Louis Proyect wrote:
> a regime of women-hating torturers.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Why not sanction "a regime of women-hating torturers" if that's all that the Iranian government is?
this is the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic that has hurt the left again and again: any criticism of the Iranian regime is seen as a call for Bushian regime change in that country. And of course the Iranian government is more than a "a regime of women-hating torturers"! Mobutu Sese Seko's Zaire and Somoza's Nicaragua were more than kleptocratic puppets of imperialism. The Union of South Africa was more than an apartheid state. Stroessner's Paraguay was more than a corrupt torture state. Bush's USA is more than the Patriot Act-ridden militaristic unilateral invader of other countries in the name of the Cabal of Oil. It should be stipulated that the current president of Iran (whose name I won't try to spell from memory) is more populist than the guy he beat in the election. It should be stipulated that the election itself was more democratic than in many other countries. The fact is that the material conditions in Iran imply that this is just another "lesser of two evils -- but still evil" situation. "More populist" can mean (I hate to use this word) fascist. And the structural bias toward mullahocracy should be remembered (just like that toward plutocracy in the USA). -- Jim Devine / "Mathematics has given economics rigor, but alas, also mortis." -- Robert Heilbroner
