Once the leadership of the Islamic of Iran had been criticized by the knowledgeable centers of the time that they (the Islamic leaders) had diverted away from their actual path, then the Islamic party in its own defense showed the example of creating a social revolution within a short space of time from that of the Pahlavi regime and claimed that all these happenings were based on Islamic theories. Some well-informed personalities were indeed asking how it could be possible that, within a space of a few months, such internal complex contradictions of society such as capitalist society could have been transferred into a newly developed condition with complete quantitative changes into new qualitative conversions? According to the acceptable theories by the Islamic leadership, the various aspects of the contradictions do not immediately after each change come to the surface. The appearance of contradictions in a society depends on the techno-economical developments or, indeed, depends on the complete development of production forces. Thus, how could such a miracle such as the complete development of production forces take place within a few months, whereas for such developments, usually many years and sometimes some centuries are required? This, again, is one of the incorrect evaluations and deep mistakes made by the Islamic leaders. State ownership of the means of production could be a specific form and also one of the various forms of ownership in a capitalist society. Islamic leaders also confirm this. The current state of ownership within the capitalist systems, according to the Islamic party’s culture, is considered “state capitalism.” State ownership of the means of production exists within many countries of the capitalist world. In the United Kingdom, which is a large capitalist country, some industries and mines are under state ownership. Therefore, state ownership of the means of production should not be considered an external relation of capitalism. Both private and state ownership of the means of production should be counted as the specific and various forms of the ownership of the capitalist systems. It was not after all a coincidence that the Islamic revolution in Iran was classified as a “codetta” by some political centers and considered as a continuation of a capitalist form of revolution in which the means of production was in the ownership of the state. In response to their critics, the Islamic leadership, who were claiming to be in the process of a “socialist revolution,” reasoned that there was no “Great Wall of China” between state capitalism and socialism. What differentiates the two systems of socialism and state capitalism is the force with which the government rules. What the Islamic leadership means is that, if Islam was to rule the government based on state ownership, it would become a socialist system, and if the capitalists were in power, then the system would become capitalist. To prove such a declaration incorrect, the Islamic leadership completely denied their philosophical stand and turned suddenly to the idealistic state of subjectivism. The Islamic leadership defined laws objectively and declared that mankind cannot create or change laws according to his wishes. Against their own theoretical standpoints, which stated that the objectivity of the laws are independent of human wishes, this time they raised man’s subjective powers to the level of determining a particular social system. In their theoretical philosophies, the Islamic leaders are of the belief that the material world, nature and existence are objective realities that exist externally and are independent of subjectivism and consciousness and, therefore, the material livelihood of society is also an objective reality and independent of human wishes. Now, we ask them, if the material livelihood of a society is an objective reality and independent of human wishes, then in this case, how could mankind rule a society by taking control of its government, which is nothing but a set of policies with which to run the society, and change completely this objective reality? Do not you yourself claim that whatever the conditions of existence and material livelihood of the society might be, the ideas, theories, political views and political organizations would be the same? Then, how could it be possible, if you believe in your own theories, that man, or in other words, his ideas, could create existence and could be responsible for the conditions of social material life? When thoughts are produced through social material conditions, the same social material conditions would produce their own specific brand of thoughts, and this therefore would subjugate one’s views, i.e., by Islamic thinking. This means that, if the socio-economical system was forced to obey state capitalism, that is, even if the leaders of that socio-economical system were not originally Islamic, it would gradually change their qualities and turn them into rich and comfortable Islamic followers and, according to the author, they would turn into a class of exploiting owners and rulers. In other words, according to the individual’s own theoretical beliefs, he would become subject to material environmental conditions.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 11:35:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015