My in-line responses to several posts are below, after a lengthy but edited version of the post that started the thread. On Thursday, May 25, Ed Pearl quoted the Campaign for Peace and Democracy: <snip> >> > > >> Although a full-scale invasion of Iran is highly >> > > >> unlikely at the moment, there can be little doubt >> > > >> that the neoconservatives in the Bush >> > > >> administration have a grand strategy that includes, >> > > >> eventually, "regime change" in Tehran as a way >> > > >> of further enlarging U.S. imperial power. <snip> >> > > >> We, on the other hand, care very much >> > > >> about the ability of the Iraqi and Iranian people >> > > >> to control their own societies, about civil >> > > >> liberties and the rights of women, gays, workers, >> > > >> and ethnic minorities there. That is why we raise our >> > > >> voices against the current threats to Iran and call >> > > >> for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from >> > > >> Iraq. >> > > >> >> > > >> We too would like to see a regime change in >> > > >> Tehran, but one brought about by the Iranian people >> > > >> themselves, not by Washington. For 26 years Iran >> > > >> has been ruled by a repressive theocracy. Behind >> > > >> the formal trappings of democracy, real power is held >> > > >> by an un-elected oligarchy of clerics; all electoral >> > > >> candidates must receive their approval, and their authority >> > > >> is enforced by gangs of religious thugs. <snip> >> > > >> In recent years there has been growing resistance >> > > >> within Iranian society, particularly from workers >> > > >> fighting privatization and unemployment and young >> > > >> people chafing against social and political repression. >> > > >> This resistance holds the promise of bringing >> > > >> grassroots democratic change to Iran. <snip> >> > > >> We therefore strongly oppose any effort by Tehran >> > > >> to acquire nuclear weapons. But as long as a >> > > >> handful of nations arrogate to themselves the exclusive >> > > >> right to possess nuclear weapons, the have-nots will >> > > >> always be able to point to the threat posed by the >> > > >> nuclear powers and will constantly seek to acquire such >> > > >> weapons for themselves -- as North Korea has already >> > > >> done, withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty >> > > >> regime. <snip> >> > > >> We call for a new democratic U.S. foreign policy >> > > >> that would deal with the threat posed to all of us by >> > > >> terrorist networks, and by weapons of mass destruction, >> > > >> and promote real democracy in the Middle East and >> > > >> elsewhere, by: >> > > >> >> > > >> Renouncing the use of military intervention <snip> >> > > >> Ending U.S. support for authoritarian and corrupt >> > > >> regimes, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and >> > > >> Egypt. <snip> >> > > >> Opposing all forms of terrorism worldwide -- <snip> >> > > >> Supporting the right of national self-determination <snip> >> > > >> Taking unilateral steps toward renouncing weapons >> > > >> of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, <snip> >> > > >> Abandoning the effort to impose, through the IMF/World >> > > >> Bank or unilaterally, neoliberal economic policies of >> > > >> privatization and austerity <snip> >> > > >> Initiating a major foreign aid program directed at popular >> > > >> rather than corporate needs. <snip> On May 25, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: >> > > >This is bullshit, big time. How dare others who >> > > > do not live in Iran tell the Iranis what form of >> > > > government they should have. The CPD Statement does not tell Iranis what form of government they should have. It supports the ability of the Iranian people to control their own societies and describes the current government in Iran as a repressive theocracy that denies them that ability. >> > > > I applaud the majority of the Irani working class, and >> > > > working poor for their good judgement in chosing the >> > > > government. I wonder how many on that list of signatories >> > > > has actually been in Iran, has actually met thousands of those >> > > > "theocrats" label them. The CPD description of clerical veto power in Iran is accurate, and the choices available to Iranis is thereby circumscribed. >> > > > Sure like the pr! iviliged classes in Cuba and >> > > > Venueseula, the wealthy Iranians don't support >> > > > the Islamic government. But the working class and >> > > > the poor know exactly what they want! In the elections >> > > > before this one they tried a so-called moderate (Khatamie) >> > > >and after being neglected, burned and watching >> > > > their society turn into greedy western style consumerism, >> > > >70% of the people of Iran came out and voted, and >> > > > the majority voted for the most religious of the candidates. There is no denying that the Irani majority wants religious government, but the "western" values of individual freedom and social justice need not conflict with this choice nor lead to the greedy consumerism seen by many as their natural result under the strict limits of acceptable political dialogue. The CDP argues for a third way, in which such choices are made in an environment within which alternatives may be freely discussed because human and individual rights are protected rather than threatened by government. >> > > > You know the left/progressive intelligencia is not >> > > > so superior as they claim. They just as ignorant >> > > > and prejudice and the neo-cons. It's a prejudice against tyranny and authoritarianism with a sound and intelligent basis in both history and political theory. On Thursday, May 25, 2006, Altaf Bhimji wrote: >> > > Yes, I agree totally with Loraine. I got the same >> > > impression --- this is the same as the neo-con... you >> > > wish for "elections" but if people elect someone >> > > you don't like... well then you go about wishing >> > > for "regime change" --- How is that really , when it >> > > comes down to it, any different than the neo-con >> > > imperialists? <snip> The difference is clearly stated "We too would like to see a regime change in Tehran, but one brought about by the Iranian people themselves, not by Washington." This supports the concept of anti-imperialist self-determination, which the CPD statement argues is impossible under a repressive regime, even if democratically elected. On May 26, 2006, Richard Sierra wrote: >> > The new left opposes Bush (christian conservative) >> > and the aligned Iraqi gov (islamic conservative) and >> > they don't adhere to the Pres's form of imperial >> > democracy nor do they support christian Law (Old Testament) >> > and, finally, they don't approve of islamic Sharia. State >> > legal systems and movements based on the Law and >> > Sharia are traditional and patriarchal. Neither Christianity nor Islam need be conservative or fundamentalist. It is the conservative fundamentalism of Sharia as typically implemented that the new left finds itself opposing, rather than Sharia itself. If the clerics interpreting the Koran under Sharia were progressive libertarian anarchists intent on limiting government interference in private matters, and if Sharia was a structure of civil law separate from the criminal law and used primarily for the resolution of disputes, there would be little problem, especially if submission to its dictates was voluntary. >> > The new left everywhere and whatever its form is >> > anti-patriarchalism and its many manifestations. <snip> Oh, I don't know about that. It's perhaps generally true of the feminist new left, but not all of the new left is or has been consciously feminist and most new left thinkers still treat children as property or chattel -- the primary evidence of patriarchy or matriarchy, in my view. Altaf Bhimji <altafb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > this so-called "new left" however does wish for >> > regime changes in areas of the world that it knows >> > nothing about - and as such is reactionary, imperialist, >> > and patriarchical (sure... it does not advocate >> > military intervention, but it ends up feeding the beast >> > that it supposedly opposes ) ... because it does not >> > believe in self-determination --- or the notion that >> > people may decide to live in ways other than the >> > "new-left" ideology. And if a people do chose a form >> > of govt other than "new-left", the new-left will attribute >> > that to "theocratic repression" or just plain >> > backwardness of people (who then need to be >> > "educated" on the virtues of the "new left"). I have no idea what "new left" Altaf is describing above. To the little extent that it was concerned with geopolitics, the 1960's new left generally opposed imperialism and supported national liberation struggles, as in Algeria, Vietnam, and Latin America. There was a Maoist influence in the new left, but it was not dominant; and where ideological "re-education" was imposed by governments, that was generally by communists, who have a distinctly different general philosophy more closely allied with old left than new. New left thinking is generally anti-authoritarian and pro-liberty, yet Altaf implies the opposite. >> --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > The multicultural left isn't the new left. In the >> > Sixties the then new left >> > strongly supported the Kashmiri muslims and LEFT >> > muslims everywhere >> > including Indonesia, South Yemen, and Israel. /R This statement somewhat implies a monolithic uniformity in geopolitical perspective that is not at all characteristic of the new left, which is more about liberty, culture, and counter-culture than about religions or nation-states and their alignments. Anarchists and radical libertarian socialists among Hindus, Muslims, Budhists, Atheists, or Christians can all find "support" in the new left, for the little that support may be worth. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left On Saturday, May 27, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: <snip> >> if you go back into archives you can hear for >> yourself the Ravi Shankar, John Lenon, and >> Joan Biaz concerts to raise money for Bangladesh. >> (Even when there was no Bangladesh, BTW) There was a Bangladesh at the time of the concerts, but it was not yet an independent country. "The people of the then East Pakistan declared independence on 26th March, 1971 and won a nine-month long war of independence and became independent on 16th December, 1971." Ref: http://www.citechco.net/bangladesh/history/ "The Concert For Bangladesh was the event title for two benefit concerts held on the afternoon and evening of August 1, 1971, playing to a total of 40,000 people at Madison Square Garden in New York." Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Bangladesh See also: http://www.banglamusic.com/news/patriotic/libaration_war_and_song_of_bangladesh_12122002.html Richard Sierra wrote: >> > > Regrets to those objecting to the LAAMN post's content but >> > > there was never any possibility of an American secular new left >> > > supporting religious governments whether christian, j! ewish, islamic >> > > or whatnot. The separation of church/temple/mosque and state principle >> > > forestalls any such support. /R Yes, but the American secular new left's lack of support for religious government is not necessarily direct opposition. The left can simply oppose religion-inspired suppression of rights without condemning religious governments. This allows for populist internal reform and the expansion of human rights even under a government which has institutionalized religion.. On Friday, May 26, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: >> > Well then the secular left should stop being so >> > arragent and trying to impose their philosophy on >> > others. What is the difference between them and >> > bush's regime change policy? The threat to impose regime change by force from a separate nation is quite different than support for reform from within. >> > They want secular then they live >> > here and work on the areas needed of change and >> > correction here and not call for "regime" change in >> > countries they do not live or vote in or try to >> > interfer in those countries. These activities are not mutually exclusive. There is an international declaration of human rights which all peoples can support, domestically and internationally. >> > Iran, BTW, IS a >> > DEMOCRACY! They have had elections >> > since the Islamic revolution, including two, not >> > just one vote, on the type of government they wanted; a >> > secular or religious. They have term limits as well >> > for the President, who can only serve for two terms, >> > then has to wait it out two terms before running >> > again. Even their constitution was put to a >> > referendom before being finally adopted. I've been in Iran >> > during the Iran and Iraq war when people dodged misiles >> > being dropped on them in order to get to the poles and >> > votes. 83% of qualified voters turned out during >> > the elections during the Iraq imposed and U.S. >> > sponsored war. That was more than impressive, but amazing, >> > when we see here, hardly 25-30% registered voters, not >> > just qualified voters, turn-out in many elections. The CPD statement acknowledges "the formal trappings of democracy." >> > It is indeed NOT thercratic oppression when the >> > popular votes decide the form of government is to >> > be from a religious perspective. It is theocratic oppression when clerics can disqualify electoral candidates and where religion is used as the basis to veto popular laws seeking an expansion of individual liberties. It is theocratic oppression where a religious government suppresses free expression and basic human rights on the basis of scriptural interpretation. We're seeing more of that here in the U.S., despite our constitutional guarantees, and it is only ideological consistency to object to tyranny both here and abroad. Democracy and liberty are different sorts of things -- neither one guarantees or is a prerequisite for the other. Absolute democracy is tyranny of the mob and human rights abuses can occur under every form of government. --Terry Goodman, KPFK Delegate ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/