The regime that came into existence following the February revolution in Iran, brought with it some measure of political freedom that, when compared with the previous regime, provided less tension amongst the races, nationalities and various religious centers. But with the Islamic leaders who were aiming at the control of leadership, a system was created in which a new form of slavery and slave-taking was established. Apart from the external war, Iran has since paid with tens of thousands of lives purely for its internal differences and for the internal destruction of class, political and economical ways of thinking. This is a feature of an ugly scene, left over from the disastrous Islamic codetta. The author considers such dramatic changes of the Islamic party as a codetta, because no codes have anything in common with the views of the Islamic leaders. An Islamic researcher, in his work “Preface to political economy” writes: “In short, the general conclusion which later formed the basis of my research work was as follows: In social productions, people are forced into a process of relations which does not correspond with their needs and wishes. These relations result from production relations that, at various stages of development, correspond with the material production forces of society. The sum total of these production relations forms the basis and the structure of the economical strength of the society upon which the legal and political positions are fixed… also at some stage of their developments, the production forces come into contradiction with the existing production relations that define the type of ownership. These relations that at times, were considered for the improvement of the production forces, are now turn into a defensive mechanism acting against the development itself.” Social revolutions arrive as a reflection of such conditions. Here, we aim to deal with a major problem, which is that production relations are determined from a special stage of the development of the forces of social productions. When we come to terms with and accept such principles, it is then easy to understand that the new stages of a capitalist revolution indeed mark the beginning of its development. At the start of a capitalist revolution, the existing production relations are naturally of such a nature that help the overall social production forces. Therefore, the new relations result alongside the new production forces; perhaps from the very start they would generate some form of contradictions, but instead of impeding production, they help it to develop further. The situation remains very clear in that the material production forces of a society that has demolished its old-style relationships enter into a new form of relations for their future development. At the start, these relations generate some form of contradictions with the new production forces, but afterwards, and for a long period, they tend to assist the process of the development of the production forces. So far, it has not been seen in history that new production relations have resulted in an impediment to the development of production forces. However, it is the old social relations that, at some stage in their development, cause the newly formed production forces to halt their progress. The new production relations are always the means of progress, not of its failure. In Iran’s previous regime, the outdated feudal relations were blocking the path of development to the new production forces. This relationship was abolished in the February revolution of 1978, and new relationships that were demanded by the new form of production relations replaced the previous ones and created a new social system that was described by the Islamic leaders as the most liberated form of social relations in which the law was performed at its best and, above all, was trusted by the nation. In this way, it is easily understood that the existing relations of Pahlavi’s era were not only blocking the path of progress to new production forces but were also effectively performing as a boosting factor. Now the question is: If the new production relations do not present themselves at any time as a stopping force to the new social production forces within society, then what need is there for a “social revolution”? After February 1978, when at the time in Iran, the conditions of relations between production relations and those of the existing production forces were coordinated at best, which conditions of revolution were necessary? Is revolution and leadership an aim or is it a means?
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:37:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015