Some people aren’t actually critical of reactionary elements in anti-colonial countries. Pretty sure they see that as a plus, but I’m expected to take them seriously as Marxists and comrades all the same. How that’s different from conservative socialism we clown on every time it comes up I’m trying to work out, but surely the theoretical fault is my own because obviously theocracies can do no wrong and questioning any element of them in any context whatsoever makes you a counter-revolutionary liberal Zionist. Real 🤡 shit.
Yes yes obviously we don’t need to go out of our way to carry water for the US State department, however, we’re SUPPOSED to be offering clearer analysis and better prescriptions for the world than liberals and reactionaries. That’s an integral part of the Marxist project. The US State department tries to single out Iran for being a certified Bad Guy™ because of “Political Prisoners.” Obviously, this is nonsense, because every state is going to seek to criminalize those who are seriously committed to it’s destruction. Many states do the same or worse, including Western States. Many states that are considered staunch US allies are the most egregious! Pointing out the hypocrisy and dissolving the halo westerners have around imperialist countries would be theoretically and pragmatically consistent—but what’s theoretical and pragmatic consistency worth to a zealot? Gotta line up and start spit shining boots with our tongues just so long as they’re anti-imperialist I guess.
Davis’ statement, though addressed to Iran’s prisoners, links the consistency and design and purpose of prison architecture across the United States, Israel, and yes, Iran too. Reading the content of it, it seems kind of… Fine? Hell, this is the longest paragraph.
We see the same logic of domination when Israel uses “administrative detention” to hold Palestinian political prisoners for years without charge. We see it when Israeli authorities celebrate a new law that allows them to execute the Palestinian political prisoners they cannot dominate. We see it in the ICE detention centers where the US government imprisons our people in the pursuit of a political agenda of racist exclusion or detains our political activists for daring to speak against the US-backed Israeli genocide. We see it in the history of the US targeting freedom fighters, particularly Black, Indigenous, Puerto Rican and other anticolonial organizers, locking them away for decades to crush movements for national liberation and sovereignty. And we see the connections between these carceral systems sharing intelligence and governance techniques, such as when the USP Marion prison in Illinois became a blueprint for prisons built in Iran and Israel in the 1960s. Whether it is a border wall or a prison gate, the goal is the same: to silence people through fear, domination, and isolation.
It clearly condemns the imperialist machine and its methods, and the aggression of US and Israel. Go figure, prisons are the method by which modem states maintain their control. If you’re opposed to prisons, you’re going to necessarily be in opposition to nearly every modern state. From what I gather, I might describe Davis and Prison Abolitionists broadly as finding the carceral state and prison apparatus as the most important—or at least a co-equal—contradiction. One could critique that in a sound and principled way, but why do that when you can just tar and feather people you disagree with? Everyone knows THAT’S what a real leftist would do.
The letter (though as you point out carceral systems probably aren’t #1 contradictions) is inoffensive theoretically, and makes salient critiques. why was it published in a paper of record at the height of US aggression towards that country? what purpose, concretely, can it serve? Iran cannot reform as leftists might desire right now. So what we’re left with is academics showing off how clever and relevant they are, and as consequence blunting antipathy toward the war. It’s perfectly acceptable to make these critiques outside the public sphere–I’d argue this forum is enough grains out of the way we’re not obliged to hold our tongues.
Some people aren’t actually critical of reactionary elements in anti-colonial countries. Pretty sure they see that as a plus, but I’m expected to take them seriously as Marxists and comrades all the same. How that’s different from conservative socialism we clown on every time it comes up I’m trying to work out, but surely the theoretical fault is my own because obviously theocracies can do no wrong and questioning any element of them in any context whatsoever makes you a counter-revolutionary liberal Zionist. Real 🤡 shit.
Yes yes obviously we don’t need to go out of our way to carry water for the US State department, however, we’re SUPPOSED to be offering clearer analysis and better prescriptions for the world than liberals and reactionaries. That’s an integral part of the Marxist project. The US State department tries to single out Iran for being a certified Bad Guy™ because of “Political Prisoners.” Obviously, this is nonsense, because every state is going to seek to criminalize those who are seriously committed to it’s destruction. Many states do the same or worse, including Western States. Many states that are considered staunch US allies are the most egregious! Pointing out the hypocrisy and dissolving the halo westerners have around imperialist countries would be theoretically and pragmatically consistent—but what’s theoretical and pragmatic consistency worth to a zealot? Gotta line up and start spit shining boots with our tongues just so long as they’re anti-imperialist I guess.
Davis’ statement, though addressed to Iran’s prisoners, links the consistency and design and purpose of prison architecture across the United States, Israel, and yes, Iran too. Reading the content of it, it seems kind of… Fine? Hell, this is the longest paragraph.
It clearly condemns the imperialist machine and its methods, and the aggression of US and Israel. Go figure, prisons are the method by which modem states maintain their control. If you’re opposed to prisons, you’re going to necessarily be in opposition to nearly every modern state. From what I gather, I might describe Davis and Prison Abolitionists broadly as finding the carceral state and prison apparatus as the most important—or at least a co-equal—contradiction. One could critique that in a sound and principled way, but why do that when you can just tar and feather people you disagree with? Everyone knows THAT’S what a real leftist would do.
The letter (though as you point out carceral systems probably aren’t #1 contradictions) is inoffensive theoretically, and makes salient critiques. why was it published in a paper of record at the height of US aggression towards that country? what purpose, concretely, can it serve? Iran cannot reform as leftists might desire right now. So what we’re left with is academics showing off how clever and relevant they are, and as consequence blunting antipathy toward the war. It’s perfectly acceptable to make these critiques outside the public sphere–I’d argue this forum is enough grains out of the way we’re not obliged to hold our tongues.