> ...the *partially* successful
> struggle against forms of oppression, in part as a result of the way in
> which the demands were raised and absorbed by the system, abolished the
> visible system of oppression while conserving it in its more occult form.
> ...The gains are very real - the viciousness and
> violence of that hierarchy has been attenuated - but the limitations of
> those gains are obvious...why not take the time to absorbe the perfectly
> modest points that are in fact being made?
===================================
That the masses and the capitalists each gained in their own way by the
extension of political rights, trade union rights, civil rights, social
insurance, and the rise in living standards - and that those calling for the
revolutionary overthrow of the system lost their influence as a result - are
such "obvious" and "perfectly modest" points that there are probably few on
this list who really need to to reflect for very long on them.
At bottom, of course, this discussion on either side is not about understanding the "contradictory" effects of such reforms. It's about the legitimacy of calling for internal reform in Iran when it is under the American gun. It's reminiscent of the same debate which occured in relation to the USSR during the Cold War. Yoshie and LT think it gives aid and comfort to the enemy to point to the limitations on democratic rights in Iran. I happen to agree with Doug and others who think it's not necessary or principled for the left to practice this form of self-censorship, especially internally, but I don't think it's urgent that there be a meeting of the minds on this issue, so long as opposition to current US policy remains firm.
So far I can't see any evidence that the opposition to a wider war against Iran has been weakening - not only on this list, but beyond it, where it counts more. In fact, alarm has been growing about another "neocon adventure" among the great mass of liberal Democrats and well into elite circles. Berating "soft liberals" and others about their attitudes towards the Islamic Republic does little to develop defence of it against US aggression on this list or outside of it, and may well have the opposite effect. That seems to me to be the real point worth discussing.