Links would be useful (and that's not a challenge; I want to hear the arguments that accompany such claims), but let's grant all of the above were said. But they do not seem to relate either to Zizek's characterisations, especially his attributing to his targets the view that this is a repeat of Mossadegh -- "a West financed coup"; or to the psychoanalysis that such arguments are driven by the "patronizing assump[tion], that for the backward Iranians, Ahmadinejad is good enough". The latter is especially scurrilous. Zizek doesn't offer any pointers, so we can only guess what his targets are *actually* saying, but I am guessing it is something along these lines:
If Ahmadinejad enjoys massive support among the poor, if he really did win
the popular vote, if he is a wealth-redistributing populist, then what
should be our reaction to current events. Not support for a neoliberal
(Mousavi) who draws support from the bourgeoisie, surely? Further, much as
the violence against the crowds in the streets is deplorable, what do
these protests denote in light of the above "if"s?
> Really, just how bad does the repression in Iran have to get before
> the
> Hanly/Smith axis reconsiders?
But reconsider what? I think the point I get is this: we have no reason to believe that Moussavi+clerics is going to be any better than Ahmadi+clerics i.e., repression remains the same, except on two fronts: neoliberal Western changes to economic system and some cultural norms. In the face of this non-change, the Islamic revolution plus a populist president might at least offer the positive of resistance to Western hegemony.
This point may not be fully argued, but it is a far cry from some sort of blind eye towards repression in service of a lofty stance.
In other words, there is a tremendous amount of question begging going on.
> On a more positive note, Ravi, I agree that Zizek's claim, "We are
> dealing
> with a genuine popular uprising of the deceived partisans of the
> Khomeini
> revolution," comes out of the blue and needs a hell of a lot more
> support.
And I think it is a very crucial question, isn't it? If the Islamist purge of all other elements of the revolution can be reversed, this would indeed be a glorious moment. On the other hand, if it isn't, then why should capitalism (of an Indian, not Scandinavian, kind, at that) be a stage in their pursuit of freedom any more than Islamic repression?
I plead that while indulging in the luxury of debates, let us not cast aspersions on the humanity of others, especially to merely score a debating point.
--ravi