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.
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.