FUTURIST IRAN: Futurism vs Terrorism

FUTURISM VS. TERRORISM

Futurism could help end terrorism by Islamic fanatics, argues Iranian futurist Sam Ghandchi, editor and publisher of Iranscope.com.

In his new book, FUTURIST IRAN, Ghandchi calls for a futurist program that builds up freedom and progress in an open society. It is this freedom and openness that will counter support for terrorists' creation of an ideal Islamic state. Toward that end, he proposes an Iranian Futurist Party platform.

"For years, I have been arguing for a futurist program for Iran when viewing Iran's issues of development into the twenty-first century," he writes in the book's introduction. "The old ways of the right and the left will neither work for the freedom of Iran, nor can they be used to build a new Iran."

LINKS:
Iranscope, Sam Ghandchi's futurist portal for Iranian news and culture: http://www.iranscope.com
FUTURIST IRAN online book: http://www.ghandchi.com/500-FuturistIranEng.htm

Sam Ghandchi' s Note: This book was originally called "Futurist Iran: Abating the 1979 Reactionary Revolution". I adopted the new sub heading "futurism vs terrorism" for my book, in this third edition, from the above title, that World Future Society editor had used to refer to my book, when reviewing my book in September 2003. My thanks to Cynthia Wagner, the managing editor of the Futurist, for her review of my book, and for using this appropriate title for her review.

00. Preface-About 2001 Crisis

The economic crisis of 2001 was the first major crisis of the information economy and created a lot of pessimism about the Information Economy. An economy that was hoped to usher in a new parallel sector to traditional commerce, by creating eCommerce, suddenly fell apart, with the dotcom busts in the year 2000, followed by the collapse of telecom and networking industry in 2001.

The reality is that eCommerce did not die. What was needed was a change of human habits, to make use of Internet rather than traditional commerce and also new real life applications rather than the existing limited computer programs.

The change of habits is happening with the new generation doing a lot more work on computers, than all previous generations, and also Clinton administration in the U.S. started encouraging new habits for the citizens, using computers and the Internet in their daily life, and although encouraging new habits was halted during the Bush admin, it will likely continue after Bush in the U.S., and elsewhere in the world by other political leaders.

On the other hand, more applications with real life feel, are developing, to make the virtual shopping malls a match for the real malls, giving the customers the feel of going to a mall like the Edmonton in Canada. And of course the applications will not be limited to eCommerce, and they are the drivers of the next wave of the Internet, which can be readily called Internet2, which symbolizes the new class of applications, such as virtual presence, that are merged with the high-speed Internet.

In other words, it is not true that the era of computers and networks has come to an end. The reality is that the information economy will just start with the next wave of applications and networks, and although other high tech areas such as biotech and nanotechnology will play significant roles in the upcoming future, but the information economy, computers, applications, and networks will continue to be the major movers for the next decade and pessimism about these technologies is not warranted.

Even the information economy jobs that go overseas, will not make this sector any less significant in the U.S. economy, and elsewhere in the West, when the new wave of information economy starts. The new information economy will need all the human resources it can find in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world when it gets back to full bloom again, with the rise of new applications.

In fact, the pre-PC computers faced a similar stagnation in 60's and 70's, because of not opening new horizons in applications, till the PC broke that barrier, when the PCs allowed the areas of typing and word processing, accounting and spread sheets, popular graphics and presentations to become computerized and popularized in a short span of time, augmented with Local Area Networks (LAN) that quickly expanded into a world wide network that allowed every home and office user to be connected to every other in a global network.

The next set of applications will follow by newer networks bringing real life experience to every computer user around the globe, thus making the ideals of the first pioneers of the Internet eCommerce, a reality, with a significance of the first development of mercantile capital in human history, changing the whole way of the way products are produced and exchanged in the world market, and the real wealth will become the Intellectual Property rights of new technologies. Even ownership of license to a web site name can be worth more than the title to a piece of land in a commercial corner of a shopping center.

***

The economic crisis of the high tech starting in 2001 was simultaneous with the presidency of G W Bush in the U.S. Bush Administration emphasized on pre-high tech industries, such as oil and airlines. The falling apart of dotcoms had already started before G.W. Bush's presidency, yet the fall of telecom industry started as Bush took office. However, Bush's economic policies helped old industries like oil and airlines, but he never helped the high tech dotcoms and telecoms.

The failures of information economy in the West, particularly in the U.S., helped the stature of retrogressive regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). All these years, the main challenge of Soviet Union, IRI, and other backward regimes, was the success of post-industrial developments in the West, and not the military might of the U.S. In fact, the Soviet Empire fell apart without exertion of any military action by the U.S. or NATO.

Instead the Bush Administration tried to win over the backward Islamist and Baathist challenges in the Middle East, by resorting to military might, rather than trying to show a winning post-industrial economy in the U.S,. which could be the main allure for the people of the Middle East , away from the Islamist propaganda of the Islamist paradise. Unfortunately what was the rightful self-defense against the Sept 11th attack of the Islamists, became the main focus of the Bush Administration, at the expense of a wholly failed economy.

Within two years, the main centers of high tech like the Silicon Valley of California died in the process, and the bigger picture was that the U.S. lost its attractiveness for the people of Middle East, and elsewhere, who looked up to Silicon Valley and other high tech centers of the U.S., as their ideal for economic development, beyond the retrogressive regimes like IRI.

Iranian new immigrants headed for countries like Australia, when they heard the news of their relatives who either struggled in Silicon Valley of California to survive, or from those who had headed back to Iran, preferring to endure the hardship of living under the Islamist regime, as long as they could make a living for themselves and their families, rather than being in the unemployment lines of Silicon Valley, and other high tech centers of the West.

The high tech centers of the U.S. went South thanks to the failed economic policies of Bush Administration, and the failed Western economy helped the mollah's regime, and meant loss for the secular post-industrial forces of the Middle East, whose programs were identified with the failed economies of high tech in the West and with the U.S. invasion of Iraq regardless of reality of the new global line ups.

In reality, the post-industrial development in the West, was being hurt by the ultranationalist forces, who did not care for post-industrial development, the same way the pre-industrial forces of Middle East blocked all post-industrial change in countries like Iran. So in a way, the U.S. faced a political barrier to post-industrial development just like Iran, but by a different political force.

If in November, the U.S. passes the GW Bush intermittence of the post-industrial development, and once the information economy gets back on track in the West, the main loser will be the retrogressive regimes of the Middle East like Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), which are not only the main block for post-industrial development in the Middle East, but their backward systems are being hailed as the ideal state, by their terrorist supporters, who endanger the peaceful post-industrial development of the world at large.

June 25, 2004

Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/Editor

IRANSCOPE

http://www.iranscope.com

01. Introduction-How to End Islamist Terrorism

Almost anybody following the situation in Iran of the last three decades, acknowledges the rise of Islamism in Iran of 1979, and the subsequent rise of Islamism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and finally the global spread of Islamist terrorism. The ending of Taliban's rule in Afghanistan did not end Islamist terrorism. This type of terrorism is associated with the ideal of these terrorists, which is a state like Taliban or IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran), the same way the leftist terrorists half a century before them, saw the Soviet Union and other communist states, as their paradise, and desired to arrive at it by the quick shortcut of terrorism, in their own respected countries.

For decades, suppressing any communist state by the Western democracies, basically strengthened the legitimacy of the terrorists. Only when the Soviet Empire collapsed, not by any military intervention of the Western democracies, but by the revolt of people of Soviet Union and European Eastern Block themselves, the cause of the terrorists died with it. When the people of the countries ruled by the communists, came out and uttered that the communist paradise was no paradise, and that the make-belief paradise was in fact a living hell, where the human body and soul were in chains, it was only then that the leftist terrorists lost the reason for their actions. This is how finally the dream which had kept the leftist terrorism alive, died when the Soviet Empire fell apart.

The same process is happening in the cradle of Islamist Revolution, namely Iran. The fall of the Iranian Islamist state, not in the style of the fall of Taliban by an outside intervention, but by the Iranian people themselves, is the way to put an end to Islamism and its related Islamist terrorism. This is how the allure of paradise, will be replaced in the mind of people, with the harsh reality of the hell it has been, narrated by those who had lived in the Islamist paradise of Iran for three decades.

For years, I have been arguing for a futurist program for Iran, when viewing Iran's issues of development into the 21st Century. I have noted that the old ways of right and the left, will neither work for the freedom of Iran, nor can they be used to build a new Iran, even if the opposition succeeds to take the state power. I have shown why a futurist approach and a futurist party is needed, to form an open society in Iran. This book encompasses the various aspects of the futurist Iran.

02. Progressiveness and the 1979 Revolution

In 1986, in a series of articles entitled "Progressiveness in the Present Epoch", I wrote that the 1979 Revolution of Iran was a reversal of a Modern Times' synonymy of Revolution and Progress, a concurrence which was assumed as a given, since the American 1775 and the French 1789 Revolutions, and remarked that with Iran's 1979 Revolution, this synonymy was now reversed, and noted that the world may need a new Immanuel Kant to formulate this reversal, when the retrogression, rather than progress, has become the epitome of a major political revolution in Iran.

It is noteworthy that Kant never bothered writing about revolutions, till the American and French Revolutions happened, and before those events, when writing on topics of armed conflicts, his topics were war and peace between different states, and not revolutions internal to a state. Kant's formulations of his ideal state and individual rights were in reference to a state of affairs achieved thru reform and *not* revolution.

Therefore, Kant's support of American and French Revolutions was not because of his partiality for revolutions. In fact, the opposite was true that he was *not* a revolutionary, yet he supported those revolutions, *only* because he saw the ideals that he had advocated for years, such as the ideals of individual rights, were achieved thru those revolutions.

Kant's desire was to achieve his goals through reform in Germany, therefore as noted, Kant's support of those revolutions was not because of him being a revolutionary, which he was *not*, but was because of the progressive ideals which were pursued by those revolutions. I will explain more below, but let me first return to my main point about Iran's 1979 Revolution.

As noted in "Progressiveness in the Present Epoch", *not* all the forces in Iran's 1979 Revolution were seeking reactionary goals, but the *main* forces of the revolution sought reactionary goals. In contrast, the main forces of the American and French Revolutions sought progressive goals, such as individual rights, civil society, and fairness. It is noteworthy to mention that in contrast, in those revolutions, there were also other forces, that pursued reactionary goals, but they were *not* the main forces of the American and French revolutions.

Basically the main forces of Iran's1979 Revolution were *against* the social rights of an individual, and even the Shah's regime, which they opposed, honored social freedom (not political freedom), more than these forces. This is why the Islamists started wiping out the social rights, from the first days after the success of the 1979 revolution, with the slogan of "yA roosari, yA toosari" (meaning either wear a scarf or be hit on your head), when suppressing the demonstration of women in Tehran, a month after the February 1979 Revolution.

And the Islamists spoke of Islamic principle of "amre beh maroof va nahi az monker" (advocate virtues and prohibit the vices), an Islamic principle which became the rule of social conduct in Iran under the rule of Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), and it was used to suppress the individual social rights of every citizen in Iran, by the revolutionary guards and other organs of morality police, the state organs with the mandate of upholding virtues and crushing the vices.

If during the Shah's regime, only the political rights of the individual were suppressed, the new Islamic state would not even stop at political rights and decided on how people should eat, dress, or have sex, and even decided how people should live inside their own house.

A total reactionary turn of social life in Iran ushered in with the 1979 Revolution, and it was spearheaded by the strong presence of Islamists in the revolution, thanks to Shah's blocking of formation of democratic organizations in the three decades prior to the 1979 Revolution, leaving the mosques unchallenged, as the center of social resistance to Shah's regime.

When looking at the French and American Revolutions more closely, although there were some reactionary forces on the side of the revolution, *but* the main forces on the side of the revolution sought progressive goals, such as the *individual rights* and civil society. Whereas in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, although there were some progressive forces on the side of the revolution, *but* the main forces on the side of the revolution, sought reactionary goals of suppressing *individual freedoms*, and replacing civil society with an Islamic ommat.

In other words, the French and American revolutions became the epitome of the ideals which Kant had called for in his writings, to be achieved by *reform*. Basically being progressive has nothing to do with being a revolutionary or a reformist. Kant was trying to attain his ideal social norms through *reform* in Germany of the successor of Frederick the Great, Frederick William II. Nonetheless, Frederick William II, contrary to Frederick the Great, had no respect for individual rights, and even had banned Kant from writing on religious matters, after Kant's publication of his 1793 Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, and the fact that as long as King Frederick William II was alive, Kant did not write on religion.

Thus ironically, Kant's ideals were achieved sooner by the revolutions in America and France, than by the reforms he had hoped for in Germany. And Kant's support of those revolutions, was not because of being revolutionary, which he was not, but was because of his support for the progressive ideals achieved by those revolutions.

Kant was a symbol of a democratic-minded individual doing his utmost to work by civil *obedience*, and the only reason he supported the American and French Revolutions, was because he saw them to usher in the ideals which he viewed as necessary for a modern state, and *not* because of liking to advocate civil disobedience and revolutions, which he did not.

For Kant, *progress* was important, whether it was achieved by reform or revolution, although he preferred it to be achieved by reform. In other words a revolution can be as much reactionary as a reform and vice versa, a revolution can be as much progressive as a a reform.

In contrast,, many who supported the Iranian 1979 Revolution *forgot* about the *ideals* the revolution was seeking, and did not ask if the ideals were progressive or reactionary, and they just supported it, just because it was a revolution to overthrow the dictatorial and corrupt regime of the Shah, and not because the revolution sought progressive and democratic ideals, which it did not.

References Chapter 2

03. Not a Coup but a Reactionary Revolution

Progressive development in the modern world works in tantamount with the struggle for forming an Open Society. It is noteworthy that some of those who think of 1979 Revolution, as the work of Carter's human rights breeze, have since blamed Carter and the U.S., for not bringing in the necessary mechanisms to contain the unleashing of the freedoms, and thus they think Iranian society ended up in Islamists using freedom to kill freedom, to take over the country, because of the U.S. unleashing the freedoms, while not being able to protect the democracy.

Of course, in the case of Iran, although Carter's policy in supporting the Islamists at the end, helped the Islamists to finally dominate the political scene in post-1357 Iran, but Iran's movement was not the work of the U.S., to be able to control the unleashing of the forces that were freed by the fall of the Shah, with or without proper policing, and the interim government and various political forces of the time, are more to blame for giving in to the Islamists, and as I noted in Why Shiism Became the Flag of 1979 Iranian Revolution, lack of a progressive alternative, left the scene all open for the pre-industrial forces of Shi'a Islamists, unchallenged in their scheme to fully usurp the power in Iran.

Calling the 1979 Revolution a coup, by some monarchists and others, only means they still have not understood the above reality, that the revolution is *not* synonymous with progress, and since they see the 1979 Revolution to be retrogressive, they disdain to call it a revolution, and call it a coup, as if a revolution would always have to be something progressive and good, which as I explained, is not always true, not only for all revolutions, but neither for all reforms.

For some others, the reason they call the 1979 revolution a coup, is because they want to blame the problems of Iran on foreign powers, and they do not want to believe this reactionary development to be an internal event. Again, considering the 1979 upheaval as a revolution, and not as a coup, and looking at it as an internal event, and not a foreign conspiracy, does not mean that one sees it as something "good" and progressive.

As I pointed out, I actually see the 1979 upheaval as a *reactionary* event, although I see it as a *revolution*, and as an internal development by Iranians, and not as a conspiracy.

When the world is progressing towards a post-industrial society, Iran fell to reactionary forces that offered a reactionary retrogression for the society, as the solution for the real problems of development that Iran was facing, and the Islamists were unchallenged, because the suppression of secular democratic forces in Iran's society, for three decades prior to the 1979 Revolution, under the Shah's dictatorship, meant that there were no social and political organizations strong enough to compete with the mosque, which became the center of the revolution and its leadership organization.

The 1979 Revolution symbolized the reactionary response to the crisis of industrial society, in absence of futurist social and political forces, to lead an alternative development towards a post-industrial society for Iran. Iran was a country that faced the challenge of deciding an alternative for the future. A future which was not going to be the capitalist or communist solutions of the industrial society, as they were not viable choices at the end of 1970s, and new secular organizations, with a new platform beyond the old paths of socialism and capitalism were absent, and all this vacuum helped the success of pre-industrial forces, who offered themselves as an alternative to the crisis of industrial society and its discarded options in Iran of 1979.

What follows from my theory that the Iranian Revolution was *the* major reactionary revolution of our times? Simply it follows that the futurists have the best perspective to offer for Iran and the region.

True that in this day and age, one can still try a capitalist or a socialist path, but the outcome will be another failed experience that many Latin American capitalist states or the Cambodian Killing Fields and Vietnamese socialist states have tried and failed. Those countries have not retrogressed to pre-industrial society, but the capitalist and socialist alternatives of industrial society were tried again by them, in this day and age, and the result was simply failure after failure.

The above experiences show that an alternative beyond the industrial society is needed, a solution beyond both the capitalist and socialist forms of industrial past, to drive these societies towards a post-industrial society, to tackle the dilemma of development in the world of today.

Those looking for an alternative beyond the industrial society in Iran had two choices. Either to end up in a pre-industrial solution with Islamists or monarchists at the top, or they had to be futurists, going beyond the liberal and socialist traditions and plan for a post-industrial society.

Unfortunately a futurist force was almost nonexistent in Iran of 1979, and even three years later, the first blooms of futurist thought, were strongly opposed and threatened even by the Iranian opposition itself, which was mainly leftist, and made even death threats to me for raising such doubts about their leftist doctrines, communist dogma, which they espoused like a religion.

I wrote over three years ago, that the most important lesson of the 1979 Revolution of Iran, the opposition learned, was that overthrowing the regime was not the hardest work, and lack of program and organization after the change, was the real challenge.

Furthermore, I wrote in the same article that there are no quick panaceas for those who really want to work for democracy and progress in Iran, and after the 1979 Revolution, the opposition just found out how much it did not know, in terms of answers to the issues facing Iran, when the opposition had spent all the years prior to the revolution, on polemics, rather than doing any serious theoretical work on the real obstacles hampering Iran's progress into the 21st Century.

References Chapter 3

04. Futurists and the Iranian Experience

Iran being the cradle of the first major reactionary revolution of our times, means that freeing Iran from the Islamic Republic nightmare, and moving towards the future, offers the best example for the world, as to how to overcome major pre-industrial setbacks and to go towards a post-industrial society.

Going beyond the industrial society, will be in its most explicit form in Iran, in contrast to countries like the U.S., that are gradually spawning this development. The Iranian experience will have a central role in formulating the ways to progress towards the future post-industrial societies, the same way in the 18th Century, the American and French Revolutions, were so central to set a new paradigm of building the coming industrial society, for most other countries, that were searching for solutions, to go beyond the Medieval society.

What is very disappointing is that the Futurists have mainly ignored the developments of Iran, and have only seen the Iranian situation as an issue of US-Iran relations, whether at the time of the Shah, or at the time of IRI and hostage-taking. If one looks at the publications of the World Future Society in the last 20 years, there is hardly any article about Iran. Among the futurists, only Daniel Bell has made a reference to Iran and the Salman Rushdie issue, and Alvin Toffler has made a few occasional references to Iran.

I think Iranians and those who understand the Iranian situation, will be the ones who can bring the awareness about Iran's experience to the world, and help the futurists of other countries to see the significance of the Iranian upheaval and setbacks, and to understand its relevance to the post-industrial development in general, when the epochal post-industrial change, is challenged by powerful pre-industrial forces like the Islamists, and by the retrogressive social structures of the past, such as the strength of Islamic fundamentalism shown in the Islamic Friday Prayers of Middle East.

I think the Iranian people forming a futurist party and leading and spearheading the epochal change of Iran to a full bloom post-industrial society, can become an example for the world, in making this new paradigm shift from the industrial to the post-industrial world. The challenge in Iran is forming and building a Federal Secular Democratic Republic.

As I have explained in later chapters of Futurist Iran book, the insistence of Reza Pahlavi and the monarchists to return the rule of Pahlavi family to Iran, has wasted a lot of energy of Iranian people, to deal with the monarchy, which has been history for over 25 years, and had already been even voted out in a referendum in Iran.

The monarchy distraction is just for the selfish goals of a deposed family, with another retrogressive goal of returning Iran to an obsolete past, to regain their bygone power and wealth, and it has stopped the pro-democracy movement of Iran, from concentrating all the forces of opposition on eradicating the retrogressive system of Islamic Republic, to replace it with a futurist republic, and again like the time of 1979 Revolution, a retrogressive force, this time the monarchy, is trying to restore its lost power in Iran, by using the people's movement.

Regardless of these distractions, Iran and Iranians will have a leading role in formulating the proper solutions for building the post-industrial society, and that can help others in other parts of the world, by setting an example of developing a post-industrial society in our era, especially in an undeveloped country, encompassing all aspects of life.

For the secular and democratic forces of Iran, to provide proper leadership for this future development of Iran, there is a need to form a futurist party, that can lead such a change, or else even if the power is won, a proper progressive leadership will be absent, and we all know how such absence of a futurist leadership in 1979, ended up in retrogression, and it cost Iran and Iranians so dearly, when choosing a reactionary paradigm as a solution. This is why I have proposed a detailed platform for founding a futurist party of Iran.

One may think that being a futurist is just to learn the views that are well documented in the works listed in the book catalog of the World Future Society. Undoubtedly those books are the best collection of futurist literature around. But to really understand what modern futurism involves, the experience of Iran is the most telling example for any futurist, and it is still a living event.

When approaching Iran, we have to specifically answer some important issues of the political development, firstly the continued strength of the organization of the Shi'a clergy in Iran's judicial branch, and other branches of the state, and its strength in civil institutions like the real estate title companies, and the fact that the absence of separation of state and religion, was true long before the birth of Islamic Republic.

Thus the need to specifically call for removal of clergy's status in all state offices and the need to call for removal of *all* Islamic laws in Iran, including Qessas laws, is the real definition of secularism for Iran. Secondly the absence of development of federalism, is another major factor hindering the growth of democracy in Iran. And thirdly the strength of state economy, has been the foundation of endurance of despotism in Iran, under various regimes. These are crucial issues for achieving progress in Iran.

Some of these topics, such as the position of Shi'a clergy in Iranian state, may have no significance for a futurist who focuses on the development needs of the United States, nonetheless, the pre-industrial obstacles stemming from other religious and ideological influences are not much different, and thus Iran's experience sets a paradigm for futurists, for tackling the challenge of pre-industrial forces to new civilizations, in other parts of the world.

Iranian experience highlights the pre-industrial obstacles and the relevant solutions, when progressive forces do not want to create another obsolete despotic system, with a stagnant economy and with more violations of human rights, when replacing an existing retrogressive system. Such so-called "new" pre-industrial systems, replacing the industrial system, are not progress towards a post-industrial society, and are simply a retrogression wrapped up, as a solution, to the problems encountered by the crisis-ridden industrial world.

References Chapter 4

05. Shi'a Clergy and Iranian State

For decades, absence of democracy during the Shah's regime, hampered the formation of secular organizations in Iran, and the Islamic Republic, in the decades following the 1979 Revolution, has also blocked the development of secular political organizations in Iran. The clergy which had its traditional organization was unchallenged to take over Iran, in 1979, when the Shah's regime fell apart.

Shah should have modernized the political structure of Iran, if he wanted to save his government, and the cornerstone of such modernization should have been the protection of democracy, which Shah did not care for. Also Secularism was opposed by the Shi'a clergy and this is why they opposed even the partial secularism of enghelAbe sefid (Shah's White Revolution).

Shah instead of moving forward with a thorough secularism, and augmenting it with democracy, tried to give concessions and appease the clergy on the issue of secularism, while blocking all democratic forces from forming their own organizations, using arrests, torture, and executions of the leading secular personalities like Dr. Mossadegh and Dr. Hossein Fatemi.

Concession to the clergy did not save Shah's government, and only helped the successor of his regime to become a Mediaeval Theocracy rather than a democracy. Shah was successful in his suppression of Iranian democratic movement, which curtailed the further secularization of the state, a secularism which had started long before the Shah and Pahlavi Dynasty, at the time of mashrootiat (Constitutional Movement of Iran), and had continued during Reza Khan's era.

During the Shah's regime, Shi'a clergy regained their status in the judicial branch of the state. It is a fact that the clergy's role in Iranian state is not something that happened in the Islamic Republic, and unfortunately this truth is still not understood by many monarchists, who support the 1906 Constitution, which allows the veto of 5 mojteheds (Shi'a top Ayatollahs) for any law to become the law of the land, and considers Shi'a as the official religion of Iran.

The presence of clergy in the judicial branch of state in Iran which has been the reality under monarchy, is the biggest obstacle to secularism in Iran, and this reality is still neglected by the Iranian opposition. Unfortunately most Iranian opposition groups still do not see the conflict of interest, a member of Shi'a clergy has a position in the hierarchy of Shi'a religion, collecting khoms and zakAt, while holding a civil or state office.

I wrote a detailed article about secularism and explained why the Shi'a clergy, as long as holding a position in the Shi'a organization receiving Khoms, Zakat, or religious estates like Mashhad's Asatane Ghodse Razavi, should be kept out of the civil or state offices of all three branches of the government in future Iran, and I consider this to be a key issue for any future constitution of Iran.

As I have explained in details in that paper, I do not believe that anybody should be banned from holding an office just because of being religious, or even for having been a clergy at one time. But being religious, is different from having a position in the organization of Shi'a religion in Iran. A former clergy can be looked at like a former general, when he does not have a position in Shi'a organization anymore.

A position in the organization of Shi'a religion means gaining from khoms, zakAt, religious donations, and the religious endowed properties such as AstAne Ghodse Razavi of Mashhad, which are important sources of income for the Shi'a hierarchy, and the state should tax those incomes of the Shi'a organization.

And the authorities in the religious organization who gain from these revenues, as long as they are holding positions and benefiting from these sources, should not be allowed to hold any state office in judicial, legislative, or executive branches of the government.

***

Let's now look at the rule of law under an Islamic Republic, which IRI reformists have been proposing as the so-called Islamic Democracy. Khatami and his supporters created an illusion that democracy is just the rule of law, which I have responded to before, in great details, in Democracy is Not People's Rule, It is People's Judgment.

I showed that when the institutions of judgment by the people are absent or destroyed, like the case of wiping out of Weimar Republic by Hitler, then the rule of law will not be tantamount to democracy, and it is an illusion to view such rule of law as equivalent to democracy.

Thus leaving the main social and political institutions of the society in the hands of the Shi'a clergy, any rule of law will not mean democracy, because the institutions of judgment of people are obstructed.

Many of the monarchists blame Shah's fall on the U.S. or the British. The reality is that the US supported the inevitable, when the time came in 1979, because the clergy were the only ones who had the organization to rule Iran at the time, thanks to Shah's eradication of secular democratic movement for over 30 years prior to the revolution.

As far as the U.S., even after the Sept 11th, it still made deals with the clergy in two opposite ways, depending on US interests at any given time, and also depending on the international circumstances.

On one hand, the U.S. not only in its fight with the Soviet Union in the past, but even still today, appeases the Islamists when it sees it fit, like it did in Afghanistan, by supporting a new state with an Islamic tag, long before Afghanistan's Loya Jirga was convened.

On the other hand, U.S. has distanced itself from the fundamentalist terrorist forces in the Middle East, and these forces are more and more using terrorism to put pressure on the U.S., as their way of attacking the progressive forces and the Western interests.

Therefore one should see how the real social and political development is unfolding in the Middle East, rather than trying to explain these events by the policy of the U.S. Both the Islamists in the Middle East, and ultranationalist forces in the West, want to block the post-industrial development worldwide.

Even the Sept 11th tragedy and the rise of Islamism in the Middle East, should not be viewed separate from the reality of the response of pre-industrial retrogressive forces to the crisis of industrial society. Again this means the absence of growth of institutions of judgment by the people and leaving the arena to the Shi'a clergy .

***

The issue of clergy is not even resolved by the Shi'a semi-protestant intellectuals asking for the end of religious need for clergy. Not all critics of the Shi'a hierarchy are necessarily secular or democratic. It is true that semi-protestant Shi'a opposition wants to limit the Shi'a clergy's presence in the state, but this does not mean secularism and Islamic Democracy is *not* pluralism.

For example, a radical Islamic group, mojAhedine khalgh that has been slaughtered by Islamic Republic of Iran, is more like Munzer of the time of Luther, and they share most of the Islamic dogma with the rest of Shi'a Islamists. Or Aghajari. who recently received a death sentence in Iran, was very similar to Luther of 15th Century Europe, and his words echoed Luther's questioning the need for Catholic clergy, as the intermediary of people and God, when calling for direct contact of the individuals with God, which basically would end up in equating the clergy with the layman. But at the same time, Aghajari defended Ayatollah Khomeini's death fatwa (edict) for Salman Rushdie.

Luther, just like Aghajari, was a dogmatic religious man himself, who attacked Copernicus, science, and rationalism even more than his Catholic counterparts. I would have felt not much different to live under the rule of radical Munzer, or the fanatic Luther, than the Pope himself. When Luther heard of Copernicus’s Heliocentric Theory, he strongly opposed the Copernican Theory, on biblical basis, and in contrast to the Catholic Church, he was *always* against any rational discussions of religion, and demanded the acceptance of Christianity solely on the basis of faith, and not on the basis of rational thought.

What caused the huge Protestant movement was not Munzer or Luther being less dogmatic or them contradicting religion. It was rather their putting a question mark on any need for the clergy, which gained them the wrath of the Catholic Church. And all these discussions about religious beliefs, using reason to see who is right and who is wrong, *despite* the opposition of protestants to allow reason to decide on issues of religion, opened the way for logical discourse, in a closed society, that was based on conception of indisputable religious truth, and thus helped the development of civil society in Europe.

It is interesting that the Catholic scholastics did the rational discussions on religious issues more than the protestants and they impacted later development of rationalism in Europe a lot more than their Protestant counterparts. Jesuits who played a major role in development of rationalist discourse in Western philosophy were Catholic and not Protestants.

Today, we are witnessing something very similar in Iran with the rise of secular and scientific thinking on one hand, and Shi'a semi-Protestant reformation on the other, both challenging the necessity of the clergy, although the ones like Aghajari, are even more of a religious zealot than their counterpart. Even Shariati who was a precursor of the likes of Aghajari, and is still revered by Iranian intellectuals, was not much different either.

When it comes to these Islamic Protestants' approach towards liberalism, science, and rational thought, their views are as closed-minded and fanatic, as the Shi'a clergy which they oppose. It is not even clear if the so-called "reformists" would support the exclusion of Shi'a clergy from the judicial system, which will be the key issue in the post-IRI state in Iran.

To sum up, the solution to the presence of Shi'a clergy in Iran is not thru any semi-Protestant Shi'a alternative of the kind of mojAhdein or Aghajari and only full secularism is the way to ensure that Iran's progress will not be hampered by the Shi'a clergy again. A hindrance which was true, not just under the Islamic Republic, but was true during mashrootiat and the Pahlavi era as well.

References Chapter 5

06. Kurdistan, Federalism and Iranian National Sentiments

The topic of federalism may seem not to be much of an issue in a country like the U.S. but viewing the world as a huge federation has come up again and again in science fiction, as a possible global structure of future politics.

Some people think of bureaucracy of federal institutions in the U.S. as a reason to think of federalism, as a factor hampering post-industrial development, rather than acknowledging the significant role federalism has played, in creating the necessary checks and balances in the U.S.

In fact, dropping federalism in favor of centralism, because of issues of bureaucracy, is a grave error. The bureaucracy is the problem that needs to be fixed, and not the checks and balances. The inertia of state institutions is worse in centralized capitalist countries, in contrast to the federal states, although not as bad as the socialist countries.

To eradicate bureaucracy, post-industrial information efficiency and technologies is needed, to streamline the obsolete government procedures, that are the cause of bureaucracy and not the federal redundancies that ensure checks and balances, and do not have to be bureaucratic.

The issue of federalism is of paramount importance to the Futurist Iran. This is why I wrote a detailed paper about the history of development of central government in Iran and the role of Kurdistan. Kurdistan highlights the need for federalism better than any other area of Iran.

Although my paper on Kurdistan, reviews Iran's history, it was not written as a history text, and I wrote it to show why federalism is the only way to avoid a breakup like Yugoslavia, in Iran, and to spearhead Iran, to participate in the global development as a federation. Federalism could have saved Yugoslavia from getting torn apart, following its liberation.

We are not living in the 1940's, and the main fear from centralist states, is not that they can rule for decades after decades. On the contrary, the main fear from centralist states, is that they cause breakup of the regions they rule, by pushing people to the edge to choose secession. We are not in a world that national minorities would put up with dictatorship.

We are living in a world that minorities actually do *separate* their ways, and can easily enter a direct relation with the global economy without a need to go true a bigger nation state, and calling national minorities as "separatist", or similar remarks, only makes them more determined to secede, rather than scaring them away from proclaiming their rights.

For example, if Kurdistan of Iraq, which has oil, creates an independent state, and if Iranian regime remains a dictatorship like the Islamic Republic of Iran, I have no doubt that Iranian Kurds will feel attracted to the new Kurdish state, although historically, Iranian Kurdistan has developed as part of Iran, and not as part of other four sections of the Ottoman Kurdistan and Iranian Kurds share the market of Iran with the other citizens of Iran, and Kurdistan of Iran is *not* like Khuzestan that has oil.

In other words, even though it will *not* be to the advantage of Iranian Kurdistan to join a state of Greater Kurdistan, but dictatorship of the Iranian centralized state can force the Kurdish people to choose separation.

I should note that even Iranian Persian Empire's Satraps were more like a federalist system, than like a centralist state of France, and many of the authors, monarchist, leftist, and nationalist who still cannot come to terms with federalism, misunderstand Iran's history, and are not helping Iran's future. I have noted this in my papers on federalism.

***

I have reviewed the astute works of Madison on this topic, which are excellent studies on the subject matter. The protection in Madison’s federalist papers is mainly against monarchy (British Monarchy). This is why he is so specific about nobility and even sees this criteria as the measure to call his respective system a republic.

There is no attempt by Madison to prove legitimacy for a federal system. The Confederacy is the reality, and the attempt is to show that this federalism is not *absolute*, and that it is also a *national* government. Thus the focus of Madison's paper is on how to implement the federal and state governments in a way to ensure the cohesiveness of the national government.

The issue that Madison is dealing with is the *implementation* of federal organs and state organs, and showing them *both* as necessary institutions, and rebuts claims that these organs of checks and balances are not needed because of being redundant, and he tries to show their existence as a guarantee against tyranny. For him the issue is implementation and not legitimacy, as federation is how the Union is, when it is formed, a conglomeration of separate states.

Now in our case for Iran, the legitimacy of a federal system is not a given. In other words, except for Kurdistan, we are not seeing separate states coming forward with their own aspirations for statehood, at least not at this time. This is why I have tried to substantiate Why Federalism for Kurdistan and Rest of Iran, from a theoretical standpoint.

Basically from the pre-Islamic shAhanshAhi system, which meant satraps each ruled by a king and all kings ruled by king of the kings (shah of the shahs), to the post-Islamic continuation of satraps in new forms, even thru the changes of Moghols era, we see a semi-federal development in Iran.

Even though in Iran, we never had such acceptance of legitimacy of federalism established, and although after mashrootia't, in Iran's 1906 Constitution, the French centralized model was adopted, I think a study like that of Madison's work on *implementation* issues, can still be done about Iran. From the first day of majles-e shorAy-e melli of mashrootia't to the present, the interaction of local and national organs can be reviewed.

Instead of looking at the states, one can review the anjomanhAy-e iiyAlati and velAyati, which were more of a French version of distribution of power in a central state (like the mayor elections in Europe), than federalism as one sees in the U.S. However, I think such review of distributed power in Iran, can help us to come up with constitutional guidelines for federalist local and national organs in Iran.

The work of Madison is a legal work about the structures of checks and balances. We need Iranian lawyers to do this kind of work about implementation issues of federalism in Iran. Unfortunately I have not seen any work of this kind in the Iranian political circles.

I think mostly, even those who claim to be OK with federalism, are content with electoral structures of France for Iran, which is a democratic election system in a centralized government, and is *not* a real federal system. In my opinion, theoretically two areas need to be tackled, with reference to the issue of federalism in Iran:

1. To continue to argue for federalism in the Iranian political circles, and groups, similar to what I have done in my papers noted above, and to add similar studies about various provinces of Iran, and not just provinces like Azerbaijan and Baluchestan, meaning specific studies of provinces like Khorasan, Mazandaran, Gilan, Khoozestan, Hormozgan, and others.

2. To do serious study of legal codes of Iran's past constitutions, and other civil laws, and implementation details of laws, as relates to the branches of government, and their interaction at local, city, provincial, and national levels.

I may differ with many people on details of Iranian history, which is fine. Even centuries after the French Revolution, the French historians and politicians hardly agree on detailed analysis of the French Revolution. But being able to come to terms with calling for a federal state for future Iran, is not an argument about history, and it is a practical issue.

Missing to stress on the important issue of federalism, in any political platform for future Iran, can cause what its opponents fear most, and that is the breakup of Iran, like what happened in Yugoslavia. It is important to create the consensus on federalism among Iranian political thinkers, before it is too late, to avoid the fate of Yugoslavia, in many parts of Iran that are populated by the Iranian national minorities.

***

The issue of Kurds and federalism is one of those issues that touches on the region, and IRI wants to broadcast a view that non-Kurd Iranian political groups do not want federalism, and tries to depict the proponents of federalism as separatists, whereas the majority of Iranian opposition today is beginning to side with federalism, and the Fars ultranationalists are a very small minority.

As I have explained on numerous times, those acting as nationalists calling the federalist programs as separatist, are more Islamic Republic proponents rather than being Iranian nationalists, and their fear is that accepting federalism, would open the way for asking for more democratic rights for the whole of Iran by all Iranians.

It is IRI misusing ultranationalist facade, just as they did during the Iraq War, to justify the IRI despotism. Ultranationalist slogans are a preposterous flag for Islamists, when they have had no respect for national demands of all Iranians all these years, and when they have been pushing Islamism on Iran trying to eliminate even Norouz from Iran, a New Year celebration that Kurds celebrate, as much as any other part Iranians, if not more.

Recently in Iran, the Islamic Republic agents issued a fake communiqué, against the rights of Iranian nationalities in education, forging the signature of Jebhe Melli leaders . The forged document has been condemned by Jebhe Melli leadership inside Iran. Thus it is important to know how IRI is trying to attack the Kurdish movement with such despicable ultra-nationalist fabrications.

As I have explained in the chapter on globalization, nationalism in this day and age, is as obsolete as Communism. Of course this does not mean that national sentiments will die away or are undesired. As I have explained in a paper on Iranian National Sentiments, national sentiments will continue to exist the same way that love of family has continued to exists although the political power of family and tribe has faded in human civilization. National sentiment is not the same as nationalism, which is a phenomena of Modern Times symbolized by the Napoleonic Wars.

The reality is that the slaughter of leftists by IRI in 1981 and 1988, and the murder of leftists by the Shah's regime, were because the left had been the most ardent part of the opposition to monarchy in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and to IRI in 80's and 90's. This is why they killed even the activists who only had one year jail terms, and were inside the IRI prisons in 1988, by Khomeini's decree.

IRI despondently accepted the peace with Saddam, on Saddam's terms. Khomeini committed a mass murder of the leftists and others in September 1988 to ensure to keep the society silent after signing the peace accord. And IRI did not stop at killing the leftists, and even slaughtered Foruhars and others later, people who were never leftists.

Let me note that my own disagreement with the left is not because of their struggle against IRI and Shah's despotism. In fact, in that regard, I support them fully, and I think they have given the most number of sacrifices in Iran's movement for democracy, both during the Shah and during IRI, and this is why the intelligence agents of Shah and IRI have the most hatred for the leftists.

My disagreement with the left is because I think their program is obsolete at the time of post-industrial development and globalization. I have written my views about the left in the past, in details and do not need to repeat. Nonetheless I should note that one of the main forces in Iranian pro-democracy movement that has worked hard for federalism has been Komala, which I explained in Komala and Kurdistan.

References Chapter 6

P.S. For more explanation of state rights, please see Does Federalism Allow States To Deny Human Rights.

07. State Economy as the Foundation of Despotism

After the experience of all the communist countries, some people still do not want to take a clear stand on the issue of state ownership as the main form of the country's ownership. Dominant role of state ownership, makes the state in the undeveloped countries, to be the main owner of the country, and it becomes the economic foundation of the dictatorship. Therefore the need to clearly pronounce the opposition to any attempt to make state ownership the main form of ownership in the country, is a very important program topic for futurist Iran.

Is Socialism More Just? After so many examples of Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and others in the last century, it seems like nobody would deny the lack of democracy in state socialism with command economy and after seeing the luxury of the state elite in all those countries, nobody denies that none of them were examples of social justice and egalitarianism either.

Nonetheless, the Left still insists that socialism is an ideal which is more *just* than a property-owning democracy, and therefore they keep advocating the leftist platform, with the hope of creating the ideal liberal democratic socialism, instead of developing the property-owning democracy and working on how to get social justice designed into the latter. They think still socialism is the quick road to social justice thru eradicating the property-owning democracies of the West, albeit this time by replacing them with a liberal democratic socialism.

The forces advocating this new left agenda in the West, have no real impact on the economics and politics of the Western countries, except for mostly siding with the old economy in most of these countries, and not the new post-industrial economy, and are active against globalization, nonetheless they are not anything of significance outside of some university departments in the West, and this is why nobody really spends the time to write critique about them. But new left has quite an attraction for the intellectuals in countries like Iran. Why?

***

The intellectuals in countries like Iran see the socialist solution to be a panacea, a shortcut, which is a lot easier to implement, to arrive at a just system, than trying to build justice into a property-owning democracy. Because for the latter, one would first need to create a property-owning democracy in Iran, which is a formidable task by itself, and then one would need to break up some of the state-owned enterprises, create progressive taxation, institute anti-trust laws, establish nongovernmental social welfare, as I have noted in A Futurist Viewpoint, and many other basic changes in the economy and social structure need to take shape (http://www.ghandchi.com/329-NMF.htm), to be able to build justice into such a property-owning democracy, and cannot be achieved by simply issuing a command after taking power.

We are talking about a country that people have hardly paid any taxes and the state has always been the biggest owner and has owned the oil industry which is 90% of all the revenue -generating capital that the country owns and the state has been paying the citizens and not the taxpayers paying the state. So it is a pretty tough undertaking, to plan a property-owning democracy for Iran, and wanting to build-in justice into that system. Whereas in the eyes of the leftist intellectuals, there is a shortcut of socialism where one can just make the ownership of the means of production to be public, and social justice to follow. Easy and quick panacea to all the social ills in one easy shot.

Of course, the new leftists, separate *public* and *state-owned*, because they know well that the synonymy of the two in the Communist countries, meant the tyranny of the state, and they know nobody would buy repeating the experience of Soviet Union and China, and are well aware that such a program is a total failure for both freedom and justice. So they call for a liberal democratic socialism.

The scenario they depict is very enticing even to those who have already witnessed the failure of the Soviet Path, Chinese Path, Cuban Path, Albanian Path, North Korean Path, Vietnamese Path, and all other paths of Communism. Even some of those who have seen the stagnation of the path of Socialism of the Second International in Sweden, Austria, and many other West European countries, may think the new left plan may not end in the same stagnation, because at times, it talks of strong force of market (although contradicting itself). Why is it enticing? I think Karl Popper had summed it up pretty well when he asked the same question personally from himself in his autobiography and answered it as follows:

"I remained a socialist for several years after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this is as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree." [Karl Popper, “Lessons of This Century”, 1997, P.5]

Therefore simultaneously achieving freedom and social justice, as I have discussed in Wealth and Justice in Future Iran, is very complex.

Whereas, the social justice in the model of a liberal democratic socialism is a very enticing proposition, as it claims to usher in freedom and equality at the same time, without all the headache of progressive tax systems, anti-trust efforts, welfare initiatives, and continuous checks and balances, etc.

Let’s examine the different systems with regards to the issue of social justice and see where the liberal democratic socialism will stand.

***

John Rawls in his rigorous works on justice as fairness addresses the issue of justice independent of any comprehensive systems (including the liberal system), and comes up with the following two principles to define justice, which is pretty much acceptable:

“(a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and

“(b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society .. [John Rawls, “Justice as Fairness”, 2001, P. 42]”

The above pretty much summarizes the meaning of justice in two complimentary ways:

1- On the one hand it means guarantee of all the basic liberties that people should be *equal* in having, and one finds them spelled out in documents such as the U.S. Bill of Rights.

2- On the other hand it means *equal* opportunity to compete for a position in the state or a job where people are *unequal* in having, as fought for in all the civil code, etc. And the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society which is what Rawls has always emphasized on moving the social minimum to the highest point thru equal opportunity (and welfare in systems that accept it).

It is interesting that Rawls mentions the ideas of Marx and Marxists in this regard, that property-owning democracy creates forces that block the above ideals of rights and equal opportunity, and in response, he Rawls notes that real liberalism cannot be compared with ideal socialism, and vice versa. But real liberalism should be compared to real socialism which is way worse than real liberalism in realizing both principles of justice. Then he continues his discussion of the five ideal systems.

Keeping these two criteria in mind, we can easily see which systems are better foundations for achieving social justice in our times. Actually John Rawls himself enumerates five kinds of regimes viewed as social systems, complete with their political, economic, and social institutions, which pretty much sums up all systems that one can find in the world today and in the following paragraph, he lists them and sums up the main questions that can help one to evaluate them:

"(a) laissez-faire capitalism; (b) welfare-state capitalism; (c) state socialism with a command economy; (d) property-owning democracy; and finally, (e) liberal ( democratic) socialism. Regarding any regime four questions naturally arise. One is the question of right: that is, whether its institutions are right and just. Another is the question of design: that is, whether a regime's institutions can. be effectively designed to realize its declared aims and objectives. This implies a third question whether citizens, in view of their likely interests and ends, as shaped by the regime's basic structure, can be relied on to comply with just institutions and the rules that apply to them in their various offices and positions. The problem of corruption is an aspect of this. Finally, there is the question of competence: whether the tasks assigned to offices and positions would prove simply too difficult for those likely to hold." [John Rawls, Ibid, P.136]

Rawls does not focus on the last questions, which most of the conservative thought focuses on, when refuting the inefficiencies of the welfare state. Not that the issues of corruption and their relation to the design of the state, and the conflicts of interests of the citizens as functionaries and customers of the state, and the issue of competence needed to handle such functions, are unimportant in his eyes. But the focus of Rawls is on whether the structure, as an ideal case, is just.

I need to note that for countries like Iran, the issue of design of the state, and corruption, are very important topics to study, and even having a true democracy in Iran, although it brings the corruption more to the open, but it will not make the problem go away. If the design of the system requires state employees, who can hardly make a minimum wage, but at the same time gives them the authority in a state office to make decisions that can have the value of millions of dollars, corruption is built into such a system. Also if the design requires certain skills, but the system is unable to pay for such skills, there will be high inefficiencies in the state apparatus, which again will cause corruption. I will not discuss this further here and suffice it to say that this is an issue that hopefully I will address in a separate paper, in the future, when the time allows. For example a system may allow the equal opportunity, but may create the environment to make the realization of it impossible. In this treatise, the assumption is that all these systems work as the ideal they are supposed to be, so let’s continue our discussion of the topic.

Returning to the topic, John Rawls notes that out of the five systems noted above, the first three do not meet the requirements of the principles of justice.

“Laissez-faire capitalism (the system of natural liberty) secures only formal equality and rejects both the fair value of the equal political liberties and fair equality of opportunity. It aims for economic efficiency and growth constrained only by a rather low social minimum. Welfare-state capitalism also rejects fair value of political liberties and has large inequality in property ownership, for example most of the productive assets and natural resources are owned by the state. And state socialism with a command economy supervised by a one-party regime violates the equal basic rights and liberties, not to mention the fair value of these liberties. A command economy is one that is guided by a general economic plan adopted from the center and makes relatively little use of democratic procedures or of markets (except as rationing devices).” [John Rawls, Ibid, P.137]

Thus we are left with property-owning democracy and liberal socialism. Rawls continues that

“both a property-owning democracy and a liberal socialist regime set up a constitutional framework for democratic politics, guarantee the basic liberties with the fair value of the political liberties and fair equality of opportunity… While under socialism the means of production are owned by society, we suppose that, in the same way that political power is shared among a number of democratic parties, economic power is dispersed among firms, as when, for example, a firm's direction and management is elected by, if not directly in the hands of, its own workforce. In contrast with a state socialist command economy, firms under liberal socialism carry on their activities within a system of free and workably competitive markets. Free choice of occupation is also assured.” [John Rawls, Ibid, P.138]

Rawls notes that the right to property which is included in the first principle of justice does not mean private property in productive assets and thus he does not refute liberal socialism on that ground.

He notes that “background institutions of property-owning democracy work to disperse the ownership of wealth and capital, and thus to prevent a small part of society from controlling the economy, and indirectly, political life as well”. This is a very important point.

Regardless of how democratic liberal socialism to be, it will end up with small part of society to control the economy as had been seen by the elites in the socialist countries. Because they are the ones who will represent the productive assets and lack of ownership in the means of production means that such small elites *are* the owners. In contrast, the property-owning democracy avoids this, by ensuring the widespread ownership of productive assets and human capital, and this is why equal opportunity as well as political liberties are supported to make the system fair.

***

Nevertheless, let me emphasize that showing property-owning democracy to be superior to liberal socialism, for democracy and justice, does not mean that the current capitalist societies are the best that post-industrial society can achieve.

In fact, to maximize the minimum of the basic needs in society that John Rawls emphasizes in his book “Theory of Justice” in 1971, and his venture into enlightened self-interest are beyond the current Western societies. He always notes that for fairness, the "greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society" is to be guaranteed. In other words supporting the first principle, meaning political liberties, and ensuring to maximize the social minimum, does not mean to stop the motivation for activity, which is killed in the socialist societies of even the Swedish type, because is is achieved here, thru the second principle of justice, i.e. equal opportunity, and not by charity.

In conclusion, let me note again that showing that socialism is less just than the property-owning democracies, in meeting both principles of justice, does not mean to stay at the level that Western democracies are today. It means to understand that going for socialism is *not* going beyond these systems, and those who believe socialism is taking them beyond these systems, are dreaming of an old solution for a new problem.

To go beyond the existing democracies, one should look into advancements of property-owning democracies, in light if the post-industrial developments, whether in the area of Democracy or Social Justice.

References Chapter 7

08. Pre-Industrial Attack on Globalization

Before examining the pre-industrial attack of Islamists on globalization, let me first examine the taboo of relations with the West and the so-called anti-imperialist stands. Afterwards I will be reviewing the Islamists' attack on the West, and finally I will focus on the attack of pre-industrial forces on globalization.

A. Taboo of the West

The taboo of relations with the West is a big disadvantage for the Iranian independent democratic forces, and these forces may end up to become a pawn in another game like the hostage-taking.

Hostage-taking was staged by the pre-industrial forces of Islamism in Iran, to legitimize their retrogression, under the banner of fighting foreign interference, and IRI has been using the theme of so-called independence and anti-Americanism for decades to rally the democratic forces for its own retrogressive goals.

Examining the history of relations with the West will be very useful to give us a perspective when looking at today's attack of pre-industrial forces on globalization.

I believe the approach of us Iranians, when dealing with Western powers, has been flawed for over a century. All our progressive historians and politicians, have written only about the interferences and mischief of the Western powers in Iran, and have portrayed the self-pity as the independent stand, and have not reviewed whether the approach of Iranian progressive forces, in dealing with the West, has been flawed or not.

It seems like our progressive personalities, and political organizations, had viewed all relationships with the West, to end up like that of vosoogh-ed-doleh, and they always avoided any relationship with the West, especially when not in power.

When in power, some like Mossadegh, had to deal with the West, and were not well-established in their rapport, not only with the West, but even with the Soviet Union, whereas their reactionary counterparts, like Qavam-ol-saltaneh, had established a thorough rapport, not only with the West, but even with the Soviets.

I think the mistake has been that our progressive politicians had considered all relationships with the foreign powers to be that of a puppet and a master, which was mostly true about Shah's relationship with the U.S. and hezb-e tudeh's relationship with the USSR. Also our progressive politicians had thought of relations with the West, as if it had to mean a secret deal with the Western governments, whether involving territorial promises, or not, like that of vosoogh-ed-doleh in the long past.

The above are not the only possible types of relations with the West, and in fact these are the master-slave relations, that are mostly formed in secret, behind the closed doors. A proper relationship does not have to be like this.

A representative of an Iranian political or human rights organization can *openly* contact a Western government or a Western political party, such as the U.S. Democratic Party, to discuss issues of mutual interest, and there is nothing wrong with this. An Iranian political or human rights organization does not have to be in power to create such international relations, and does not have to speak for *all* Iranians before creating such relations.

Of course, such relations do not mean that such organizations are representing all Iranians, and it simply means that they are representing their constituencies, and as such are discussing issues of mutual interest of their constituencies, with the spokesperson of the constituency of their counterpart. This is something that political, cultural, and human rights organizations in the Western countries have been doing between themselves, for over a century, and their relationships are not limited to the relations of heads of states or political parties that are in power.

I think the critical point in all these rethinking of relations with the West should be *full openness* about any such contacts, and making sure that the constituencies are well-aware of all discussions, especially when such contacts are with governments, or offices related to various states.

Unfortunately, not only the hostage-taking, and death threats against Salman Rushdie by the Islamic Republic of Iran, isolated Iran and Iranians from the West, but the Iranian political and human rights organizations have also fallen in trap of isolating themselves from the West, by being scared to be called pro-US, etc, avoiding to contact various governmental, political, and human rights organizations in the West, regarding issues of mutual interest. The only organizations they contacted were the U.N. or international human rights bodies. I think this is not enough.

In a way, Iranian progressive forces self-censored themselves, even when they were living in the free atmosphere of the West for 20 years. This taboo only has hurt what they could otherwise achieve, and has further kept the Iranian progressive forces isolated from the world.

I think it is now time that all progressive forces of Iran to establish *open* and *direct* contacts with as many political, cultural, human rights, media, and governmental organizations in the West and elsewhere, to communicate their stands on Iranian issues to the rest of the world.

Staying away from *openly* discussing issues of mutual interest with political entities in the world, only helps the ones who are making secret deals with the worst enemies of Iran, behind the closed doors, to succeed. The same ones, whom at the same time, have their veins inflated giving anti-imperialist slogans, are issuing death sentence to kill pro-democracy students.

It is time that we get rid of all these nonsense taboo that we have believed as "anti-imperialism", which has only helped the enemies of Iran to speak to the world, as the sole representatives of Iranians all over the world. Below let's see how pre-industrial forces approach the West before focusing on their approach on globalization.

B. "Death to America" Slogan

Ever since the establishment of Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the IRI leaders have been repeating the atrocious “Death to America” slogan in any occasion they could find. Every week, at the main Islamic Friday Prayer of Iran, convened at the campus of Tehran University, Islamic Republic’s highest authorities agitate their audience to repeat this dreadful slogan over and over again, at every pause, before each section of their prayers, and at the end of their Friday religious sermons.

For some time I wondered why this slogan is so central to the perspective of Islamic fanaticism, until I saw the heinous terrorist crime of Sept 11th, which was premeditated and was clearly the killing of innocent Americans. Although Islamic Republic of Iran has always tried to say they mean government of the U.S. in their slogans, and although they have condemned the Sept 11, 2001 tragedy in the U.S., but their attitude, which is crystallized in this slogan, shows this kind of tragedy is the logical result of the attitude and perspective which they propagate. Let’s look at similar cases in recent history of the world of the ones who thought of their mission to be destroying America.

In the recent history, Communism was equally after the destruction of capitalism and its spearhead, the United States. Karl Popper in his “Lessons of this Century”, published in 1997, has a good expose of this topic. Popper notes that Marx’s Capital’s main argument was that “capitalism cannot be reformed, but can only be destroyed; if one wishes to have a better society, it must be destroyed” [P.19]. Regardless of all the reforms in capitalism, this tenet of Marxism, remained part of the ideology of leaders of Soviet Union, till the end of Soviet Empire. Popper notes that the Cuban Crisis of 1962 and Soviet’s possession of the H-bomb was the “first time Soviet Union had ever the possibility of destroying the United States” [P.23]

But the Soviets backed down in the 1962 Cuban crisis and Popper notes that “the Soviet Union lost the Cold War at that point, when there was an attempt to destroy America. That was when the only remaining idea of the Marxist regime failed; it was the beginning of the decline that led to the general collapse”. [P.23] “But after 1962, they went on producing bombs, all the time knowing that they couldn’t use them. That was the absolute intellectual zero point”.[P.28]

As for the Islamists, we have still not been in a situation like the 1962, when the IRI or any other Islamist force, to have the capability to destroy the Western world, and thus the answer to the question as to whether the Islamist retrogressive force will act like Khrushchev, retreating, or will destroy the world, is not known.

It is interesting to observe that this whole concept of depicting the West as an evil, and the perspective to destroy the West, became an integral part of the Soviet brainwash of its population. Gorbachev noted this phenomena when he saw the need to make the Soviet people *normal*. Here is what Popper asserts about this last episode of collapse of Soviet Communism:

“Only with Gorbachev do we find a man who realizes that he has to change the fundamental assumption of the whole of Russian politics, that they are the people whose mission it is to destroy capitalism- that is, America. Gorbachev has actually been several times to America and seen the reality there; he wants to show his understanding of a free people which is not aggressive towards Russia but hopes that Russia will come to her senses. And Gorbachev made an important statement when he said ‘I want to make the people of the Soviet Union a normal people’ …You see, Gorbachev’s merit was to have understood that his people was not ‘normal’ whereas the American people was. The attitude is really quite different in America; they do not all the time have this horrible game in their mind.”