Display:
Very good points.  You've got me thinking now.  

Maybe Iran is but a first convulsion (and maybe not even the first) of globalization in the political dimension, which makes it much scarier for those in power, and much more significant historically.  I keep hearing people say that the protests there are already far beyond Mousavi and even the election itself.  What does that really mean?

by jjellin on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 12:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As Chris Cook has argued, its a struggle between the old guard and a "modernising" element in the Iranian elite.  One more amenable to globalisation than the other.

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 01:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact, the modernisers were in control of the reins of power (ie the oil complex), and have now lost it to the backwoodsmen.

But, as I argue in my article, these new guys do not have the technical expertise to run a modern economy, and I must say that even in the five years I have been going there Iran had made great strides in modernising (not all of the oil money was siphoned off).

The new people in control can typically be identified by PhDs (Iranians have inordinate respect for qualifications, particularly Western qualifications) from the Imam Khomeini University in "Strategic Studies" and the like. These are (allegedly) handed out if you get your name right on the title page.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 03:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series