Explanation: In 1979, the Iranian people rose up to overthrow the repressive Shah and his authoritarian regime in the Iranian Revolution. Champagne all around, right?
Well, no, not quite. Due to skilled political maneuvering and a hefty dose of outright lying about their intentions, the Islamist faction of Ruhollah Khomeini managed to gain power, first purging the liberal factions which had been part of the revolutionary coalition, and then after that, the leftist factions once they were no longer needed and had no allies to resist Khomeini’s fascist vision. Khomeini then proceeded to construct a new ‘Islamic Republic’, complete with repression of public opinion and secret police, just like the good old days of the Shah!
It feels like this legitimately nearly always happens, libertarian socialist, anarchist, (sometimes liberals) form a big part of a social revolution, but the end result tends to always be an authoritarian state, best case scenario a neoliberal democracy, worst case scenrio a totalitarian hellhole.
Where is our libertarian socialist society :(
(Rojava and Zapadistas are the best current successful examples AFAIK).
It’s generally the lack of parallel institutions run by workers which sabotage such attempts. Revolutions are generally not powerful enough to do anything but take out the current power; this pretty invariably means the second-most powerful group takes over the role of the overthrown power, or the near-seconds squabble amongst themselves over it. Since dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes tend to systemically crush every alternate power base they can get away with crushing, that generally leaves only those they cannot crush - most often religion in societies which have not experienced a deep secularization, the military, and economic powers in just about every society (in the SovUnion at the end of its life, for example, this was the bureaucracy; whereas we are more familiar with it being capitalists and other private economic actors). So ‘theocracy’, ‘junta’, or ‘something amenable to the economic elite’ are most often the results.
A libertarian socialist society will emerge when low-hierarchy institutions have considerable support and deeply established roots during a time of upheaval - such as Rojava taking advantage of pre-existing Kurdish revolutionary institutions which were largely socialist or socialist-sympathetic to lay the foundation of the autonomous administration, once both the Syrian government and Islamist forces had exhausted themselves in the area.
I have negative opinions on the Zapatistas.
Could you elaborate on the Zapadistas? I’ve found remarkably little useful info about them online, so I’m wondering why you have a negative opinion.
(Don’t worry I’m not looking to debate or waste your time, just curious).
Mostly that they’re very good at PR to international leftist groups and restricting access to outsiders to facilitate that good PR, and terrible at delivering actual positive results.
If I feel active later, I’ll post some sources/examples.
This is why when people suggest violent revolution those of us with poli sci or history backgrounds wonder why anyone thinks what cones next will necessarily be better. The USA could have a revolution and go from whatever we are right now, I’d argue a proto-fascist oligarchy, to a totalitarian Christian theocracy which wouldnt be better.
How can you forget Thomas Sankara and Burkina Faso. That dude did a lot of good, improved education, healthcare and helped the county become food self-sufficient.
Born in the Reagan era only to live through the Reagan era
Most revolutions in the middle east end up like this 😞
I just a few days ago watched Persepolis.
Why does Khomeini look like Sean Connery? 🤔
