Yoshie: Social revolution by anarchists or socialists has nothing whatsoever to do with regime change by the empire -- they are mutually exclusive. What do you gain by confusing the two? ******************* MB: Did I say that I advocated the invasion of Iran by an empire to impliment "regime change"? Clearly not. Did I say that social revolution would in fact result in "regime change". Yes, I did.
******************* Yoshie: Confusing them only helps both Western imperialists and the most reactionary forces outside the West, to say nothing of hopelessly dumbing down discussion. That's "Right in Form and Right in Essence," if you ask me. ***************** MB: I think the "dumbing down discussion" starts when socialists stop advocating socialism because it's not "realistic". I think "dumbing down discussion" is when we give the reactionaries a huss; when we let them off the hook for the hangings, murders, jailing and other repressive absurdities associated with class rule. It doesn't matter to me where these occur. I'm not going to cover for one State to save it from criticism. I'm going to propose socialism as a solution to workers, wherever they are in the world. ***************** And that's so even setting aside the fact that anarchism, socialism, etc. are irrelevant to much of the world, including Iran, due to lack of interest on the part of the populace today. It is not possible to make it relevant again unless anarchists, socialists, etc. first recognize this reality. **************** I disagree. The authors of the COMMUNIST MANIFFESTO weren't recognizing "this reality" in 1848 when the overwhelming majority of the populace weren't communists. You can't expect your fellow workers to become class conscious if you don't advocate the abolition of wage-labour in oh so many ways.
On 5/23/07, Mike Ballard <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> I do not suffer the foolishness of nationalist
> cheerleading for any ruling class without comment; this includes the
theocratic
> dictatorship in Iran.
You are not an Iranian, by citizenship or residence, so, by definition, you couldn't be an Iranian nationalist even if you tried to be. It's foolish to struggle not to become what you cannot become anyway. ******* Gosh, you're smart. You're right. I'm not an Iranian. I'm a worker of the world.
************ Yoshie: (It's the duty of _Iranians_ not to become Iran-Firsters.) Instead, struggle against becoming what you can, but should not, become. ************* MB: It's in the interest of workers who live in the miserable State of theocratic Iran to free themselves from class rule. It was so when they lived under the heel of the Shah and it is now when they live under the rule of the theocrats. It is in the interest of workers who live in North America to free themselves from wage-labour and by extension, class rule. It is in no worker's interests to become a nationalist cheerleader for their own or any other workers' ruling class.
Mike B)
An injury to one is an injury to all http://www.iww.org.au/
____________________________________________________________________________________Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7