On 7/30/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, Iran's officially a theocracy, and the election of the first lay man in a theocracy is a more momentous change than the mere generational change. After all, the Iranian people could have picked a cleric Ahmadinejad's age but didn't.
wasn't the alternative a full-scale neo-liberal?
Yes. Iran's clerical and capitalist power elites, too, have been instituting neoliberal reforms and would love to privatize more. This is a danger, but also an opportunity, for that creates class conflicts, politicizes the masses, makes room for new leaders (Ahmadinejad and those who come after his term[s]), and so forth. It's up to the Iranian masses to turn the danger into an opportunity to end clerical rule and establish democracy (secular or religious, that's up to them), while defending the economic gains of the revolution, without re-subordinating Iran to the multinational empire. A tough task, but they can conceivably pull it off.
the key thing is the role of the masses, i.e., the urban workers and the peasants. That is, it's wrong to invest any hope in Ahmadinejad. -- Jim Devine / "These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people." -- Abraham Lincoln
