[anasawad]

@SolarCross
Actually its the opposite. Socialist movements and support is on rapid rise in Iran. And currently about half of provincial governments are either fully controlled by socialist groups or partially controlled by them. This is the leading push for the recent reforms across several provinces in Iran specially in the north and south east of the country in the recent years. (most of the reformists are various degrees of socialists)
Full communists parties and movements are indeed weak and to some extent irrelevant, however still have presence in the country.

Islamists and conservatives on the other hand are on rapid decline in popular support, specially among the newer generations. Moderates as well are following them in that decline, yet to a lesser extent.
Once Khamenei is out, which would be in late 2019 and early 2020. The country is expected to witness a large push for conversion towards a decentralized federalist socialist state; As the central government is already being constantly voted out of its powers,shifting powers gradually towards provincial and regional governments in an increasing rate.

[SolarCross]

@anasawad

Ah well I haven't been there in more than 5 years now, what you say may now be true, I'll have to look into it.

[anasawad]

Things have been changing quite alot in the post-green revolution protests.

Where do you usually go and stay when you go to Iran ?

[One Degree]

@anasawad
Is this equal to me asking a Republican what's going on in the US? A Democrat would give me a totally different picture. Is there a different version of what is happening in Iran? I don't doubt your honesty, but feel it is a fair question.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
Doubt it. The new generation in Iran, which is over 60% of the population, is getting sick and tired of the clerics.
So the current situation in Iran is basically the clerics increasingly fearful of their position and a potential revolution against them.
The youth are rising more and more, voting new parties into power, occasional protests across the country and support for the reformists is growing by the day across the country.
The moderates, such as Rouhani, are now taking as much use as possible from the situation where they're basically playing center field between the clerics and the reformists and youth of the country. However many don't like them and once Khamenei is gone, the clerics will be losing their leader and organizer which would pretty much create a political vacuum that the reformists are expected to fill it, which would leave the moderates as well even weaker as they can no longer make use of the political divide between the younger and older generation.

I actually try to give the situation in as objective manner as possible which is why i generally present general analysis of the political field in Iran and not go into each party or coalition on its own and its stands. In that, i would be extremely biased.

FYI, the recent nuclear deal with the US only came through due to this fact and generally the changes in power dynamics in the country after the green revolution. The clerics administration only allowed the nuclear deal to pass as a compromise not to the west but to the youth and reformists in Iran in attempt to calm the situation down a little bit.

[SolarCross]

@anasawad

Either Tehran or a little town in the north called Bandar Anzali. Bandar Anzali is a port on the caspian sea, there is thin trickle of trade with Russia flowing through it, it's my wife's home town.

I must admit to some doubt about your assertion. I do get that quite a lot of people are frustrated with the preponderance of Islamists in the country's government, particularly the more well off people as it inhibits their opportunities to enjoy themselves and that might give oxygen to political movement that had a secular ring to it. I'm just surprised that would be called socialism or become socialism particularly without an external backer. I never saw even a faintest trace of it.

[anasawad]

@SolarCross
Not communism. The system which most are advocating for is generally similar to that of Europe in the past decades, social democracy, simply with a considerably larger public sector that would be used as an economic backbone to the country and its revenues to economic expansion and welfare. Basically mixture between socialism and capitalism.
EDIT: For the political structure, the reformists coalition is pushing towards more rights and authority in the hand of regional and provincial governments, and leaving only major tasks to the central government. With the public sector being ran by provincial governments not by the central government to insure no corruption and more competition and activity.

And its not called socialism or socialist party, there are tons of groups and parties in Iran. What i mean they're various degrees of socialists, not that they're called socialists.

BTW, 'm from Damghan if you ever been there.

[SolarCross]

@anasawad

I see so with every iteration this purported socialist uprising looks less and less like actual socialism and more and more like ordinary democratic Keynesianism...

Originally TIG and I were discussing the prospects for communists in Iran during and after the revolution, when you jumped in with your "socialism is taking over" comment. Consequently by the context I was assuming by socialism you didn't just mean big state welfarism but actual ideological socialism. 18th century Prussia was a big state society, the Nazis and fascists in general tended to be fans of the big state, WW2 and to some extent WW1 perforce made big state welfarists of all the main protagonists but that doesn't make them "socialist". If socialism was just about a big public sector then John Maynard Keynes would be some kind of socialist instead of being the full on capitalist / imperialist that he was.

Americans and other intellectually lazy people are apt to call anything involving government "socialism" but that simply is not so. Socialism isn't just a set of policies it is an ideology, practically a religion, with a very particular belief system. For a real socialist a big state is means to a very particular end, the end of making everyone equal and utilises a very particular mythology (well they call it "analysis" but it is mythology) about an evil race of overweight cat-pig hybrids in top hats called the capitalist or bourgeoisie who are secretly oppressing the hell out of another race of pure and innocent humans called the proletariat. In this cosmic battle for good and evil, the proletariat led by an enlightened master race of jews will eventually conquor the evil ones and paradise on earth be achieved.

If what is happening in Iran is just a move towards even more government involvment in the economy (not that Iran was ever a lightweight when it came to that!) then it is not socialism it is ordinary democratic multi-factional shakedownism.

[anasawad]

@SolarCross

Americans and other intellectually lazy people are apt to call anything involving government "socialism" but that simply is not so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy


Keynesian economics is nothing like what i described. Keynesian economics is centered around government regulations. It doesn't have the government being part of the market, Nor doesn't have social ownership and control over the public sector and corporations.

Consequently by the context I was assuming by socialism you didn't just mean big state welfarism but actual ideological socialism.

No, not ideological movements, i already stated those movements (ideological movements of all sorts) are either already weak or growing weaker by the day. Just economic structure and policy.



Socialism is not a single system. There are quite a number of forms of socialists economic structures varying from social democracy and mixed economies being the lightest, market socialism being to some extent the average between the two extremes, and communism being the hardline socialism.