[Marxism] Islamist, Socialist revolutions do not mix
walterlx at earthlink.net
Wed Oct 3 22:30:37 MDT 2007
Marvin is correct to caution us against taking the report posted with
no introductory comment with a grain of salt. For most of the media in
the United States, Iran's president is being presented as a sort of
anti-Christ, a kind of "fascist gun in the West" kind of loonytick.
This is an obvious element in the effort to manufacture consent for a
military strike against Iran. I don't think any rational person can
disgree about that. From his observation post at Colombia, Louis saw
what was being done by the media, and the Columbia administration
very clearly, and his reports were quite helpful.
The strident drumbeat of hostility toward the Islamic Republic of Iran
which is posted to Marxmail at a time when the Islamic Republic of Iran
is under a very obvious threat from Washington is what caused me to say
what I did. I saw the article which Louis Proyect posted, in full, to
Marxmail. I had posted it previously, in full, to the CubaNews list for
the information of CubaNews readers. CubaNews takes pride in posting a
wide range of materials, including ones the moderator (yours truly) is
politically opposed to.
I'm not quite confident in the accuracy of the report, and we've not
yet seen any comments on the conference from anyone who participated
in it and reflected on what they saw afterwards.
Many people with different ideas try to frame things according to their
own lights. Christians see Che as a Christ-like figure. And there are
some Islamic militants who also see Che as one of their own. Why should
anyone object to that? Of course, should they state things which aren't
historically accurate, one should point point that out in a calm, clear,
pedagogical manner. Since, as we agree, we haven't seen any kind of a
report from the Cuban media or the pro-Cuban media of what happened by
someone who was present, we should take such reports with a grain of
About bending the stick too far in one direction or another as a way
of trying to guarantee objectivity: two things. First, sometimes we
may think of the "stick" as if it were a ruler or a pencil, balanced
horizontally on our finger. It should never move too far to the right
or two the left or else it'll fall off. On the other hand, thinking
of the stick as a ruler or pencil balanced horizontally, then that
means we must never veer from a perfect virticle posture, straight
up and down. Anyone who's performed the yoga posture which is known
as vkrsasana ("the tree"), which is one in which you balance on one
foot while trying to stay otherwise immobile knows how difficult it
is to maintain one's balance in that way.
So I'll agree that I may bend the stick too far in one direction,
but let's all agree that nothing which is said or done on an e-mail
list is a matter of life and death. In the end, all that this is is
Politically, must we always strive to reach and maintain an abstractly
perfect, yogic balance, never deviating from an abstract norm? Such a
way of looking at life and politics is lifeless, sterile and dead.
Los Angeles, California
MARVIN GANDALL writes
If the article is to be believed, the Islamist militant presented Che and
the Cuban leadership to the conference as God-fearing anti-Communists. Che's
kids, who were in attendance, rightly objected to these remarks which they
Why characterize their comments as "idle prattle" which undermines
international solidarity with Iran? In what way? Should they have instead
sat on their hands? I think it was proper for them to correct the record,
and that the issue of support for Iran won't turn on this incident.
You appear to be bending the stick back too far in your effort "to keep a
sense of balance and perspective". The opposition to US aggression against
Iran may be less fragile than you fear.
writer - photographer - activist
More information about the Marxism