Edit: I updated the title per suggestions.
Edit: I apologize for snapping at people in the comments. I was arguing with someone earlier today and bad habits make preventable mistakes. I’ll do better.
I deliberately didn’t talk about the current events going on in Iran with the justification that a) I’m not from there b) I don’t know enough. But this article takes some concepts I thought I knew and spits them back at me.
I kept quiet about Israel for a long time because I was afraid of being called a bigot, and I will regret that until I die. So why am I suddenly willing to do this again when it comes to Iran? Because some of their interests align with mine? Because I’m afraid of pissing off reactionaries even within leftist spaces and then losing access to them?
What sort of Anarchist, leftist, or being capable of empathy would I be if I remain silent when I know something is wrong.
Has advancing US interests in the region helped LGBT people and women in any instance? I mean I guess arguably the Zionist entity would count if you have a very contained understanding of what it means to support the community.
Also this strikes me as opportunistic, given that this is not the context of the current movement we’re talking about. The current protests are, at least as far as anyone I’m aware of is talking about them, economically motivated by the collapse of Iranian currency from snapback sanctions.
Mind, I’m not saying this was your goal, but I wonder about how it came back in circulation and who is pushing this years old article about a different situation right now.
Third paragraph. First sentence.
Your contention is that these are not economically motivated and that the article is relevant to all instances of protest against the Iranian government?
Edit: I’m not being snarky, I’m asking because I remember these protests in the media and I remember them being framed by the same media outlets as about human rights and womens rights.
no.
Well my contention is that this article is about something besides the current protests, which I believe to be about the collapse in material conditions within Iran.
That’s better.
I don’t disagree. But I also don’t believe they are mutually exclusive. It brings up an interesting question, would a content population riot over this?
Or I guess in a more historical analysis, what nations collapsed due to economic failure, and how do they differ from those which didn’t? What contradictions are at play?
Yeah there’s some weird heat to our conversation here that I don’t think either of us believe we are bringing so it’s probably a tone-over-text issue.
I don’t believe they’re mutually exclusive either, to be clear. But I do think the point of the sanctions regime is precisely to keep the population discontent. In a context where the US is openly weaponizing its economic heft to promote regime change I think there is an economic motivator that we can’t disregard. Further, I think media in my country prefers a rights narrative if it can get one, which maybe unfairly predisposes me to suspect that the economic motivator is predominating.
Granted I’m not in the country or on the ground. It’s fair to contest that all my information is mediated by motivated actors.
I believe you and purpleworm are right. I made an assumption regarding your tone which could have both caused harm and prevented growth. I will do better.
As for your argument, I completely agree. And to assume that the imperial core is unaware of how they might use sympathy for the underclass to their benefit would ignore history.
But I feel that the US has grown arrogant and believes their own hype. This doesn’t seem to match the vibe of past interference. As if it was imposed under the assumption that the sanctions do all the work.
Regardless, like the author describes. Support cannot be sent via drone strike. So perhaps my best praxis for now is to focus on the regime I’m under and look for opportunities.
Yeah there’s some weird heat to our conversation here that I don’t think either of us believe we are bringing so it’s probably a tone-over-text issue.
Sabbo was obviously being terse in its first two replies, but I guess perhaps you’re just being diplomatic.
Because some of their interests align with mine? Because I’m afraid of pissing off reactionaries even within leftist spaces and then losing access to them?
Nah, nobody is supporting Iran rn because they don’t care about patriarchy just seems like radlib take
On the one hand, white American reactionaries pretend to care about our oppression so they can morally license bombing us “to save our women”–the “damsel in distress” narrative. On the other, white American leftists deny our oppression even exists, because they think if they acknowledge we–queer and trans Iranians, Iranian women, Iranian children–are oppressed, then it means they’ll be morally obligated to bomb us.
“On the other” is bullshit, literally r/neoliberal take
That’s because you stopped after two paragraphs.
If you did that with Marx you’d think he was a textile merchant.
If you did that with Kropotikin he’d still be gushing about his wife.
If you did that with Marx you’d think he was a textile merchant.
As always it’s not the “subaltern” that moves the gears of change, but the urban working class of Iran, who are solidly pro-regime even if they are split on religion and morality laws, and unlike the western constructed Arab statelets there’s also a very real nationalism in Iran that prevents the totalizing control the west wields over the rest of the middle east
The rural landlord class of Iran and their rich clients in the cities push the culture war and religious mania to try and capture the hearts and minds of Iran’s urban working class, while the westernized secular faction of the frustrated bourgeoisie class of Iran convinced themselves years ago that American bombs will free them to play in the American stock market, a delusion fostered by millions spent on converting rich/upper middle liberal Iranians into the worship of an anachronistic international Reaganism
The contempt the liberal Iranians have for the working class of their country is well known by said working class and ironically lends cultural credence to the landlords and rich farmers arguments of social and religious disintegration should the liberals ever get what they want, which keeps the morality laws in play in lieu of the fact there isn’t an Iranian left to counter-message against the landlords or the liberals
Anarchist currents (whether they’re Iranian or not) are in dire straits if they can’t figure out these basic class dynamics at play
You didn’t read any of it, did you.
Actually I did, yapping for twelve paragraphs about hijabs and orientalism while failing to grasp even the basic outline of the class divides of Iranian society, it’s bad, it’s written for white liberals in mind which is why the author doesn’t even use the word class once in the article
And I just wonder why. Why is it that this uprising cannot possibly be what it appears to be?
I mean this sentence alone seals the deal, if the author wants to pretend or is ignorant of the leading role Mossad and western intelligence agencies play in co-opting and subverting opposition in Iran, then the article is a profound failure of analysis and frankly childish in its politics
You forgot a class.
You forgot to address anything I said in this thread
Why should I bother engaging with someone who is acting in bad faith?
Yesterday you argued there was no such thing as the compatible left because the “CIA lies” and you want to talk about bad faith?
Like do you think you’re clever or something?
Did you actually see when this was written? You are writing as if you believe it’s current.
Marx died almost two centuries ago. Is Marx irrelevant?
No of course not. I think the article is interesting and is a good warning against ignoring organizers on the ground and the real conditions behind a movement.
I’m actually agreeing that it’s important to engage on terms that are relevant to the current situation. I’m not sure the conditions of 3 years ago are the current conditions.
Perhaps not, but if I’m still upset about the ending of My Name is Earl almost 20 years after the show ended then I’m fairly sure that actual trauma can stand three years without lessening much.
Sure, it would be a question of prior context vs. engaging with a movement on its current terms I guess. It’s not diminishing the previous movement even, it’s just a question of how you evaluate the relevance of a past movement to a current struggle. Which is admittedly hard to do from a distance.
Especially once the media blackout begins. Then again, given how suppressed this seems to be I’m guessing the US is not happy about it.
The Subaltern is Fucking Speaking!
if the morality police prohibit wince-inducing millennial cursing, then they will have my support.
Cool beans.
Thank you for posting this, gave me a lot to think about. I found myself worrying about what comes after the reactionary ruling class of Iran gets overthrown. I’m not sure how good I feel about that as my first knee-jerk reaction. Patriarchy must be defeated, and I like wishcasting a more moderate Iran that could open up if only the West would let the people breath.
Lots to consider. Thank you.
The liberals of Iran and their exile networks are not social progressives, they are culturally monarchist and explicitly Reaganite in their outlook toward the working class of “their country”
There is no universe where a fallen Iran leads to the west “letting the people breath” the plans the exiles have for Iran is outright banditry and a copying of the stock doctrine applied to post-Soviet states, they don’t hide their intentions, they blame the working class of Iran for the revolution and the way they talk amongst themselves about the “over-populated” cities and eduction system reminded me of the tortured logic of the Khemer Rouge
The Iranian diaspora and liberals are more homophobic and much more transphobic than the Iranian government.
Despite the stereotypes, if Pahlavi gains power, I forsee a massacre of queer people and western liberals either
- pretending that nothing is happening (ala Syria)
- claiming that this is somehow better than before
- blaming Iranians on a racial basis
- doing
We aren’t talking about liberals. We’re talking about the underclass who can’t leave the region and is unlikely to be able to have any reach.
There’s still that optimist deep down inside of me that hopes they are influenced by the many autonomous zones in the region. But I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the region to know if what I heard about them is even true.
What have you heard about “the region”? What autonomous zones?
The largest autonomous zone would be Rojava. They’re a confederation of several autonomous nations who follow a variant of Bookchin’s communalism. They’re the ones who defeated isil. But they’re not the only autonomous groups in West Asia, but they are the largest.
As far as I’ve heard, the article sums up a lot of it. Religious repression, foreign interference, police state. Things like that.
Also, do you think this article is relevant regarding the current riots and that we should provide unconditional support to the forces seeking to overthrow the Islamic regime?
“For once just have our backs unconditionally”
Something the author reiterates is that this topic always ends up either centering the US or the state. And because of that they are either the targets of bombs or their needs are dismissed. The author is requesting that we try to see things on their level. Yes, imperialists having control would almost assuredly be worse, but when the people are taking that risk in the hopes of a better life it goes to show just how mistreated they must feel, and it highlights that their material circumstances are clearly vastly different from ours.
pog
Ok so you’re just an unserious person, got it
Oh, you’re talking about the SDF? They’re only autonomous while the US needed them, and benefit greatly from foreign interference. as we speak they’re being abandoned and left for dead. The troops of Iran, Assad’s Syria, and Hezbollah also fought ISIS, without American assistance. Martyr Soleimani paid for that with his life.
So that’s part of why people are reacting strongly to an article requesting uncritical support for the toppling of the primary American enemy
Do you have any additional reading on this I can look into?
Edit: sorry, I misread the tone of conversation, and I’m a bit irritated at the moment as my pain is flaring up.
You didn’t read the article.But it looks like you do read Wikipedia. Isn’t it convenient having NATO summarize several openly Zionist news outlets into easy bullet points. (I know which outlets because I actually followed the citations to see who was saying it.)Somehow I don’t think you’d accept the argument that the involvement of Mossad in these protests means they can simply be dismissed out of hand, but when news outlets report on open facts that can be confirmed or falsified, you just discard it out of hand because the outlets are zionist instead of discussing where any actual inaccuracy is.
I most certainly did read the article. But you can’t actually provide a response
My bad. As others pointed out I was clearly misreading the tone of conversation. I’m not going to make excuses, I was dismissed you without engaging because I assumed you were being disingenuous.
I’m going to go clear my head then reply in good faith.
