The Left is Wrong

Who are these leftist intellectuals who question the social uprising in Iran?

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

The Left is Wrong
by Hamid Dabashi
17-Jul-2009
 

When a political groundswell like the Iranian presidential election of June 2009 and its aftermath happen, the excitement and drama of the moment expose not just our highest hopes but also our deepest fault lines, most troubling moral flaws, and the dangerous political precipice we face.

Over the decades I have learned not to expect much from what passes for "the left" in North America and/or Western Europe when it comes to the politics of what their colonial ancestry has called "the Middle East". But I do expect much more when it comes to our own progressive intellectuals -- Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, Africans and Latin Americans. This is not a racial bifurcation, but a regional typology along the colonial divide.

By and large this expectation is apt and more often than not met. The best case in point is the comparison between what Azmi Bishara has offered about the recent uprising in Iran and what Slavoj Zizek felt obligated to write. Whereas Bishara's piece (with aspects of which I have had reason to disagree) is predicated on a detailed awareness of the Iranian scene, accumulated over the last 30 years of the Islamic Republic and even before, Zizek's (the conclusion of which I completely disagree with) is entirely spontaneous and impressionistic, predicated on as much knowledge about Iran as I have about the mineral composition of the planet Jupiter.

The examples can be multiplied by many, when we add to what Azmi Bishara has written pieces by Mustafa El-Labbad and Galal Nassar, for example, and compare them to the confounded blindness of Paul Craig Roberts, Anthony DiMaggio, Michael Veiluva, James Petras, Jeremy Hammond, Eric Margolis, and many others. While people closest to the Iranian scene write from a position of critical intimacy, and with a healthy dose of disagreement, those farthest from it write with an almost unanimous exposure of their constitutional ignorance, not having the foggiest idea what has happened in that country over the last 30 years, let alone the last 200 years, and then having the barefaced chutzpah to pontificate one thing or another -- or worse, to take more than 70 million human beings as stooges of the CIA and puppets of the Saudis.

Let me begin by stating categorically that in principle I share the fundamental political premise of the left, its weariness of US imperial machination, of major North American and Western European media (but by no means all of them) by and large missing the point on what is happening around the globe, or even worse seeing things from the vantage point of their governmental cues, which they scarcely question. It has been but a few months since we have come out of the nightmare of the Bush presidency, or the combined chicaneries of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and John Ashcroft, or of the continued calamities of the "war on terror". Iran is still under the threat of a military strike by Israel, or at least more severe economic sanctions, similar to those that are responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the Clinton administration. Iraq and Afghanistan are burning, Gaza is in utter desolation, Northern Pakistan is in deep humanitarian crisis, and Israel is stealing more Palestinian lands every day. With all his promises and pomp and ceremonies, President Obama is yet to show in any significant and tangible way his change of course in the region from that of the previous administration.

The US Congress, prompted by AIPAC (the American Israel Political Affairs Committee), pro-war vigilantes lurking in the halls of power in Washington DC, and Israeli warlords and their propaganda machinery in the US, are all excited about the events in Iran and are doing their damnedest to turn them to their advantage. The left, indeed, has reason to worry. But having principled positions on geopolitics is one thing, being blind and deaf to a massive social movement is something entirely different, as being impervious to the flagrant charlatanism of an upstart demagogue like Ahmadinejad. The sign and the task of a progressive and agile intelligence is to hold on to core principles and seek to incorporate mass social uprising into its modus operandi. My concern here is not with that retrograde strand in the North American or Western European left that is siding with Ahmadinejad and against the masses of millions of Iranians daring the draconian security apparatus of the Islamic Republic. They are a lost cause, and frankly no one could care less what they think of the world. What does concern me is when an Arab intellectual like Asad AbuKhalil opts to go public with his assessment of this movement -- and what he says so vertiginously smacks of recalcitrant fanaticism, steadfastly insisting on a belligerent ignorance.

On his website, "Angry Arab", Asad AbuKhalil finally has categorically stated that he is "now more convinced than ever that the US and Western governments were far more involved in Iranian affairs during the demonstrations than was assumed by many." He then tries to be cautious and cover his back by stipulating, "Let us make it clear: the US, Western and Saudi intervention in Iranian affairs does not necessarily implicate the Iranian protesters themselves. And even if some of them were involved in those conspiracies, I do believe that the majority of Iranian protesters were motivated by domestic issues and legitimate grievances against an oppressive government." This latter stipulation is in fact worse than that categorical statement about the conspiratorial plot behind the movement, for it seeks to play fancy speculative footwork to cover up a moral bankruptcy -- that he dare not take a stand, one way or another. AbuKhalil's final edict: "I was just looking at US and Western media coverage of Honduras, where the situation is rather analogous, and you can't escape the conclusion that the US media were involved with the US government in a conspiracy the details of which will be revealed years from now." In other words, since the US media is not covering the Honduras development as closely as it does (or so AbuKhalil fancies) the Iranian event, then the US media is in cahoots with the US government in fomenting unrest in Iran, and thus this movement is manufactured by US imperial designs with Saudi aid; and though we may not have evidence of this yet, we will learn of its details 30 years from now, when a Stephen Kinzer comes and writes an account of the plot, as he did about the CIA- sponsored coup of 1953.

One simply must have dug oneself deeply and darkly, mummified inside a forgotten and hollowed grave on another planet not to have seen, heard and felt for millions of human beings risking their brave lives and precious liberties by pouring into the streets of their cities demanding their constitutional rights for peaceful protest. Thousands of them have been arrested and jailed, their loved ones worried sick about their whereabouts; hundreds of their leading public intellectuals, journalists, civil and women's rights activists, rounded up and incarcerated, harassed and even tortured, some brought to national television to confess that they are spies for "the enemy". There are pregnant women among those leading reformists arrested, as are such leading intellectuals as Said Hajjarian, who is paralysed having barely survived an assassination attempt by precisely those in the upper echelons of the Islamic Republic who have yet again put him and his wheelchair in jail. Three prominent reformists, all heroes of the Islamic revolution (Khatami, Mousavi, and Karrubi: a former president, a former prime minister, and a former speaker of the house to this very Islamic Republic) are leading the opposition, charging fraud, declaring Ahmadinejad illegitimate. The senior most Grand Ayatollah of the land, the octogenarian Ayatollah Montazeri, has openly declared Khamenei illegitimate. The Iranian parliament is deeply divided and in turmoil. A massively militarised security apparatus has wreaked havoc on the civilian population: beating, clubbing, tear gassing, and plain shooting at them. University dormitories have been savagely raided by plainclothes vigilantes and students beaten up with batons, clubs, kicks, and fists by oversize thugs. Millions of Iranians around the globe have taken to the streets, their leading public figures -- philosophers like Abdul-Karim Soroush, clerics like Mohsen Kadivar, public intellectuals like Ata Mohajerani, filmmakers like Mohsen Makhmalbaf, pop singers like Shahin Najafi, footballers of the Iranian national team, countless poets, novelists, scholars, scientists, women's rights activists, ad infinitum --coming out to voice their defiance of this barbarity perpetrated against their brothers and sisters.

Not a single sentence, not a single word that I utter comes from CNN, The New York Times, Al-Arabiya or any other sources that Asad AbuKhalil loves to hate. None of these people means anything to Mr AbuKhalil? Can he really face these millions of people, their best and brightest, the mothers of those who have been cold- bloodedly murdered, tortured, beaten brut ally, paralysed for life, and tell them they are stooges of the CIA and the Saudis, and that CNN and Al-Arabiya have put them up to it? AbuKhalil has every legitimate reason to doubt the veracity of what he sees in US media. But at what point does a legitimate criticism of media representations degenerate into an illegitimate disregard for reality itself; or has a sophomoric reading of postmodernity so completely corrupted our moral standards that there is no reality any more, just representation?

Asad AbuKhalil dismisses a mass social uprising that is unfolding right in front of his eyes as manufactured by Americans and the Saudis. What else does AbuKhalil know about Iran? Anything? Thirty years (predicated on 200 years) of thinking, writing, mobilising, political and artistic revolts, theological and philosophical debates -- does any of it ring a bell for Professor AbuKhalil? Do the names Mahmoud Shabestari, Abdul-Karim Soroush, Mohsen Kadivar, among scores of others, mean anything to him? Has he ever listened to these young Iranians speak, cared to learn the lyrics of their music, watched the films they make, gone to a photography exhibition they have put together, seen any of their art work, or perhaps glanced at their newspapers, journals, magazines, weblogs, websites? Are all these stooges of America, manipulated by CIA agents, bought and paid for by the Saudis? What depth of intellectual depravation is this?

In his most recent posting, AbuKhalil has this to say about Iran: "For the most reliable coverage of the Iran story, I strongly recommend the New York Times. I mean, they have Michael Slackman in Cairo and Nazila Fathi in Toronto, and they have 'independent observers' in Tehran. What else do you want? If you want more, the station of King Fahd's brother-in-law (Al-Arabiya) has a correspondent in Dubai to cover Iran. And according to a report that just aired, Mousavi received 91 per cent of the vote in 'an elite neighbourhood'. I kid you not. They just said that." The Iranians have no reporters, no journalists, no analysts, no pollsters, no economists, no sociologists, no political scientist, no newspaper editorials, no magazines, no blogs, and no websites? If AbuKhalil has this bizarre obsession with the American or Saudi media that he loves to hate, does that psychological fixation ipso facto deprive an entire nation of their defiance against tyranny, their agency in changing their own destiny?

What a terrible state of mind to be in! AbuKhalil has so utterly lost hope in us -- us Arabs, Iranians, Muslims, South Asians, Africans, Latin Americans -- that it does not even occur to him that maybe, just maybe, if we take our votes seriously the US and Israel may not have anything to do with it. He fancies himself opposing the US and Israel. But he has such a deeply colonised mind that he thinks nothing of us, of our will to fight imperial intervention, colonial occupation of our homelands, and domestic tyranny at one and the same time. He believes if we do it then Americans and the Saudis must have put us up to it. He is so utterly lost in his own moral desolation and intellectual despair that in his estimation only Americans can instigate a mass revolt of the sort that has unfolded in front of his eyes. What an utterly frightful state for an intellectual to be in: no trust, no courage, no imagination and no hope. That we, as a people, as a nation, as a collective will, have fought for over 200 years for our constitutional rights has never occurred to AbuKhalil. What gives a man the authority to speak so cavalierly about another nation, of whom he knows nothing?

Ten years I spent watching every single Palestinian film I could lay my hands on before I opened my mouth and uttered a word about Palestinian cinema. I visited every conceivable archive in North America and Western Europe, travelled from Morocco to Syria, drove from one end of Palestine to another, was blessed by the dignity of Palestinians resisting the horror of a criminal occupation of their homeland, walked and showed bootlegged videos on mismatched equipment and stolen electricity from one Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon to another; then I went to Syria and found a Palestinian archivist who knew infinitely more about Palestinian cinema than I did, and I sat at his feet and learned humility, and I still did not dare put pen to paper or open my mouth about anything Palestinian without asking a Palestinian scholar -- from Edward Said to Rashid Khalidi to Joseph Massad -- to read what I had written before I dared publishing it. This I did not out of any vacuous belief in scholarship, but out of an abiding respect for the dignity of Palestinians fighting for their liberties and their stolen homeland, and fearful of the burden of responsibility that writing about a nation's struggles puts on those of us who have a voice and an audience.

For people like Zizek, social upheavals in what they call the Third World are a matter of theoretical entertainment. It is an old tradition that goes back all the way to Sartre on Algeria and Cuba in the 1950s, down to Foucault on Iran in the 1970s. That does not bother me a bit. In fact, I find it quite entertaining -- watching grown up people make complete fools of themselves talking about something about which they have no blasted clue. But when someone like AbuKhalil indulges in cliché ridden leftism of the most banal variety it speaks of a culture of intellectual laziness and moral bankruptcy so outrageously at odds with the struggles of people from which we emerge. Our people are not to conform to our tired, old, and cliché-ridden theories. We need to bypass intellectual couch potatoes and catch up with our people. Millions of people, young and old, lower and middle class, men and women, have poured in their masses of millions into the streets, launched their Intifada, demanding their constitutional rights and civil liberties. Who are these people? What language do they speak, what songs do they sing, what slogans do they chant, to what music do they sing and dance, what sacrifices have they made, what dungeons have they crowded, what epic poetry are they citing, what philosophers, theologians, jurists, poets, novelists, singers, song writers, musicians, webloggers soar in their souls, and for what ideals have their hearts and minds ached for generations and centuries?

A colonised mind is a colonised mind whether it is occupied by the European right or by the cliché-ridden left: it is an occupied territory, devoid of detail, devoid of substance, devoid of love, devoid of a caring intellect. It smells of ageing mothballs, and it is nauseating.

AUTHOR
The writer is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York. First published in Al-Ahram, 16 - 22 July 2009.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Niloufar Parsi

Rosie

by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:24 AM PDT

it is simple: he failed to identify which part of the left he was addressing. as such, he deserves the comment. And no, i had never heard of him. Shocking?! :)

regardless, he should be far more respectful of the intellect, love and compassion of others on the left. i find his sweeping generalisations unacceptable. but forgive me if i have insulted someone you deeply respect.

you know full well how i have been severely critical of some on the left for their blind support for the new government in iran and for their clear and disappointing failure to hold on to the core values that bind us at this juncture. i have already twice tried to put my finger on the weakness that causes this: a paranoid type of nationalism that can cause one to lose site of the plight of iranians at the hand of other iranians for fear of an alleged foreign threat. it is how bush and co duped americans into unnecessary wars for the sake of corporations and profit. the same garbage from Ahmadinejad & co has hypnotised some on the left to the extent that they can't even support a popular call for democracy in iran.

some of us on the left have actually found that we have much in common with many on the right recently. i guess we are all still learning. Dabashi could have just said that rather than make such emotional statements about the left as a whole.

Peace


  •  
Niloufar Parsi

Rightie child

by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Jul 19, 2009 09:59 AM PDT

was it tough having your myopic nationalism called into question? deal with it, and learn to engage in a more civilized fashion.


  •  
rosie is roxy is roshan

Niloufar, ??????????????? /All..

by rosie is roxy is roshan on Sun Jul 19, 2009 01:59 PM PDT

Niloufar, you wrote,

 

 

 

the premise of this article is convoluted and self-contradictory

This is not a simple matter of left or right, and those - like the author of this article - who want to reduce the debate to such terms clearly lack substance.

???? 

Am I misunderstanding something? Surely you know that Dabashi sits squarely on the Left himself.  Surely you know Dabashi? He is assuming that the people who read him do. That is probably not such a good idea for such a wide readership as i.c. has, but I would've definitely thought you would've known. But even if you didn't, why would you think he was on the 'Right' when he ended like this:

A colonised mind is a colonised mind whether it is occupied by the European right or by the cliché-ridden left: it is an occupied territory, devoid of detail, devoid of substance, devoid of love, devoid of a caring intellect. It smells of ageing mothballs, and it is nauseating

When he chooses the title "The Left Is Wrong" you could say he implies the "cliche-ridden' or  'nauseating' Left, of which he does not consider hismelf a part. I believe he is thinking along the lines I was more or less when I had wanted to write an article for here called "When the Left Is Not Right?" (or, on thinking more about it,  "When the Left is Right" as a more barbed pun..) about my also at times nauseating experiences with this type of Left here onsite. 

You say,

.For some on the right to try and use the current situation in iran to justify their own dogmatism by describing 'the left' as 'wrong' is more than a little cheap.

So in any case, even if from his title 'The Left is Wrong', you figured he was not on the Left, why would that necessarily put him on the 'Right'?  Just as you say, there are many shades of gray within the Left itself, there are sundry more between the Left and Right..

I guess if I'm understanding you correctly,  that would explain why you would've found the article so convoluted.. Dabashi is convoluted enough, it must've read like Chinese. You must've found the thread even more convoluted  lol 

-----------------------

ALL

Questions I get from the thread all related are,  well so what does Left mean, does it have any meaning at all anymore, and if so what is its place and function at this point in history? Is it to be a counter-balance to the Right like Fred says, I see myself that way...but if so, does that make me part of an alternative built into Capitalism, as per Ben; thus is the word Left necessary or useful anymore? Does it mean anything in and of itself or only in contrast, as a stance against, as per JR. Etc.

One thing I think most of us could agree is that the 'nauseating' Left, one who blames everything on foreign powers thus castrating thieir own country's capacity for self-determination, justifies or hushes up barbaric Reactionary evils in the name of 'anti-Colonialism' or cultural Relativism (stoning as a form of folk art...)  and so forth...these we no longer find helpful...

and do not have to pretend we do.

The recent events in Iran have dramatically shifted the pre-existing lines drawn between 'Left' so-called and non-Left on this site, where a lot of that pretending has been going on for a long time. I want to try to write about this in a new post from the point of view of my experiences coming to this website two years ago as a non-Iranian. I hope somebody will read it. 


  •  
Fred

Anorexic logic

by Fred on Sun Jul 19, 2009 07:40 AM PDT

It is always a source of amusement to see in the hopes of elevating her own grandiose, or as she bills it “global” stance a certifiable lefty belittling another certified lefty. In doing so here she takes the high road by proposing the no good lefties are aiming too low and should like her or as she puts it “us” go for the source of all evil. The presumption being as the globally aiming lefty puts it:

 “we should work to wipe the planet of nuclear weapons and colonialism” whereas the no good lefties’ aim for “The defeat of zionism by force and the acquisition of nuclear weapons for 'self-defence' are short-sighted and self-defeating. They are the kinds of battles that lose you the war, even if you win because they unleash forces that will ultimately return and haunt iran, leading to greater conflict.”[sic] 

The lefty is in tune with the international trends and wary of global challenges and warns:

“the mix of dogmatic nationalism with rightist or leftist ideology has nasty consequences. The ideologies of the hitler youth of germany, many left and right political groupings in Israel, and the basijis thugs of iran share delusions of national superiority with global and/or supernatural aspirations.” [sic]    

 

 

 To drive her point and at the same time score a cheap point, nationalism being the globalist lefty’s pet peeve, she bunches three vastly dissimilar together. The entire Islamist cutthroats republic has not an iota of nationalistic sentiment in it, it uses it when needed, but it is wacked out supernatural cultish mumbo-jumbo dressed up as religion that is guiding it.    

 

The lefty overlooks the heavy price the world has paid for the resulting lesson that one contributes to the global security and fairness by working toward adding individual countries to the best yet-not perfect by any stretch of imagination-governing system which is Democracy. And while at it tries to not mix issues and misdiagnose like the lefty does with the Basij.   

What the lefties of this world fail to understand is you build from bottom up and not the other way around.  By trying to “wipe the planet of nuclear weapon and colonialism” whereas all the while one’s own house is being consumed by locally produced and fueled fire is plain; don’t want to say dumb, lets say logic-wise anorexic  


  •  
Niloufar Parsi

the premise of this article is convoluted and self-contradictory

by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Jul 19, 2009 05:25 AM PDT

It dismisses a whole spectrum of political ideologies and ideas by accusing them of being dismissive and devoid of detail and substance. While displaying a good knowledge of the subject matter, the author ends up committing the exact same sin that he accuses his target group of, namely simple-minded reductionism.

This is not a simple matter of left or right, and those - like the author of this article - who want to reduce the debate to such terms clearly lack substance.

For one thing, the author sees only black or white (right or wrong), rather than shades of grey.

Many of us on the left are fed up with the simplistic approach of some anti-imperialists who see glory and progress in 'winning' the nuclear issue or 'defeating zionism' as a means for furthering Iran's own 'cause'. They fail to see that both of these issues are global ones rather than 'iranian' ones. They fail to see that we should work to wipe the planet of nuclear weapons and colonialism. These are the goals for making the world a better place. The defeat of zionism by force and the acquisition of nuclear weapons for 'self-defence' are short-sighted and self-defeating. They are the kinds of battles that lose you the war, even if you win because they unleash forces that will ultimately return and haunt iran, leading to greater conflict. In the process, they ignore the basic human rights of iranians to live free of such foreign conflict and internal oppression.

Many of us are also fed up with the opportunism, shortsightedness and servitude of some on the 'right', watching them cheer on blood-thirsty imperialists like Bush and Cheney (or the corporations behind them), pandering to the overt anti-arab racism of zionists, openly blaming inhuman bombings of palestinian children on palestinians, showing no self-respect or moral fibre in the face of western condescension emanating from ignorance. We are fed up with their pretensions toward 'human rights' while failing to show the least bit of concern for the right to life and freedom of ideological choice of iranians, muslims, arabs, afghans, or anyone else who stands in the way of exploitative corporations that not only commit mass murder in the poorest countries in the world - and probably kill more people than the wars the media concentrate on - but they literally rape our planet and have in the process driven us close to the brink of extinction. there are those on the right who do nothing but make excuses for such devastation.

the struggle for freedom and justice takes many shapes and forms and can morph into fast-food dogmatism for those who do not care enough to learn the substance and depth, but makes them feel they have an opinion of 'their own'. this applies as much to the right as it does to the left.

the mix of dogmatic nationalism with rightist or leftist ideology has nasty consequences. The ideologies of the hitler youth of germany, many left and right political groupings in israel, and the basijis thugs of iran share delusions of national superiority with global and/or supernatural aspirations. 

For some on the right to try and use the current situation in iran to justify their own dogmatism by describing 'the left' as 'wrong' is more than a little cheap.

 


  •  
rosie is roxy is roshan

They toil the burnt earth...

by rosie is roxy is roshan on Sun Jul 19, 2009 06:41 AM PDT

They toil the burnt earth of Khuzestan and arid valleys of Kurdestan, remotely of course, from the safe comfortable distance of air-conditioned rooms in the West.

Burnt earth. I like that one. lol They are known as "Netocrites'.

Now if everyone would just ignore her this could become an important thread. Otherwise it will become at best a circus side show. Jaleho has her own blog if you want that.

//iranian.com/main/blog/jaleho/ahmadinejads-excessive-mud-slinging

I mean, this is the woman who made the statement months ago "IRI is a democracy" and when I challenged her repeatedly over several weeks, offering the alternative 'has democratic elements', kept ignoring me, and finally deigned to inform me that she was ignoring me because I wasn't worth replying to.

This is Dabashi's thread. It deserves better.

Rosie

htt

 


  •  
Shazde Asdola Mirza

Left is totally blinded by their hatred towards US and Israel.

by Shazde Asdola Mirza on Sat Jul 18, 2009 06:36 PM PDT

Every voice counts! Every action counts!


  •  
benross

Pathetic indeed

by benross on Sat Jul 18, 2009 03:52 PM PDT

Well, the simple answer is that you prove otherwise!

You can never come clean with the present if you don't come clean with the past. And although I have no intention to defend the intellectuals abroad (that with your description, Mr Dabashi and yourself may fit the bill perfectly) but I see them as the products of the same society that massively participated in Islamic revolution in which, the same intellectuals or the similar ones, accepted the leadership and goals of Khomeini from the beginning.

Now although your allusion to heat of Khuzestan and poverty of Darvazé Ghazvin smacks the same old 'mostaz'afin' mantra of Khomeini, in which your like-minded stalinists found a perfectly fitting place for your 'class struggle' and 'anti-amperialism', I'm not trying to show you how twisted minded our intellectuals are because it is hopeless.

Instead, I remind you that 30 years ago, an islamic revolution happened with the support of all the population and all its intellectuals that was a mistake. Everybody knows it was a mistake and nobody takes the blame. It's always somebody else's fault otherwise it couldn't go that wrong. It's always 'some people' other than yourself, that are too 'pathetic'.


  •  
Asghar_Massombagi

How pathetic some people are!

by Asghar_Massombagi on Sat Jul 18, 2009 01:39 PM PDT

It's funny how some of the regime's apologists, the same ones who live and work in the West, try to dodge the issues like bankrupt cowards that they, by branding someone like Dabashi out of touch with real events, and call loads of artists and writers, musicians, painters, civil and women rights activists, all of them living and breathing in Iran, pseudo this and pseudo that.  Of course these very same Western educated types, almost always from middle and upper class families themselves, sitting at their keyboards in Boston and New York and London and Paris, somehow have the pulse of the real people.  They understand the salt of the earth Jonoob shaharis from Ghlae Morghi and Darvaz-e Ghazvin. They toil the burnt earth of Khuzestan and arid valleys of Kurdestan, remotely of course, from the safe comfortable distance of air-conditioned rooms in the West.  The prototype of these pathetic apologists seems to be that Stalinist dinosaur Ommani, always twisting facts to suit their purpose, closing their eyes to reality and ready to slander their opponents. 


  •  
Sassan

Javan

by Sassan on Sat Jul 18, 2009 01:22 PM PDT

You know, very deep in your heart, that you're nothing but a second rate propaganda artist. I HOPE you know this, specially when you say (read: lie) that "Iranian people want the Islamic Republic of Iran." And you further compound your abject duplicity when you talk of an oxymoronic "Islamic democracy." There can be no such thing! And very deep in your black heart you know this to be true.  How can you have "Islamic democracy" when Islam does not allow for the very basic necessities of democracy, i.e., freedom of religion, speech and expression? Just read your precious Quran. In it, you will find numerous passages that expressly and explicitly instruct the believer to crush, destroy and murder all non-believers.

In the eyes of Ahmadinejad and his vicious rent-a-crowd, Islam sactions and condones the very violent crackdown currently on display in Iran. After all, the very founders of Islam were warriors and swordsman. Mohammad fought 78 battles, 77 of them were offensive. Mohammad and Ali beheaded 700 Jews, etc., etc., etc. Sadly for us, unlike Jesus, who believed in "turning the other cheek," the very founders of Islam believed in "an eye for an eye." It is this bloody heritage and mentality that is at the root of our "middle-eastern" problem (read: Islamic problem).

I know I'm getting off topic, but in our part of the world, it always comes back to religion, because unlike Christianity, Islam is a political, legal, and social force. It dominates every aspect of one's life, or at least it tries to. 


  •  
Javan

www.prothink.org

by Javan on Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:09 PM PDT

Let us take a look at these three subjects:

- Imperialism (Iraq & Afghanistan)

- Colonialism (Iraq & Afghanistan)

- Zionisim (Israel & Palestinians)

 All these three things are what responsible for the situation in the world today.  

If you deny that there are Jewish and Christian fundamentalist Zionists and Neocons, you have just been living on another planet!

President Obama is trying to clean up the mess of the Zionists and Neocons that have in the Persian terms if you are familiar with an Iranian toilet "YE PA EINVAR YE PA OONVAR VA REEDEH BE AMRIKA VA DONYA".  Translated this means that President Bush and his Neocon and Zionist (Evangelicals and Fanatic Jews) have put one foot on this side and one foot on that side and just taken a big dump on America and the world.  This is why our economy in the USA is in the toilet.  My point to all of this is that IMPERIALISM, COLONIALISM AND ZIONISM are all very important factors that have not gone away, however they have changed the way they happen.  The Imperial forces in Iraq and Afghanistan should ring a bell, notice the colonization of Iraq?  Israeli oil piplelines and bases?  C'mon now, you have to see that to stick your head in the sand and not think about what is still happening is a dis-service to Iran and Iranians.  

Something else that comes to mind is that this Iranian Jihad was launched by a majority of Iranian Muslims within the government and the people who follow them.  Do you think it was an accident to choose the Islamic Green as the color of the Islamic Green Movement of Mousavi?  The green is also of utmost importance in Shia Muslim Iran where it signifies the color of the Ahlul Bayt.  Then they wore the black color combined with green?  Might as well have an Ashura/Muharram procession in the Protests...

Point is that the Iranian people want the Islamic Republic of Iran, but not ruled by Munafiqs.  They want a REAL ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY where they can vote and choose who they want.  Also, the rights of Non-Muslims will be protected as well as Women's rights. If you want to learn how a real Islamic Democracy works, please visit www.islamicunion.com 

Here is a great video I found online that has been going around regarding the protests:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Sg4uRJbr0 


  •  
Jaleho

Here's Mr Dabashi's problem

by Jaleho on Sat Jul 18, 2009 05:37 PM PDT

 Mr. Dabashi  is a respectable and clever observer of the events so far as he's removed from them in space-time. That makes him a good observer of history of sort. Thus, in retrospect, he is in line with just causes, be it the Palestinian cause, or sympathizing with most colonial injustice of the past, including the Iran prior to Islamic revolution. But, when it comes to PRESENT event, in particular the events that he is in proximity of both in space and time, his far sighted vision become myopic! That is a characteristic of a person who can be a good writer, but a weak leader.
Mr. Dabashi might see even the more "recent historical events" like the orange revolution in a more realistic light. For example, in the orange revolution, despite the fact that  Yanukovych had far less real lead over Yuschchenko than Ahmadinejadhad had over Mousavi, he seems to be more sympathetic to Iran's "green revolution." The proximity of events in Iran to his heart blinds him to the degree that he blames everyone whose opinion he's been respecting hitherto. He calls them ignorant of events of Iran with a logic that Netanyahu could use on Mr. Dabashi regarding events in Israel.
 
Despite my high regards for Mr. Dabashi for his historical analysis, his foggy vision with regards to events in space-time near and dear to him, make him lag behind visionaries like Edward Said. In recent events of Iran, unfortunately he's closer to pseudo-intellectuals and "artists" of the type of Makhmabaaf than anyone of the stature of Said. He better reserve his analysis on Iran limited to films and cinema critique than actual historical and political events. The fact that MILLIONS of Iranian youth are expressing their pent up frustration afforded by more internal security, and feel a bit of freedom of expresssion ignited by pre-election debates, should not confuse Mr. Dabashi from the actual dynamics of Iranian events.

  •  
Jahanshah Rashidian

Re. Fred

by Jahanshah Rashidian on Sat Jul 18, 2009 09:36 AM PDT

Fur many Iranian grassroots, concepts like Left, Communism, Marxism.. have been associated with the historical events in the ex-socialist countries, and more particularly with the complaisant  attitude of Cháves, North Korea, Tudeh Party…toward the IRI. 

In reality for llftists, in any form and extent, "Leftism" is inspired from Marxism, especially in the domain of political economy.

Philosophically, Marxism is an evolution of Hegel’s and his student, Feurbach’s ideas that were explained or evolved by  Marx:

Marx’ Dialectic Materialism explains that only matter exists (not spirit), so that the existence of the mind, social institutions, etc must be explained in material terms. Change occurs when opposing forces (thesis and antithesis, borrowed from Hegel) lead to the production of higher forces (antithesis) according to inner (not mechanical causes as described by Feurbach) dialectical laws.

 Another important discovery of Marx is Historical Materialism which applies to sociology. According to it, political and cultural superstructure (religion, art, collective behaviour…) is determined solely by the material facts and thus the history is explained by these facts through class struggles. This idea proposes a class related state which is supposed to end any sort of discrimination in society; Dictator of Proletariat was the Marx’ political solution. This form of revolutionary state is a transitive class state which paves the way for a classless society or Communism. This is this notion which has been used and abused in ex-socialist countries.

In the domain of economy, in 19th century, Marx proved that those who own the means of production exploit those classes in society that possess no property or means of production, especially labourers who have to sell their labour. It is to debate if the boundary of social classes and the form / rate of exploiting remain in 21st. century the same as theorised by Marx in the 19st century.

Marxism is not an "atheistic" religion, but a flexible method of thoughts like any other, as said by Marx.  


  •  
benross

The marriage of 'red' and 'black' reactionary

by benross on Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:56 AM PDT

Good read. But what is 'left' anyway? If it's not offering an alternative to capitalism and is only seeking a better distribution of wealth, this was embedded to capitalism thinking variants almost from its concept. So it helps if Mr. Dabashi could clarify if he meant 'left' as it was defined by cold war era terms (which had the most impact in political thinking in Iran) and which was conveniently forgotten when he mentions the current leaders of the movement (and all those artists and academic supporters that he mentions).

I'm fully supporter of the movement but I don't believe staying in its current shell can further the 200 years struggle for modernity in Iran.

If he wants to define this movement in its historical content, then he can't possibly be a supporter of its current leaders and even its current forms of expression amongst the population. Only when this is understood, the supporters of Ahmadinejad also will join the movement. Don't forget that their votes were betrayed by this coup as much as the votes for Moosavi... and the contenders of the election are no longer relevant to this discussion anyway... no more than to the struggle ahead.


  •  
Fred

Left & left wannabes

by Fred on Sat Jul 18, 2009 05:23 AM PDT

To issue a blanket condemnation of the left is to discount a vital counterbalancing force in modern life which has been an impetus for much good. Of course this does not absolve all the bad the left has committed or is being committed under its banner.  But fairness and sound judgment mandates truth to be told, that is, should there be no left its nemesis, the right, unrestrained,  will not be a bowl of cherries.

The problem is, and it is more pronounced in regards to Iran, most homegrown left are actually lefty rather than left. That is they talk the talk but do not walk the walk and do talk the talk just to bash the right. In doing so they are so indiscriminate that getting into bed with any and all who claim a dislike of the right would do.

This has created the mistaken notion that the left is pro Islamists, and in the case of IRI, it is an accomplice to the crime against Iranian nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lefties no, but left is a resounding positive and necessary force.


  •  
Jahanshah Rashidian

Toxic Generalisation

by Jahanshah Rashidian on Sat Jul 18, 2009 05:59 AM PDT

Anything close to nihilism, anarchism, violence, anti-West, pro Islamists, anti-Israel, or any evil idea, has been explained so eloquently as “Left”. This toxic generalisation is nothing but naive generalistion which may have little background, but is far to be  provable.

Left is not only the ex-URSS or ex-East Germany, it includes a large spectrum from countries and ideas.  From the orthodox Marxist-Leninists to a series of parties called, Socialist, Linken, Green, Social Democracy... are inside this spectrum. On the contrary, the pseudo-intellectuals who battle the “Left” as a whole do not give a hoot explaining, proving, opposing, denouncing or evading what damage has the “Right”, but merely exposing and disproving “Left” without proclaiming a consistent alternative to it. For them anything which does not approve the inevitable damages of the unchained free trade and the market economy, US hegemony, Israeli occupation, corrupt Sheiks and Mullahs, etc., is branded evil “left”.

Look at the non-left criminals, like Islamists, Nazists, racists, fascists, that have not been les criminal than authorities under Stalinism, the 1961-74 Cultural Revolution in China, and Pol pot genocide.

The recent financial crises in the US is once more a proof that capitalist system is not a fair and moral system. It is rather attached to a strict system of commercial organisation through any form and shape whereby capital Interests can be bought and sold as if they were goods.  Millions of US citizens were the direct victims of this hidden plundering system under the Bush administration.

If financial or political dominances of a few key powers over the world or a rich class over society is fair (!), let’s  oppose to such a system and be "Left" even it is “evil”.

Nationwide, we have one pro IRI “leftist” party, Tudeh Party. On the other front stand many leftists combating the plague of the IRI, including its various right-wing or "leftist" supporters.


  •  
Sassan

The Shameless Left

by Sassan on Sat Jul 18, 2009 02:46 AM PDT

The ideologically (power-starved) left, the eternal curse of humanity that it is, whether it be in Iran or else where, is, indeed, morally bankrupt and intellectually depraved, and a certain part of every leftist's limited brain span cannot process certain rational information which a child of eight years could do so very easily, and because of this obscene abnormality, they have quite often betrayed the very people they espouse to support and sided with the forces of darkness (= anti-American thugs and murderers, aka, leftist dictators and extreme right ayatollahs).

The left has no real principles. This is clear. They only believe in one thing. America is the most evil power ever created. By that asinine categorization, the ayatollahs are better -- better for Iran, better for the world, and better for the leftist dreams of ultimate supremacy.

As we all know, the mullahs would have never won the Black revolution BUT FOR the herculian assistance from the left (the Reds). And to this day, they continue their blind and blatantly inhumane support of the evil dictatorship that is the Islamic Republic, even though the mullahs have slaughtered (more like liquidated) every leftist unearthed in Iran for the last 30 years. And yet, America is the most evil power in the history of the Earth! This is but a small window into the abjectly criminal mindset and moral depravity of the left. And so I ask, what would you call a million leftists under the sea?

A good start.


  •  
Iraneh Azad

Yes Mr. Dabashi, The Left is Wrong

by Iraneh Azad on Fri Jul 17, 2009 06:50 PM PDT

And you are still part of the same idiotic left which subscribes to the following stupid world conspiracy views:

- Imperialism
- Colonialism
- Zionisim

You guys blame everything on the above.

These are the leftist conspiracy views that lead some on the left to come up with such retarded analysis regarding the current situation in Iran.

And you are surprised?

Mr. Dabashi, you are part of the problem you are complaining about.


  •  
Red Wine

...

by Red Wine on Fri Jul 17, 2009 05:27 PM PDT

چقدر مسخره است این کلمه به فارسی‌ ... چپگرا !

حالا شده مد روز... لباس کثیف بپوشی،ریش نزنی‌ و شال فلسطینی بندازی گردنت و بری به خیابان و عربده بکشی و مزاحم مردم بشی‌ و اسم خودت را بگذاری چپ گرا ! برین بابا جمعش کنین که ما برای آینده ایران همچین چیزی نمیخواهیم !

ایران فقط یک جمهوری ساده می‌خواد ! نه چپ و نه راست ! نه تاج و نه عمامه ! یک جمهوری سکولار ساده .

 


  •  
hamfekr

You Meant Crook

by hamfekr on Fri Jul 17, 2009 03:31 PM PDT

Alaister Crooke is a known MI5 operative. And I take the full responsibility of this statement.

The "Conflict Forum" is only another foxhole for British neocolonialism.

One has to be wretchedly desperate in order to resort to a foreign agent in public. 

Dismissing public dissent was Shah's biggest mistake. 

History is repeating itself right before our eyes.


  •  
curly

Iranians know who the enemy is:

by curly on Fri Jul 17, 2009 02:31 PM PDT

at the friday prayer they were chanting   marg bar china, and Russia leave us alone. They know who is the enemy behind the curtains.


  •  
hass

No election fraud

by hass on Fri Jul 17, 2009 01:38 PM PDT

The FACT is there's no actual evidence of election fraud in Iran. See IranAffairs.com for the list of claims debunked, point-by-point. Bash the left or the right all you want but the facts speak for themselves.

Furthermore, Mousavi is hardly a liberal pro-Western democrat. He is a regime insider who was specifically pre-cleared and vetted to stand as a candidate. And yet we are to assume that his alleged election victory represented such a big threat to the regime that they resorted to massive election fraud to prevent it? No, sorry, that's rubbish.

Alaister Crooke said it best in the LA TImes:

What's going on in Iran is a conflict between prominent clerics... who have sought to weaken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ability to pursue his populist attacks on their privileged position.

//www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-crooke12-2009jul12,0,294349.story

 


  •  
xalephbet

Thank you Prof. Dabashi

by xalephbet on Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:10 PM PDT

This is an excellent piece.


  •  
Niloufar Parsi

it is not the left that is at fault

by Niloufar Parsi on Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:57 AM PDT

it is blind nationalism mixed with tinges of xenophobia that causes people of all political persuasion to blame all on 'foreigners' and 'imperialism' and to turn a blind eye to domestic issues.

Peace


  •  
Asghar_Massombagi

What an amazing piece!

by Asghar_Massombagi on Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:55 AM PDT

Can anyone put it better than this?  I made much of the same arguments myself in a piece a week ago on this site but Dabashi has truly summed it up the best.  There is this absolute ignorance about the history of Iran among 90% of people who opine about this movement. Arabs of course seem almost angry because Iranians' courage has highlighted their own cowardice and inertia.  Iran and Iranians exists for themselves. They're not creations of US Imperialism or morally bankrupt Leftists who dabble in generalities.  You go, Hamid.  More, more, more!


  •  
« first‹ previous12