[lbo-talk] Targeting Empire?

ravi ravi at platosbeard.org
Mon Sep 10 09:42:00 PDT 2007


On 10 Sep, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2007, at 10:43 PM, ravi wrote:
>> On 9 Sep, 2007, at 14:55 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently you're incapable of opposing war on Iran, or even Bush-
>>> style regime change, and at the same time acknowledging that the
>>> Iranian state is run by authoritarian mullahs.
>>
>> I do not believe this "fair and balanced" business is a capability...
>> I think its a weakness. YMMV.
>
> I'm really mystified by this. Because Bush & Co. don't like the
> Iranian government, we have to get on the net and pump up the
> president's ineffectual populism and deny that there's a lot of
> repression of feminists, sexual minorities, labor organizers, and
> dissidents? Just dispense with intellectual honesty in the name of
> influencing a policy we have little influence over?
>

But this is not about intellectual honesty regarding facts but rather one about, should I say, obligations... or maybe intellectual decency. What is it that we are obliged to say, if we are to speak of Iran? Perhaps it would be best if we did not speak at all.

Our own government is the greatest danger facing the Iranian people, and all the options they have attempted to protect themselves from us (including liberal democracy) seem to have failed, for all groups, whether they be women or workers.

So, are we obliged to acknowledge that the Iranian state is run by authoritarian mullahs? Setting aside the consideration of whether such a statement is true (i.e., assuming it is), what is the value (or purpose) of such an acknowledgement? It doesn't help the Iranian people, does it? (I believe it doesn't since it adds, even if unintentionally, to the drumbeat for war). So, given our record, but also our philosophy, I think we are obliged not to say anything critical of the people and their choices, **right now**.

--ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list