RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
EP 387 Farah Mokhtareizadeh: Tankies, Campism, and Beyond
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Episode 387 of RevolutionZ has as its guest Farah Mokhtareizadeh, an incredibly traveled and experienced Iranian American scholar and organizer who I first encountered via her article Vijay Prashad's Iran. She shows how if your politics begins and ends with “against the U.S.,” you can unintentionally end up defending the very forces that crush workers, feminists, and dissidents. We discuss what is sometimes called "campism," a mindset that organizes solidarity around geopolitical alignment rather than the conditions of people’s lives. Why do committed, courageous, activists fall into such damaging views? Why and how do concepts like anti-imperialism, resistance, and sovereignty often usefully clarify reality but sometimes obstructively conceal it? Is this personal psychologies at work? Is it ideological commitments? Or perhaps both? What can we do to further desirable outcomes and guard against harmful ones?
From Iran to Syria to the broader SWANA region and beyond, Farah argues for a simple but demanding practice: separate the state from the people. Together we wrestle with the “primary contradiction” argument, the temptation to pick teams for uncritical support, and the way that what she calls binary thinking can erase the reality that many communities face U.S. aggression and also domestic authoritarianism at the same time. Along the way Farah draws lessons from Iranian trade unions, Kurdish feminist politics, and historical examples where left movements made catastrophic alliances by treating “anti-U.S.” as a moral lodestone.
We also dig into a controversial public letter signed by well-known anti-war and left figures, as well as by right wing and even fascist authoritarians which her article that caught my attention responded to. The letter, she urges, defends the Iranian state and even gestures toward targeting dissident Iranian journalists. Farah questions what the letter signals for the Iranian diaspora and for younger activists trying to find an ethical anchor.
This episode discusses anti-imperialism, U.S. foreign policy, Iranian history, and building movement solidarity that doesn’t excuse repression by opponents of the U.S. It is a discussion that disavows campism yet retains clarity about U.S. and other imperialisms.
Welcome And Guest Background
SPEAKER_00Hello, my name is Michael Albert, and I'm the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our three hundred and eighty-seventh consecutive episode, and our guest this time is Farah Makterizeda. I probably butchered the name. Farah, how do you pronounce your name?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, it's Farah Mokhtarizade, but you you did perfectly.
SPEAKER_00I did horribly, but if I try again, it'll probably be more horrible. So let's just proceed. Apologies for that. Farah is an Iranian American scholar and organizer based in Louisville, Kentucky. She has lived and worked across the globe, including in Ireland, the Middle East, and East Africa. Farah holds a BA in modern Middle East Studies from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in peace studies, and a PhD in Islam and Gender, both from Trinity College, Dublin, where she also taught courses in Islamic civilization, Iranian history, and human rights. Over the past two decades, Farah has worked with communities and organizations around the world on issues ranging from conservation and land rights with Maasai communities in Kenya to peace and anti-war organizing in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, to digital rights across the Swana region, to popular education and workers' rights with asylum seekers in Ireland. In Tanzania, she served as a global learning advisor for Action Aid International, working in the Freerian tradition. While in Ireland, she was a member of the Worker Solidarity Movement and served as its international secretary for many years. Back in the United States, Farrakh co-founded the Louisville Ceasefire Coalition, is a member of BlackRose slash Rosenegra, and is the founder of the Storytelling Revolution Festival. She continues to write and organize on solidarity, U.S. foreign policy, and the politics of race and visibility in American life. So welcome to Revolution Z, Farage.
SPEAKER_02Thank you so much for having me. Great to be with you.
SPEAKER_00Since I met you, so to speak, I guess, through your article titled Vijay Prashad's Iran, perhaps we could start there. Can you first tell us what campism is? Who or what does it refer to?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, sure. Um so I think uh campism, the best way I can describe it is it's um a way of organizing political solidarity around geopolitical positioning rather than around the conditions of people's lives. And you know, the question that campusm asks, I guess, is um is where a state or a political formation sits in relation to US power. And that's kind of it. So um those who are opposed to US power are good, and those who are are are with the US are bad, essentially, you know. So what that framework kind of displaces is the question of what those states and movements actually do who are opposed to the US, what they do to their own working classes, to uh women, you know, to um independent political organizations, to dissidents. Um and unfortunately, in that campus idea, in that binary, those kinds of questions disappear entirely, um, or they're subordinated to, again, whether or not you know pro or against the US. Um, and you know, every other question, political question becomes secondary to that. So I think it's you know maybe worth kind of also talking about or being honest about you know, why that framework has an appeal. Because, you know, I I think that just saying that it's bad faith or stupidity or you know, something like that, it you know, it doesn't really get us anywhere. But I think for people who are paying attention, who've watched um what the US has done in Latin America, in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, you know, the coups, um, you know, all the proxy wars, all of that, then this ideology of campusm seems to make some sort of sense. Because you're already, you know, you want to orientate yourself against empire. And that's a serious political commitment. That part of the idea, I I completely understand, and and I have no quarrel with, you know, I actually agree with wholeheartedly that we do have to um stand against US imperialism and empire. But as I said, it displaces those important questions about the people on the ground. And I think right now how that has worked is it's become more of a reflex than an analysis, you know, and um it and that's had a lot of terrible consequences on the left in general, in terms of, for example, um, many left people supporting outright the Assad regime and in the Syrian civil war, things like that. Um, I just one last thing I wanted to say is um there's this great uh sociologist on actually Saudi Arabia. Her name is Madawi al-Rashid, and you should, if you want to know about Saudi Arabia, I really encourage anybody to read her books. But she makes this great point that I think is also important to raise in the conversation. She says in in one of her books that giving names to things is not a prologue to understanding a situation, but understanding the contested nature of the names themselves is in an in an important sense the situation. So words like anti-imperialism, resistance, you know, sovereignty, they carry real and specific weight. They carry a real specific place in history. So we have to not just kind of reflexively take these, take these words, but kind of look at, you know, read them through our own time and um through all of the lenses that we have available to us and broaden that kind of horizon there.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so that that's a I think a good overall summary, but I want to make it perhaps a little clearer to some people in the audience. Sometimes it's called campism. Sometimes people call people who pursue this line of thought tankies. That's another word that's used nowadays. Someone might say in self-defense, but my enemy's enemy is my friend. And my enemy is the United States. And so anybody who's opposing the United States, I don't have to have to look further than that. If they're the enemy of my enemy, they're my friend. So that's one way of thinking and arriving at what you're describing. Um I'm guessing you certainly wouldn't subscribe to that. But what's wrong with it? As a simple, what's wrong with the thinking, my enemy is the US, my enemy's enemy is my friend.
SPEAKER_02Well, because one, like, you know, I was saying that um it it kind of erases or takes away the political subjectivity of the people in that country to speak, you know, about the politics that they experience. So we actually don't get um a full picture of the of, you know, of a full picture of the country. I think for me that's one of the most important um aspects. But I think that it can, you know, you can take that a million places too, because I think that campism, just in a in a general sense, you know, without thinking about or without analyzing what you're actually supporting or knowing what you're actually supporting, means that you could end up supporting almost anything, and that you think of politics as, you know, kind of joining a team. And, you know, our lives are much more complicated than that, and politics is a lot more important than choosing a team. So I think that just initially, you know, that's what I would say is why it's wrong, is because it it doesn't give us that full spectrum, and then it it has us, you know, supporting things that we might not want to support. I'd also say, you know, looking at some of the history of campusm, like can also be a clue about how this has been kind of applied wrongly or what is what's happened as well. I don't know, um, maybe if we have time to go into that.
Iran Solidarity Without Backing State
SPEAKER_00Sure, we have plenty of time. Yeah, why don't we uh for a concrete example consider what's going on right now regarding, well, how should somebody who's opposing what's going on in Iran, you know, the U.S. uh assault on Iran, how should one approach that issue? Um, should one say, well, that's the biggest contradiction, and we pay attention only to that, American policy against Iran? Should one say, Iran is the enemy of uh American imperialism, so am I, so uh Iran is my buddy. Or what? And how does what's being done manifest, I guess, what you're describing?
SPEAKER_02Sure. I think um, thank you for bringing that out. I think you're absolutely right that when when the buy when we get into the into the binary, um, it sort of collapses the state with the people, right? And it creates a situation where there is no difference between the state and the people. And we know from one his reading history that that's uh a big mistake. And Iranians in particular know that mistake from their own his history. But I think just in as an easy answer to your question, kind of straightforwardly, that's what's what happens. Um and and I think that instead of collapsing the state with the people, we actually need to separate the state from the people. And we need to look at who we want to be in solidarity with, within Iran. And to me, you know, some of the easiest answers are the people that we are in solidarity with in our own communities, in our own country, you know, with workers, with feminists, with um, you know, migrants, migrant rights people. And in Iran, when you are befriending the state, you are actually befriending the very entity that is repressing those people, repressing women, labor organizing, for example, is illegal in Iran. And so if you are kind of a person on the left and you feel that you want to extend your solidarity, you know, because you're a worker, for example, um, then you are making quite a big mistake by siding with the Iranian state, given what the Iranian state has done to workers since it its founding in 1979. And you're and and you're, you know, you're also siding with like what some of the left would call the capitalist class over the working class. And so it's not a small thing to overlook in terms of offering solidarity. So that is why I say we need to offer solidarity with those formations, individuals, people who are struggling both against empire and against the repression of their state.
SPEAKER_00What about this is all devil's advocate on my part, because I agree with you. But what about somebody who comes back and says, okay, I sort of agree with you, but there's this primary problem of the bombs falling on uh on Tehran and uh in in Iran. And uh, you know, to get anywhere, you got to deal with the primary thing first. Some people call it, you know, the primary contradiction. So you identify the primary contradiction and then you pay attention to that, and when you get finished with that, maybe you pay attention to something else. That's that's a more Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist way of putting forward a kind of a campused approach. And so what do you say back to that? Because you will encounter that. Yeah, sure.
SPEAKER_02I mean, yeah, I mean, I I think what you would say back to that is um, you know, again, pointing to the lives of the people in the country. So if you are in Iran, you don't, you know, you don't really have a choice between empire and state repression. You know, outside your door, there's a bomb falling at the same time that the morality police is coming to to get you for your you know your hijab. And so when I when I think, you know, when people say this, I think there it's kind of a in some way a betrayal of you know that perspective. Um, and and and included in that, I would say that a lot of Iranian actual um trade unions, when they have put out statements about recent uprisings and even about this last war, have come out in their very first opening lines um saying that they are against both empire and the repressive state of Iran. And they don't find that to be a contradiction or a difficulty. It's so I don't understand why the West finds it such a difficulty to follow that um that example.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, the first time that uh people my age encountered that was when the Vietnamese basically said to us, you're being idiotic. Um look at how we approach the situation. We are enemies of, we hate, we despise what the American government is doing to us, but we appreciate, want to understand, and want to support the American people. When people in the you know, National Liberation Front, the various organizations inside Vietnam said that to American activists who came over, the activists were sort of blown away by it. Um and it's comparable to what you just described, I think.
SPEAKER_02Almost definitely. But those and that that's a really important point, Michael. I think too, is that you know, at that time um in in Vietnam or even in Latin America, you you did have quite genuine um socialist formations of people, you know, working against their states. Um, so that that kind of analysis made more sense. That's not what we have in the Middle East, it's definitely not what we have in Iran. So trying to map that onto Iran creates um this you know analytical um difficulty.
Primary Contradiction Trap And History
SPEAKER_00And yet this isn't really complicated, right? It's this is this is not that subtle um that that you can be against American imperialism and you can be against the Iranian state, or it's it's really not that complicated, and yet very smart people who are very dedicated and who are sincere do fall into this trap, and then it gets worse and worse as time goes along, and they wind up supporting dictatorships and so on. Is do you think that to judge why the approach exists, is it just a sort of a psychological phenomenon that uh, you know, consistently arises over the last 60 years and longer because of how we humans interact and identify the tribe thing that you mentioned? Or does it also owe to specific left institutions or methods or theories which people ascribe to and then they fall into this trap because the theories seem to lead them to this position. What do you think about that?
SPEAKER_02You know, it's it's um it's it's hard to answer only because I think that it's really a reflection of a lot of of a few different processes happening and kind of all coming together at the ones. Because, you know, I I would say, you know, why does this happen? One is like I said, it's this reflexive um thing. You know, I think that's one reason. I think another reason that is kind of harder to sit with as a a left, a leftist person, maybe I would say, um, or on the left, is um that I think that there is a deep sort of pessimism that this reflects in. And what I mean by that is that, you know, and why I wrote the article is that Vijay Prashad in his work, you know, points this out himself and yet doesn't apply, won't apply it to Iran. And, you know, there is one explanation that I think is worthy of mentioning, which is, you know, where the funding for his institute actually comes from, um, you know, and uh huge jump in funding. He got within one year from I think half a you know, his institute had half a million or something to 15 million. And that, you know, in my view, comes from the the Chinese state. And why why I say it's a deep pessimism is because I think that there's a way in which the international left is kind of giving up on the idea that class politics can can happen. And and so they're kind of falling into this, well, the next least worse is either Russia or China. In in Vijay Prashad's case, it's China. And so um I think that they have then just kind of embraced China and the the fund and the funding is all around people on the left. So um people who are associated with Vijay Prashad and his institute, which are a lot of left institutions, but then also the funding is very widespread in terms of the anti-war movement in the United States as well, with um, you know, with even groups that I would say in a lot of way people are are allies, like Code Pink, um, who also have a tremendous amount of this money and who have been taking this line more forcefully since receiving that money, um, unfortunately. So, yeah, I think it's a lot of different things, but you know, money, money does talk.
SPEAKER_00We're talking about it, and nowadays it mostly gets talked about in terms of international relations, imperialism and the character of a particular state. But I actually think there's a strong parallel inside countries. So, for example, if you switch to the language of contradiction, you find inside a country, um, people might say, well, the primary contradiction is such and such. Now, maybe they'll say it's uh the dominance of the ruling class, uh, and thus it's a class dynamic. Or maybe they'll say it's a gender and a kinship dynamic uh around patriarchy, or they'll say it's uh it has to do with uh racial identification, uh, and that's the primary contradiction. And uh or even uh authority, it's the authoritarian state above us, that's the contradiction. And then they say, well, we should have to focus on that one and ignore the rest, or downplay the rest, or delay the rest. And um it's equally horrific, I think, in that it is it it purports to be strategic and it's strategically stupid. It's it's a strategic loser, you know. Um but it's a parallel situation which is really quite similar. I think. And it leads to the same kind of thing, doesn't it? You know, the advocate of class, when class is deemed paramount, becomes sort of blind to and minimizes other things. And vice versa. And there are, just for those staunch Marxists listening, there are situations in which it's not class. So take Nazi Germany. If you read enough of it, you realize, wait a minute, the dynamics there were not centrally understood simply by class. And in fact, if you wanted to point to something central, you'd point to race. But to pay attention to one without the rest is a loser, even for the one you care about. Does this seem valid to you, this parallelism to what you're saying?
SPEAKER_02Oh, most definitely. I mean, I, you know, that's another part of the history that people often overlook, actually, is the way in which, you know, this idea, this kind of campusm, when it, you know, during the time of the Second World War, actually people were, you know, you know, they were supporting the Soviet, Soviet Union. And then the Soviet Union ended up making a pact with Nazi Germany. And then all of a sudden, all of these, you know, pro-communist people who had been building for years against fascism found themselves in a weird place. And it kind of, it, you know, it kind of decimated in a way a lot of communist movements in the West. But I will say that you're you're absolutely right. I mean, part of the problem, even in Iran, um, in the history of Iran, um, in during the most recent revolutionary period during um in 1979, you know, a lot of people I hate I hate that it gets um explained in the West as the Islamic revolution, because really it was not. It was a revolution made up of you know all parts of Iran, of feminist, leftist. It wasn't just um, and even leftist religious people, but it wasn't just a religious kind of revolution at all. It was more of a leftist revolution. But the problem was that the main kind of communist party at the time, the two-day party, um using this same frame of, you know, who is who is anti-imperialist is our friend, um, joined with the Hhomey movement um in 1980 to kind of help form the Islamic Republic. And by 1983, um they had really regretted that because they were ruthlessly put down by the new Islamic Republic. And there were portions of the left that said to them at the time, do not make this deal. Just because they're anti-imperialists, look at all the rest of their politics, you know, they're they're going to crush the left. And and that wasn't listened to, and that's what happened. So you're right, you know, when you have this singular binary that you do politics with, you can end up in very strange, uh, with strange bedfellows, as we see in the letter, but also uh, you know, in in in in in these positions, and we've learned a lot from that in Iran, which I think the West has a lot to learn from us, you know.
SPEAKER_00Take that example, inside the Tudor Party, inside the Communist Party in Iran, there were committed people, courageous people, smart people, um, knowledgeable people, and they did that. You know, they fell into that trap. And, you know, if we're going to avoid a trajectory that is so harmful, we have to ask, I think, um, how does it happen? You know, why why do such people, um, aroused, conscious, aware, etc., get stuck in situations where they are actually doing themselves and their cause harm? Um and uh, you know, I I think it's a hard question to answer, but I'm wondering, do you have feelings about that? About so what could it have done differently? What would have had to have been different inside that party, not just the decision, but the circumstances that would cause them to come to that different conclusion. You see what I mean?
SPEAKER_02I think, you know, and one I really want to say um that, you know, uh it it's so easy for me to look back and say, well, they should have done this or that. I mean, I I do, you know, look at the circumstances that we see right now in the Middle East, you know, those circumstances have been there for a long time. I mean, in terms of the brutality that people the violence and brutality that people live with under. So, you know, you know, it's that old Marx saying is that you know, you you you don't get to make the conditions that you live under, but you still have to make the road. So I think that um, so that is what I think is um is the problem. Um, sorry. And I think that uh why is that happening? Why do people do that, you know, again? Like I think uh I think that maybe they that we have to work on, you know, more largely our political imagination. Uh, you know, I know that might seem a little hokey to say, but I uh uh why I think that is even even looking at the news recently, you know, there's been such an onslaught against Hassan Piker, you know, for the positions that he's taken. Um, but in some ways the positions that he's taken are are reactions, are reactionary, you know, to a politics so you know if Fox News says, are you on the side of Israel Hamas? He says, Hamas. And I understand where that that's coming from. There's a catharticness to being able to finally say something against US power. Um, but I but it doesn't undo the whole binary that creates the problem in the first place. Um, you know, what he says is that I'm not on either, he could say I'm not on either side. I don't see it as a sides thing, you know, and I and certainly um I would want a politics that is broader than what is um what is presented, you know, by Hamas or by Hezbollah or any of these groups. Um and I think, you know, I think that's possibly what we need to work on. Um, but that these some some of the leaders of the left are um are not doing that, are not leading. Um and and so we're ending up in this vacuum. And it especially affects um Iranians in the diaspora because um the the kind of binary thinking means that they have no place on the left, and they're being pushed into kind of um supporting uh the only the only figure that anybody will recognize, which is um which is the former Shah's son, um the Pahlevis. And so it uh it's also creating, you know, these polls and decis divisiveness, reactionary divisiveness around politics that we don't want to be focused on.
The Pro-Iran Letter And Its Risks
SPEAKER_00We want something broader and I'm trying to make analogies um that that maybe can help explain a little. When some really great leftists went to Vietnam, came back, they or I'll tell a specific tur story. So Chomsky went with a big group and when they got back, the big group was in a room getting answering questions from news people, Western news people, American news people. And Chomsky went off, and before he got into that room, he was answering questions from alternative media separately. And when he got into the room, he said there was a sense in which he he he couldn't even fathom the kinds of answers that people were given to questions because they were so polarized by the Western media and the Western media's aggressive hostility toward anything Vietnamese that they were denying the existence of any problems in Vietnam and acting as if you know the Vietnamese government was utopia and uh i i it um polarizing a little, but in that way. And he said it it sounded like a trip other than the trip he was on, and it only took a half an hour. You know, in other words, within an hour that or half an hour, this whole group of people had a kind of uh attitude that was different than they had the day before. Right? So that I think is the psychological kind of dynamic. And, you know, understandable, but self-destructive, too. But I do think there's an ideological one too. So I'll bet in the Tudor the dynamics came from the ideology that they believed, and the way they looked at the world due to their concepts, which said, you know, find the biggest thing, pay attention to that, primary contradiction. Um it's just class, and just class means in this case imperialism. And you can't step outside it somehow. Even when persisting in it hurts you. Yes, as in the case of them. Which tells you how strong it is, you know. It it really is strong. And I, you know, I suspect that you you're sort of feeling that with respect to some of the people who you're criticizing in your articles. There's I'll tell you, when I read your article, one thing I thought to myself was why is Vijay Prashad explicitly named in the in the title? My guess is you had uh some considerable experience with Vijay Prashad, were positive, admired him, and felt sold out in some way. Am I going off the limb here or am I right?
SPEAKER_02Oh no, I mean I think that's important uh aspect for me to say, too, is that there's actually a number of individuals who signed the letter that I have worked with in um anti-war solidarity. Um so it so um I I No, I mean just explain what the letter is so that people know. Yeah, so that so the it is um uh about 170 uh people. Um many of them, many of them are well-known people actually on the left, um, big names on the left, um, and the anti-war movement signed a letter that um outlines their support for the Iranian state, essentially, and against US um empire. And um, so in that part we were on the same page, but um, and but then it goes on to um to describe you know Iran as being the um the light for humanity and that we need to defend it, um, kind of using very civil civilizational discourse um to say that you know it it it is you know if we don't defend Iran that you know the light of the world's progress or something will go out. And then it actually suggests, the letter suggests that one of the ways that we can support Iran is by helping to identify and extradite anybody basically, and it says journalists in particular speaking against the Iranian state. Now, there is no doubt that there are there's a huge television uh commun Iranian, far seek television community in LA, and there is some truth to what they're saying because there is a very US-funded aspect to it, but there is a far wider um diaspora of Iranian leftists and intellectuals and feminists who are exiled from Iran, you know, in because of the repression of the state. So um so the idea that that a bunch of leftists would sign a letter like that, um, it to me it was alarming. It was really alarming. Um that I had worked with a number of those people myself in the past was alarming. Um, but also that, you know, all younger generation will read that letter and those names and think, you know, one, that those ideas are illegitimate, and two, um, maybe that the ideas of the other people who signed the letter, who are um, you know, not just left-wing people, but far right people, people who are Holocaust deniers, people who are literal anti-Semites. Um, and and so that alarms me because then if if they if a leftist sees Vijay Prashad's name next to an anti-Semite, someone might start to think that anti-Semitism is okay. Or you know what I mean? And that's that's why I that's why I I felt alarmed for my own people, but also for generation of activists who might be influenced by this.
Breaking The Binary In Practice
SPEAKER_00It is definitely alarming. I think the word that you used earlier is is is not irrelevant to this, the choosing of teams. And it comes up over and over again. So even inside the United States, basically it's what's going on. There is a there is a MAGA team, and there is a left, and there is something else, you know. And and the team can give you a sense of belonging and a sense of efficacy and a sense of even dignity. The and fascists understand that. Contrary to what a lot of leftists think, fascists think about these things and realize what they're doing is is to provide people who are downtrodden and hurt, and you know, they have family members that have died because of drugs, etc., etc. And they're providing a kind of a home, uh, and a kind of a and then the uh the allegiance that comes from that is so strong that it leads people to do things that are against their own interests, whether it's Tudor in Iran or you know, working class people supporting Trump in the United States or in Nazi Germany. And somehow I don't think it's just psychology. I think it's whatever it is, we have to understand it and find a way to do something about it. So now comes the hard question. What do you do about it? So suppose you were in a room with ten signers of a letter. Now I don't want to pick out VJ, although I totally understand why it is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But so you're in a room, you're you're at dinner, you you know, you're talking to somebody. How do you try and break through? Or do you? Do you just say this is hopeless? Uh, you know, I'm not gonna even bother, or do you try and break through? Let me ask it slightly differently and bring up Vijay. Were you hoping that Vijay would read the article, I'm sure he has, and be affected by it?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I think, I mean, I think we all, if we have some hope for the world, if you know, or some political imagination, have have got to, or at least I always have, and even with everything I've seen, I don't know why I believe it. But I certainly believe that we should hope that um we can open a conversation with just about anyone. Um, you know, whether or not we can is a question, but you know, we we would hope. So I most definitely am open and would love to hear from VJ Pershad in in particular about what I have said. Um you know, and you haven't yet. I don't have his phone number. No, I don't. I haven't gotten in.
SPEAKER_00Okay.
SPEAKER_02He hasn't gotten in touch with me, and I haven't specifically tried to get in touch with him either. Um, I have like I I said I have I have met him several times. Um I chose him, I I want to say I chose him in particular because I feel like of all the figures that put the letter together, I feel like he's probably one of the driving forces behind it, and he certainly posts a lot about Iran and people really follow him on the on the issue of Iran, which is why I wanted to choose him because some of the other ones don't have that following. But at the same time, what I would start with with people like that who are very informed, um, you know, you know, I don't need to ex we don't need to explain all the politics too. I I would start with examples from the region of people who have been working under this extraordinary repression and have chosen not to choose the binary. And by that I mean like, you know, I think I and I'm partial, is you know, the Kurdish experiment in um in Syria, but also, you know, all of its arms in Turkey and Iran specifically, their feminists have said that they cannot separate um feminist ideals from um anti-imperialism from their class ideals. And they're very clear on this over and over and over. Everything that they sign, everything that they do names both. And so that's where I would start. I would say, you know, we have that example, we have exam, many examples of trade unionist movements in Iran doing the same thing. Um, you know, and we have also examples in history, Zapatistas, for example. You know, we have we we do have um experiments um where people have tried to to hold both at the same time because that reflects their lives. And I think that it would be hard to deny that that does reflect the life of people who live in that region. Um, that they can't, my point is they can't subordinate one to the other, that their lives um, you know, they experience the repression of all of these at the same time, so that they want to work against them all at the same time too.
Many Imperialisms And Better Strategy
SPEAKER_00Vijay would say, I think, I mean, I sh you know, I don't know, but someone would say wrongly, I think, but it isn't just how we feel, and it isn't even just what all the facts are, it's also what can win. And so they would say, I think, I sort of hope, because otherwise I don't you know, what would they? They would say, um, yeah, you know, I sympathize with that. I would like that person more, you know, the people who you're describing, I would like them more than I would like lots of other people there, here, everywhere. But it's not a winning strategy. That's what they would say, right? And and they believe that so deeply that it causes them to then do things that are just incredible. And but it's not a winning strategy for him for anybody, they would say, in other words, for anybody we care about, because um it it doesn't put all of our power against the principal problem empire or you know, the United States. That I think that's what they would say. If it if they had a coherent answer, that would probably be it. And if it was true, they'd have a case. I mean, suppose in the United States, for example, you're here, you're you know, um, to focus only on class, to dispense with discussions of patriarchy and sexism and racism, etc., etc., could win, and to pay attention to all that other stuff loses. If we knew that for certain, I'd have to, you know, vomit and and take their side. You know what I'm saying? So that's at least an argument which, if valid, matters. I just think it's totally invalid.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and I think you're right. Also because it it I mean, it some people might not agree with me on this, but I think that that there isn't one imperialism in the world, there's many imperialisms, you know, in kind of different and I that's To say that there isn't huge power differences, like I'm not, you know, there's a uh undoubtedly the US has is the largest power in terms of those, but I would say that you know imperialism shows up a lot of places, and and one of even for myself, I mean, one thing that I was very surprised was uh visiting Ethiopia in uh in what in in one of my trip travels and um being told that I could get um food from any region of China in Ethiopia. Um any region, any any Chinese product I wanted, I could get. Now, I couldn't get get you spices or certain things from certain parts of Ethiopia in, you know, but I could get, but they had, and that's what I mean is like when I lived in the African continent, I saw, you know, the way in which China um occupies and and in Africa. And so I started to see that it wasn't just US imperialism that was bad and that people were working against, is that it's kind of the idea of imperialism in general that we need to work against together. And I think that could really bring people together from across different walks of life. Um, and I do think that people like you know, Vijay Prashad are not being um honest about um about that in particular, that that there's more than one imperialism in the world.
Silence And Smears On The Left
SPEAKER_00Have you, I'm I'm curious if after writing the article, you've encountered criticism. I mean, have you gotten feedback either constructive or destructive from the from those who disagree with you?
SPEAKER_02You know, it the funny thing is, and I you know, is is no. Um mostly I just get ignored. Actually, um, and and and partially, you know, I I will say like, you know, one of the strategies of some of these groups is to um delegitimize people like me by saying that we're FBI agents. And so there I so in 25 years that it's run the gamut um from being labeled like that to um just being ignored. But mostly I have just been ignored, even though um, at least in terms of code pink, I knew I know many of those people personally. So um it is disappointing that they ignore me, but it's not it I'm not surprised, maybe.
SPEAKER_00Um yeah, it uh I mean I encounter the same thing uh around different issues. Um this one too, but other ones. And it is interesting because on the left, the inclination to argue and to fight and to debate is not weak. So, in a sense, something is overriding the inclination to show that you're an idiot, right? That's the way people talk, to show that you're an idiot, to show that you don't know what you're talking about, to show that you don't have you know, etc. etc. Something is overriding that almost reflex. And I suspect that what's overriding it is the recognition that one is wrong. In other words, at some level, people know I can't defend this. I'll put it forward, I'll fight for it, but I can't really defend it. You know what I mean? That's why I asked the question, because I was I was wondering whether you I mean the natural response to your piece would be to lamb-based it. Right? In other words, you're for example, if somebody said, you know, we're wrong to um to pay attention to the differences between billionaires and other billionaires. Uh you know, the differences matter and some of them are good guys, or so, you know, something like that devastated instantly. Right? Right? Various positions that one could take would be devastated. Um, or if you outright said, well, there's no need to pay attention to racism. You you get it's devastated.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely, yes, absolutely.
SPEAKER_00But not this, and uh it's not clear why, you know.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I mean, I I I like I said, I do think it's it's um a lot of factors, and I do think you're up you're you're right, and there is a psychological element to it that I have noticed as well in terms of I, you know, but but and and for me it's been difficult to read exactly because I really grew up in a way politically in Ireland. Um, so my uh left-wing history has been formed within the Irish left, which was very informed on left history, and I don't find that same, that, that, that same thing here. And so a lot of things that I used to think were just political differences that were good debates, um, kind of have become personalized or polemicized in a way that then suddenly, you know, you're not having a debate, you're having an interpersonal conflict. And I think that's really too bad because um we need very much to talk to each other. Um, and I will say, from my point of view, Michael, I hope I'm wrong about everything because that's the only time that you really see something new or a horizon that you didn't know before. So if I am wrong about VJ Prashad or about this, I would love for them to take me seriously and and write a reply because then I would learn something and the rest of the left would. Ignoring me just kind of maintains their power rather than what's maybe right in this case.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I think you're right. Um we're getting close to an hour. Um is there something that we haven't addressed that you would like to talk about for a bit? That you know I just didn't ask or whatever.
SPEAKER_02I think no, I mean you did a really you you got it really uh it was kind of not exactly what I was expecting, but I think we we covered a lot of points that were important. I don't actually think there was anything I I can't think of that I didn't get to say, so okay.
SPEAKER_00I just thought of one thing. Yeah, but again, we can dump this instantly if you don't want it.
SPEAKER_02Anything you want, I don't mind. I have to.
SPEAKER_00Well, wait a minute, maybe. I uh I uh I note from your bio that uh you're looking for work soon. And I wonder if um maybe saying that in this public venue might attract uh some interest, uh some possibilities. If so, feel free.
SPEAKER_02Thank you. Um yeah, I mean, I like I said, I I've become a victim of the change in administration in terms of losing um my position in health equity. Um, but I I I do think, you know, maybe one thing I would not just say for myself, but more broadly, is I do think that, you know, very unfortunately we're going into a period now in the US where there is absolutely rising authoritarianism. Some people want to say it's fascism. I think that there are definitely, yeah, definitely huge elements of that as well. And and I guess um, you know, one thing that I really want people to realize is that in the Middle East, we've been experiencing authoritarianism for uh, you know, at least 50, 60 years now, um, and some of it very draconian, you know. Um, and so, you know, in places like Iran and Turkey, um, when we talk about these militant, you know, workers or feminists, you're talking about people who have who have done this work in the midst of fascism or bad authoritarianism. So there is so much that we could learn from, you know, in their writings and how they look at politics and the history of those countries that that that we could use in this country to fight the rise of fascism. So I think in that regard, I do have a lot of experience in reading that terrain and in and in um in in in finding ways to strategize and to work within within that terrain from the you know excellent education, anti-imperialist education that I've gotten in Ireland and the Middle East. So, yes, I mean, um thank you for bringing that up. And I would say that, you know, beyond just a job for myself, um, that you know, I would encourage people to do that, to, to do that reading. And there's a lot of excellent um writers and you know in the diaspora writing in English, you know, here in the United States that um that we could learn from.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Is that okay? That said, this is uh this is Mike Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z. I want to thank you all first of all for coming on, and uh uh you know, maybe we'll get a chance to do it again sometime down the road when things clarify still further in Iran and in the Mideast and here in the United States.
SPEAKER_02Thank you so much.
SPEAKER_00Thank you for being on.
SPEAKER_02Thank you for having me.