Why did the protests began in Mashhad?

The city of Mashhad is known for its political Islamic conservatism. It is an ideological center of the regime. Here began the protests of the people against the banks, which have brought the cask to overflowing. As in Tunisia, the self-immolation of a poor street vendor, or in Gezi, the cutting down of trees in a park and the attack of the police on the group of environmentalists, these events have led to uprisings that changed history. In such situations, a movement can explode all the clenched contradictions.

Iran has a regime that claims to limit capitalism and implement an "Islamic economy". In reality, the gap between rich and poor has grown ever larger. Poverty and unemployment have increased. Youth unemployment rose to over 30%. The contradiction between labor and capital, between capitalism and the oppressed, has come to a head. When oil prices were still high, the mullah regime could tolerate the contradictions. An important part of the state budget was used for subsidies. When the oil prices fell during the world economic crisis 2007/2008 and the embargo came into force, the wheels of economy slowed down. The political-Islamic version of capitalism had no solution for that, and ultimately the laws of capitalism were at work. The uprisings of 2009 took place under these conditions.

The contradiction between state and people

Officially, there is a political-Islamic democracy in Iran. In reality, of course, it's not democracy. The last word is always the spiritual leader. The military, the judiciary, the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards, the media are in his hands. He can veto electoral candidates. Parliament is not decisive. In Iran, there is a political-Islamic oligarchic mullah dictatorship in which there is no political freedom.
The fascist state terror could be endured or ignored by the people, as long as measures were taken that improved the economic situation of the people.
After these have disappeared, the broad masses of the people oppose the state power.
At the slightest resisting emotion, the state attacks with full force, because it no longer has the opportunity to create peace through concessions. The state power creates counter-violence because the people now have enough. That's what's happening in Iran.

The disintegration of the ruling ideology

When the social relationship between state and people dissolves, the ruling ideology loses its weight. Politics are the abstracted interests of the economy, ideology are the interests abstracted by politics. In an exploiting society, it is the task of the ruling ideology to convince the exploited of their exploitation, to let them believe in it. In other words, the ruling ideology wants to gain approval. This ideology can take the form of religion, secularism, liberalism, democracy or fascism, but everyone wants to bend the oppressed into order. But the source of consent lies in political interests, moreover in economic relations. The state is the headquarters of ideological production. As soon as the economic contradictions intensify and the people no longer want to live as they did before, the state presents itself as a naked exploitative apparatus in its full size before the people. This shakes up his ruling ideology and weakens his influence. This is indicated by revolutionary leaps. Now is the time for new orientations. This can be seen above all among the young people. The rebels are mostly young. The Shiite version of political Islam is losing influence. We can see it by the fact that the uprising started in cities like Mashhad. This is also the main difference to the uprising in 2009. At that time, the insurgents supported the reformist political-Islamists, instead of the conservatives. This time, however, they have targeted the hegemony of political Islam. At the moment, people do not yet have a common program, which they would put in their place. This will depend on the political influence of the forces, on the uprising and on the experience of the people. No doubt this is just the beginning.

A new revolutionary wave is approaching

We have explained the causes of the uprising in Iran with the aggravation of two contradictions and with the collapse of ideological hegemony. Not only in Iran, but also in Turkey or Jordan, there are similar conditions. More than that, not only in the Middle East, around the world, these two contradictions are coming to a head, and the crisis of ideological hegemony is becoming ever clearer. The contradictions of imperialist globalization also become globalized. Of course, each country has its own historical developments, political regimes and economic structure. But these contradictions are also manifested in different forms. In Iran, for example, it is a matter of state violence against people's lifestyles and a matter of political freedoms. Or because of the Kurdish national issue, Rojhilat has been one of the most active areas of the uprising. The political system in Iran has the necessary knowledge and organization to break down a rebellion. But as soon as the system detaches itself from the people, it is all the more close to falling apart. Just as the uprising in Iran is intrinsic to Iran, it is also secular because of the quality of the contradictions. It can trigger a new wave of uprisings, as in the revolutionary phase of the Arab countries. In the phase of imperialist globalization, under the conditions of the existential crisis of capitalism, a rebellion started somewhere can quickly resonate elsewhere and gain regional character. In other countries mass protests can be triggered thereby. The Arab revolutionary phase went just like that. By interfering with the imperialists in Syria, they have diverted it from its path and goal. Rojava, on the other hand, thwarted the plans of the imperialists. After Basur the uprising began in Iran and Rojhilat. Tunisia has finally risen too. The people are on the streets. Once again the voices of the oppressed rise. Insurrection is contagious ...

What is the character of the contradiction between Iran and the Western imperialists, starting with the US? Iran is still largely closed to integration into imperialist globalization, as the imperialist monopolies and states would like. They want to fully integrate Iran. The violent necessity of imperialist monopolies for markets compels them to integrate. That's why they rush to the insurgency news in Iran. However, that does not mean that the uprisings are being fueled by the imperialists. To see the political-Islamic fascists in Iran as anti-imperialist would be quite an ideological confusion, because that is nothing but a deep loss of faith in the will of the peoples, while one expects unknown forces from the imperialists. The imperialists, like the rebels and the revolutionaries among them, can have the same aim of overthrowing the oligarchic mullah regime. Is that a reason to give up the uprising? Shall we say that the uprising serves the imperialists? Should we therefore be on the side of the dictatorship when uprisings start in Turkey, because it has structural contradictions with the imperialists?