Salam/Greetings,
After I published the translation of Banisadr’s
introduction into his book, The Economy of Tawhid, One of the leftist elite (I
have a suspicion that I know the person. ) Wrote a comment, calling Banisadr
and his economical policies as populist.
I engaged him in a dialogue and as you can see when he ran out of
argument instead of using the opportunity as an occasion for reflection, he
resorted to totally non-related, worn out lies against Banisadr(ie: He attacked
Kurdistan, attacked the universities, ...etc.)
I thought the share the
exchange here and leave the judgement to you.
بعد از ترجمه آخرین مقدمه بنی صدر به کتاب اقتصاد توحیدی، یکی از نخبگان چپ(
فکر می کنم ایشان را از طریق نوشته هایش بشناسم) نظرات و کارهای بنی صدر را به
انتقاد گرفت و او را پوپولیست خواند. با
ایشان وارد گفتگو شدم و وقتی ایشان دیگر دفاعی برای توجیه نظرات خود نداشت، به جای
استفاده از موقعیت برای نقادانه فکر کردن، به صحرای کربلا زد و به دروغهای نخ نما
شده ای که بیش از سی سال است در مورد بنی
صدر برای ترور شخصیت تکرار شده است ( مانند حمله به دانشگاهها و حمله به کردستان و
اینکه موی زن اشعه دارد و...و) و اینگونه معلوم کرد که پشت مخالفتهای ظاهرا
آکادمیک، انگیزه ای سخت شخصی وجود دارد.
گفتم این گفتگو را در اینجا بیاورم و قضاوت را به خوانندگان واگذار کنم
متاسفانه وقت ترجمه گفتگو را ندارم.
اگر هموطنانی باشد که چنین امکانی را داشته باشند و داوطب شوند بسیار ممنون
خواهم شد
Zendanian:” All
due respect this "Tawhid" school of thought sounds very much just
like a continuation of "the best" of Iranian populism, desperately
trying to come up with an "alternative" to both West and East, while
dismissing the dynamic aspects of both.
There are still many aspects of a both Market driven economies, and Planned
economies that could be utilized in a developing country like Iran.
To make a long story short a healthy economy would be an amalgamation of:
Private (market), Public (state owned & planned) and Cooperative (members
based and participatory) segments, with a dominant part going to Cooperative
segment, which is participatory, and neither fully private or public, in the
bureaucratic sense, but based on members' planning, execution, inspection and
auditing.
For an English equivalent to the term "Omraan," why can't we just use
the term "development?" Of course in the context of environmental
development, any terminology would need more qualifications and nuance.
For "feker jami-ye jabaar," how about "authoritarian school of
thought"?
Last but not least, about the same time as we had our anti-monarchy revolution
in Iran, an East German dissenter named Rudolph Bahro, in 1977 published a
critique of the "actually existing socialism" titled "The
Alternative." This is a great work very much overlooked, which also
contains critiques of both market and bureaucratic economies with an eye
towards developing an organic relationship between environment and economic
development.
Rudolf Bahro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bahro
My response:” Thanks for the comment. Few points:
1. It seems that you don't know the economical policies which was conducted
within the first 30 months after revolution, which despite of war, sanctions
and chaos improved the life of the majority. Here are some information:
"To clarify this year’s average earning it should be pointed out that
until the revolution, extensive military expenditure and governmental budget
were calculated as part of families’ income. However, in the first two years
after the revolution, the military and governmental budgets were removed from
the calculation. See Enghelabe Eslami, 4-7 July 2004 [13-16 mordad 1382]. The
improvement in the standard of living can best be illustrated by the
consumption of bread, the most important item in the diet of the average
Iranian. Daily consumption had decreased from 600 grams a day to 450 since the
average Iranian could afford to consume more expensive items. The success story
of the economy could also be exemplified by looking at the reserves of the
Central Bank. The collapse of the Pahlavi regime and the flight of the Shah’s
family and his clique to the West depleted reserves of foreign currency—the
banks were left with just $46 million. However, by the time of coup against
Banisadr, despite the war and economic sanctions, the country’s reserves had
increased to nearly $16 billion."
I don't think that if you knew that you would use the phrase 'populism'. I also
suggest to read the book itself:
http://banisadr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25:2013-03-03-07-57-25&catid=9&Itemid=141
2. about feker jami-ye jabaar,", thank you for the suggestion. I thought
about using authoritarian term as well, but the meaning of Jabaar is not just
that and the role of power in it is different. This is why I preferred to use
the term:'dominant'.
3. Also development is part of 'omran' and not all of it as one can't use the
term development in all the cases which the term 'omran' can be used. For
example in regard to turn the desert green, one can't use the term development
while 'omran' could be used. This is why I found it a difficult term to
translate. If any of the readers have suggestions for the translation of the
term? I will be thankful.”
Zendanian:” The most important process which significantly
contributed to economic, political and cultural growth of Iran, after the fall
of monarchy, and was quickly and brutally repressed by the new regime,
including Mr. Bani Sadr himself was the process of workers' and community
control.
Assef Bayat's book "Workers and Iranian Revolution" is a fascinating
original field work, and detailed presentation of exactly how this process of
workers' control came into existence.
I've been familiar with Mr. Bani Sadr's writings for more than three decades.
Since his orientation is neither towards Capitalists nor Workers, but stuck in
a hazy, ill defined concept of multitude, Mostazafien,... his theories are
perfectly qualified to be categorized as Populist.
The links below also offer some of the best contemporary, advanced, unorthodox,
political-economy, in English:
http://www.urpe.org/rrpe/rrpehome.html
http://www.cseweb.org.uk/
My response:” So you still insist that Banisadr’s economic
policies, which within two years improved the lives of many Iranians, were
populist. Let the readers decide about that. Here are a few policies which he
implemented.
1. Writing off all the mortgages of people who had bought houses, so these
people became house owners
2. Asking people who did not have houses to deposit around thirty thousand
tomans in banks and get a two hundred thousand tomans (average house price at
the time) interest-free loan, with the double effect of helping people to
become home owners as well as rejuvenating the construction industry, hence
reducing unemployment (these houses later became known as ‘banisadri’ houses)
3. Increasing the minimum wage by around 300%
4. Changing the taxation system to encourage the productive sector of the
economy and discourage import of goods which could have been produced domestically
5. Decrease the export of oil while increasing the price of oil
6. Using oil revenue as an investment for agriculture and industry
7. Planning to reorganize the entire economy, hence moving it from
consumer-based toward a productive-based one. Here are some of the methods
which he implemented:
a. Providing interest-free loans for people who worked in agriculture and
industrial sectors, so encouraging the domestic productive economy and reducing
the import based economy
b. Planning to decrease the bloated bureaucracy by encouraging the surplus work
force to retrain themselves in universities (while being fully paid) in order
to work in the productive sector of the economy while providing them with the
necessary means to live
c. Drastically reducing the ‘middle man’ which had plagued the process from
production to consumption
d. Establishing an organization for invention and creativity, so people who
needed to do research and were interested in invention could receive the
necessary means and capital to work on their project
8. Planning to let factories to be run by councils of workers and providing
them with financial help before becoming self-sufficient (The Islamic Republic
prevented that from happening)
9. Re-structuring the entire governmental organization and transforming its
authoritarian structure into a democratic one, so providing the people with
autonomy in accordance with their responsibilities
And so many other policies which I don’t have time to mention them.
So let the readers decide whether these policies were populist or were policies
which, if the coup in 1981 would not have occurred, might have helped Iran
become one of the wealthiest, most free and most egalitarian countries in the
world.”
Zendanian response:” One view of history attributes all
historical progress and change to "great men" and their individual
contributions.
Another more nuanced view of history takes into accounts, not only individual
protagonist but also the social context, the movements, structures and macro
factors that shape and change history.
You view of history is obviously the first. In such a narrative all social
historical context are dismissed and forgotten in favor of highlighting the
role of "great" men.
While we're on this topic of "great" men, let us not forget that it
was the same "great" man, one and only Mr. Banisadr that:
- Kissed khomeini's hand upon being elected president.
- Was a vocal advocate of the military invasion of Kurdistan.
- Published that nonsense article about rays coming out of women's hair.
- Put his seal of approval on the infamouse " Islamic Cultural
Revolution"
Let the readers decide who he really is.”
My response:” A few
points.
My response:
Your
point about great man and historical progress is not a respond to the points
which I made. I made some factual points
and you instead of acknowledging or challenging them, resorted to ‘agency’ vs
‘structure’ argument (In the form of great man vs social progress.) which was
not related to my argument. In order to
get somewhere we need to be focussed on the topic.
Furthermore
the model of historical process you presented in order to make your point, like
your previous points, fails when tested against reality. The reality is that Banisadr was the only
theoretician of the Iranian revolution who years before had developed a
comprehensive model of a social alternative to the monarchy, which he presented
in many books(Ie: Economy of Tawhid, Cult of personality, Contradiction and
Tawhid,...etc). If you have read his
work then you knew that Tawhid is the ontological, epistemological and
methodological base for all of his theories.
Why? Partly because this is
the precondition for the exercise of this capability is the removal of all
types of censorship in self and society. All
forms of censorship (from sexual to socio-political and economic to cultural)
have to be removed so the free flow of information and knowledge can make it
possible for the capability of leadership to be
realised in each individual. Within his
discourse, politics does not aim at gaining and managing power, but
intends to achieve and expand all types of freedoms. “Rights” are not merely the result of social
contracts but are intrinsic to humans; hence, the only function of “duty” is
the attempt to exercise these rights.
Finally, it is within this discourse and by the removal of power as the
means and goal of activity that competition between individuals, genders and
societies is replaced by cooperation and mutual development. As a result, power loses the causes of its
production, consumption and re-production at both individual and societal
levels.
Furthermore
his alternative model of development and progress could only be implemented
within the context of an overarching revolution, so the society was ready for
great changes. Hence it brings the agency(great man as you said) and
structure(social progress in your words) together and mutually It reinforces them soit is a mutual
collaboration. in brief he used this
short window of opportunity, with the public consent, to implement his
theories, which proved to be deeply successful.
