Iran Document: Iranian Labour Unions "This is Not 1979"

Posted by News & Letters:

Recently, we were directed to an article in the March-April 2010 News & Letters, "Iranian workers enter the fray," by Raha, in which an isolated quote from one of our members was used to prove that a regressive repeat of the 1979 Islamic revolution was in store for Iran. The author claimed that NILU (the Network of Iranian Labor Unions) was set against advancing workers' independent interests because this would supposedly weaken the Green Movement's internal unity. Starting from this rather dubious premise, the author further claimed that there were clear parallels to be made between the present moment and 1979 when millions of people blindly fell into the trap that Muslim fundamentalists had set for them.

We are happy to inform the author and N&L readers that while there are many difficulties and perils attending the nascent democratic movement, a repeat of the Islamic Revolution is definitely not one of them.



First, unlike the earlier generation with its all-too-familiar revolutionary-romantic/Manichean notions, the new generation is both more sophisticated and more canny as to who its friends and enemies are and the magnitude of the problems. For example, you cannot find one single individual--out of several million Greeners--that is taken in by Mir-Hossein Mousavi's personality, magnetism, political infallibility or mystical powers. When he announced his candidacy last Spring, few had any idea who he really was. For many, a vote for Mousavi was a vote against the system and a vote of no confidence against the regime itself. Today, Mousavi enjoys widespread popularity because he has stood up to the dictatorship and hasn't caved in to the pressures and threats. His popularity would just as easily evaporate if he sells out to the system.

Secondly, the present movement is distinctly democratic in content and in its aims. While practically all the 1979 participants in one way or other called for some form of democracy, none wanted it for the other groups in the struggle. That is decidedly not the case today. Decades of living under dictatorial rule by clerics has taught everyone important lessons in civic responsibility and tolerance. Even structurally, the Green Movement is made up of a vast number of small cells of like-minded people with lots of horizontal ties and few vertical ones.

Thirdly, unlike the violence-prone 1979 revolutionaries, present-day Greeners show a remarkable antipathy towards indiscriminate and mindless violence. In fact, this could be said to be the closest to civil non-violent struggle in memory. We welcome this development as a new form of struggle for social and political empowerment for the third world and beyond (see: Frontline, "A Winning Strategy" at pbs.org). The South African model--where regime henchmen were given blanket clemency--is all the more critical for us because for millions of our devout fellow citizens, support for the regime is unfortunately equated with maintaining faith in God and the prophet.

Finally, this brings us to the contention that our group is for subordinating workers' rights to some nebulous larger aims. What NILU member Homayoun Pourzad was saying in that interview was not that workers should put on hold the promotion of their class interests or that women and young people should not advance their interests. Any cursory glance at our English-language website, Iran Labor Report, would show that we are doing exactly opposite of what the N&L author wrote we are doing or saying. (The same could be said of Zahra Rahnavard, also treated unfairly by the author.) In fact, we are helping with organizing the unorganized at great risk to our security and safety.

What Pourzad said in the interview was that differences among the various Green Movement contingents should not be allowed to aid the enemy to the detriment of the movement. Our movement is still rather weak while the enemy is ruthless, powerful and extremely cunning. What makes them even more dangerous is the special combination of religion and right-wing politics which they excel at exploiting with devastating results. For instance, there are currently over 40,000 volunteers signed up for suicide missions in Iran. In 2005-2006, the mighty U.S. Army was almost brought to its knees in Iraq by less than 1,000 suicide mission volunteers.

The analogy is not unlike the Weimar Republic before Hitler's rise to power. Had the liberals, socialists and communists united against Hitler, instead of attacking one another, the Nazis would probably not have been able to capture power in 1933 or even later. We are at a historic juncture which we could ill afford to miss. Any move that makes us weaker must be avoided. Class, gender and ethnic differences must be respected and articulated comradely and amicably. This was and remains the gist of our position.

The Network of Iranian Labor Unions
April 17, 2010

Comments

[Planning For Your Businesses I]

[...] Iran Document: Iranian Labour Unions “This is Not 1979″ | Enduring ... [...]

[Barry]

"The analogy is not unlike the Weimar Republic before Hitler’s rise to power. Had the liberals, socialists and communists united against Hitler, instead of attacking one another, the Nazis would probably not have been able to capture power in 1933 or even later. We are at a historic juncture which we could ill afford to miss. Any move that makes us weaker must be avoided. Class, gender and ethnic differences must be respected and articulated comradely and amicably. This was and remains the gist of our position."

Where has Samuel gone?? This is what I have been telling him - Iran 2010 is the same as Germany 1933. In 1933, the western world was weak and pacifist/appeasers . It isn't much better today with the rise of the Left in US Politics - but at least this time they have the hindsight of what happened after 1933. The West does NOT want history to repeat itself!!!

Barry

[M. Bli]

I want to stress that the German National Socialist Movement that took power in 1933 can and should not be effectively downplayed by such a comparison.

Just look at the historical, economical, social, political and ideological developments of Germany from 1871 to 1933, and you will see that there is no possibility to compare this to Iran, better: to any other country in the world.

It was this unique mixture that made the victory of the National Socialist Movement and subsequently the Shoa possible in (and only in) Germany.

I want to point out one thing: from the view of the average German in 1933 a dynamic Movement broadly rooted in the population came to power. For them, it was no dictatorship. They loved it to the end, it was the dawn of the golden age.

The German opposition was very very small and isolated. There was only this one Georg Elser trying to stop Hitler. Unlike Iran, the majority of the population not only cooperated with the Fuhrerstaat, but wanted it to be strong, not only turned a blind eye to the brutality of the system, but actively helped to wipe out everybody and everything "undeutsch".

I'm very hopeful that such a development will not take place in Iran, but that instead the dictatorship will be replaced by a young, learning and evolving democratic society.

[Gunniy]

Barry & Bill

The author made not a comparison to the Weimarer Republic as whole. He compares just only one significant development in the Weimarer Republic which was one of many different reasons of the takeover of the Nazis. It was a important reason – but not the only one.
The different political parties of the Weimarer Republic were fighting each other –
they weren’t able to see the common enemy, namely the Nazis. Therefore the different democratic parties and the communist party haven’t had a chance in being successful.

The author points out too the absence of a unification of the different parties at the revolution in 1979. He used these two examples to make clear: Unification is the order of the day. And he is absolutely right.

It wasn’t the author’s intention to compare the Weimarer Republic with 2010 - because there are to many things which are to different.

[Barry]

There are different words - "same as ", "similar to" , "analagous to", "identical to"

"Same as " has a different connotation to "identical to" - and I did not say "identical to" .

You said : "I want to point out one thing: from the view of the average German in 1933 a dynamic Movement broadly rooted in the population came to power. For them, it was no dictatorship. They loved it to the end, it was the dawn of the golden age." Does this not sound much the same as in an earlier period of this Regime - it's dawn in 1979?? I compare Iran 2010 to Germany 1933 - because it was in 1933 that the Nazis basically consolidated their power over the country - is this not "same as", or "similar to" today in Iran?? Although there is much "noise" inside Iran, has not the Iranian regime now consolidated their power.?? The question is - will the catastrophe that followed the consolidation of power under the Nazis be repeated in Iran - is it not being repeated right now??

Barry