On 10/26/06, raghu wrote:
> > As a working definition "Western leftist"=person who lives in the OECD > > nations, who is philosophical inclined towards socialism. Yoshie's > > point is that too many people who belong in this (admittedly > > imprecise) category make sweeping unfavorable generalizations about > > third world governments.
me:
> It would be interesting to do a survey to see if the sweeping > generalization that Western leftists make sweeping unfavorable > generalizations about third world governments or not. I haven't seen > that kind of work anywhere, but it may exist.
raghu:
Easy: just scan PEN-L archives.
do you have the time to do it? It would be great! me:
> That's [the anti-third wordism of OECD leftists is] > not true in all eras. A lot of OECD leftism has been "third > worldist." Years ago, many leftists in OECD countries were extremely...
raghu:
Even today much of OECD leftism is "third worldist" in the sense of highlighting oppression and encouraging or applauding revolution in the third world. The funny thing though is (as Yoshie points out) people often prescribe revolution for the thrid world, but reform in the West. Look at how many posts on PEN-L you see about the democratic party, labor unions and minimum wage legislation. There is a very good reason for this of course, revolutions are hard, painful and often bloody. On the other hand when Yoshie tries to discuss for example women's rights issue in Iran, she gets dismissive comments like the whole Iranian regime is sexist at its core, so it is futile to talk about reforming women's rights in the current setup.
To my mind, it's not for me to decide whether the people of Iran (or a majority group such as women) need a revolution. That's their decision. However, talking about revolution _as a possibility_ as part of trying to understand the situation seems much more reasonable in Iran than for (say) the US. After all, Iran actually had a revolution in 1979. On the other hand, the country I'm most familiar with, i.e., the US, is very far from having a revolutionary situation. (Add a few more "veries" to that sentence.) Further, the line between reform (raising the minimum wage) and revolution is not absolute. Reforms can slowly add up to revolution. I'm not convinced that pen-l people (men) were as "dismissive" of Yoshie's perspective as you say. Among other things, I don't think _anyone_ ruled out reform. Reform vs. revolution wasn't really being discussed. Rather, the main point I read was that Yoshie was only highlighting the happy side of the story. If she had clearly acknowledged the negative side of the story, and _then_ said "Iran isn't as bad for women as you think," the whole discussion would have gone much better. Instead, she seemed to come out with just the happy side. Also, I went and read one of the articles she cited. (I don't have a record of which one, so I can't check my recollection.) Sure, things were going well for women in some ways in Iran. But it was because women were struggling for better lives. That makes very important points (i.e., that no-one, not even Iranian women, are total robots ruled by others, never resisting, and that people can make their lives better by struggling). But it didn't deny the utterly patriarchal nature of the regime (which is what people were asserting). Instead it pointed out that patriarchy can be made better via struggle. -- Jim Devine / "I wanna be with you in paradise / And it seems so unfair / I can't go to paradise no more / I killed a man back there." -- Bob Dylan.
