Re: Class Divide in Iran (was Once Upon a time)
On Aug 24, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
I liked Yoshie’s answer to Doug’s challenging point about Bush’s
working class support.It’s not surprising that lots of lower-income voters support Bush. All conservative parties like the Republicans necessarily have a mass
base or they wouldn’t be major parties. Popular support is necessary for
them to gain and hold power.But it’s essential, IMO, to distinguish between the typical nature
of mass support of the right and of the left to make sense of political developments.
My point wasn’t that there’s not a difference between the left and
right kinds of populism, but that the approving comments of working-
class people at a rally - including a 10-year-old - tells you much
about the nature of the Persian Chavez’ regime. Ahmadinejad can make
all the populist noises he wants, but he lacks the resources to make
good on them, and is subordinated to a reactionary clerical permanent
government that circumscribes his actions.
In developing countries, there are pressures for even the more
traditional layers of the population to move leftwards because their
nationalism is expressed as anti-imperialism rather than its opposite, as in the
US, and because their economic conditions draw them towards populist
parties and politicians. Islamist parties and leaders like Ahmadinejad are
especially contradictory because they reflect the combined religious and social conservatism, economic populism, and nationalist anti-imperialism
of their oppressed constituencies.
The original Islamic revolution was avowedly anti-imperialist, but
turned into a fairly ugly state. All kinds of despots and demagogues
can be anti-imperialist - it’s often a nice cover for your domestic
reaction and corruption.
Doug