ماندانا

Socialism From Below, and monarchists utter stupidity concerning

politics of 21st century.

First off; it's always been the absolute tyranny of rulers and their stupid refusal to allow any reform that has led to revolutions over and over again. That's what happened in Russia.

That's EXACTLY what happened with shah.

And that's what is going to happen with IR.

Radicalism does not originate from individuals and collectives seeking change for a better life. Radicalism is imposed by radical realities of violence and injustice imposed upon our people, which has been the case with both shah and IR.

That was first off.

Second  point, if our obtuse, not so beloved arch monarchist wasn't so lost in 20th century, and her daily obsession with proving how bad Mosadegh was for Iran, she would have realized that era of one party systems and such are gone for ever.

Last and not least: you still haven't said why Rastakhiz was not a fascistic party?

Well said dear AO

I couldn't have put it better.

Anglophile jaan - you're wasting your time

people like my friend Hooshang here have yet to rid themselves of their addiction to revolution.  They'll never step out of that bubble and deal with reality until they first admit their addiction.  It's kind of like a 12 step program.  The first step is to admit that you're an addict.  That's what these guys need to do.  They first need to admit that they'e addicted to the hooliganism that gos us where we are today.  Once they admit that, we can move on and talk about historical FACTS as opposed to Bolshevik inspired fiction.

یکدست جام باده و یکدست "زلف" یار

رقصی چنان میانه میدانم آرزوست.

"ت" بده :))

Religious vs. secular discrimination

While even the least developed nations in the world (including ones with most violent pasts, such as Rwanda) have reached the conclusion that democracy is the only path to devolopment and social liberty for the entire population, we still have apologists for despots and tyrants who are working hard at proving otherwise! They, that is both supporters of the Islamic regime and those of the defunct Pahlavi regime, are either trying to convince the public that democracy is not all it's made out to be (in case of IRI supporters), or that it's a myth that is nothing but is an idealist's wet dream (in case of the suppoeters of the Pahlavi regime)!

Islamists' stance in this regard (dismissing democracy altogether) speaks for itself. But, supporters of the Pahlavi regime do so while trying to present Shah and his regime as a modern and progressive leader who stood for modernization. Yet, when it comes to human rights of all Iranians (such as freedom of speech, opinion, vote, political participation and forming assemblies... that are the cornerstone of every modern, advanced society), they defend his zero-tlerance approach and try to excuse his archaic, draconian measures in dealing with political dissent or even political discourse (or lackthereof), not to mention the human rights issues.

What Pahlavi suppporters are trying to use as a token of redemption is IRI's violation (due to its chauvenisttic and misogynous nature) of the rights of women and minorities more than those of the rest of the population to boast about Shah's indiscriminate violation of the human rights of the entire nation (regardless of gender, faith or race...) and turn that into a strongpoint of his reign! 

It's actually funny when they claim that if the 1979 revolution had not happened, Iran would've become a "new Japan" of the West Asia! Now, is that more of a daydreaming (and living in a fantasy world) or demanding human rights?! 

While Shah managed to make the facade of the Iranian society look like an immitation of a modern society, it miserably failed in everything else that makes up the foundations of a modern state! Forget about Japan's century old industrial infrastructures that in many fields were/are considered world-leading (e.g. steel production as far back as the 19th century), but imagine if Japan had no functioning political system wherein no one had the right to read any book that was not approved the government, let alone existence of political parties through which people would have the right to chose their politicians  to represent them in parliament and other branches of government! 

Now let's imagine that the Japanese emperor had declared all political parties illegal and created a qusi-fascist party of which every Japanese citizen was required to be a member (a la Rastakhiz) or otherwise leave the country! Would Japan be the Japan it is now with such a political system -- or lackthereof? One thing is for certain though, that it would not have discriminated against women and minorities, for it would've violated the rights of all Japanese citizens equally, regardless of race, faith or gender...!

Ghasem jan this is the part that you are not getting

Only in the literature of the extreme left (//www.hkkurdistan.org/ku/ ) where you and the rest of your comrades belong to Rastakhiz is a fascist party. You need to say this otherwise your own definition of a communist party becomes meaningless. Nazis and Communists have long been brothers in arms, the two sides of the same coin.

"Communism and fascism or Nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority."

–James A. C. Brown

Conformism under monrachy and IR: all the same

Above all, personal responsibility means standing up to tyranny and fascism in your society. If due to personal gains and perks one fails in this moral imperative, that's when people atart calling you a conformist.

See the movie below you'll see what I mean.

The Conformist (film)

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conformist_(film)

P.S. What's amazing about the "imagination" of monarchists, is that ALL Iranian people are depicted as a bunch of helpless, know nothings. Some how it's not just possible for minarchists to think about Iranian people as being able to take action for their own interests, fight for that purpose, and KEEP ON FIGHTING TILL THE OBJECTIVE IS REACHED.

That segment of the population that fought against shah, mullahs and is still fighting is the segment of the population that just doesn't fit within your "scheme of things."

Condolences.

----------------------------------

Angali jan, which part of Rastakhiz being an instrument of single-party fascist state is a lie. How would you describe Rastakhiz? Why is it so hard for monarchists to admit to their fascist origins?

Come clean you all; it will do you a lot of good. Deep down monarchists remain an unrepentant bunch of Nazi. Don't you agree?

Houshang jaan - let me break it down for you

You're a very smart person, but indulge me for a moment, if you will: 

"Mandana" + arbadeh + machine gun + knowingly bringing a backward akhoond who said he had no feelings for Iran and that Iran should burn if that advances Islam + deposing the only regime in Iran's post Islam history that had given substantial rights to Iranian women - Mandana's persecution after the revolution - most of her rights as a female Iranian = Her own fault = Personal responsibility for one's own actions.

Hope this equation clarifies the situation. 

Aren't you tired of repeating the same lies

I thanked you for reminding us of the good old days of the former regime when the same lies were fed to us by your comrades and many believed them to regret it only shortly later. Zendanian jan I thought you had move on from those days.

Oh dear oh dear. 

The ultimate betrayal to Iranian people was from shah, by paving

the way for Islamic Republic through his thefts, murders, dictatorship and whore mongering.

Shah's biggest enemy was shah himself.

Congratulations.

Reality jan you spoke the truth

The big R was never hijacked except by the denial and power greed of the our revolutionaries. They betrayed every principle that they claimed they were faithful to. And they togther with the whole of the nation are still paying the price.

Thank you. 

Lord anglophile

For the answer to your "hijack" question, kindly refer to my first post on the page 1 of the comments section, under this very topic.

About your beef :))

Reality jan

Leaving aside your belief that the Shah is gone (Mossadegh is still alive let alone the Shah), let me volunteer a response to your beef with the "millions" who pured into the streets (of which I wansn't one):

Our revolution was hijacked by Khomeini - is their answer.

Now, what do you say to that, brother? 

...

Just for the record

I'm not pro or anti-monarchy. I'm not pro or anti-republican. I'm not pro or anti-right wing. I'm not pro or anti-left wing.

In fact, I'm not really a political person, because, aside from the fact that politics in general bore me, I don't believe any single political ideology or system has a monopoly on the truth and what is the right way. There are things on the right make sense to me and things that don't. Likewise with the left.

What I am is a supporter of freedom, democracy and human rights. I want all these things for Iran and want to see Iran one day become a successful, prosperous and progressive nation that is peace with itself and everyone else. I want to see an Iran that looks after all its people regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion/lack of religion, background or whatever and provides them with opportunities to build good lives and for them in turn to contribute to the well-being of their country.

I read the same arguments recycled here, day in day out. Whether it's pro or anti-Shah. My view of the previous regime is pretty straight forward and (hopefully) based on facts, as much as I can fathom them. Shah (and his father) did much to modernize a chronically backward Iran, but at the same time he was a dictator, whose secret police did repress political opponents and committed crimes.

There is no getting away from the reality that, as a leader, as much good you do for your country, you cannot and must not deny the people those fundamental principles I mentioned earlier: "freedom, democracy and human rights". That was Shah's principle shortcoming. Yes, despite what some might say, the guy did much for Iran and probably was a patriot, but a dictator is a dictator and Shah bears his share of responsibility for the advent of the Islamic Republic.

But point is the Shah is gone, dead and finished. The Pahlavi regime is history and will never come back to Iran. So why do you people continually obsess over him and his reign?

My beef with the millions who poured into the streets in 1979, like Mona Lisa khanoom, is this: you people wanted to topple Shah because he was a dictator, right? Fine, but why the hell did you choose and follow a backward, intolerant, religious fanatic, whose narrow-minded, puritanical views had been known for year, as your leader?

What the hell made you people think that narrow-minded Mulla, who constantly said "Melliat chiyah? Eslam mohem ast? Faghat Eslam." and who (to give just one example) was against electoral changes to enfranchise women and allow non-Muslims to hold office, during Shah's reforms, was going to be a leader worthy of your undying devotion, so much so that you were prepared to give your lives for him? 

Seriously, what on earth made you people put Iran's future into the hands of this backward Mulla? You really thought he was simply going to retire to Qom after Shah's fall? Why? Just because he apparently said so once? How friggin gullible can you people get?

Iran's 1979 revolution must be one of the few revolutions that made things go from bad to worse, much worse, in a country. And until Iranians truly learn the lessons of why this happened the way it did, they are likely to repeat the same catastrophic mistake.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.

زندانیان محترم

۱ - درست میفرمایید، خیلی ها هم مانند شما میگویند سیاست بی پدر و مادر است. اما دوست محترم، اگر سیاست بی پدر و مادر باشد، من و شما به کی لعنت بفرستیم؟!!
۲ - خیلی ها میگویند شاه در ۱۹۷۶ بی سیاستی کرد و خیلی چیز های دیگر .....
۳ - دوست محترم، بجای فقط از گوشه ی چپ، در سیاست پردازی و سیاست اندیشی، لطفا فراموش نفرمایید که موضوع را از تمام زوایا باید نگاه کرد.

Ali khan

Et all.................

All I can say is : what a hezb baad are all Iranians....

Then & Now .

Maziar

...

Anglo: You're welcome!!!

FN: If shah was not a puppet of foreigners, then those same foreigners wouldn't have been able to play with him so easily right under his nose.

Plus the fact that ultimately his gargantuan "development program" was the hay that broke the camel's back.

If he had chosen a moderate, slower paced modernization program, without relying so much on oil money, then the after shocks of oil market wouldn't have had such a significant effect on Iranian economy.

Shah's worst enemy was shah himself.

Politics has no parents, but there are methodologies, stratagems and tactics that could make it more managable and eventually of positive use:utilitarian.

We probably won't have anything like that in Iran for a long while to come!

سوسن خانم محترم

بعضی ها معتقدند از وقتی که شاه در ۱۹۷۶ بی سیاستی کرد و گفت در پایان قرارداد کنسرسیوم یعنی در سال ۱۹۷۹ همه ی مشتری های نفت ایران : انگلیسیها و آمریکایی ها و غیره باید بروند توی صف بایستند و نوبت بگیرند، آن بازی و نمایش عجیب تاریخی شروع شد، مارگریت تاچر و جیمی کارتر و خیلی های دیگر با هم تلفنی مذاکره کردند، اولین اعلامیه های خمینی با عنوان "شاه باید برود" یکی بعد از دیگری صادر شد، سینما رکس آبادان دچار حریق شد، ۱۷ شهریور شد و میدان ژاله، وضعیت یواش یواش بهم ریخت، همه ی شهر ها تکان خورد، بهشتی و مهدوی کنی از لندن ، خاتمی از آلمان، و حسن روحانی از آمریکا عازم تهران شدند، بجای اینکه انگلیسیها و آمریکایی ها و غیره بروند توی صف بایستند و نوبت بگیرند، مردم مظلوم ایران با پیت های نفت به دست، توی صف ایستادند و نوبت گرفتند، و ...
شاه در ۱۹۷۶ بی سیاستی کرد و خیلی چیز های دیگر .....که بر پدر و مادر  سیاست لعنت ...

Thanks for reminding us of the good old days Zendanian jaan

The days when the same allegations that you are making were fed to us as truth by Chereek, Mojahed, Tudeh and JM.

Shah giving a speech on national TV on Rastakhiz also a fiction?

Of course to that you'll respond: "No, his speech was real, but the consquences of non-membership were not as bad."

Well, ask hundreds and thousands of Iranian families that left Iran right after that speech, they all thought it was very real. Mine included.

And it wasn't just a single-party system nuder Rastakhiz, it was also SAVAK (workinh hand in hand with Hojatieh, ultra right wing Shia group), it was also extensive poverty representing itself in slums and shanty towns, developing around every single major city in Iran. And this is Iran of late 60's and early 70's where money was no problem, and plenty of it was coming to Iran, yet we had such massive poverty right under our nose.

So let's put two and two together and see what we get.

A violent corrupt regime that bans all political freedoms, starts a drive to turn the whole country into a single-party state, while many segments of the population are experiencing massive poverty in slums of big cities or country side.

Put these two factors together: dictatorship+poverty, what do you get? What in the world do you expect you might get?Combustion.

The only chance for a peaceful transition was Bakhtiar, but even he was too little too late.

By the way, as mentioned many times before: in 1979 we had two revolutions against shah;

1) First the revolt of the urbane, modern middle class, working class, professionals against monarchy,

2) Second, traditional Bazar and Mullahs against shah.

The second one won, and put an end to the whole idea of a proper revolution.

I belonged to none of your divisions Soosan jaan

As an Anglophile that I am (and I was) my job was to serve water to my masters at a location South of the River (sorry can't disclose the address - official secrets act). Don't believe me? Ask our friend Zendanian (I mean Ghasem).

:) 

And I also solute this woman and her extraordinary courage.

I think in that revolution there are many lessons to be learned by everyone. By that i mean both the people and those who have power over the people. But again who is going to learn from history and sadly it is the history that  keeps repeating itself over and over especially in that neck of the wood.  

Anglophile when are you going to see that the

revolution was not an action but a REaction to years of khafeghan?  Back then everyone was out there fighting not just the leftists... There were an ocean of ordinary people marching, demonstrating, and wanting Shah to leave the power.   There were only two groups of people that didn't participate : the naive state TV brainwashed Shahdoost crowds and those who were shooting at the people.  Now either admit that you were one of the above or you were On the streets demonstrating. Having said that I do agree that we should pay attention next time  that we are going to revolt. Just look at the Syria and take some notes azizam.  

: )  

The "Left" always see things in black and white

Condemning Rastakhiz for being a one-party system by the extremist left cohorts is as we say "tof-e sar bala". No matter how much they try to fabricate new myths about themselves,  the leftist movements of the 1970's were modelled on, fed and financed by, partnered with and admirers of the one-party socio-comminust nations of that era, The commonly accepted concepts of western democarcies were as alien to these movements as Chinese language is to Persian. And by th way these shnty towns with the excpetion of few pathces here and there were part of the mythology created by the Left which our friend is still hooked on to. Had you ever visited East Germany in the 1970's?

Now I am waiting for the barrages of baloneys to be fired at me by my leftish friends. 

Not a Rastakhiz member at all

My parents were not political.  None of my very large family was a member of Rastakhiz, and they were never forced, or even asked, to become one. My family was an average middle class family that got there by sheer hard work, coming from a village in absolute poverty.  They went to school, graduated, all the time working and helping each other, and were rewarded accordingly.  And they still got to go out without a roosari and without the fear of a "toosari!"  The whole idea that you had to be a Rastakhiz party to have enjoyed perosnal (not political) freedoms under Shah's rule is an absolute fabrication, and you know it.  

Oh, and they also traveled ooutside of the country without anyone asking them if they were Rastakhiz members.  

I find it completely fascinating that you sidestep the whole concept of personal responsibility.  Do you believe that this woman, and others like her, should have given more thought (or any thought for that matter) to what the consequences of their actions were and who they were bringing to power, or should we forget about that line of inquiry and just applaud them like a bunch of Sha'ban bimokhs? I thought you were a fan of critical examination of cultures and social / cultural events.  Why not in this case? 

She could get out of her house, but if she wasn't a member of

Rastakhiz Party, she would have to get out of country, her passport given to her for free, of course, according to HIM one and only.

Of course you can't recall Rastakhiz Party, SAVAK. all those shanty towns and slums growing up around every major city in Iran, but a lot of people can remember those historical facts, and see those as enough logical legitimate reasons for revolting and having an insurrection against tyranny.

You might not be an "official" monarchists on this site, but your line of thought and logic is EXACT the same.

Why in the world you keep reducing her options to only two: both unpleasant and negative. Thousands of Iranian women have fought valiantly against shah and I.R. and are still involved in struggle for freedom in Iran: Mothers for Peace (which are also active in LA area) is only one example of this trend. Monarchists and people like you don't like to think about or acknowledge such facts because it crumples their myths.

Shah worst enemy was he himself, and don't you ever forget that.  

Zendanian

Those are the choices that she created for herself.  

And I'm not a monarchist.  I'm a realist.  I don't live in fantasy land.  I live in the real world.  I also believe in a novel concept called "personal responsibility" (you should look into it).  According to that concept, one is responsible for the consequences of one's actions.  Hence, if you run onto the streets like a crazed monkey, brandish a machine gun and attack army barracks without giving much thought as to who, or what, you're fighting for (in this case and at that point, the all but inevitable end of bringing a mullah to power), then you should face the consequences of those actions--and take it like a champ!

FYI- I was in diapers during the final year of Iran's last monarchy.  But I heard it was fine--relatively speaking.  My mom says that she could go out without a "roosari" without the fear of becoming the recipient of a "toosari." 

You monarchist are sooooo pathetic and clueless

So, the only options for this historical figure is:

1) To be executed

2) To be turned into a "good Muslim woman,"

If you Monarchists weren't so pathetic and clueless about Iran and Iranians you might have known, just might have realized, that there are thousands of liberated Iranian women who valiantly fought against shah, have fought against IR, and are STILL fighting. We are the undefeated.

Made up story , Imagination or duty ?

this is the emost strangest thing I've read about the Revelution era , what is the benfit of ruining people's memory ?