And of course if the honorable Sarbedaran and associates fail to have time to translate Chair Avakian follower's RCP Response 9 letters, that will be another democratic task of ours regardless of its context not being as principled as i gather.

And thanks for her/his translation whoever who has done them. I am comparing and shall provide Kasama if I find significant inconsistencies.

Interesting to ponder on

Mr. Mike e, the poster person correctly stated that:

<blockquote>"Farsi (Persian) is the language spoken in Iran, and also among people within Afghanistan and Tajikistan. These drafts need to be read by politically conscious Farsi speakers who can compare the new Farsi text with the English-language originals. We ask Kasama’s Farsi-speakers to read, confirm and if necessary refine these translations."</blockquote>

Still, unlike Afghani/Irani readers of different tribes and Tajikistan linguistics/scholars further tasks need to be fulfilled. That is, to present the FINAL VERSION format in Cyrillic alphabets for peoples to read it since, unlike majority of Kurds, Tajiks have not had Arabic - Farsi alphabet.

Good luck in your "Project" actions and please don't forsake our self determination movements in Kurdistan that are not all American used pawns. Workers Party of Kurdistan in Turkey to certain extent and, their Iranian courageous affiliates, and Turkey/North Kurdistan TKP ML and other authentic forces do not affiliate with outer east/west powers to dictate their destiny since, historically and also technically after the first world war are the genuine indigenous people of their land who struggle for daily survival under attacks from Turkey/Iran and more.

Green Red Rev, how old are you, 10?

Green Red Rev is an Iranian comrade who contributes often to discussions on Kasama, and whose first language is not English. NotCrimson (or crimsonflame?), while we are glad you stopped by and posted on Kasama, we will thank you to make specific arguments and struggle with people in a respectful, principled manner.

Looking forward to constructive criticisms, and more participation from you.

Hi Not Crimson,

When you weren't born I was listening to King Crimson's first album, in the court of the crimson king; have you heard it?

Then I certainly wasn't much for Mao Tes tung Thought. Right now though, when seeing the glorious struggles in Philippine, Nepal and most of all in India, a truly appropritate place for a Maoist revolution, I listen less to King Crimson and read more.

And one thning I don't like to read is whoever who doesn't take India's revolution sersiously, be it CP USA, be it Avakianists, whoever you know? I only hope that Sarbedarans and other honorable revolutionaries will stop being some big brother's slave and get serious revolutionaries to make a revolution in Iran, instead of fitting into international relations. Then, when three world theory existed, it was counterproductive, when fear of the third world nuclear war was the focus of the RIM's formation to me it was counterproductive, and today's overtly focusing on Christian freaks is a waste of energy.

If you know Farsi, would you like to help proof reading comrade Mike Ely's letters? Or for that matter instead of that would you like to translate the self coup associated manifesto and RCP's response to the 9 letters?

Sister/brother. Without ideologic struggle, any party gets wasted and rotten. You know that and I know that. so let's get serious, would you like to help? Not Crimson, our enemy is the imperialism and globalization and all that. would you like to unite on something?

Of course, if anybody says if you are not For My Revolution, then You Are Couner Revolutionary, that may be childish, but what does that have to do with you, or I?

Join the struggle friend, keep the hatred for the zionists and imperialists

With regards and hope for improvement in our perceptions of one another.

sorry for my ignorance. is the rcp and avakian important for iranian communism?

Well said Mr. Ely to value the indicated Iranian communist force but that aside, Iranian Communists are numerous. Some are organizations, some, like Sarbedaran Party are, self declared with unknown supposedly existing support among masses. But that is only a piece of Emil’s answer
Technically, Iranian Communists are (or were since the Soviet Union doesn’t exist, but still for example Fadaee Majority stands for Russia to an extent) divided to at least 3, 4 major groups;

1 - Line One that is a reference to Tudeh party of Iran, an extremely revisionist pro (ex) Soviet party that had terrible destructive effects on whole Iranian left and served the Islamic republic as agents of the regime. And after almost everybody else's busted and executed, some of their own peers were arrested too, but not often killed.

So, Emil, Avakian and rcp are only important for a particular Maoist Iranian party and, not Iranian Communism.

2 - Line Two, that is reference mostly to Organization of People's Fedaee Guerrillas, that inspired by tons of Che Guevara ... up to Carlos Marigella started armed struggle in around 1970 - mostly urban - that resulted the shaking of Shah's regime but, due to a number of reasons including not having mass support in the country side - however smaller, in terms of numbers of peasants than say Nepal would be - and severe infiltration by the Tudeh Party, very right revisionist leadership took over it that caused the "majority" of it serving hand in hand with Tudeh party in supporting the regime and among everything done, including turning in various Mao oriented and other group members to the regime intelligence, side by side of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards a member or two of them literally used weapon against the glorious members of the Sarbedaran in Amol, in support of the bloody regime. The Minority of the indicated group cut into numerous off springs and, only an earlier split that was often named after one of the woman commanders - earlier guerillas who was imprisoned and later escaped - Ashraf Dehghani's group remained faithful to the original theory of armed struggle both strategy and, tactic. The rest went into variety of Trotskist up till pro People's Mojahedin group, etc. little armed groups. They had limited criticism for both China and the Soviet Union.

Line 3 - was a reference to all sort of groups calling the Soviet Union things like State Capitalist, all the way to Social Imperialist calling experts. Ranjbaran, the left over of Organization of Iran Revolutionaries turn into party after revolution (and doing bits of armed struggles) was the sort that wouldn't practically sort out Mao from Deng. Just follow China. The Union of Iranian Communists (Sarbedaran)that later called itself a Party, perhaps was one of the most decent ones that through Amol uprising, gained lots of reputation for Mao Tse-tung Thought since, the Iranian people's Fedaee Guerrillas’ gun battle starting in early '70s in a northern jungle, and later mostly in cities had earned a reputation and regardless of how they looked upon Amol, still the Amol uprising made Sarbedaran and Maoism as serious, probably positive but certainly sincere, sort of leftists to look upon. It is sad to see them - the ones left - since majority of Mao followers who had served Student Confederations were the ones who died heroically in Amol, passed away and, if they were alive they would still be so close to Avakian thought, considering his fallacies, is debatable.
Many, many other groups from Pro Hoxites (Labor Party of Iran who believe the US should be fought against shoulder to shoulder with Islamic Guards of Revolution...) up till Worker Communist Party of Iran and its branches (Hekmatists who look at the US intervention as a possible liberation) were considered the Line 3 groups. Various Trotskists, Anarcho Syndicalists, Maoists, etc. they were

Line 4 - or so self proclaimed as such, is or was? Rahe Karghar. For their international stand as appose to pro China or Russia, they had separate stand. Although supposedly Leninist or Trotskist, their far associate happens to be the Workers World Party from whom they translate and publish some articles every now and then.

Then, there is the Communist Party of Iran, that was formed as the result of ideological imposition of the Hekmatists ideological talking upon a Kurdish group, the Organization of workers and toilers of Kurdistan - that was less scholastic - but later when the Hekmatists who talk lots about capitalism as if imperialism doesn't exist did not find it convenient to have that Kurdish group, a.k.a Komeleh by their side since it still had both National and Leninist stands, Hekmat's self coup was inventing the Worker-Communist Party. Although some have along Democratic Party of Kurdistan - Iran joined Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, PJAK - that is allegedly an Iranian off spring of PKK.

Although some of Komeleh have along some members of Democratic Party of Kurdistan - Iran joined Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, PJAK - that is allegedly an Iranian off spring of PKK.

Above is the correction of the last sentence of previous statement. That means, some supporters of the two indicated Kurdish Iranian groups (and of other groups) have now joined PJAK.

thanks. what would be the leftist or communist response if the US invade?

As expressed in the Sarbedaran's article posted here last month, there are two major trends and, a third one that is the most just one although, extremely hard...

The Worker-Communist Paaty -- at least some of their major branches (tht cut into pieces after Hekmat's demise) are the ones who have even defamed trade unionist - right economists.

They are the same who commended the US for getting rid of Taliban and, they have the same sentimint, along the most reactionary segment of Royalists, to welcome the US to get rid of the regime. But as I mentioned, Sarbedaran's - at least their leadership's - affiliation with Avakian is a matter of their own. Maybe when they get bigger (hopefully someday) that stand of them may be worth to be taken more seriously. But with or without Avakian's new synthesis, the world communist struggle is as it is. Putting another face next to Marx..... up to Mao's head does not bring revolutionary movement of the US a penny higher, or lower. as somebody mentioned before, revolution is of, from and for the masses, not a party or figure's private property to dictate disagreeing with him equals counter revolutionary stand. While Kasama appears to be a more democratic trend trying to re evaluate the movement, how productive it may be within the US, and outside of it, is to be seen all dependent on where the struggle leads, and what kind of effects it has on the world left, including in Iraq. Keep the good work please.

Opposite stand of Labor Party and some others talk about fighting the US attack with different variations of fighting along Islamic Guards against the regime.

Sarbedaran, and a couple of other smaller groups have talked of finding the third way, that is fighting for the masses rights on both front against Islamist and the US. one of those groups have quoted Lenin of turning unjust imperialist war into just people's civil war for freedom.

However, at least at this moment, chance of the US attack seems musch slimmer than before. And the strength of all mentioned parties and groups (excluding the Kurdish one) or having mass base in Iran is outside of my field of knowledge and/or unfair to get into.

the sarbedaran has articulated their view on this (in an article posted here on Kasama). And (as you can see ) it generated quite a bit of controversy.

<a href="/http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/maoists-debate-islamic-fundamentalism/" rel="nofollow">Maoists debate Islamic Fundamentalism</a>

<a href="/http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/more-debate-over-revolutionary-communism-vs-jihadist-islam/" rel="nofollow">More Debate over Maoism vs. Jihadism</a>

Part of the necessary background here:

The Iranian revolution (of 1979) produced both considerable secular revolutionary forces AND a tidal wave of Islamist politics. The pro-U.S. shah was swept away, but the new government was formed by Khomenei (not by progressive and revolutionary forces).

When the U.S. helped instigate Iraq to wage war on Iran, the Union of Iranian Communists rallied to the defense of Iran (and, in their minds, to the defense of the Iranian revolution) -- and they perceived the Khomenei government as potential allies within a broad united front of defense.

this proved to be a mistake -- and, in fact, the Khomenei forces had no intention of alliance or tolerance of secular communists. And the Maoist forces paid very deeply -- in the torture cells and execution grounds of the Khomenei regime.

And under the threat of a new attack (by Israel or the U.S. "taking out nuclear facilities" -- or whatever form it might take) the Sabedaran have a rather different take -- focusing on the overthrow of the oppressive Iranian fundamentalist government, and exploiting the contradictions of threat and war to carry that through.

Hi Nando

While appreciating lots of your writings other places, this part of your above statement has confused me utterly.

When the U.S. helped instigate Iraq to wage war on Iran, the Union of Iranian Communists rallied to the defense of Iran (and, in their minds, to the defense of the Iranian revolution) — and they perceived the Khomenei government as potential allies within a broad united front of defense.

I cannot recal that part. Did Iranian Maoists, Sarbedaran who used to be called Union of Iranian Communists EVER rallied to the defense of Iran for the Khomeini regime?

Please supply reference. They are much better than that.

Tudeh party and Fadaee Majority - as mentioned so well by an Iranian Progreesives fellow up there were of that sort but not the Union of Communists that later became Sarbedaran and CPI MLM.

With comradely regards