DEAH DIAWRY
MOOD: APATHETIC
I've been disappointing myself yet again. Note to self: Blog entries don't have to be perfect. Quantity beats quality. I'm only holding myself back by not writing when I supposedly 'don't have anything intelligent to say'.
Anywho, let's commence.
Iran:
In my last entry, I took an ambivalent stand towards the Iranian uprisings: Since all of my information about the demonstrations was filtered through mass media outlets, I felt it was difficult to get a decent picture of the array of classes in Iranian society-
In short, I couldn't tell whether or not the demonstrations counted as a 'mass democratic uprising' or an attempt at a 'color revolution'- an attempt by the imperialist west, headed by the United States, to expand their sphere of influence and restore the comprador bourgeoisie to power in Iran through the manipulation of mass media and by throwing their support behind the westernized reformist factions.
Well, a couple days later, there was an interesting article posted by Stratfor, a private intelligence firm-
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090622_iranian_election_and_revolution_test
- which raised several points that I think make choosing a side in this whole debacle much easier.
First of all, the writer mentions that the West's interpretation of events from Iran tend to come from a very limited number of sources- It is usually westernized, English-speaking Iranians that are the ones interviewed. The author doesn't mention it, but looking back on history, it seems to me that there's a historical precedent for this, with regards to all nations not submitting to the Washington consensus.
I guess I'm already going off on a tangent- but anyways, let's continue
The way the western masses receive their information about countries hostile to U.S. foreign policy is as follows- Information is compiled from two main sources:
1. The Official State media for said country.
2. The personal accounts of dissidents.
With regards to the State media, keep in mind that the Western paradigm still views the world in a black-and-white way- a Good vs. Evil battle between the forces of 'Democracy and Capitalism' and 'Evil Totalitarianism', and therefore, the official media of said country is always assumed to be dishonest.
As for the personal accounts of dissidents, their personal accounts of what has happened in the country they fled from is typically unquestioningly swallowed by the media and reported as truth. Never mind the fact that these dissidents are commonly the ones most disillusioned with the government they fled from and likely have no qualms about just plain making stuff up. Also, for example, with regards to the divided countries during the Cold War (North/South Korea and East/West Germany), the capitalist nations typically dangled a carrot in front of prospective dissidents- If they 'crossed over' to the capitalist world, they would be rewarded.
Basically, in order to make sure that these exiles didn't immediately become disillusioned with the widespread inequality and other social ills of the capitalist system, and to prevent their 'information weapons' from turning on them, the capitalists provided these people with a cushy, comfortable life, sparing them from the reality of the system they chose to live under.
Anyways, back to Iran. Yes, well it looks to me like another case of the above- like the media is blowing the size of the demonstrations and the extent of their support way out of proportion, in an attempt to destabilize the Iranian government. Thus, I really don't think that these protests are worth supporting- Despite the fact that the Iranian leftists are giving their support, they are rallying around a small clique of liberal intellectuals completely detached from the Iranian working masses.
Also, shit's been going down in Honduras. We have yet another coup d'etat- The first one of the Obama administration, and SUPRISE SUPRISE!- The American government actually declares the coup illegal! Of course, anyone who has the ability to read between the lines can see what's going on- Obama is still attempting to spread U.S. hegemony, but he's trying to distance himself from the Bush/Reaganite way of doing so- That is, invasions, occupations, militarist coup d'etats and all that jazz.
The other interesting bit of information regarding this coup is the story behind the ex-Honduran president, Zelaya. He was a member of the 'Liberal Party'- a member party in the Liberal International; Your typical pro-Oligarchy neoliberal crap we're so used to seeing. However, after taking power, he sided with Hugo Chavez and attempted to legalize drugs, seeing as how the U.S.-led 'War on Drugs' only increases the prescense of gangs and drug cartels. Well, this alienated some members of his party, and apparently the military, which lead to this coup.
Well, the result is yet to be seen. Currently, it looks like the military is attempting to restore order by taking news media off the air, firing at protestors, and appointing another liberal oligarch guy as president. Things look hopeful, though. With the regime looking isolated, with even the yanks questioning it's legitimacy, hopefully we'll see Zelaya return to power, further fragmenting the opposition and pushing Honduran politics further to the left.
Showing posts with label Imperialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imperialism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
On the events unfolding in Iran
I think it's about time I voiced my opinion on the situation in Iran.
There have been too many knee-jerk reactions from both sides- those supporting the uprising, and those supporting the existing the government. Let's examine the positions of both sides for a moment.
Those who show support for the Islamic Republic do so because to them, the situation appears to be another attempt at a U.S.-backed color revolution, in which the U.S., and in this case, probably Israel, attempt to shoe-in a candidate friendly towards them, in this case, the reformist Mousavi. This has happened many times in the past, so I don't think it's fair that supporters of the uprising try to silence everyone that disagrees with them with accusations of 'conspiracism'. Their judgement is based on the assumption that the reformist opposition in Iran is analogous to the opposition in Venezuela; a small minority of westernized, urban intellectuals who seek to depose the national-bourgeoisie and return the comprador-bourgeoisie to power. There would, of course, be a liberalization of the theocratic social values, which would be a positive thing, but at the same time, they assume there would be a restoration of the neocolonial relationship with the United States, strengthening imperialism in a time at which it should be in decline, and retarding the global class struggle.
Those who show support for the opposition fall into two categories:
1. The liberal, and in the western media, mainstream opposition: Those who see the opposition's use of the slogan 'Death to the dictator' in the western sense, with dictator = anyone the U.S. doesn't like. To me, it seems this group buys into the typical western viewpoint with regards to the Middle East; that every regime that doesn't westernize and adopt bourgeois-liberal capitalism is intrinsically unpopular with it's people- That all of its supporters are brainwashed, and all of those against it live in fear, waiting for the day brave, white, American men will storm in and free them from their asiatic barbarism. Ok, I apoligize, that was a caricature.
2. The left-wing opposition: Those who see the uprising not as a reformist struggle, of a people angered over a 'stolen election', but rather, an expression of widespread discontent against the Islamic Republic. Evidence for this viewpoint... Well, there are a few pictures from the Iranian riots in which red flags are visible among the protestors. There's the fact that Obama is stating that he doesn't really prefer one candidate over the other, and just wants the chaos to end, which could suggest that the U.S. fears the demonstrators radicalizing more than either candidate.
For anti-imperialists, picking a side here is tricky. I myself am still wavering between either pole, as I read more information from either side.
The fact is, I don't live in Iran. The Iranian exiles who are getting indignant whenever someone challenges their viewpoint don't live in Iran. There has been almost a complete media blackout except from the official Iranian news sources and from the demonstrators themselves.
Those who do not live in Iran have no way of telling which side represents which class, so it's impossible for me to confidently throw my support behind one side or another. To me, it all comes down to the Iranian working class, and I'm getting mixed messages with regards to what side they support.
There is the possibility that this situation could be similar to the Russian Revolution- That the traditionalists are held in power due to support from the landed aristocracy and the rural petty-bourgeoisie, and that the center of opposition is the industrial proletariat, which is divided into both a liberal wing, comparable to the Kadets, and a radical wing, comparable to the Bolsheviks. In this case, perhaps the pro-government forces may still outnumber the opposition, yet the opposition will be worth supporting- An overthrow of the Islamic regime will be a shedding of feudalist fetters.
Perhaps, this may lead to a liberal pro-western government, similar to that of Kerensky. Of course, such a government is not a good thing, but perhaps the exacerbation of the current economic crisis and the inability to live up to their lofty promises will thoroughly discredit liberalism in the eyes of the Iranian working class, giving momentum to only remaining alternative- the Iranian communists.
On the other hand, if the Iranian working class is largely pro-Ahmadinejad, and the opposition is indeed merely small cliques of well-off westernized, urban intellectuals, then perhaps this is indeed a 'color revolution', and the government does deserve critical support- not because we support Ahmadinejad and theocracy, but because communists should always oppose any attempt by imperialist powers to 'force' the developing world to a stage of development they are not yet ready or willing to live under.
Time will tell whether or not the Iranians are ready for change.
Of course, if someone has concrete evidence showing exactly which side has the support of the Iranian working class, it would certainly clear things up.
There have been too many knee-jerk reactions from both sides- those supporting the uprising, and those supporting the existing the government. Let's examine the positions of both sides for a moment.
Those who show support for the Islamic Republic do so because to them, the situation appears to be another attempt at a U.S.-backed color revolution, in which the U.S., and in this case, probably Israel, attempt to shoe-in a candidate friendly towards them, in this case, the reformist Mousavi. This has happened many times in the past, so I don't think it's fair that supporters of the uprising try to silence everyone that disagrees with them with accusations of 'conspiracism'. Their judgement is based on the assumption that the reformist opposition in Iran is analogous to the opposition in Venezuela; a small minority of westernized, urban intellectuals who seek to depose the national-bourgeoisie and return the comprador-bourgeoisie to power. There would, of course, be a liberalization of the theocratic social values, which would be a positive thing, but at the same time, they assume there would be a restoration of the neocolonial relationship with the United States, strengthening imperialism in a time at which it should be in decline, and retarding the global class struggle.
Those who show support for the opposition fall into two categories:
1. The liberal, and in the western media, mainstream opposition: Those who see the opposition's use of the slogan 'Death to the dictator' in the western sense, with dictator = anyone the U.S. doesn't like. To me, it seems this group buys into the typical western viewpoint with regards to the Middle East; that every regime that doesn't westernize and adopt bourgeois-liberal capitalism is intrinsically unpopular with it's people- That all of its supporters are brainwashed, and all of those against it live in fear, waiting for the day brave, white, American men will storm in and free them from their asiatic barbarism. Ok, I apoligize, that was a caricature.
2. The left-wing opposition: Those who see the uprising not as a reformist struggle, of a people angered over a 'stolen election', but rather, an expression of widespread discontent against the Islamic Republic. Evidence for this viewpoint... Well, there are a few pictures from the Iranian riots in which red flags are visible among the protestors. There's the fact that Obama is stating that he doesn't really prefer one candidate over the other, and just wants the chaos to end, which could suggest that the U.S. fears the demonstrators radicalizing more than either candidate.
For anti-imperialists, picking a side here is tricky. I myself am still wavering between either pole, as I read more information from either side.
The fact is, I don't live in Iran. The Iranian exiles who are getting indignant whenever someone challenges their viewpoint don't live in Iran. There has been almost a complete media blackout except from the official Iranian news sources and from the demonstrators themselves.
Those who do not live in Iran have no way of telling which side represents which class, so it's impossible for me to confidently throw my support behind one side or another. To me, it all comes down to the Iranian working class, and I'm getting mixed messages with regards to what side they support.
There is the possibility that this situation could be similar to the Russian Revolution- That the traditionalists are held in power due to support from the landed aristocracy and the rural petty-bourgeoisie, and that the center of opposition is the industrial proletariat, which is divided into both a liberal wing, comparable to the Kadets, and a radical wing, comparable to the Bolsheviks. In this case, perhaps the pro-government forces may still outnumber the opposition, yet the opposition will be worth supporting- An overthrow of the Islamic regime will be a shedding of feudalist fetters.
Perhaps, this may lead to a liberal pro-western government, similar to that of Kerensky. Of course, such a government is not a good thing, but perhaps the exacerbation of the current economic crisis and the inability to live up to their lofty promises will thoroughly discredit liberalism in the eyes of the Iranian working class, giving momentum to only remaining alternative- the Iranian communists.
On the other hand, if the Iranian working class is largely pro-Ahmadinejad, and the opposition is indeed merely small cliques of well-off westernized, urban intellectuals, then perhaps this is indeed a 'color revolution', and the government does deserve critical support- not because we support Ahmadinejad and theocracy, but because communists should always oppose any attempt by imperialist powers to 'force' the developing world to a stage of development they are not yet ready or willing to live under.
Time will tell whether or not the Iranians are ready for change.
Of course, if someone has concrete evidence showing exactly which side has the support of the Iranian working class, it would certainly clear things up.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Comments on the first half of 2009
It's been a week since my last update. Rather shameful, I think.
Anyways, it's time to rant. This is an interesting time in my life, and coincidentally, human history. After the decadent 90s, and the brainless, apathetic first 8 years of the 00's, this economic crisis has shaken society to its foundations- I like to think of it as an 'economic hangover'.
Danger lies ahead. Of course, since Obama was elected, we're supposed to be hopeful for the future, expecting change, but it's interesting to see how quickly his popularity has sank in the first couple of months of his presidency.
On the other hand, the situation in the rest of the world looks shady, with things looking as if they could either lead to human emancipation or annihilation. I'm just going to run down the list of areas in which the inter-imperialist or counter-imperialist struggles are intensifying.
- The Afghanistan/Pakistani Conflict: I'm not exactly a huge fan of the Taliban, but anything is preferable to U.S. occupation. What is interesting, though, is how the conflict is gradually spilling out into the Pakistani countryside. With the Pakistani government looking fragile and largely unpopular amongst its' own citizens (probably because they can see it's nothing but a tool of western imperialism), things could get quite interesting.
In the event of a governmental collapse, it seems there are several ways things could play out- Of course, there's the possibility of a hardline Taliban government, which might garner a lot of support due to it's opposition to the great powers meddling in local politics, but at the same time, Pakistan is much more urbanized and industrialized than Afghanistan, meaning that the collective consciousness of the people is marginally more secular (industrialization gradually breaks down cultural conservatism).
On the other hand, there's also the possibility of a milder Islamic anti-imperialist or perhaps even a nationalist movement taking power. I myself prefer this option, seeing as such a government may not view more progressive organizations (socialists, communists) as their main enemy, due to their common goal of anti-imperialism, and therefore may make strategic alliances with them in order to completely expel U.S. influence from the area.
- The DPRK: I'm not excited about the situation in this region. I wholeheartedly support the DPRK, but I'm extremely worried; their closest allies, China and Russia, seem to have abandoned them, joining the western powers in voting for increased sanctions.
I want to slap the entire Chinese government in the face. 35 years ago, the PRC, even though it was pursuing a social-imperialist policy with regards to the third world, at least paid lip service to anti-imperial and colonial struggles. It looks like that's all gone out the window- they are indistinguishable from the western capitalists.
Well, actually, I'll give them some credit- as far as capitalist swine go, they are far better at what they do than Washington and Europe, probably because their political discourse isn't swamped with loonies who believe the best way to adapt to the conditions of the 21st century is to cling ever tighter to the ideals enshrined in a ancient document intended for 18th-century agrarian society.
But anyways, back on subject. I'm just crossing my fingers that the DPRK can hold on. I know that sooner or later, the U.S. is going to try to pick a fight with them, and the big question is what course of action Russia and China are going to take. If they join in, all I can say is that they're dishonorable bastards, even by imperialist standards- stooping to the level of the U.S. as far as betraying smaller states that used to be friendly with you goes (Iraq, anyone?).
If they don't join in, things become a lot more hopeful. The U.S. is a decaying empire, but still puffed up with hubris. Our media keeps echoing the same refrain- that the DPRK is militarily incompetent- using old equipment- that we'd crush them within weeks like Fall Weiss. I say that's a load of bullshit. If there's any military that is incompetent, it is the U.S. military, overstretched, overconfident, unable to win conflicts against ragtag militias in Iraq and Afghanistan. They haven't been involved in a full-scale conflict against a regular military in ages, whereas the DPRK has been on war footing constantlly since the end of the Korean War. The people of the United States are divided, cynical, and apathetic, whereas the North Koreans look to be as unified and imbued with revolutionary Songun spirit (to use their words) as always.
Of course I don't know for sure about any of this, because of the secretive nature of the DPRK (I can't say I blame them, considering the amount of pressure they're under), but I think this is another case of hubris getting the best of the U.S. After all, we told ourselves that the Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis... etc. would be pushovers, right?
I'm tired of writing, as of now, and I think I'm going to go for a jog. I suppose the next couple of entries will follow a similar format, with me giving my $0.02 on the various regions of the world where things look poised to intensify.
Anyways, it's time to rant. This is an interesting time in my life, and coincidentally, human history. After the decadent 90s, and the brainless, apathetic first 8 years of the 00's, this economic crisis has shaken society to its foundations- I like to think of it as an 'economic hangover'.
Danger lies ahead. Of course, since Obama was elected, we're supposed to be hopeful for the future, expecting change, but it's interesting to see how quickly his popularity has sank in the first couple of months of his presidency.
On the other hand, the situation in the rest of the world looks shady, with things looking as if they could either lead to human emancipation or annihilation. I'm just going to run down the list of areas in which the inter-imperialist or counter-imperialist struggles are intensifying.
- The Afghanistan/Pakistani Conflict: I'm not exactly a huge fan of the Taliban, but anything is preferable to U.S. occupation. What is interesting, though, is how the conflict is gradually spilling out into the Pakistani countryside. With the Pakistani government looking fragile and largely unpopular amongst its' own citizens (probably because they can see it's nothing but a tool of western imperialism), things could get quite interesting.
In the event of a governmental collapse, it seems there are several ways things could play out- Of course, there's the possibility of a hardline Taliban government, which might garner a lot of support due to it's opposition to the great powers meddling in local politics, but at the same time, Pakistan is much more urbanized and industrialized than Afghanistan, meaning that the collective consciousness of the people is marginally more secular (industrialization gradually breaks down cultural conservatism).
On the other hand, there's also the possibility of a milder Islamic anti-imperialist or perhaps even a nationalist movement taking power. I myself prefer this option, seeing as such a government may not view more progressive organizations (socialists, communists) as their main enemy, due to their common goal of anti-imperialism, and therefore may make strategic alliances with them in order to completely expel U.S. influence from the area.
- The DPRK: I'm not excited about the situation in this region. I wholeheartedly support the DPRK, but I'm extremely worried; their closest allies, China and Russia, seem to have abandoned them, joining the western powers in voting for increased sanctions.
I want to slap the entire Chinese government in the face. 35 years ago, the PRC, even though it was pursuing a social-imperialist policy with regards to the third world, at least paid lip service to anti-imperial and colonial struggles. It looks like that's all gone out the window- they are indistinguishable from the western capitalists.
Well, actually, I'll give them some credit- as far as capitalist swine go, they are far better at what they do than Washington and Europe, probably because their political discourse isn't swamped with loonies who believe the best way to adapt to the conditions of the 21st century is to cling ever tighter to the ideals enshrined in a ancient document intended for 18th-century agrarian society.
But anyways, back on subject. I'm just crossing my fingers that the DPRK can hold on. I know that sooner or later, the U.S. is going to try to pick a fight with them, and the big question is what course of action Russia and China are going to take. If they join in, all I can say is that they're dishonorable bastards, even by imperialist standards- stooping to the level of the U.S. as far as betraying smaller states that used to be friendly with you goes (Iraq, anyone?).
If they don't join in, things become a lot more hopeful. The U.S. is a decaying empire, but still puffed up with hubris. Our media keeps echoing the same refrain- that the DPRK is militarily incompetent- using old equipment- that we'd crush them within weeks like Fall Weiss. I say that's a load of bullshit. If there's any military that is incompetent, it is the U.S. military, overstretched, overconfident, unable to win conflicts against ragtag militias in Iraq and Afghanistan. They haven't been involved in a full-scale conflict against a regular military in ages, whereas the DPRK has been on war footing constantlly since the end of the Korean War. The people of the United States are divided, cynical, and apathetic, whereas the North Koreans look to be as unified and imbued with revolutionary Songun spirit (to use their words) as always.
Of course I don't know for sure about any of this, because of the secretive nature of the DPRK (I can't say I blame them, considering the amount of pressure they're under), but I think this is another case of hubris getting the best of the U.S. After all, we told ourselves that the Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis... etc. would be pushovers, right?
I'm tired of writing, as of now, and I think I'm going to go for a jog. I suppose the next couple of entries will follow a similar format, with me giving my $0.02 on the various regions of the world where things look poised to intensify.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)