Iran Fantasies
It’s of course a question of solidarity. But solidarity is different from cheer-leading, the Party Line isn’t always the correct one, and leftists seem to have gotten taken for a real ride. Not the outcome anyone wished
By Max Ajl on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 - 726 words.
It looks like no one voted for Ahmadinejad. Stipulate that fact, and everything falls into place: Ahmadinejad has no legitimacy. His economic programs were worse than worthless. The countryside despises him. The cities are in revolutionary ferment. His populism was sheer charlatanism. His rhetoric, abrasive demagoguery. If no one voted for him, it becomes easy to prove fraud: even one Mousavi supporter means more votes than Ahmadinejad got. Little itty-bitty problem: such a claim is unadulterated non-sense.
Imagine that some of those Iranians, not being wily fellows, did vote for Ahmadinejad. Imagine something really nuts: that the election broke down upon class lines. Who voted for Ahmadinejad? Why? Some guesses.
First, the notion that Ahmadinejad is the neo-liberal and Mousavi, the “hardcore socialist,” in the depraved rhetoric of Hamid Dabashi, simply isn’t correct. There are useful qualms to register about Ahmadinejad’s economic policies over the last four years. But there’s little dispute that he’s operating within limits handed down from above. Ayatollah Khamanei has made it an explicit policy to speed up privatization within Iran, already a long-standing feature of the post-war political conjuncture.
As Kaveh Ehsani notes, in the spring of 2005 he issued a edict that reinterpreted Article 44 of the constitution, which had enshrined state ownership of the economy. “To speed up national economic development; expand ownership among the populace with the purpose of assuring social justice; improve the efficiency of enterprises; enhance economic competition; reduce the fiscal and administrative burdens of the state; improve employment and income for the population; and encourage the people to invest and save.” Ahmadinejad has diverted part of this drive to privatization into the creation of newfangled forms of dispersed ownership, and is widely viewed as an obstacle to wider privatization. Thus it doesn’t shock that the Iranian business community rallied against Ahmadinejad.
Did the countryside vote for him? Eric Hooglund doesn’t think so, because the countryside he’s studied for “over 30 years” represents less than 35 percent of the Iranian population, compounded by a few anecdotes he reports about rural mobilization. Dabashi rather likes this statistic. Problem is, rural geographers and rural sociologists as well as social scientists of all sorts commonly take the UN/World Bank’s rural/urban numbers on their face.
But the definition of “urban” in Iran is often a hamlet of a few thousand people–plainly organically interlinked with the countryside, as are cities of up to 50,000 people, to say nothing of recently-created or newly-burgeoning cities with yet-greater populations, where there has been a massive influx of peasants from the countryside in recent years due to the rapid urbanization often associated with petro-states and third-world cities in general.
What’s the point of all this? Two things. One, again and again, the “social fact” that Ahmadinejad supporters’ votes carry the same weight as those who voted for Mousavi is elided in analysis of the Iranian election, whether there was fraud or not. Is this elitist? Illiberal? Condescending? Have many analysts identified more with the effervescent and/or liberal and/or attractive, young, and wealthy protesters in the streets at the expense of those not in the streets (which is not to spuriously assert that the protesters were a homogeneous mass–I know that anti-Mousavi-ites were among those in streets, as were Marxists)? Yes, they have.
Two, mass protest has waxed and now waned. Mousavi, behind whom protesters rallied, “has been increasingly indecisive on tactics,” and “Rafsanjani has clearly decided to defer to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on handling the outcome of the elections, and has come out as critical of the crowd politics and occasional turbulence they produced. As a multi-billionaire and man of the establishment, he may well have been frightened that the massive street rallies for Mousavi a week ago signaled a danger to the status quo, which he is attempting to preserve,” writes Juan Cole, a point echoed by Sadegh Zibakalam and Ali Reza Eshraghi. The regime is more important than these local aspirations. Such are the men the protesters tragically mobilized behind. And without their support, the crackdown is hammering the leftists and activists in the street with the sheerest force.
As Richard Seymour sonorously intoned, it’s of course a question of solidarity. But solidarity is different from cheer-leading, the Party Line isn’t always the correct one, and leftists seem to have gotten taken for a real ride. Not the outcome anyone wished.
But shit isn’t the real action over in Honduras?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...21 Comments
Leave a Reply
Articles by this author
-
The view from Gaza
Before the attack, Israeli spokespeople and statesmen had sedulously tried to paint the flotilla in the colors reserved for scoundrels and terrorists. "Israel … invited the flotilla organizers to use the land crossings ... however, they're less interested in bringing in aid than promoting their radical agenda and playing into the hands of Hamas provocations…. [The organizers have] wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, but engage in political propaganda," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, said that "the flotilla is an attempt at violent propaganda against Israel, and Israel will not allow a violation of its sovereignty at sea, in the air or on land." The flotilla carried hundreds of wheelchairs for crippled Gazans and a dental clinic for Al-Shifa Hospital
-
Farming in Gaza, a form of resistance
We left the roof to continue to watch the destruction of the wheat from ground level. Eva Bartlett, an ISM activist, pointed out that "they might destroy the house in punishment" if we didn't leave and observe from a different position. They might also have considered sending an Apache rapidly over the horizon to kidnap us. Abductions of foreign internationals have happened before - Vittorio had been kidnapped off a fishing boat, in Gazan territorial waters, in November 2008
-
Deciphering Obama's smoke and mirrors in Copenhagen
Meanwhile, the call to "mobilize" 100 billion dollars in climate financing by 2020 is vapor. As Hugo Chavez said, "If the climate were one of the biggest capitalist banks, the rich governments would have saved it." Instead within a decade we’ll muster up a year’s worth of US government spending on bombing villagers in Waziristan. Washington’s priorities are clear. Saving AIG is more important than saving the planet
-
Chomsky Battles Ian Williams
It looks like Chomsky and Ian Williams have been having a tiff. At the words “Chomsky” and “tiff,” the first question is, what’s the body count? The expected has occurred, but Williams has opted for a peculiar sort of posterity. Call it the walking dead. Like most zombies, Williams’s mental capabilities aren’t so keen
-
A riposte to Hamid Dabashi on Iran
It’s not altogether clear from this physical distance who’s been protesting this past month, nor can we know the protesters’ composition with any precision. But over 70 million people live in Iran, and 50 million went to the polls on June 12. Analytical attention has zeroed in on the protesting minority. We are instinctively attracted, like hunting beasts, to flashing movements, the brilliant spectacle of mobilization. One would hope, from certain quarters, for something slightly better
-
Iran Fantasies
It’s of course a question of solidarity. But solidarity is different from cheer-leading, the Party Line isn’t always the correct one, and leftists seem to have gotten taken for a real ride. Not the outcome anyone wished
Where has Hamid Dabashi ever stated that Ahmadinejad is the "neo-liberal" and Mousavi the “hardcore socialist"? One must give references and avoid making fictitious claims! You must refrain from slandering exceedingly respected and balanced views such as those of Hamid Dabashi!
All of Dabashi's views and recent commentary on the election crisis can be found here:
http://www.hamiddabashi.com
You will be hard-pressed to find one single reference backing your irresponsible assertion about a moral giant of a man!
This may be an instance of sarcasm not carrying through the internet correctly, but see:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/dab...
You can use the search tool on your browser to find the term "hardcore," if you're having trouble.
Thanks Jewbonic–To state that someone is "universally known as a hard-core socialist" is not the same as saying "he is a hardcore socialist". Maz Ajl gives no reference to any of Dabashi's recent commentary but allows himself to accuse this man of using "depraved rhetoric"!
Many of us believe Dabashi is one of Iran's most progressive and elequoent thinkers–so it is hurtful to slander him in this cheap and lazy way at a time when he has been offering balanced and incredibly responsible readings of events in Iran, offering hope to millions of Iranians as well as Americans!
I suggest you watch or read the transcript of his recent interview with Amy Goodman of DN:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/24/hamid_dabsh...
nima–
Jewbonic = Max Ajl
You're right: Dabashi instead of being depraved is actually a liar (although lying academicians are surely depraved, no, especially when they
are masquerading as leftists!), because Mousavi isn't "universally known as a hardcore socialist"; in fact, no serious analyst agrees with that contention.
Now, one can quibble, but it's a reasonable inference that Dabashi thinks Mousavi is a "hardcore socialist." He said essentially that at a talk I heard him give.
Now–
if you have a specific problem with the argument, point it out, cite my words, and say why they're wrong. otherwise…
Nima b,
While i don't agree with Max Aji's lazy analysis, as you stated correctly. He has not to "refrain from slandering exceedingly respected and balanced views such as those of Hamid Dabashi!" It's his right to sound as dumb as he likes.
True Mike–true but people who know better must challenge such lazy and irresponsible assertions–I give you an example: was any of Daniel Pipes (Campus Watch) slanders about Dabashi true? No! But we all had to challenge them and not allow for lies and misinformation to infest the internet, the way they did during the Bush era! Poor Rashid Khalidi was robbed off any position in the Obama administration because of outrageous lies about him being a terrorist etc spread by Campus Watch and later Sarah Palin…Someone like Khalidi would have been good to have in the White House, but lazy lies deprived the Palestinians from having one representative in the corridors of power…This is how things work in the world. That's why I got upset by Max Aji's irresponsible accusations about Dabashi who is among the most progressive thinkers we have.
I've defended Dabashi's views on I-P in print, thanks very much, when he was being actually libeled by Campus Watch. I need no lectures.
You strew about rhetorical debris: "lazy and irresponsible assertions," "irresponsible accusations," but can't be bothered to cite and disagree with a single word.
good tactic.
First, Why do you call yourself Jewbonic? are you jewish or just deriding jews?
In my opinion the whole debate of who won is utterly childish. No one debates that the election was rigged. That is a given. The current debate is to what extent was it rigged. Does it really matter whether or not some say it was one vote, no votes or 40 million votes? Until you have nonpartisan oversight over ballot stations and a nonpartisan tallying organization every election should be deemed suspicious and undemocratic.
If there are only two options, I suppose I pick the former, although I would like to see something official if you've been appointed to be the Comment Factory's Grand Inquisitor.
As for "who won," it's important as a proxy for the general balance of forces in Iranian society and what they wish to make of their country. That doesn't strike me as "childish," but I suppose opinions may differ.
As for this palaver–"Until you have nonpartisan oversight over ballot stations and a nonpartisan tallying organization every election should be deemed suspicious and undemocratic"–I'd add that elections should be deemed undemocratic until you get rid of capitalism, which subverts democracy. But that'd indict our system as opposed to theirs, right, hardly the point.
If there are only two options, I suppose I pick the former, although I would like to see something official if you've been appointed to be the Comment Factory's Grand Inquisitor.
As for "who won," it's important as a proxy for the general balance of forces in Iranian society and what they wish to make of their country. That doesn't strike me as "childish," but I suppose opinions may differ.
As for this palaver–"Until you have nonpartisan oversight over ballot stations and a nonpartisan tallying organization every election should be deemed suspicious and undemocratic"–I'd add that elections should be deemed undemocratic until you get rid of capitalism, which subverts democracy. But that'd indict our system as opposed to theirs, right, hardly the point.
Not a grand inquisitor, just wondering. Personally, i wouldn't want to debate with a racist whether against muslims, jews, blacks or whatever. Most racists tend not to use logic in their arguments and thus debates with them are useless.
So let me get this straight. After everything, you end up equating our elections in the US with Iran's recent elections and you come to the conclusion that ours are faultier? I believe no one is stopping you from moving to Iran if you feel you live in this apparent ruthless american dictatorship.
And that would be the standard thoughtless reply: ignore my substantive points, namely that the elections do and did matter as a prism to understand Iranian societal sentiment, especially given the 85+% turnout, which suggests that your claim that "every election should be deemed suspicious and undemocratic" is simply islamophobic claptrap.
Then, change the subject, feign ignorance at why I brought up the comparison of American democracy (it was to poke fun at your sclerotic imperialism, Mike), mutter distractions like "So let me get this straight. After everything, you end up equating our elections in the US with Iran's recent elections and you come to the conclusion that ours are faultier," and then tell me to leave the country.
Now: why "Jewbonics" could only be acceptable if I were Jewish, and if I'm not is symptomatic of bigotry, is simply itself symptomatic of the bizarre knee-jerk PC liberalism that's so scared of giving offense that the brain simply turns to mush, screaming, "racist! bigot!" whenever race or ethnicity or creed is even alluded to.
That, though, is neither here nor there.
If you don't understand that elections in Iran and the US both are variants on what political scientists call "Guided democracies," then I can't help you out very much, although I can recommend a reading list. now, to put two different somewhat democratic systems under the same category is not to "equate" them (and if I "equate them" and then "come to the conclusion" that ours are "faultier" I'd be an illogical nitwit, but then, that was your bizarre rendition of my argument and not at all what I said).
If you want to discuss the article, or Iran, fine, but your distortions aren't too interesting.
Your retorts are nothing but reactionary.
1) I was just wondering where jewbonics comes from. Maybe i'm old, but i had never heard the term, so I asked. If your so brave in your apparent disregard for social etiquette give offense to the prophet mohammed, or take a shot at other certain races and we'll see how long you last. So spare me your soliloquy.
2) America is a "guided democracy"? like Iran? But "i'm not comparing the two"? You are either insane or have no sense of what logic is.
3) Your article starts off with a clear fallacy. You start by making a ridiculous claim which you easily prove wrong, which you assume justifies your ramblings. Your apparent goal is to claim that because others can't prove the election was rigged "enough" that to question it is nonsense. You care nothing for democracy, you care nothing for the people of Iran, what you do care for is trying to look as a psuedo intellectual who is fighting for the working classes while enjoying the capitalist lifestyle in the US. By all means carry on.
But Shit isn't the real action in Honduras?
Mike–
(1) you didn't simply wonder; you wrote, "Why do you call yourself Jewbonic? are you jewish or just deriding jews," moved on to "Personally, i wouldn't want to debate with a racist," and finish with "If your so brave in your apparent disregard for social etiquette give offense to the prophet mohammed, or take a shot at other certain races and we'll see how long you last."
What the hell does Jewbonics have to do with social etiquette???
(2) America is a guided democracy, like Iran. That doesn't equate them; comparisons don't equate, they compare, e.g. what are the characteristics of two systems, A and B; do they share in common traits C, D, E, etc., differ in respects F, G, H. Clear? There are different variants of guided democracies, as there are different institutional tools to maintain control of democratic institutions; in the US such tools include the monetary barrier to participating in elections, needing 5, 10, 15 percent in the polls to participate in debates/needing X number of signatures to get on the ballot/lack of instant-run-off voting, no proportional representation, the electoral college, to say nothing of overall being embedded in a political economy that over-determines political outcomes, as well as a press directly hostile to strong reformist let alone radical measures/policies/ideologies.
Iran has the Guardian Council vetting candidates, as well as its own domestic political economy which partially determines/guides democratic procedures. Rights there are more limited, especially ones liberals hold particularly dear. Again, much of this is should be obvious; the point is, pointing fingers at Iran in general and this last election in particular as marking Iran as an undemocratic society is interesting–it's an illiberal society, but liberalism differs from democracy.
(3) you're right; my article does start with a "ridiculous claim," but that's because nearly every piece of analysis I read doesn't make the slightest effort to understand why anyone would've voted for Ahmadinejad, or who would've voted for him; we're to understand that the demonstrators were a healthy, heterogeneous mix of students, workers, people from North and South Tehran, the cities, the countryside, etc, making me wonder: who exactly voted for Ahmadi?? Certainly these analyses write his supporters out of history, not an uncommon analytical or historiographical practice but surely condescending and elitist; writing poor people out of your analysis is not the best way to get their support for your political program.
I enjoin you to read as many analyses as you can, and find out how many contain the sentiments of Ahmadi supporters; the ones at pro-Ahmadi rallies, or the ones who didn't demonstrate and as a result are written out of history. And despite this astoundingly it is me who " cares[s] nothing for democracy, you care nothing for the people of Iran," even though my point is merely that it's clear enough that others are willing to write the people of Iran out of their analyses, if they weren't kitted out in green (Mousavi supporters and demonstrators on the other hand are cited frequently, not in the above article but in other analyses I've provided).
Don't you think that's problematic? F
inally, you write: "what you do care for is trying to look as a psuedo intellectual who is fighting for the working classes while enjoying the capitalist lifestyle in the US."
Hah, right, which is precisely why my income for the last 12 months didn't crack 5 digits.
1) You left out the discourse, and yes i did just wonder what the hell jewbonic means.
2) America is a guided democracy run by the free mason and an elite of capitalists, probably jews, yup.
3) I didn't hear one person advocate the case you brought up. Nope, I didn't hear Flynnt Everrete just a week ago, among others, make the case on charlie rose for a "potential" Ahmedinijad win.
(1) Regarding the internet–people come out with abrasive rhetoric and are shocked when it's interpreted as abrasive.
(2) This has not the remotest connection to what I wrote (it suggests that I indulge anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Watch it, Mikey).
(3) Yes–it was satirizing the prevalent mindset amongst analysts of the unrest in Iran, because they literally could not include the sentiments of Ahmadi supporters in their collective imaginary. "flynnt everrete" and maybe 4 others amidst hundreds who took the opposite line doesn't weaken my point.
Your arguments regarding the US being a "Guided Democracy" are nothing more than political hypocricy. Yes there are rules in the US for the engagement of the democratic process. The rules you mentioned do not exclude any person of any creed or color from running. That is not the case in Iran.
Regarding the media, the fact that people choose not to listen to your claptrap is their right. The US doesn't close media outlets or arrest people who have critical blogs up, such as yourself. Try that in Iran.
What is pathetic is that you do equate the US with Iran though you do everything not to admit it.
You call me islamophobic for just pointing out that any elections should have non partisan oversight.
Finally,
Let me get one last thing straight, who are these capitalists that you are referring to that run our lives and decide the outcomes of our elections?
And who did you think decided the outcome of our elections? Kropotkin's ghost? Christ. I am not explaining leftist political economy on the comment section of a group-blog, thanks Mikey. But, thankgodforChomsky! He did it for me:
"One can argue that Iranian "guided democracy" has structural analogues in the US, where elections are largely bought, and candidates and programs are effectively "vetted" by concentrations of capital. A striking illustration is being played out right now. It is hardly controversial that the disastrous US health system is a high priority for the public, which, for a long time, has favored national health care, an option that has been kept off the agenda by private power. In a limited shift towards the public will, Congress is now debating whether to allow a public option to compete with insurers, a proposal with overwhelming popular support. The opposition, who regard themselves as free market advocates, charge that the proposal would be unfair to the private sector, which will be unable to compete with a more efficient public system. Though a bit odd, the argument is plausible. As economist Dean Baker points out, "We know that private insurers can't compete because we already had this experiment with the Medicare program. When private insurers had to compete on a level playing field with the traditional government-run plan they were almost driven from the market." Savings from a government program would be even greater if, as in other countries, the government were permitted to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical corporations, an option supported by 85% of the population but also not on the agenda. "Unless Congress creates a serious public plan," Baker writes, Americans "can expect to be hit with the largest tax increase in the history of the world — all of it going into the pockets of the health care industry." That is a likely outcome, once again, in the American form of "guided democracy." And it is hardly the only example."
Chomsky, Right, Befitting that you would bring an apologist for Pol Pot to apoligize for Ahmedinijad and compare the US to Iran. You have no moral base.
Get ready for the Show Trials
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6164
Man,
I just read your post on finklestein. You're a tyrant. Who are you to say what people can comment on? How do you live with the conflicting ideology of anarchism while in your blog you're a self serving dictator?