street in the same sort of numbers)

I'm tired of these paternalistic analyses that treat the Iranian people as small children who don't know what's going on, why they are revolting, and worse, that they can't do it themselves, but they must be having help from the outside, the US and such. This is incredibly derogatory to all the people involved. Rather than trying to fit this revolution into their own narrow political frame, people need to start listening to what the Iranian people are saying instead.

I'm sure that the people recognize what Mousavi and Rafsanjani are about, and what their motives are. But they also recognize that the support of such highly placed individuals also spell the difference between success(their votes are counted, their voices are listened to) and failure.

All these Western analysts need to stop trying to superimpose their own agenda, their own hopes and agenda over that of the Iranian people. Rather, they should listen what the Iranian people are saying, watch what they're doing, and take their lead from what the people accomplish. Anything else is simply more bullshit that has nothing to do with the reality of what's going on in Iran.

[NashVegas]

67. Thanks. It's Amazing How Many DUers Can't See Through All the Twittiocy

And how many who were, supposedly, against George Bush's war have allowed themselves to be caught up in a blatant gov't assisted propaganda campaign.

[Taverner]

74. What are the writer's sources?

I don't see a single source for any of the claims being made

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. Did you know that following a Twitter feed for a week makes one an expert?

Twitter will be graduating hundreds of PhD's in Iranian politics and culture at the end of the week.

:rofl: