Working people in Japan (where I am from) and the USA (where I live) are very passive and often apolitical today, whereas those in Iran have never been. Left to their own devices, free from interventions of the empire and its loyal opposition, the people of Iran will continue to reform their nation, the way they want to, just as they have been since the foundation of the Islamic Republic.
To be sure, it's a long shot to radically change Iran's basic political structure, let alone its class foundation, to give more power to the working class, but that is true of Japan and the USA, and much of the rest of the world as well. In fact, the toughest nut to crack is the USA, where big capital rules, unlike in Iran. Seriously, there is no precedent in the history of capitalism where a plutocratic empire like the USA ceased to be one and became a democratic republic on account of its workers' class struggle.
We live in the post-Marxist age. Hugo Chavez says he is not a Marxist: "Agregó: 'Soy socialista, bolivariano, revolucionario. Respeto la vía marxista, pero yo no soy marxista. No puedo compartir esa tesis porque esa es una visión determinista del socialismo'" (Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, "Chávez reitera que no es marxista: Soy socialista, bolivariano y revolucionario," 22/07/07, <http://www.aporrea.org/ideologia/n98394.html>). Good for him and his people. If he had been a Marxist, he would never have acquired the personality and perspective necessary to lead his nation at this point in history.
I'd say the same about Iran: its leaders, intellectuals, and rank and file had better not think like typical Marxists, not to mention typical Western Marxists, today. They, however, would do well to take what they can from anti-imperialist schools of the Marxist tradition, as well as other political and intellectual traditions useful for their struggle. In some ways, they already have, though they do not necessarily realize that. I hope that Iran will continue to strengthen its ties with Latin socialists, of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and so on. Then, perhaps Iranians can better understand what they are fighting for, building new principles out of the principles they already have and those they will learn from Latin socialists ("Marx to Ruge," September 1843, <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm>).
On 9/21/07, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> My point
> is rather than not every actually existing reaction to
> capitalism deserves our endorsement as opposed to our
> understanding.
Islam in Iran doesn't need my endorsement, as I am neither Muslim nor Iranian, nor yours, for that matter. But leftists in the West would probably understand it better if they shifted their standpoint from the one that takes the West's historical development as the path that the rest of the world will necessarily, or ought to, follow.
On 9/21/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Chris Doss wrote:
>
> > Yoshie can speak for herself, but I think her opinion
> > is the that best that contemporary Iran can
> > realistically do is its current government. Which may
> > or may not be true, I don't know.
>
> That's a pretty gloomy POV. We'll see what happens come 2009.
<snip>
> Financial Times - September 21, 2007
>
> Khatami plots comeback
> By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
<snip>
>
> Whether this proves to be more than wishful thinking remains to be
> seen. Mr Khatami, who governed in 1997-2005 with a reformist agenda
> that advocated "religious democracy" at home and detente with the
> west, ended his second term disillusioned and facing accusations that
> he had disappointed his support base.
>
> While hardliners blocked some of his key reforms, including attempts
> to expand the powers of the presidency, his followers became
> disenchanted with his inclination to compromise rather than confront
> his opponents.
>
> His government's emphasis on political reform - overshadowing
> attention on social and economic problems - also proved costly,
> facilitating the rise of a populist Mr Ahmadi-Nejad.
<snip>
> But Mr Khatami has joined forces with the so-called conservative
> pragmatists - the moderate conservatives close to Akbar Hashemi
> Rafsanjani, also a former president - to undermine Mr Ahmadi-Nejad.
>
> They are hoping that within two years, the president's populist
> economicpolicies - to reduce inflation and tackle unemployment -
> would have sufficiently backfired and provokedan erosion of popular
> support.
What's so hopeful about an anti-populist coalition of Khatami and Rafsanjani? Association with Rafsanjani weighs Khatami with Rafsanjani's record on the issues -- especially civil liberties -- that most define the reformist movement in the public mind and makes it even more unlikely that the reformists would try to appeal to working people on "social and economic problems," other than on the pledge to reduce inflation, perhaps, on which too, by the way, Rafsanjani's record is worse than that of the current administration: it's under the Rafsanjani administration (3 August 1989 – 2 August 1997) that Iran saw the highest inflation rate (in 1995-1996 -- see "Figure 1. Money Growth and Inflation, 1958/59-2005/06" at <http://montages.blogspot.com/2007/09/inflation-iran-and-venezuela.html>). -- Yoshie