[lbo-talk] Zizek on Iran

[ravi]

On Jun 24, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Michael McIntyre wrote quoting Zizek:
> Finally, the saddest of them all are the Leftist supporters of  
> Ahmadinejad:
> what is really at stake for them is Iranian independence.  
> Ahmadinejad won
> because he stood up for the country’s independence, exposed elite  
> corruption
> and used oil wealth to boost the incomes of the poor majority – this  
> is, so
> we are told, the true Ahmadinejad beneath the Western-media image of a
> holocaust-denying fanatic. According to this view, what is  
> effectively going
> on now in Iran is a repetition of the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh – a
> West-financed coup against the legitimate president. This view not  
> only
> ignores facts: the high electoral participation – up from the usual  
> 55% to
> 85% - can only be explained as a protest vote. It also displays its
> blindness for a genuine demonstration of popular will, patronizingly
> assuming that, for the backward Iranians, Ahmadinejad is good enough  
> - they
> are not yet sufficiently mature to be ruled by a secular Left.

Zizek, when he is not putting thoughts into the heads of Leftists (or  
does he offer links to the writings of the leftists he summarises  
above?), is able to peer into their heads to see what thoughts  
("patronizingly assuming") are motivating them. Question begging  
degraded to name calling.

The above is not the only instance of poor logic in the argument. Here  
is another:


> They are
> counteracted by skeptics who think that Ahmadinejad really won: he  
> is the
> voice of the majority, while the support of Mousavi comes from the  
> middle
> classes and their gilded youth. In short: let’s drop the illusions  
> and face
> the fact that, in Ahmadinejad, Iran has a president it deserves.

The "in short" really is not a short version of the previous lines.  
That Ahmadi won the majority vote and that Mosavi draws support from  
gilded youth, if true, do not imply that those who argue for this  
truth also believe that Ahmadi is therefore the president Iran  
deserves (nor does this follow from the first two premises).

Zizek writes:
> We are dealing with a genuine popular uprising of the
> deceived partisans of the Khomeini revolution.

This is an interesting claim. Too bad it is so poorly argued. There  
is, for instance, significant confusion in calling the [circa] 1979  
revolution, in all of its aspects, "the Khomeini revolution".

	--ravi