One of Moghadam's points is that the blurring was greatly promoted by a rigid anti-imperialism - i.e., anyone who was anti-American had to be good. Consequently, both the Iranian and Western left were blinded to the dangers of the clerics. You see that error being repeated in certain quarters today.
.....................
Yes, we certainly are seeing a good deal of that.
However, I wonder if it's possible to oppose an implacable foe - and surely, imperialism qualifies - without smoothing out, if only temporarily, the nuances between progressive and regressive camps of opposition.
Is it reasonable to expect people under fire to maintain these distinctions when allies are desperately needed?
For now, those of us in the West enjoy the luxury of passing a laundry list of moral judgments. But I wonder, if I was facing air to surface missiles from American planes or a battery cables to the testicles style of government paid for by Washington would I be terribly bothered with who was Marxist or liberal or in support of trade unions or other lovely things or would I just make common cause with those around me and worry about the inevitable schisms and potential new repressions later?
In short, if "rigid anti-imperialism" is the problem is 'flexible anti-imperialism' possible in those places where the blood gets spilled?
.d.
I never liked you Rusty...you were always a smart alec, a sass mouth and a bit of a giggle puss.
Dr. Impossible
...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/