lbo-talk-request@lbo-talk.org wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Send lbo-talk mailing list submissions to lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to lbo-talk-request@lbo-talk.org You can reach the person managing the list at lbo-talk-owner@lbo-talk.org <leninstombblog@googlemail.com><c17d8d380703140328w21050921yc7534e58d53cc76f@mail.gmail.com>YF: Let's be clear about that: the Communists, like much of the Iranian left, were uncritically supportive of Khomeini. Lacking political independence, they were not strong enough to lead anything. The fate of the Left after the Iranian Revolution was very much a reflection of their relative strength not only among the society as a whole, but among the Khomeinists. It was not inevitably so, even then: the main anti-left purges took place after the hostage crisis and then the invasion by Iraq, which enabled the conservative bourgeoisie to marginalise and neutralise the komitehs (populated by Islamists as well as socialists, you know). A. al-Z: The fate of the Left after the Islamic takeover of Iran was due to outright stupidity. If you want to be chummy with Muslims like this then go right ahead.you don;t have totell me particulars of how you think things happened. YF: The history that you refer to doesn't immediately compel a sectarian attitude of refusing to work with Islamists. That is secular catechism rather than revolutionary realpolitik. A. al-Z: The revolutionary realpolitik was swinging in circles at the end of a rope. How the hell the Left in Iran thought they could cooperate with the mullahocracy and remain safe is beyond me. The secular catechism you refer to is  like Jews continuing to cooperate with Nazis after the Holocaust. YF: It does mean that one has to retain one's political independence and a crucial focus on class mobilisation. A. al-Z: By being so focused on "class mobilisation" leftists who cooperate with Muslims don't see the knife beng inserted into their backs. The poltical independece you refer to doesn't even exist when making alliances with such people. YF: It does mean that one doesn't trust petit-bourgeois outfits like the Muslim Brothers. A. al-Z: But go ahead and think that making alliances with them will result in any kind of progress while </c17d8d380703140328w21050921yc7534e58d53cc76f@mail.gmail.com></leninstombblog@googlemail.com>the Left gets decimated? Wakey wakey.<leninstombblog@googlemail.com><c17d8d380703140328w21050921yc7534e58d53cc76f@mail.gmail.com> YF: But if Mubarak is to be overthrown, the left isn't strong enough to do it alone; the Islamists are strategically weak and too easily coopted or destroyed; the Nasserists are in disarray. Only through unity, based on the recent working class revolts, can it happen. A. al-Z: And what "working class" revolts are you talking about? I haven't noticed anything like that in Egypt lately. Your idea of unity is like making an alliance with vampires to save the local blood bank. YF: And if the Islamists let the revolt down, the left should not be hesitant to criticise and organise independently. A. al-Z: The Muslims can cause all the revulsion they want and that'll deep six any genuine effort at emanicipating the working class. The ulema doesn't give a rat's ass about such things. The Left shouldn't have been hesitant to notice that Muslims always intend to take over all societies in which they are a minority and to destroy all opposition. </c17d8d380703140328w21050921yc7534e58d53cc76f@mail.gmail.com></leninstombblog@googlemail.com></blockquote> <hr size=1>It's here! Your new message! Get <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/"> new email alerts</a> with the free <a href=" http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/">Yahoo! Toolbar.</a>