The "Charter of Minimum Demands" presented by a multitude of trade union and social organizations in Iran, is a positive democratic step to create a broader democratic unity of leftist and progressive forces against the theocratic regime.
However, it does not suggest the question of creating a constitutive constitutional assembly of freely elected representatives.
In this sense the whole text is incomplete.
On the other hand, the most sectarian, extreme Leninists, etc., who judge this Charter negatively, don't also raise the question of a freely elected democratic governing body of Iran, building this their inability to propose the correct no on the shyness of the left-wing democrats who drafted the Charter, but on their incurable sectarianism.
The Iranian left is entrenched in an ideological system that promotes the shyness of democratic initiative or the sectarianism.
However, the source of shy action is also sectarianism. n
The authors of the text of the Charter are also influenced by a dogmatic type of neo-Marxism that may seem satisfactory to the movement in the West as a neo-leftism that coexists normally with a mature bourgeois democracy, but this dogmatism does not meet the needs of a movement that has as its historical task also modern democracy.
---------
The situation on the political stage of Iran's wider perceived opposition is further complicated by the strange reappearance of a top security guard and torturer of the Shah's old regime at a demonstration.
It is generally considered that this appearance had a symbolic character and sent messages from the monarchists and the would-be Shah himself, but to whom?
Was the would-be Shah aware of this strange reappearance?
Was it done with his approval?
Could it be that an essentially insignificant event, was exploited by the Russian Putinist and Iranian theocratic propaganda machines to create a complete alienation between the secular right/extreme right and the rest of the (left, democratic, centrist) wing of the Iranian opposition?
For 2 years, but also now, since the beginning of the new movement in Iran, I have said that there is a special propagandistic collaboration between Russian Putinists and Iranian theocrats so that, when there is appearance of far-right elements "next to" the Iranian movement, to become "useful objects" of propaganda campaign to slandering the whole movement. I can prove this that I have predicted this and I have said this. I asked the Iranian friends in Left to keep calm, but I see that if there is a theocratic and Russian trap, they are already trapped. Does what I say mean that the royalists are justified? No.
Does this mean that surely the would-be Shah has also fallen prey to a provocation trap? No. The Shah and his followers, as well as the semi-liberal circles around the Shah, have shown that they have clear Bonapartist authoritarian aspirations, since they do not openly talk about a representative parliamentary sovereign democratic system. Neither did the would-be Shah separate himself from his father's crimes, nor did he separate himself from the torturers of Savak.
---
There is no political scene as complex as the Iranian one.
Vertigo of multiple contrasts forming a maze of possibilities.
To say my stereotype, Iran is the land of multiple mirrors.
I hope the left and the centrist forces succeed, that's all I can say.
---
The revolution is in the streets, it is not "begging for something from the West" but also it does not keep equal distances between "Eurasia" and the West.
Because whoever keeps these equal "anti-imperialist" distances, ultimately does not keep real equal distances, it doing the favour of "Eurasia", i.e. Eurasianism.
Why is he doing that? because of ideological virginity?
I hope that's it, and that he doesn't harbor hopes of future alliances with the emerging Hitlers of the East.
--
I read, but I hope it is a rumour, that the European Parliament has invited as a speaker the would-be, and probably far-right, Shah.
See now what is the difference, for example, between the USA and the European Union.
The Americans (capitalist-imperialists) support whoever it is convenient for them to support, without being so strict in their bourgeois ideological preferences, and without raising their ideological stature until they become the judges of the universe, without on the other hand avoiding their own messianic or other bad moralisms.
In the Iran issue there has been support for the would-be Shah, also for the People's Mujahideen (MEK), which was founded as a left-wing Islamic anti-imperialist organization that killed American agents and ended up, after an unacceptable alliance with Saddam Hussein, having a strategic relationship of support from circles of the US Republican party (no offense to them by me).
Also the US has generally helped others, centrists, groups and personalities, and as a western country has certainly offered political asylum and a well-meaning hospitality and acceptance to many known and unknown Iranians and Kurds.
In general, the USA plays with everyone and everything, and of course as a superpower it also plays games with the theocratic elite, especially the so-called reformers.
Behind and beside everything, of course, there is a continuous economic game of capital, legal or semi-legal or illegal activities, the well-known of capitalism.
What is Europe doing? (we mean the European Union).
Similar things, almost the same, but by adding we would say that there is help from state and European institutions and civil societies not exclusively to the Iranian and Kurdish leftists, but nevertheless the Iranian and Kurdish leftists feel perhaps in the territory of the European Union somewhat like at home.
All good so far.
And so a moment comes the European Union, this undefined Thing, and after supporting the Iranian democrats, in general the anti-establishment ones, says in its broadest "wisdom" the irresistible, and finally unaccountable, "maybe we should call prince (would-be Shah), to his make a speech in the European Parliament?".
These people, if this invitation is valid and it is not a rumor, they are idiots, they are dumb, they are stupid lobbyists, scumbags, small-minded people.
They commit the politics and the name of Europe and its citizens to the promotion of a successor of a bloodthirsty regime, who indeed does not guarantee a smooth democratic transition from a theocratic regime to a parliamentary democracy, but plays with all possible bonapartist semi-dictatorial semi-fascist scenarios succession of regime from another regime.
There was a networking of the monarchists and the so-called experts of the European institutions, who fell like a ripe fruit, something like the "unfortunate" Greek MEP?
I hope the information I am conveying to you is not valid.
But when one looks at and compares European with American and British bourgeois politics, one sees the difference in the level of power, seriousness, coherence and simultaneous multiplicity in strategic thinking and action between the two main pillars of the West's international dominance.
The bastions of the West are not, therefore, the carnivals of the European Union, they are the USA, NATO and Great Britain.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
