For personal (and rather silly) reasons, I had shunned him in the past and had not bothered to really study him. (I am extremely sensitive to people's accents and manners of speech and if I detect arrogance, I just stop listening). But, listening to some of his interviews I find him reflect many of my beliefs. Here's a mini-biography. It is really ironic the IRI had put him in Jail!
The tenets of his argumens are clear:
- No violence, at all cost--because to EVOLVE those who stand to tyranny must adopt a higher moral ground.
- The "non-violence" principle is not dictated by the Western think tanks; it is an integral part of the Iranian culture--not just the educated elite, but the common men.
- The Iranian problem is for the Iranians to solve and the Iranians have "matured" through the ordeals of the past 31 years to know full well how to do that at minimum cost.
Listen to some of his ideas (hope you can ignore his George Costanza intonation: bache tehrani-e nonor-e khaliband. :))
30 comments:
funny b/c you express the chronological development of my own feelings towards Jahanbegloo! ;) until I attended a few of his classes. He is so humble, nice and attentive with the students!
Back when he was imprisoned, I trusted the IRI (don't get mad at me :( :-S ) a little bit so I thought considering the fact that he was a past fellow at NED he must have been involved in some sort of foul play. Now I can't see why he was imprisoned when all he does is preach stable change and non-violence ... far from what a proponent of "regime change" would be doing.
p.s. loved your previous post but didn't have anything intelligent to add to it!
:) Sweetie, we all had a different view of the IRI before their shit hit the fan, didn't we?
For me, it was strange to see Jahanbegloo's boks published by famous publishers and openly sold in bookstores--now i am not sure if it was before, during, or after his imprisonment that i went to Iran--i am dementing i guess :)
You know, last night before falling asleep i was thinking about NED, and CATO (that has awarded Ganji 500,000 $). WHY do we let the nature of the "sponsors" taint our intellectuals? I think scholars are nomads; they follow their research interest and i think it is far more important to focus on what it is that their research produces than on the entity that houses them.
I confess that part of my Jahanbegloo shunning stemped from being under the propaganda of his NED affiliations--but from now on I ask myself: "Would we have Ferdowsi withot
the court of Sultan Mahmoud?
that should be stemmed! not stemPed!
i have bizarre dystypia!!
Thanks for sharing this Naj joonam. You see this is liberal ideology. So you cannot claim to be ideology-less :-)
He makes one or two common liberal mistakes. I will write for you what I mean later. Miss you
1000-dastan;
I am liberal? :) good to know. I never knew what I am!
Ideo"LOG"y refers to a "known" and deliberate adoption of an "idea"; I do not adopt things; I just live with what I consider right for me.
I am looking forward to your debunking of the "liberal's" mistakes :)
"I just live with what I consider right for me."
Sure Naj. But liberals judge that rightness with liberal values, Marxists with Marxist values, Islamists with Islamic values, etc.
I will write about my problems with the video this afternoon and will post it both here and my fb. booos
1000,
you will catch me dead before you find me wearing the uniform of any ism :)
I don't assign labels to people UNLESS they assign it to themselves. Sorry, I am not very well educated, I don't know what liberal means :)
1000; I think you comment is too long to be posted here; I post it in chuncks.
Comment by my Iranian "socialist" friend who loves sticking labels: she just diagnozed me as liberal! Good to know what I am :)
1-In minute 5:20 Jahanbogloo takes voting for Islamic Republic in the 1979 referendum as voting for the supreme leadership and its legitimization. But in fact most people were unaware of what supreme leadership would really mean. As Asef Bayat says: "What people seemed to understand by the term "Islamic republic" during the revolution accommodated the vague idea of a just, pious, and accountable or democratic alternative to the dictatorship of the Shah. Ayatollah Khomeini confirmed this perception in an NBC interview on 11 November 1978, where he acknowledged that "the Islamic Republic will be truly democratic"."In truth Iranians had previously made no reference to such a republic. Ayatollah Khomeini's idea of velayat-i faqih, which he articulated in his book Islamic Government in the early 1970s, was basically a matter of Shi‘a jurisprudence rather than a blueprint for governance; it remained almost totally unknown to the public until after the revolution."
continued ...
2- In minute 8:40 Jahanbogloo calls the young protesters of the Green Movement the youtube or twitter generation who seem not to understand the older generation or their parents who made the 1979 revolution.By the way, I don't know what the heck twitter generation is supposed to mean when even the supreme leader of Iran has a twitter account. Jahanbogoloo's analysis has difficulty explaining why the "youtube generation" who don't understand their parents are using the same methods that their parents used in the streets during the 1979 revolution. Sometimes the youtube generation even uses the same slogans as their parents used and just replaces the name of Shah with Ahmadinejad or Khamenei. Compare these slogans:
1979 rev. : (Toop, Tank, Mosalsal digar asar nadarad) “Canon, Tank, Machine Gun will not be effective anymore".
Green Movement: (Toop, Tank, Basiji, digar asar nadarad) “Canon, Tank, Basiji will not be effective anymore”.
1979 rev. : (Doctor kapshen pareh, khashak ke pa nadareh!) “Doctor with torn overcoat, rift-rafts don’t have foot!” “Ahmadi Goosaleh, bazam migi footballeh?” (Ahmadi, the calf, you still say it is a soccer game?)... See More
Green Movement: “Azhari Goosaleh, bazam migi navareh? Navar ke pa nadareh!” (Azhari, the donkey/ calf, you say again that it is a tape? The tape does not have foot!)
1979 rev. :(Artesh jenayat mikonad, Shah hemayat mikonad) “Military commits crime, Shah supports it”.
Green Movement: (Basij Jenayat mikonad, Rahbar hemayat mikonad) “Basij commits crime, Supreme leader supports it”.
{My source: http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/sep/sounds-street}
3- In minute 8:50 Jahanbogloo says that the youtube generation wants change (as if the 1979 revolutionaries didn't want change) and the youtube generation wants to do it in a very peaceful and nonviolent way. Reformists think by just putting a peaceful next to revolutionary methods, they can change those methods to "sweet" reformist ones. Yes I agree that the protesters of the Green Movement are weaponless like most protesters of the 1979 revolution. But street protests, these days in Iran, come with the serious danger of getting shot, getting arrested and tortured, getting beaten, or at least getting tear gassed. How can one call this a nonviolent reformist method to ask for change? Wouldn't a peaceful reformist method be waiting four years and voting for a reformist candidate? Is self endangerment not considered a violent method? Why are the lives of the protesters not considered important? Shouldn't a "nice" reformist ask people to avoid endangering their lives, stay in their houses, vote after 4 years and make the freaking change through voting ballots? This is exactly what confuses the heck out of reformists. This confusion causes many reformists to ask people why they are demanding more than just their votes and why they are becoming radicalized. The people get radicalized because the method they use is revolutionary and has a high personal cost. The more people continue to protest, the more violent the government becomes and consequently the more people want to change the whole establishment.
4- In minute 9:30 Jahanbogloo talks about the Iranian form of democracy. I wish the interviewer asked him to elaborate on that. It could become funny.
5- In minute 15:10 Jahanbogloo claims that the youtube generation is not revolutionary and they want to change things through election. Really? Then what are they doing in the streets standing up to guns and risking imprisonment? Why don't reformists ask the protesters to go back home and come out after 4 years to vote for a reformist to make change through election so that they save their lives and freedom? Jahanbogloo, in an opposite approach but with the same conclusion, reminds me of some Iranian expats who belittle those who vote for reformists in the Iran's elections because they take attending in the elections equivalent to submitting to the establishment which it is not. People might participate in Iran's presidential elections to have more sociopolitical freedom without risking too much. How can one equate this election participation with revolution-phobia especially when in the current movement people are taking high risks of getting imprisoned or even sentenced to death?
Dear 1000,
Thank you for the elaborate analysis. I respectfully disagree with you.
The "twitter generation" to which Jahanbegloo refers is perhaps sympthomatized by phenomena such as Caspien Mahan!
I am sorry you feel disappointed; but fortunately the Greenies are not the Lefty "cheriks" of the 80s ...
No one has condemned those who have self-defended! But it seems to me you are speaking the voice of those who call for pro-active violence to overthrow the regime like real "heros" ... that ain't gonna happen!
(And yes, I am upset. I find your ideological diagnosis very distasteful--I expected more from you.)
Naj I read your comment of accusing me of advocating violence without showing where I have done so. If one criticizes me without referring to the text I have written, I take her/his critique as fohshe-khar-madar and never respond to it. But because you are a dear friend, I will make an exception and will write you back to ask you to please refer to "where in my comment" I have asked for violence.
My critique of Janabogloo deserves your better answer:
" but fortunately the Greenies are not the Lefty "cheriks" of the 80s ... No one has condemned those who have self-defended! But it seems to me you are speaking the voice of those who call for pro-active violence to overthrow the regime like real "heros" ... that ain't gonna happen!...(And yes, I am upset. I find your ideological diagnosis very distasteful--I expected more from you.)"
You keep judging my words --which according to you belong to 80s-- based on a label you stick on me. You got very upset by me calling you a liberal only once but you expect me to love it that each time, instead of criticizing what I say, you criticize or (like in your recent comment) mock my political tendencies. I am independent, am not part of a party, has never ever been paid even a penny for what I write or say or anything related to politics. Thus I find your accusations uncool-- to put it mildly.
I don't like the bs about non-violent when it's not non-violent.
To Mr. Jahanbogloo,
being killed as an innocent protester or getting prison raped is pretty damn violent. Participating in a protest that risks getting shot is pretty damn violent, at least is serious self-endangerment.
Naj, you are absolutely wrong in thinking that I am advocating violence-- and I don't appreciate your unsupported claim-- because if it was all in my hands, after that damn election, I would ask everyone to stay at their homes. I would not exchange Sohrab and Ashkan's lives with democracy or (to just make you happy*wink*) with a communist regime. Would Ashkan participate in the protest, called by Jahanbogloo and other lying reformists non-violent, if he knew he will be killed? I strongly doubt so.
Liberals call it nonviolent when the weak side doesn't have weapon. If the weak side is killed on a daily basis is still non-violent resistance. But if only one member of the government forces is injured then it's violent and danerous. I am sorry this is just a lie and dirty language in favor of those in power. I much prefer to side with those who denounce political activism and ask people to party and be apolitical--- at least this group doesn't endanger people's lives by non-violent nonsense. Let me repeat it once more: Amir Javad Langeroudi's father wouldn't believe that the protest in which his son participated was non-violent because Amir was brutally killed in that protest in a very violent way. Yes Amir was innocent and weaponless but the protest was violent.
1000,
Let's chill!
Next: I apologize for calling you violent--indeed it was not supported by what your comment said. But this is why I felt that way
It may very well be my misreading, but I understood that you felt it justifiable or desirable for the greens to do something "opposite" to what Jahanbegloo professed; which was "RISE ABOVE YOUR ENEMY". Therefore, I understood your comment, as "treat your enemy as he treats you.", which by deduction--since the IRI is a violent entity--calls for reciprocal violence.
Going back to the end of your comment and your labeling of liberal's view of violence and no-violence:
I should say that I really don't understand what it is you are saying. It is confusing me:
Are you suggesting that "innocent" people should go out and kill officials, because if they listen to the "liberal" then they just have to stay home and do nothing? (it seemed to me you were criticizing jahanbegloo for promoting do-nothing attitude). But then you say you wish Sohrab and Ashkan had stayed home and you blame Jahanbegloo for bringing them to streets of death?
But what is this vendetta against Liberal (which you so kindly stuck on me before revealing your hatred for liberals by calling them dirty liars.)? And what is the RELEVANCE of Liberal or non-liberal to Iran? What does liberal mean? Let's focus on Iran: which one of the Iranian green leaders/ activists/journalists and students call themselves liberal?
You see, YOU identify YOURSELF as feminist and socialist, and you perhaps operate within those frameworks. But do you think it is right to come up with ideological diagnosis for people who express their personal views in their blogs?
Now back to your comment:
"I am sorry this is just a lie and dirty language in favor of those in power. " what is THIS? I just cannot fathom what is this "this" that gets you worked up so passionately.
If you listen to the interview carefully--which is a smaller sample of the full interview he gave to BBC in persian--you cannot find ANY finger pointing! The poor man says that he is not even trying to convince anyone of his views. He does nothing but referring to the roots of 'tasahol & tasamoh" in our folk and old culture; suggesting this is what distinguishes a civilized evolution from a rule-of-the-jungle or an-eye-for-an-eye primitiveness.
He is talking about twitter generation as a matter of fact--and he is talking about twitter generation to a Western media, which is so phased by Iran's twitter revolution. The western media has learned about this movement from tweets. How many times have we, ourselves, debunked false tweets? I did it FREQUENTLY. But even then, is he criticizing it? Is he demonizing it? Is he invalidating or denying its existence?
When he talks about this generationa dn their parents, he is making a comparison between their approaches, their actions and choices (the revolution happened in the 80s, the parents of these kids today are the youth of the 80s--and YOU, in your comment, are comparing their slogans to those of the 80's, with actual dates--HENCE my assumption that you are calling for an 80's like revolution-I didn't come up with the number from outside of your comment).
But he is not criticizing the current generation for their disconnect, The way I (want to) understand him, he is saying that people of this generation have put their parents behind. and He is in fact DEFENDING the non-violent choices of this generation: "they do not understand their parents", he says. (it is the parent's generation that WAS violent--but that was a different time in this world too; in those days ALL revolutions were violent.)
continued below ...
Now to the topic of "lying reformists". Well, in politics, who DOES tell the truth? You made a post some days ago about Zahra Rahnavard recruiting martyrs for her cause. Yes I agree with you on that fully. But, did Jahanbegloo himself KNOW the protests will become so violent. (and for the record, it wasn't HE who called people to streets, people decided to capture the streets. People dragged Mousavi out too. We cannot assum that Jahanbegloo is read by the 3 millions who flooded Tehran on the 25th? I doubt it. He is boring and he writes academically bland books--just as it shows in his aloof posture when he speaks.) If he WERE to sacrifice more ashkans and Sohrabs, he woudl be asking them to go on protest, to go on strikes, to bring factories to a halt, to civil disobedience, he would ask them to keep staging protests and get beaten up by the atrocious Ahmadinejad thugs. But he doesn't.
From what I understand (and this is a view that I advocate myself) there is SO MUCH TO DO IN IRAN, there is so much infrastructure to build, so much cultural and ethical and societal act to tidy up, that one CAN take a break from spending their energies on fighting the rabid dogs. In fact, Jahanbegloo thinks there is much violence/anger that needs to be outrooted from our social interactions before we can attain fair and democratic processes.
I do not see anything WRONG with this position--but a position that calls "this" a dirty liberalist lie, appears to me as an angry one--the precursor of violence.
On that note, we had our first hair-pulling session :) We are now officially sisters :) (Pedestrian may be chuckling if she sees this!) We can now stop being angry and violent--I hope!
[end]
Naj,
Where did I ask you to call me a feminist and a socialist? Please let me know. You most likely have decided to call me those on your own like other people. People label us, based on our political judgment. That's how it works.
Naj, I think if you could forget about the socialist and feminist labels to which you seem to have allergy(smiley face), you could see what I mean clearly. I am asking them (Jahanbogloo) to stop calling dangerous protests non-violent. Dangerous protests which come with the risk of getting shot, getting prison raped, getting beaten for the "youtube generation". That's all I am asking. I am asking them to be moral. Yes politicians lie a lot, as you said, but I do not accept political scientists or journalists lie; that becomes pretty serious. They (Jahanbogloo or Abbas Abdee) expect people to make reform from these dangerous so called "non-violent" avenues and do not get radicalized and revolutionary. I explained before that that's impossible.
A non-violent reformist movement is what we had 2-khordad 1376 after Khatami came to power through election. If these people like Jahanbogloo or Abbas Abdi were looking for something similar, they must have asked people to stay safe, possibly follow the news as their political activism, come to electoral ballots to rehabilitate the reform movement after four years from the June 2009 election. Don't they call themselves anti-revolution, anti-radicalization, anti-violent? Yeah it's non-violent when one, like Jahanbogloo, seats on his couch in Canada and talks about non-violent but I bet the family of Mohammad Amin Valian, a student sentenced to death for holding a stone in his hand, do not call it non-violent.
Think about this slogan and tell me if reform (as opposed to overthrowing the government) would come out of this slogan. Let me add that this slogan is one of the most natural reactions of the protesters: koshte nadaadim ke sazesh konim, rahbare ghatel ro setaayesh konim. Wow reminds me of 1979, not too much of a twitter type of forgiving and kind resistance!
They (like Abbas Abdi and similar commnetators) can't ask people to go to the streets and resist in one of the most costly and revolutionary ways and at the same time ask people to pucker their lips while being run over by a car so that Abdee or Jahanbogloo would be able to call it non-violent reformist movement of the youtube generation.
It's bizarre; I don't see my last comment here.
1000
you are going around a circle on assumptions and presumptions which are OUTSIDE of the intention of this post.
As far as i can tell, in this clip, jahanbegloo is NOT asking anyone to go to any protest--if anything he is suggesting people AVOID confrontations with the likelihood of violence. MUCH is to be done BEFORE flooding the streets to topple X or Y. Right now we have priorities:
1- Economic sanctions on the one hand and Ahmadinejad's import economyh on the other are HURTING manufacturers and thus workers (this is what you rightly focus on elsewhere)
2- Prisoners, political prisoners must be under spotlight and released
3- The academic fascism needs to be resisted.
None of these issues can be addressed by "uprising", violent or peaceful. These need patient hammering at-a la khatami-era NGO grassroot style!
As far as when you asked ME to call you socialist or feminist; you didn't and i don't call you any of those. But it was YOU who wrte a "Iranian _socialist_ response to Yoshi" and your other lengthy article about women and this movement, that A liked and you liked that he liked :)
I have NO sensitivities to socialism. And my sensitivity to feminism comes from being a woman. Maybe if I were proletaria or a capitalist, i would be sensitive to socialism too; but i am neither :)
When growing up, my mother instilled a STRICT "no logo" policy on us. We were taught that wearing a logo was unbecoming. I am just sensitive to wearing logos!
to academic, also need journalistic.
hahhahah i just noticed that in a freudian slip i exposed my sensitivity to "unionism" (which calls itself socialism or communism here and there.)
Naj, I did NOT choose my LENGTHY articles' names by myself. It was chosen by my friend who kindly published them. I think I explained my critique of Jahanbogloo in a very precise way by referring to each minute that his words were said. So tired of this kind of conversations. Bye now.
Bye dear. Take it easy! :)
1000;
I am going to now Walk you and my readers back to the video; and commenting on the minutes that YOU have picked. (You have not had a conversation with me yet. You have thrown accusations up in the air; have stuck labels on people; and have not addressed even one of the questions I have asked or discrepancies in your comments I have pointed out. So I am not surprised you are tired of your monologue.)
At minute 5:20; Jahanbegloo is not talking about SUPREME LEADER! There is NOT mention of supreme leader in his word. He sais that the majority of people voted for the "Islamic Republic". (you put words in his mouth and then attack him for words he has not said!.
At minute 8:20 he talkes about a "generation gap", calls this generation the 'rebels without a cause'--which I disagree with--and 'twitter generation'. So, this point I have addressed previously.
At 8:50-56; after talking about the generation gap and lack of understanding he says that his twitter generation "apparently want change and they want change in a peaceful manner ... so they are not the dirrt and teh dust that Mr Hamadinejad talked about" (so what is this argument of yours that Jahanbegloo is calling people to violent protests?)
At moment 9:30; he is responding to the interviewer's question about why Iranians are so adamantly opposed to EXTERNAL powers "importing" their democracy by war and etc. In response to that he is saying Iranians want an Iranian form of democracy! (I don't know what is funny about that. SO I do what the interviewer did nto and ask you to elaborate on what is funny about that?)
At moment 15:10 (after he talks about how he endorses Neda who went out and expressed her protest he says "you have to consider that "not all" of this youth are revolutionaries ..." So, again, I am not quite sure what it is you are jumping up and down about :)
Cheers
not all != none [for those who don't know !=; it means 'is not equal to']
Oh Naj, I can't stand this degree of animosity. You have been constantly accusing me of nothing meaningful except the length of my articles (in a mocking way), the names of my articles that my dear friend has picked, or A liked my article and I liked it that A liked my article. I am sure you don't count these statements as serious critiques.
Instead of all this, you could go to section of my comment for Jahanbogloo and take issue with what I say but not with what you like to think I may be saying.
For the last time I will give it another try to explain what I mean:
A real non-violent would not call street protests non-violent because they are not non-violent. Those who call it non-violent might be surprised that the murdered protesters are human beings and them getting killed or prison raped is pretty violent regardless of their weaponless state. I have explained comprehensively already. A non-violent resistance is what people did during Khatami. You call this advocating violence. I have nothing more to say except cheshmhayat raa beshoor:-)
"A real non-violent would not call street protests non-violent because they are not non-violent. Those who call it non-violent might be surprised that the murdered protesters are human beings and them getting killed or prison raped is pretty violent regardless of their weaponless state."
True.
I think where we don't seem to understand eachother is in interpreatation of "the blood of the others".
I have two categories for violence:
One is description of a state (as state of being I mean). The other is description of an action.
The first is a fact; the second is an act. An act incorporates will, ideology, or reactionary necessity.
You are describing the FACT of protests in tyrannical systems as a violent act.
I (and Jahanbegloo) focus on the "will" and "ideology" of the "twitter generation" which is non-violent in desire. However, within this large spectrm of twitter generation, there ARE some who will to violence--but Jahanbegloo (and I) argue that they are in th minority. Why did the number of protesters DROP after the state killing began? Because people didn't "will" to be subjected to state violence--yet there were those who REACTED to state violence on Ashura, by violence. I argue that even those didn't WILL, just had to because they were run over by trucks of the goons.
If this is a liberal dirty lie; then we are dirty liberal liars and I take this expression of your affection wholeheartedly ;) Az doost har anche miresad nikoost.
Now that you have trashed my lengthy articles and hurled insults at me, you are trying so hard to find things in my words that would be considered insulting to you. A dirty liberal lie is not an insult directed at you. But mocking the length, and the name of my articles, the era I supposedly belong to (80s), unjustifiably accusing me of asking for more violence and bloodshed are meant to insult me acrimoniously.
Th weaponless state of the protesters is only one side of the non-violent story. For the protests to be truly non-violent, it requires the security forces to be weaponless too. Again you put words into my mouth: no, I am suggesting no one protests in countries like Iran. I am asking people who believe in Gandhi kind of resistance to be consistent. A true non-violent revolution-hater would ask Mousavi to make a political party within the establishment and use the momentum, people's post election energy in that party. S/he would ask people to stay patient and engage in legal political activism and wait 4 years to make change in a non-violent way of changing the situation which would be the electoral ballots. Violence is not only what happens to the security forces from the people, it's also what can happen to the weaponless people from the security forces. A non-violent activist finds legal ways to do political activism which causes the least possible human loss or damage. Protesting in the streets causes the MOST human damage and loss, in case you didn't know.
I remember you lashed out at me before (some month ago on my fb wall) because I suggested that worker's demands must be included in the Green Movement. You said something like the Green Movement is not about workers, it's more middle class people asking for sociopolitical freedom. Now just recently you told me you always say the Green Movement is in fact for workers (or something like this):-))) So I am hopeful after a while you possibly change your mind about a true non-violent movement too.
By the way, I am trying to not have any ideology is also an ideology itself.
For posterity; this article somehow resonates with the interactions here:
It's perhaps about the precursor of Jahanbegloo in Iranian "dirty" liberalism
Dear M,
This exchange is now officially useless.
I am not trying to find anything in your words; and I have not trashed your articles. As a matter of fact, I liked them both. I am bad with names of things--I have a horrible memory and I learn things by associating them with things that have an emotional significance to me. I have not trashed your articles--have just pointed out WHY I assumed you were a socialist feminist.
The part of "davari fighting a straw man" in the article I just posted made me chuckle about our exchange here.
I think we are just misunderstanding eachother and push eachother's sensitivity buttons. Why not we focus on things that are important to each of us; you take the left and I take the right--we are both fighters of a common cause. Let's focus on that.
Regards
Naj
1000
For the record:
"I remember you lashed out at me before (some month ago on my fb wall) because I suggested that worker's demands must be included in the Green Movement. "
If I recall correctly, I "lashed out" (which didn't) because you were calling for General strikes to bring the government to its knees--and at that time, considering the extent of violence the regime was exhibiting, I just pointed out that the Green movement, at the stage it was then, would not be sympathetic to the worker's cause--and that that cause will not be advanced BEFORE "kard be ostokhun reside bashe". At that moment, to have conflated the fight for workers with the fight for election would have been to sacrifice a pre-green cause for the post-election chaos (of which Ahmadinejadists were hoping to gain--by getting rid of teh labour and women movements that had begun independent of Mousavi.)
I still maintain that!
The worker's pressure cooker is not explosive yet! and subscribing to your idea that people shoudl be prevented from dying in cold blood-I am the last person who would encourage any worker to "uprise".
I have to say something else for the record as well:
I can only write prescriptions for people who are like me. I cannot champion the causes of which I have NO first hand experience or understanding. I cannot join a worker's movement or a women movement because I do not have access to workers or to women whose rights are neglected. This doesn't mean I am critical of people who champion those causes--although I am critical of people who theoretically join a cause based on "reading about it".
So I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding of my so-assumed disdain for communism or feminism.
Post a Comment