Very good. See a few things below.
/R
-----Original Message-----
From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf
Of Terry Goodman
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:14 PM
To:
NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Neither U.S.
Aggression Nor Theocratic
Repression
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.
In modern times Shariah rule has
been sought after by orthodox islamic groups. The Quran like the Bible is
universally used by all their respective faithful.
As an aside: The basis of present
day American rule is union of church (conservative) and state
(conservative) and it is the Old Testament that anchors this era. In
left eras separation of church and state causes their downfall and the left
christian anchor in the New Testament.
As to Shariah and it political applicability to
leftwing politics I welcome any remarks Loraine may have. I don't claim to
be an expert on Islam. I do know Sufi isn't based on Shariah....or so
I think I know. :)
>> > 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.
I think I broke it down into two
catagories. One being the general concept that as a whole the 60's new
left was based on the fem principle (matter, bottom against top) and,
secondly, that, yes, within the new left, a coalition of many groups, there
were those in opposition to the principle relative to other movement
members. Feminists certainly did have probs within the
movement.
If you're saying patriarch and matriarchy are
opposites, I agree.
When I made my remarks I was thinking of the 60s left,
not the current left(s).
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.
I don't understand the first phrase
of the second sentence.
Not disagreeing but want to
emphasize the mvt was a coalition of many contrasting groups. At
times some worked in the system, others outside. Impossible to really talk
about these things without a zillion words....I find it frustrating.
>> ---
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.
No it doesn't (You're redefining mc as new
left?)....the 60s anti-imperialism left supported left liberation movements all
over the globe. It was all about revolutionary ethics
and politics and the ethic was inherent in the movements
being.
To make a distinction, to me, the
mc that has existed for the last few decades was and isn't the
new left as mc is based on group rights, not individual
rights...two diff philosophical systems. That doesn't deny new left
persons or groups don't exist in their own right an example being many
socialist groups. The new left is based on history, not culture; commonality,
not difference; and has an objective class analysis which mc
lacks. Look at American left history. Until the Reagan era mc has
never existed....let's not confuse the historical left with the present
one.
Sorry, mc is not revolutionary
politics.
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..
Direct or indirect opposition...I
can't recall any American secular left movement supporting a religion based gov.
Personally, I could easily support a religious left gov....maybe that's
such a gov you're referring to.
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
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS