[Marxism] Zimbabwe, Iran, the Landy letter, Cuba, and left journalism

[Eli Stephens <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

How things can mutate. One minute we're discussing Cuba, then Louis slips in 
one 
of his requisite digs at the "Becker brothers" and their "idiotic" article on 
Zimbabwe (written by neither of the Becker brothers, but no matter), and before 
you know it John is writing about "hagiography," as if the article in question 
(http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=402) even remotely falls 
in 
that category (incidentally, George Galloway's "Fidel Castro Handbook," the 
closest I've ever come to actually reading hagiography, is a wonderful book, 
highly recommended, if for nothing else than its treasure-trove of historic 
photos. But I digress). John also condemns "denial," but "denial" is not the 
same as "obligated to mention."

Is left journalism obliged to discuss the negative aspects of any target of 
imperialism? Let's look at some recent coverage of Iran. Here's a recent 
article 
from Socialist Worker 
(http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/644/644_04_Iran.shtml) about Iran which, 
unless I missed it, has not a word to say against Iran; likewise a recent 
article from PSL 
(http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7526&news_iv_ctrl=1038). 
On the other hand, when Ahmadinejad appeared at Columbia, certain issues became 
more relevant, and both PSL 
(http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7409&news_iv_ctrl=1038) 
and ISO (http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/646/646_16_Ahmadinejad.shtml) 
mention Ahmadinejad's "reactionary political views" (ISO) or "reactionary 
social 
views" (PSL) in their articles.

An instructive comment, which you may or may not agree with, is made by Dr. 
Aleida Guevara (Che Guevara's daughter) in the DVD "extras" to SiCKO, which I 
put online here: 
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html#6849619904904547128. Guevara 
has this to say:

"At one point, somebody asked my opinion about the veil that Arab women have to 
use. I said, 'Nothing.' But why? I don't wear it, it's not my culture. I don't 
have the right to talk about it. They are the only ones who can decide to wear 
it or not. Only the Arab women can decide. Not me. This is the freedom to 
respect another human being."

Her point, in this context, it is the role of the Iranian people, not the 
Americans or the British and so on, to deal with Ahmadinjad's "reactionary 
views." But (she doesn't say this) it is the role of the Americans and British 
and French, etc., whose governments are attacking Iran, to deal with the 
reactionary views of their OWN leaders, specifically their demonization and 
threats against Iran.

Back to Cuba, I'm indebted to Andrew Splane for posting the ISO article from 
ISR 
(http://www.isreview.org/issues/30/cuba.shtml) on the Landy letter, because I 
think it actually helps make a point on which Joaquin and I disagreed. He 
thought the SW article (by the same author, incidentally: 
http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-1/453/453_05_Cuba.shtml) demonstrated that 
"the ISO [did not] waver from what they claimed to stand
for, which is a firm anti-imperialist position. Unlike some (a few) comrades
who were taken in by the Landy statement against Cuba, they saw right
through it," whereas I found the last paragraph rather "wavering" and not 
exactly a forthright disavowal of the Landy/CPD letter: "It’s up to Cuban 
workers to wrestle power away from the Castro clique--while continuing to fight 
to keep Uncle Sam out. That’s why we also believe that there is no such thing 
as 
the right to do the bidding of U.S. imperialism in the name of dissidence." By 
contrast, the longer ISR article is far clearer in disssociating itself from 
the 
CPD letter. However, calling it a clear demonstration of the lack of 
"adaptation 
and capitulation to imperialist pressure," as Joaquin does, is hard to take, 
considering that it contains even more extensive criticisms of the "Castro 
regime" (using even the language of imperialism).

The ISR article is really a marvel of hypocrisy. In the guise of condemning the 
CPD letter, it says this:

"Particularly in the current climate of aggressive and unabashed imperialist 
expansion by Bush and Co., whatever one’s political position on Cuba may be, a 
statement of condemnation, however "balanced," just serves at this moment as a 
"left" cover for the U.S. to crank up its pressure on the island. It is one 
thing to have an analysis that is critical of the regime, but a different one 
to 
issue signed public statements of criticism in the midst of the post—September 
11 Bush Doctrine. That places one, willy-nilly, in the service of those working 
to increase U.S. influence in Cuba...It is not a situation that calls for 
"balance" when you live in belly of beast."

But, again to cite my own article 
(http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2007w01/msg00146.htm)  which 
documents at length the ISO's treatment of Cuba, this talk of "balance" is a 
complete joke. The ISO has no problem of "balance," not because it hasn't 
"issued signed public statements of criticism" of Cuba (is that really 
significantly different than an article in the party's press, by the way?), but 
because its record of writing about the POSITIVE achievements of the Cuban 
revolution is practically nil. "Balance"? Is that a joke?


_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism