|
|
Article4
Response to Article3
By
CCC
Here is
CCC’s second response to ghandchi:
*************************************************************
Please
note that the "S" indicates my original postings and the
"C"
shows
CCC’s comments:
S) .....Iranians
have buried so many of their brightest intellectuals in
S) mass
graves in the last century, without even achieving half of
S) what
some nations such as
S) Why?
I think because of sensational assessments of the world and
S) our
society; and replacing brevity and fearlessness contests for
S)
reason.
C) But
isn't this a bit simplistic? Lets see... :
S) It
may not be detailed, but I do not think my assessment is
S)
simplistic. I am presenting a new angle in my whole posting and
S) my
angle is to view our history from the viewpoint of someone
S) who
thinks everyone has had choices;
within
certain constraints...
S) and
has made right and wrong
S)
choices; rather than seeing things as inevitable.
S) In
other words, according to my viewpoint, one had the choice to
S) act
like Amir Kabir or Mirza Reza Kermani under the same
S)
dictatorial rule. Some people chose the former option and some
S)
anothers chose the latter and the choices they made were not
S) inevitable.
They could have done the reverse. This is all I am
S)
trying to convey. I agree that to cover what I have tried to cover, I
S)
would need to write a book and not a short article [Sorry SCI
S)
friends, I know, it was not even short.!!!:).].
S) I
also agree with someone, who in an Email corrected me, that it
S) was
not just two tendencies of sensationalism and rationalism. She
S) did
correctly disagree with my dichotomous/binary referencing. I
S)
agree with her, and I also prefer a pluralistic analysis.
S) But
here I am just referring to the sensationalist extremism in our
S)
history. I know none of our historians make such an allegation, but
S) I
believe there is a major tilt towards sensationalism in our
S)
history. I accept that I have not given enough arguments to
S)
substantiate this view in every juncture of our modern history
S) and
definitely a lot more work is needed. But I am trying and I
S) need
your help to add your research to prove or disprove this
S)
theory:
S) In
my opinion, the number of individuals, who chose the
S)
rationalist path in our modern history is very small: Amir Kabir,
S)
Kasravi, Arani, and Dehkhoda. The liberal tradition, even before
S) 1953
coup, was extremely weak. Even in that period, it was rather
S)
Mossadegh as an individual, and not Jebheh Melli as a party. It is
S) is
noteworthy to say that unfortunately Jebh-e Melli had more
S)
emphasis on nationalism than on liberalism and individual rights.
S) Also
needless to say that Jebh-e Melli never grew to be a real
S)
party.
S) The
only party of significance in our history was Tudeh Party, as a
S)
party, and that was neither rationalist nor liberal. It was not even
S)
communist. Kianoori and Ghasemi were
adventurists long before
S) guerrilla
movement. And I classify them more with
the
S)
sensationalist tendency of our intellectuals in modern times,
S)
rather than the rationalist tradition.
O.K.
Certain people (call them a tendency) chose the "rationalist or
liberal"
path. Others, didn't. The circumstances (dictatorial) certainly
didn't
help the first, but supplied a lot of ammunition for the second.
The
arguments of the second (because of the circumstances - social,
political,
economic) won the masses more often - and affected the
course
of history more than the other.
Change
the circumstances, and you'd have had different effect. No
use
arguing about the "choice". You cant reverse the time...
[some
stuff deleted..]
S) I am
just trying to view the history not as "COULD NOT" and
S)
"WOULD NOT". I am trying to
say that we are not pawns in a big
S)
movement of a historical machine. I am
tired of Hegelian models
S) of
looking at history as inevitable spirals.
I do not believe in any
S)
historicism. I actually like philosophies
like Karl PopperÕs
S)
philospohy, which opposes historicism.
Historicism
may have many defects in it but at least it gives an
explanation
of "why" things do turn up as they do. Popper, on the
other
hand provides no alternative explanations. Ideas dont come out
of the
thin air, and you are not always at liberty to choose amongst
alternatives.
Liberal tradition, capitalist development and democratic
institutions
have more or less gone hand by hand. You cant imagine
one without
the others. Almost all of the the poineering Iranian
liberals/democrats
were directly affected by the West and at a time
when
people in Iran looked up to the West thes" were valued.
Indeed,
one of the motives of de-westernisation by IRI was exactly
to
de-value liberal thinkings and democratism. It wasn't political
dependency
to the West which the mollahs were against, it was
liberal
thoughts and ideas (iow: "cultural dependency").
Kill
the respect for the free-thinking world and the pioneers of
liberalism,
and then in an atmosphere of ignorance, dictatorship,
religious
fanaticism, poverty and iiliteracy you've got a winner in
sensationalism,
adventurism, violence and terror. Those advocating
the
latter of course had the "choice" not to do so. But then they had to
give up
not only power but even the right to speak up or even to live
in a
harsh and dictatorial climate. Whatever their reasons, they had
to
discredit liberalism by killing the respect for the liberal
democracies
(the West). And they did it in various guises from anti-
imperialism
(of the Tudeh and radiclas/armed movements of
60s/70s)
to the direct anti-westernism of the present rulers. Labels
for
convenience rather than the substance
S) BTW,
I know intellectuals are not one pack, but I cannot
S)
understand why you think my analysis of their general tendency
S)
towards sensationalism; and their role in the defeat of liberalism
S) in
Iran, is bordering on naivete.
Because,
I think you put too much emphasis on individual freedoms
and not
enough on the socio-economic conditions and the constraints
people
operate within.
S) I
could use Alvin Gouldner's analysis and differentiate the
S)
intelligensia, etc. and give a more detailed anlysis of different
S)
groupings of intellectuals and their role.
But all I wanted to note
S) here
was that the majority of Iranian intellectuals overwhelmingly
S)
sided with the sensationalist tendecy rather than the rationalism
S) and
liberalism, and I did not need a breakdown.
S) IMHO
the intellectuals of Iran in the last century have had many
S)
choices to make. A few like Amir Kabir
worked for reason and
S)
liberalism (I know reason and liberalsim are not equal); and they
S)
still lost their life; and many like Koochek Khan, Heydar Amoghli,
S) and
Mirza Reza Kermani did not have the time for liberalism. I
S) wish
more of our intellectuals had taken the former path than the
S)
latter. I think, if they had, Iranian
society would have benefited
S)
more.
You
wouldn't expect someone to choose liberalism if it is going to
lead
the death - if the alternative gives you the possibility of
survival,
and musch quicker result, would you?!
>I
know about the world situation and historical facts, etc. But I still
>believe,
the more educated you are, the more responsible you are
>for
the decisions you make; and one cannot just blame everything
>on
historical trends.
Indeed,
both sides of the argument would emphasis on being
"responsible".
It is just they end in different conclusion.
C)
....The Bazargan government was liberal only in name: it could not
C) and
would not defend and safeguard the most basic human rights
S) Why
do you say COULD NOT and WOULD NOT as if things are pre-
S) determined.
We have choices even under the worst conditions.
Bazargan
governmnet COULD NOT do it because the forces of violence
were so
strong that it had no choice but to be submissive to them.
Indeed,
he had the power by virtue of them. It WOULD NOT because
for him
power was so important that he wouldn't stand against the
forces
of voilence to the point of relinquishing power. He would
always
withdraw rather than resign. No will and no power.
C)
against the onslaught of the reactionary mollahs. It was ready to
C)
compromise anything for power (unlike Mossaddegh who would
C)
stand against the Shah whenever matters of principle were at
C)
stake. And true, the radical left (both Islamic and Marxist) had no
C) time
and place for such "luxuries" as human rights in their agenda,
C)
either.
C) It
looks as if the Iranian people have had no choice but to go
C)
through "trial and error".
S) I
appreciate your agreement that Islamic and Left radicals did not
S) have
time for "human rights".
S) But why
do you say, we had no choice but trial and error. I
S)
understand that you mean it in a historical perspective, but let's
S) just
drop this way of looking at history for a moment. Don't you
S)
think one, who has brain, can think and is responsible for making
S) good
and bad choices.
Yes,
one has a brain. But one also has a belly to feed and a life to
guard.
And one dosn't always have the luxury of looking at different
oprions
in tranquility in order to decide the best. The instinct to stay
alive
(even at the expense of causing somebosy else's death) is very
powerful
indeed...
S)
Actually Mossadegh also made many wrong
S)
choices as well. I am sorry I just do
not see history as Hegelian
S)
spirals, and I feel the Iranian people had other choices than just
S)
going thru this pendulum of trial and errors that you sketch
S)
below. I just do not believe in
historical necessities.
C) They
tried liberalism (in the shape of Mossaddegh government)
C) and
failed by the coup. They tried violence in the
C)
sixties/seventies. That failed too as all these movements were
C)
crushed by the might of SAVAK torture machines. They then
C)
turned to religious salvation - and got the IRI with all its
C)
barbarism, devastation and regressive records. The signs are that
C) this
latest experience is leading many back to liberalism again -
C)with
a difference. The political changes both inside and outside
C) Iran
have created a more favorable conditions for the growth of
C) liberalism.
One can easily witness that the argument for violence
C) and
extremism is losing ground in the Iranian politics, and the
C)
forces of reason and secularism/liberalism are gaining grounds.
C) What
it lacks is a political leadership to turn this new
C)
sentimentality into a political force and affect changes for the
C)
betterment of the society.
[some
stuff deleted...]
S) I
once went to a firewalking seminar with Tony Robins in San
S)
Francisco vicinity. I was able to walk
on fire after learning to
S)
control my mind and the choices I had made.
He had one good
S)
advice in his 6-hour presentation. He
said that early on he
S)
learned to read the books that successful people read, do the
S)
things they did, etc. He tried to teach
how to always be aware of
S)
making choices. His book is called
UNLIMITED POWER. BTW,
S) many
people think he is a charlatan. I do not
know. But his
S)
lecture program was useful for me.
Dont I
see some "adventurism" here?! Do you think what you did
correspond
with "reason", "rationalism" and liberalism? No one can
deny
the almost umlimited power of humans. But then adventurist
use the
same argument to advance voluntarism: you and even a tiny
minority
of you can change the world by your action no matter what
the
rest of society thinks/does. It does ring a bell, doesnt it?!
With my
best regards and appreciation for your valuable
contributions.
- CCC