"the ideological line being critiqued here very closely resembles the old Communist Party edict which, in so many words, stated that any left criticism of the Soviet Union was OBJECTIVELY counter revolutionary. So, best keep your mouth shut for the sake of unity, comrades."
James responded:
But I don't think that is what Yoshie, or I, are saying in defending Iranian sovereignty.
I think we are saying, as Lenin did, the main enemy is at home. It does not mean that criticism of those states that your own is in conflict with is forbidden. It just means that demands ought to be framed with a regard to whom they are addressed. There is no point lecturing British and Americans about the shortcomings of the Islamic Republic of Iran - they have no great illusions in the Islamic republic of Iran. ***************
Hmmm....I see what you mean. The main enemy is at home....the ruling class of the State in which I live. Actually, all ruling classes are the enemy of the working class, worldwide: the Lenin who penned STATE AND REVOLUTION would probably agree with that. As Michael Yates said in a post after this one: "And let's remember that Marx said 'Workers of the WORLD unite.' Still a good and worthy slogan. We have to be careful not to encourage nationalism very much (in some poor nations, nationalism might still have radical content), since the powers that be are happy when we hate the rest of the world."
I'd add that we have to be careful not to encourage workers to form an allegiance to ANY national ruling class. It's worldwide working class solidarity which needs encouragin. What Michael Yates asked here, "When did working people in the US have much control over what the national state did, or even more local arenas?"...I think applies to all nations. Maybe, it's just me; but, I think that if you want to encourage class consciousness, you don't give nationalist ideology a free ride. For example, if some ruling class allows through the laws of their State, stoning for consensual "sex crimes", don't give them a huss by keeping your mouth shut. Don't give them a huss for supporting the wages system either or forcing people into certain kinds of dress i.e. making it illegal to dress in other ways. Call rulers of nations on it, when they fail to measure up to socialist standards....let no dogma rule. **************************** James went on:
People in Britain and America ought to support the RIGHT of the Iranian state to arm itself in its own defence, and to develop such energy sources as it sees fit. The determination of what POLICY is best for Iran is for the Iranian people, through whatever political process they make available for themselves.
************* MB):
I see what you mean; but do the Iranian people really control the State or does the Iranian ruling class control the people of Iran through the State, through force of arms. Personally, I'd say it's more the latter than the former--even though elections occur in Iran....and Chile and the USA and the UK.... The right of a ruling class to arm itself against all threats is WAY down on my list of political priorities. The State is a form of class rule. On the other hand, I don't think workers in the UK or the USA should encourage each other to support the power grabs of their ruling class vis a vis other States.
Why should workers support bombing Iranian workers?
Why should workers die fighting and killing Iranian workers, invading Iran for their ruling class?
***************** James:
As far as analysis goes, I have no hesitation in saying that Mr Ahmadinejad's government is hostile to the interests of the Iranian people (not because it is too aggressive in its opposition to western domination, but because it is not aggressive enough). But since I am not writing in Farsi, I don't intend to make it a central component of my agitation.
*************** MB:
That's fine with me, James. I don't make Iran a focus of my political efforts either.
**************** James:
Where I do think that there is a useful point to be made against Islamism, is in debate with those self-hating western liberals who think that justice is on the side of Al Qaida and so on. There, I don't think we need any restraint in arguing not only that Islam is a moronic intellectual framework, but that it is, if it were possible, even more moronic than that US baptism that passes for Christianity these days.
************ MB:
I agree with you here, James. I would add that separation of religion and public governance should be encouraged worldwide. It's one of the valuable strands of the partial democracy we have inherited from liberalism/the bourgeois revolution at its best and one which we should keep. Making religion into a political force, a force for theocratic rule, is something to criticize whether it comes from Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus.....For instance, in Australia, I speak out against the continued State funding of private schools. Most of those schools are dominated by Christian adminstration and doctrine.
Mike B)
Macht kaputt, was euch kaputt macht! http://www.iww.org/culture/official/preamble.shtml
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html