Any understanding of events in Iran requires a knowledge of its history, and how it differs from its Arab neighbors. That being one of the first variations, of course, Iranians aren’t Arabs. The name Iran actually means Land of the Aryans. However, that political independence during most of the 20th century have not meant complete freedom of action for the Iranian state.
The closeness of Reza Shah to Nazi Germany – especially given Iran’s essential oil resources, and tactical Gulf position – led to a combined action by Britain and the USSR to displace him with his boy Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. When the newly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who were elected in 1951, and appreciated huge popular support nationalized Iran’s oilfields, in 1953, there response was quick. Britain and the US, using the CIA and other resources hatched a storyline that overthrew him and handed complete power over to the Shah.
However, it is important to remember that, however, undemocratic and brutal the Shah’s program, it did have the result of rapidly industrialising the Iranian economy, growing further the Iranian working course thus, and of modernising and secularising Iranian culture. Such political revolutions are nothing new. What is important in the framework of a political revolution is, which class has clear domination.
The English Civil War was a Political Revolution. A vulnerable, newly emerging Merchant Class, with ties to the English nobility shown in its ideas the needs of the new society. It did so in an exceedingly unclear manner, obscured across course limitations with other issues such as religious beliefs. The politics revolution it transported through reflected that. Days gone by the history of France has similar parallels. Not only did France go through the regime of Bonaparte, but also of Louis Napoleon, before the industrial bourgeoisie eventually achieves sufficient social dominance to attain outright political control in the form of the Third Republic.
Under conditions where the working class is relatively young, presents, and weak no threat to the bourgeoisie the previous kind of Bonapartism is possible. Under conditions where the working class has developed into today’s powerful force, it is not; only the last-mentioned kind is possible. But, it’s important to make this point here. In the USSR, the Stalinist Bonapartist bureaucracy fulfilled the same function, but even when the working course acquired are more socially prominent by the 1960’s, simply transforming that social dominance into politics dominance is no simple matter.
Yet another example in a few respects, though, is the Russian revolution of 1917. In Russia, an increasingly Capitalist economy, plus a Capitalist State, were sat upon by an autocratic Tsarist political power. Ultimately, the politics or Governmental power is weak, when confronted with the sociable power of a dominant class, and the charged power of that course’s Condition.
- Dealing with an influx of migrants
- Individual Savings Accounts (ISA) income
- Consolidation is Prominent
- NBN boosting regional sales in NSW, says leading network
- Reducing non-compliance by identifying returns and taxpayers that need to be investigated; and
In February 1917, the Tsarist political power collapsed. In lots of ways that has its representation in Iran today. Those acting as figureheads of the protests are not workers’ representatives, nor even off their records representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they are as much butchers of the clerical-fascist regime as Ahmedinejad, and Khameini.
Not only are those conditions much like those that resulted in the 1906, bourgeois revolution in Iran, the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, but they are also similar to the conditions that led to. What makes this similar to February 1917 in Russia than 1906 in Iran is the role of the working class.
In February 1917, the majority of workers who came into the streets were not demanding socialism out. Nor were the troops whose social roots ran deep into the Russian Peasantry. For both immediate concern was an end to the War. For both too, there is a demand for food as the results of the pugilative battle acquired remaining people in dire straits.
As a way out of its condition the Peasants demanded land distribution, whilst for the employees just how out was better income, and shorter hours. Every one of the celebrations offered a finish to the War. The Peasant Party, the Social Revolutionaries offered land reform, whilst the socialists of the Mensheviks offered better wages, and shorter hours for workers. As of this right time in 1917, when the Tsar was overthrown, and positioned under house arrest the Bolsheviks were a little Minority.