To sustain present production relations, the Islamic leaders beg from the very same capitalist states that they have called by names such as “backward,” “parasite,” “rotten” and “nearly dead,” and in order to save themselves and/or to prolong the length of their power in leadership and government, they try their hardest either by acquiring loans or by obtaining technological help from the USA, Germany, Italy, France, Japan and other industrial countries, or by inviting investment from these countries into their Islamic countries, so that their production relations are strengthened. The question is: How could an outdated and ill-structured relationship be of any help to Islamic production forces and ultimately save them from collapse? Is this not a double standard? When we review past events, we will discover that there exists a huge gap between subjectivism and the objective world. A similar gap is evident between authentic Islamic thinking and the current “Mohammedan Islam.” Islamic leaders consider themselves the protectors of freedom, democracy and social justice. They are of the opinion that “the most complete universal democracy is embedded within their own version of the socialist revolution.” The leader of the Islamic party was adamant that, “through the process of evolution, the working classes would replace the old-style, class-based society with a new one such that all the existing contradictions would be eliminated.” But this did not happen. The classes did not disintegrate, but instead a new set of classes replaced the old. After the revolution in Iran, not only did democracy not materialize, but a system of government came to power that had never before in history had such a notorious character and anti-human measures. Khomeini, who considered himself to represent the guardians of Mohammedan Islam, imposed, in a part of the world, an astonishingly ridiculous system that had no commonality with its predecessors. In a speech with regard to historical philosophy, F. Hegel, a well-known German philosopher, once said: “All events and all great historical personalities appear twice.” What Hegel forgot to add into his speech was that, on the first occasion, the appearance is in the form of disaster, and on the second, it is a comedy! If correct, does this rule and view apply equally to Khomeini and his successors?
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:41:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015