Re: [Marxism] A velvet revolution in Iran?

[brad bauerly <bbauerly@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well this is one time that I think I disagree with S. Artesian.  The problem
with the way that this is being discussed here and everywhere else I can
find on the left is that it is being posited as an either-or: you are either
with the protesters or with Ahmadinejad/Khomeni.  Now this may be the fault
of many- Patras, Chavez and others- who have also fallen into this either-or
dichotomy by way of the enemy- of-my-enemy-is-my-friendism, but that does
not mean that those here should then take the opposite position.

The truth of the matter is that we know that the US is involved in these
protests (just like in Venezuela).  The other thing that we all know is that
Iran is run by a ruthless theocracy that oppresses its people (which county
doesn't?).  My issue is with those who simply repeat CNN soundbites that the
protesters are fighting for democracy.  Last I heard they are fighting for
what amounts to a very limited liberal democracy, if not simply fighting for
their guy to have won the elections and against election fraud.  By falling
into this binary of either-or those here who are pro-protesters are actually
on the side of neoliberal US imperialism and you cannot get around that by
even the most obscure Marxist logic or quotes from Lenin or Trotsky.  The US
has been acting to destabilize the regime for sometime and now we have some
here who are uncritically arguing for the same thing.

Now before everyone starts calling me a fascist apologist let me say that I
in no way support the ruling regime.  The simple fact remains that the
protesters aren't really calling for an end to this regime but are instead
seeking to instill someone who would legitimate it's brutal rule.  If, and
it is a huge if, this protest ever did began to actually threaten the
theocracy you would see them do whatever was necessary to hold onto power.
This includes a massive bloodbath which would set the stage for a US/Israeli
attack, but also includes allowing Mousavi to take power (since he is still
under the thumb of the ruling theocracy and some sources actually put him
closer to it than Amadinejad).  I don't personally think either outcome
would be good for both Iranians nor the left globally.

This then leads to the question of what should internationally oriented
leftists do and who should they support?  While I would not claim to have
all of the answers I would caution against falling into the either-or trap
that has been so central to western liberal capitalist rule for quite some
time.  The divide on the anti-imperialist left is being exploited here
by ruling capitalists much the same way that it usually does in an attempt
to divide and conquer. The CIA has become quite good at using the cry of
'democracy' to destabilize regimes, but more importantly to divide any
opposition.  This should stop.  We should not give uncritical support to the
protesters nor should we give the same to the ruling theocracy of Iran.  And
I don't mean this as a sort of plague on both their houses approach, but as
simply a more nuanced one that recognizes the forces of imperialism at work
here while not succumbing to a weird structuralist analysis that insists
that the people of Iran have no agency themselves and are just the puppets
of the CIA.

The important thing to think about, and of which there appears to me to be
very little of, is think about what the possible outcomes could be.  When I
do this I don't see any real hope for positive change coming out of this but
maybe I am too pessimistic.

Brad

--
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu