Iranian Revolution

How did the Iranian Revolution get taken over by reactionaries? How can we prevent Reactionaries rom taking over potentially socialist revolutions in the future?

Attached: SocialistLionIranFlag.png (480x274, 43.55K)

The Sha killed all leftism and religion was the only opposition that could properly proper

Khomeini was most widely perceived at the time (both in Iran and abroad) not as an ultrasectarian hardline fundamentalist, but as a serene neutral spiritual guru and nationalist unity figurehead, akin to Mahatma Ghandi, or the Dalai Lama. When, during the revolution and its leadup, he cannily consolidated power under himself and began viciously betraying all other factions, revealing himself as a backstabbing opportunist, this actually came as a shocking revelation.

False. The clergy were the largest group, but they were far from alone, not even making up an absolute majority of revolutionary forces.

Islam is already kind of socialist (See: Zakat, usury is forbidden)

I don't think the majority wanted to be under either sides influence ("Atheist USSR" vs. "Zionist West"). Kind of like Anti-Corporatism. The people living outside the city on farms were already self-reliant so communism wouldn't be an option (See: Afghanistan).

BTW that flag sucks the one they have is way cooler.

fuck off Rosa Killer

t brainlet

…fixed-interest lending might be something you might want to look at.

It still requires the existence of money, capital, and private property. Remember this isn’t >>>/liberalpol/ this is a Communist board.

Iranians are revolting

Of course, none of the three are guaranteed requisites, but fuck, just say whatever.
>Remember this isn’t >>>/liberalpol/ this is a Communist board.

No. No it's not.
Meanwhile, you've got Mutualism, Ricardian socialism, Owenite socialism, the Rochdale pioneers, etc, etc, etc. So… you're basically babbling absolute shit.
"I don't like the entirety of left history" -> too fucking bad. This is a left board, maybe you should GTFO.

If you seriously want your answer, geopolitics and extensive knowledge of Islam is why. These are Iran-Iraq War posters, but they tell you a bit of how the revolution somehow got "hijacked" by "reactionaries". If they were to become communist, it would put them under the influence of the Soviet Union, which to many Iranians would probably sound bad because the USSR was an atheist state which for most Muslims is the boiling point if they haven't already gotten mad over a power of a different religion exerting control. The Iranians didn't want "American" culture to be present in their society, and nor did they want statues of Marx down in Tehran with a knock-off Hoxha. Of course I'm speaking without statistics, but it's easy to imagine that from the Iranian perspective, foreign ideologies = foreign control.

Attached: 1375315_original.jpg (600x930 47.44 KB, 55.78K)

So the new atheists were right all along.

This is just like those people claiming in 1956 that we need to ignore that mass Reactionary and Counter-Rev nature of the Hungarian Counter-Revolution and support the one or two Council Communists or Luxembourgian's taking part

Basically any revolution in Iran is going to be a Color revolution backed by NATO at its heart and no amount of Tudeh Members with red flags would stop that
the Communists would simply be used as PR to get Western Lefties to support the Regime change

Except that in 1956 Hungary was a socialist country. Iran currently is not. And if a revolution in Iran was lead by socialists, yes we should support it. It’s very easy to tell apart a communist revolution from a NATO backed coup.

Well yeah but that's not going to happen as long as America exists.

And by "America" I mean "the American empire."

Nice save, bro.

Why? Revolutions almost always include conspiracies, personal ambitions, secrecy and coups. I think you are being overly idealistic. To give an example, even some on Zig Forums think the Euromaidan was a genuine liberal revolution, but we still don't fucking know who the snipers were.

IMO the 'CIA-coup' - 'genuine revolution' dichotomy is very undialectical. I firmly believe a political upheaval can be both.
For example. the Bolshevik revolution was facilitated by the German Empire, and yet it wasn't a German coup, though they obviously did it for their own interests.

The German empire was not the global hegemonic power. It's a completely different scenario.

Yeah, I was just about to say that. The German Empire was cornered in a World War and saw this as an opportunity to get relief on the Eastern Front, they didn't aspire to control Russia, but when the US and NATO do a coup, it's most likely something to do with imperial control. Almost all "color revolutions" go hand in hand with American investment and strong ties to the West, see the appointment of Goldman-Sachs bankers in the Ukrainian government.

Look at the histories of the revolution’s leaders. If they were socialist party members or trade unionists and have been so for at least five years, it’s a communist revolution. If the “leader” of the revolution is a Porky or a religious figure it’s a CIA-backed coup.

Sure worked out well for Christianity didn't it?

Islam is a foreign ideology to Iran. They should implement Zoroastrian theocracy.

well obviously they weren't the exact same situation, but the German plan in the long run was to engage in imperialism by winning the war and gaining predominance in Europe. And I don't see enough qualitative difference between 'a great power' and 'the global hegemon' vis-a-vis supporting rebellions to their own ends to make the comparison invalid. Sometimes the perceived interests of western imperialists and local revolutionaries align, often for liberals and under some circumstances even for socialists. Remember that American government actors are anything but omniscient; a lot of the postwar history should prove that. They could very well at some point support a revolution, the success of which turns out to hurt them on the long run.

The 2018 protests in Iran had very little Western involvement so you are wrong on that account.

…yeah? It kinda did?

It worked out well for the papal monopoly on the practice I suppose.