On Jun 17, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Chris Doss wrote:
>
> So did Reagan (somebody else who crapped up the economy). The Nation
> doesn't get gooshy over him.
>
I am "gooshy" over Gorbachev exactly because being so counters the bullshit Reagan image. ;-)
On Jun 17, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 11:52 AM, ravi wrote:
>
>> And being fundamentally liberal, they cannot deliver the goods, but
>> only promise that the poor's best hopes is in the "rising tide",
>> no? Free the Blackberry-toting, texting and twittering crowd and
>> they shall lift your lot ("twitter-down" replaces "trickle-down"?).
>> So, perhaps you can ask Dabashi (and also take a shot at an answer
>> here): is Ahmadinejad unable to deliver a better economy because is
>> a charlatan, or because he doesn't understand economics (i.e., he
>> doesn't see that laissez-faire liberalism is the only option), or
>> he faces the same constraints that any economist populist faces:
>> powerful (not necessarily the religious leaders) interests that
>> prefer a different outcome?
>
> Insofar as "populist" economics means just spreading around money
> and deficit spending, it is doomed to fail, since it doesn't
> transform the productive structure or social relations. Iran needs a
> new economic model - it's now dominated by oil and merchant capital
> with little industry. And its society is ossified by the rule of a
> corrupt clerical class. Ahmadinejad's strategy, it seems to me, has
> been to use the sedative of free money to perpetuate the status quo.
>
I tend to agree except for the last sentence. Ignoring that for a second, the question then: is "spreading money around" worse than laissez-faire liberalism? Especially from the view of which is better ground for a future utopia ;-) or at least an economy not dominated by oil ad merchant capital but by large scale industry that is in the control of the people. And (serious question here) why weren't these things achieved in 10+ years of Moussavi+Khatami?
>> And the section I quoted and called for Yoshie in response was to
>> point out that her views ("Persian Prince" and all), to me, were a
>> lot more palatable and edifying than the sort of Western posturing
>> that Dabashi was calling out in his piece, which I tend to
>> associate with both the right-wing (which wants a counter-jihad) or
>> a good part of the left (Doug Ireland to your garden-variety
>> liberal).
>
> I don't get this at all. You mean you prefer Yoshie's apologias for
> stonings to the call for an end to rule by the mullahs, even when
> issued by someone of Iranian origin who's no friend of American
> imperialism?
Doug Ireland is of Iranian origin and an enemy of American imperialism? ;-) Or were you think of Andrei Agassi? ;-) IOW, my friend, you misread me: I am contrasting Yoshie to Ireland and Co, not to Dabashi, and I am suggesting, Persian Prince (Yoshie) and "charlatan" (Dabashi) notwithstanding, that Yoshie is more in line with Dabashi's call for the West to get the fuck off Iran's back. Yoshie's posts were explications and at worst misguided support of an elected leader of the country (elected by the underclass, whom many leftists care about) -- unless the last election was fully rigged as well.
--ravi