Fascinating comments by Reza Negarestani:
"The idea that Ahmadienejad is backed by the poor and rural supporters seems to have become an axiomatic basis of recent discussions among western intellectuals. This is however an extremely hypothetical assumption which has not been properly investigated. In fact, evidences from inside Iran especially smaller towns and villages to the south, south-east, south-west and the center suggest that this is not true. The idea of the rural poor as the main supporters of A was first propagated by the State media in Iran, then it was effectively exported outside of Iran mainly by two groups of journalists who have access to Iran: kitsch Marxists and moderate neo-liberals. I have seen how the former category culls its information: they enter Iran, then they are greeted by the so-called intellectually left Iranian friends who actually belong to the wealthy class of Tehranian society who have had the sufficient financial resource to be educated outside of Iran, then they are taken to various parts of Tehran whilst at nights they are taken to parties to become familiar with the neoliberal generation, from there they are escorted to other major cities. Almost none of these journalists divert from the main itinerary which only includes major cities, they never reside in any rural area in order to become properly familiar with the ideological structure of the rural Iranian people. So what summarizes a majority of the kitsch Marxist journalists is their urban tours and information gathering during the day and basking in the wealth and facilities of the bourgeoisie at night. As for the moderate neoliberal journalists (’harshly critical neoliberalists’ can never get visas to Iran), they have the same itinerary as the kitsch Marxists with only one difference: instead of conversing with the leftist intellectuals and undertaking a selected tour of the poor urban areas, they get in contact with monarchy dissidents and political pariahs who have long lost track of events in Iran.
Moosavi vs. Ahmadienejad or vice versa: Although A inclines toward the Islamic system of economy, his mismanagement (excessive liquidity, interference with central bank’s policies, etc.) has caused the worst kind of rabid capitalism to emerge during his presidency. Whilst the poor of the rural regions have become poorer, the numerous land owners (the crypto-feudalism which neither Shah nor the Islamic Revolution could fully wipe out) in the rural areas have quickly become rich through unprecedented rising prices of land and properties. To sum up, contrary to what Lenin is saying, A’s mismanagement of the fundamental economic structure has brought about opportunities for the rise of the kind of rabid local capitalism that one can only see in Brazil and some middle-eastern or far-eastern countries. Moosavi initially belonged to the Islamic-left revolutionary front which following the loss of his position as the prime minister was disintegrated. Its members scattered according to their Islamic political ideology to conservative (centralist), fundamental and reformist fronts. Forced to take a voluntary exile from the active political participation by the president of the time (Hashemi), Moosavi got back to architecture and through influential contacts acquired a few hugely funded architectural projects. Only recently he returned back to the political life, that’s why he was not a significant figure for the new generation which has not seen his decisive influence during the war with Iraq on both international and domestic policies. He has probably transformed to a rather liberal figure but since his ideology is ultimately molded by the Islamic ideology that he has emerged from and that Islamic ideology has left tendencies, he cannot be reduced to a neoliberal figure.
To sum up: I am finding the dichotomy of ‘Moosavi for the urban rich and young generation’ and ‘Ahmadienejad supported by the rural poor and old generation of the revolution’ radically deficient and even pragmatically dangerous. Moosavi has supporters among every class of people, his ambivalent political stance, original Islamic-left ideology and the current quasi-liberal economic position have enabled Ahmadinejad’s enemies (even from the fundamentalist front) to gather under one banner (i.e. Moosavi’s front). In short, Moosavi is representing the kind of exclusive middle-eastern syncretism that cannot be reduced to a clearly bounded politico-economical agenda. And the history of Iran (as well as other middle-eastern countries) has proved that people are very well aware of the fertility and flexibility of such instances of syncretism for the mobilization of their requests, mass evasion from harsh governmental reactions and full-fledged resistance."
http://planomenology.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/iranian-variations-marxist-repetitions/
