Ari Siletz

Excellent intellectual discourse from Ari

And stimulating discussion from so many readers. I could copy, paste and comment on each, but  like usual I work in the interest of saving time. 

Of three major discourses, intellectual, revolutionary and putting up with whatever prevailing force the latter is what majority of the people choose in Iran.

The Farsi idiom Agar dowraan behnamardan bioftad,neshinam taa degar dowran biaiad.

well describes the national recipe for preserving sanity out of all impediments colonial rulers, dictatorships and the like have used to control the majority. It is interesting that this recipe even works in America that was created to get rid of British rule, the most fierce colonial force in the world.The Farsi idiom Jaaikeh Oghaab Par berizad   As pasheh laghari cheh Khizad applies here.

Therefor, at a higher level majority of the people in the world are resorting to whatever means possible to bring tranqulirty into their lives. This explains the highest rate of substance abuse-America with only 7% of world population using over 50% of illicit drugs and obeying the orders from the very top that boils down to the banks that runs the country without regard to the bankruptcy of the present and future generations even by defying the will of the founders of America.

If you would like to know how I cope with this please see my e-book titled Lierary Tranqulizers at amazon.com

You may ask how I find a way out of this dilemma with resorting to the writings of Persian and global philosophers who were alienated by the so called Rulers of the world just like the founders of America were. I appreciate it if you also leave a comment.

khodee 

 Oktaby: You are right in

 Oktaby: You are right in your assessment. Motives are very dubious and pro-IRI though at times sprinkled with condemnation to cast artificial doubt.

Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

Ari

Par for the course.

I do not believe you know the difference of democratic discourse and knowing how to conduct oneself (physically and virtually) and what/how we contribute to interests of Iranian discourse at a most critical juncture in her history.

What we have to say and how and what point they drive and to what end stand on their own. You are saying a lot of things that are anti- democratic aspirations of Iranians and attribute them to essentially immaturity of Iranian culture. I suppose Israelis taking over other people's land and suffocating them while having democratic elections means they have 'tabalvored'. But we Iranian have to wait a long time more.

Its mambo jumbo and disrespectful to Iranian aspirations, no matter how nicely you write it or wrap it in 'democratic' discourse. It is Maghlateh and very close to what Mollas do.

I meant no disrespect and responded after you uttered a long line of unsubstanciated and rather arbitrary and non-methodical assestions and statements in the name of discourse. However, I question your motive and agenda based on series of positions that are pro or are in direction of IRR. When you dish it out, subtle or not, be sure you can take it.

Oktaby

oktaby, some psychobabble

Here are some words and concepts taken from the toolkit of democratic discourse followed by their pre-democratic ancestors. Compare the content and vocabulary in your last comment against them and rank yourself for readiness to participate in a democratic revolution--as compared to one where you and your opponents perpetually take turns with the "abuse and dishonor."

opinion---agenda.

convergence of ideas---support for a gang

"have a different perspective"---"flies in the face of reality"

"Explain your reasoning"---"Does not smell good."

If you score low you're in well known company; Ganji and Dabashi rank the same in debate style...well maybe a bit higher.

Mismatch & misnomer

Egypt of 2011 has some superficial similarities and a mismatch on several levels. A poor Egypt with specific and mostly economic drivers is hardly comparable to affluent and muscular Iran of 1979. Furthermore, 3.3 decades later the global context is very different and there is no bipolar world that made the Iran fiasco so easy to shepard. You are applying massive and broad brushes of socio/pshycho dynamics to a very specific and unique condition of Iran with a diverse population not mostly monolithic as Egypt. Oil aside.

Transistor and other examples you use all reached their status and do not qualify as' revolution' you attribute so casually.  They simply reached 'tipping points' driven (as in targetted and planned in a capital environment) not revolution; a misnomer used to sell or hype.

Multiple factions in Iran do not create anything resembling power sharing or remotely close to demoanything. They are simply revival of tribal/feaudal structures. A variation on same point PW made. This regime has systematically destroyed any assemblance of civil organizations and structures and murdered or otherwise done away with anything resembling an opposition figure; except those that serve its security and financial purposes. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of reality.

Furthermore, Shah was a dictator. Not a conditional statement. And screwed many things up. However, to suggest Iran was not even 'tabalvored' to dictatorship and was 'harj o marj' is far from truth and nears demogoguery. There is no support for that statement statistically and by global standards and conditions of the time.

You are 'midoozi and mibafy' from a series of biases and statements that are disparate, disjointed and sewn together to defend status quo. From suggesting Iranians/Middle easterners are not good enough to attain democracy and have to wait a few hundred years and better put up with any abuse and dishonor so they can evolve. Millions did not protest and Thousands did not die, get raped and end in prison to be told they have not tabalvored to your satisfaction.

Difference of opinion is one thing and there were questionable soft support for Dabashi, Ganji and a few others but this does not smell good. I'm sensing an agenda here despite my previously general liking of your non-political blogs.

Oktaby

Thanks MM

Yes, another way of putting it is that the soup you get is just a cooked version of its raw ingredients. Regarding human rights, if that far away village in Egypt was as attracted to human rights ideals and lawfulness as to subsidized fuel the result of the uprising would be more auspicious. Intellectuals and artists can help in such transformations of cultural mindsets and indirectly (but strongly nevertheless) influence what the Brotherhood will be forced to offer as the bribe. Emotionally moving, insightful, but accessible literature, for example, can change people's "tastes" so to speak.

Ari

Your notion of heads/tails analogy gives revolutions a hue of chance that may not be totally deserved.

You know that I am a secularist, but honestly, if you look at the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt, especially since the so called Arab Spring, you see a delibrate grassroots campaign to draw people to their side.  For example NPR was reporting from a far away village, with obvious Muslim population where MB came in, campaigned for their beliefs and even subsidised fuel for the residents when they needed it the most, and won their votes.  I wonder what the Egyptian intellectuals were doing, meanwhile.

In Iran, in my opinion, the people were hearded towards an Islamic Republic thru a treasury of the intellectuals and the heads of various factions by, first of all, announcing that a democratic Islamic Republic was possible.  Secondly, Iranians decided to have vegetable soup, then decided what to put in the soup, to make it short.  Next time around, in your words, the crystallization needs to start by seeding a recipie that includes freedom, human rights and privatization of religion.

An excellent blog discussion, nonetheless.  Cheers.

من هم از شما و همگی‌ سپاسگزارم

فقط یک نکته را اضافه کنم که نزاع چندگانه‌ای را که "داخل فراکسیون‌های قدرت" در ایران پیش آمده را یک حرکت کمرنگ میبینم. چون تمام این فراکسیون‌ها در یک چیز و آن تعهد به نظام جمهوری اسلامی نقطه اشتراک دارند و این دمکراتیک نیست (شاید از دید دمکراسی غربی). اگر تضمینی وجود داشته باشد که در آینده این فراکسیونها به ساختار‌های حزبی و ایدئولوژیک مستقلتری تبدیل شوند شاید جای امیدواری وجود داشته باشد. ولی‌ قدر مسلم، (و تجربه نیز نشان داده) بحران نظامی و هر بحران جدی دیگری آنها را به هم نزدیکتر میسازد. 

دوستان، آری جان و پرشین وسترنر عزیز

بسیار صحبت جالب و آموزنده.  به امید اینکه ادامه خواهد داشت و اینجور تبادل نظرها در گرد هما هیها‌های ایرانیان و IC  دیده شود

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

جناب پرژن وستندر

همانطور که تذکر دادید از کجا معلوم که جامعه ما نزدیک به یک
دگرگونی مثبت نباشد و جنگ و تحریم اقتصادی این تحول را به عقب نیندازد. در
ادامه این مطلب، بسیاری در خارج از کشور تغییرات مثبتی که در ایران رخ داده
نادیده میگیرند، و به این دلیل که فرهنگ سیاسی ایران را با فرهنگ سیاسی از
قبل تکامل یافته کشور‌های میزبان خویش مقایسه میکنند. به عنوان مثال همین
نزاع چند جانبه‌ای که اکنون بین ریاست جمهوری، ولایت فقیه، نظامیان، و
اصلاح طلبان در جریان است از دید فرهنگ دمکراتیک غربی به نظر ناهنجار
میاید، ولی‌ در زمینه تاریخی خود ایران این گونه توازن قدرت  بین رقبا کم
سابقه است و فقط دو مورد دیگر دارد. یکی‌ در زمان انقلاب مشروطه و دیگری در
زمان مصدق. و اینجا بگوییم که محرک اولیّه آزادی خواهی‌ نیست و نبوده، بلکه
رشد فرهنگ سیاسی به حدی رسیده بود که امکان ایجاد بنیاد‌های قدرتی‌ تقریبا
همزور فراهم شده بود که موقتاً چاره‌ای جز همزیستی‌ نداشتند. در این شرایط تصادفا
آزادی طلبی مردم گوش شنوا پیدا می‌کند و جامعه رو به دموکراسی میرود زیرا
که قدرت‌های رقیب هر یک خواهان مشتری هستند. و این حل معمای دموکراسی‌ دور
از افسانه و شعار است-چه در غرب، چه در ایران.

از توجه شما به این نوشته بسیار سپاسگذارم.

آری

با دید انتقادی میتوان گفت: قانون گریزی و بی‌نظمی همواره برای جامعه ایرانی منفعت در پی‌ داشته، و قانون مداری، هزینه. در صف نانوائی اگر کسی‌ نوبت را رعایت نکند، دیگران هم در پی‌ جلو زدن نوبت بر میایند تا اعتراض کردن. اگر کسی‌ دیگران را به رعایت حق شهروندی فرا بخواند، با تعجب به او نگاه میکنند (تجربه شخصی‌). با اینهمه جامعه ایرانی یکدست نیست و به هیچ وجه نمیتوان حکم کلی‌ صادر کرد. همانطور که گفتم ما اینجا بیشتر کلی‌ گوئی می‌کنیم. همین جامعه این پتانسیل را دارد که اگر لازم باشد از خود گذشتگی‌های فوق العاده بکند.

ولی‌ توجه داشته باشید، با فرض اینکه جامعه ایرانی عافیت طلب است و امنیت جسمانی‌ را بر هر چیز مرجح میداند، آیا این توجیه لازم را برای تحریم اقتصادی و یا حمله نظامی خارجی‌ (که بر آن است این امنیت و رفاه طلبی را به خطر بیندازد)فراهم نمیکند؟

پرژن وستندر

در مورد خاص تحول از حکومت‌های هردمبیلی (دلبخواهی، ...) به
حکومت دموکراسی‌ به احتمال قوی خشونت در کار خواهد بود. اینجا یک توضیح: در
اسپانیا تحول به دموکراسی‌ صلح آمیز بود (نبوغ سیاسی، عوامل خارجی‌ و یاری
بخت نیز در کار بود) زیرا که حکومت ژنرال فرانکو دیکتاتوری بود نه
هردمبیلی. این دیکتاتور حق قانون گذاری را در انحصار داشت ولی‌ بهر حال خود
در چهارچوب قوانینی که وضع کرده بود رفتار میکرد. رژیم‌های ایران هنوز به
فاز دیکتاتوری هم "تبلور" نکرده بلکه همیشه جامعه ما حکومت دلبخواهی را با
جان و دل‌ پذیرفته و در عوض امنیت جسمانی‌ و ثبات سنّت طلبیده (نه امنینت و
ثبات قانونی). این‌را در زمان خود در مورد خمینی مشاهده کردیم.

Simplifications

روزبه: مشکل این جاست که اگر مردم روز روز به سرنگونی رژیم نزدیک شوند، بعد ناگهان یک حمله نظامی این روند را خراب کند آنوقت چی‌؟

آری: کاش انقلاب‌ها هم مثل قوانین فیزیک نقطه جوش و انجماد دقیق داشتند. آیا منظور از تبلور، ریختن مردم در خیابانها و درگیری رو در رو است؟ در تاریخ معمولا شروع انقلاب‌ها مبهم، ولی‌ پایان آنها قطعی است...

to persian westender:

با حرف شما کاملا موافقم. حکومت فاشیستی، زورگو و اصلاح ناپذیر ولایت فقیه خیلی‌ دور است از شرایط ایدئالی لازمه برای تغییر حکومت بدون خشونت، که شما بهش اشاره کردید. هر کس که این مطلب را متوجه نیست یا یک آدم خیلی‌ هالو هست، یا خودش رو به هالوی زده.

آخر و عاقبت این رژیم  ضدّ مردمی خیلی‌ روشن هست: سرنگونی کامل. یا  با یک حرکت انقلابی مردم ایران، یا با یک حمله نظامی اجنبیان.ما از سرنگونی رژیم با دست مردم ایران پشتیبانی می‌کنیم و معتقدیم که مردم ایران روز به روز دارند به همین نتیجه میرسند، بدون توجه به این روده درازی‌ها در iranian.com.....

پرژن وستندر، نکته جالبی‌ را به میان آوردید

ذات انقلاب واقعی‌ به تدریج تکامل می‌یابد، ولی‌ با این‌حال لحظه‌ای
فرا می‌رسد که پدیده‌ای ناگهانی و پیش بینی‌ نشده نیز مشاهده میشود که
لفظاً واژه "انقلاب" را به آن نسبت میدهیم. به عنوان مثال، انقلاب
"دیجیتال" سال‌ها پنهان در حال تکامل بود. الکتریسیته، ترانزیستور،وسائل
تولید ماشینی، بالا رفتن قدرت خرید...و با اینهمه پیش بینی‌ نشده بود و
تمدن و تاریخ را غافلگیر کرد. واژه "تبلور" در نوشته بالا ( crystalization
) در اشاره به این پدیده است که پس از نائل شدن به صفات لازم جامعه، مانند
آب که از مایه به جامد تبدیل شده باشد، ناگهان بر اثر شرائط ایجاد شده
تغییر ماهیت می‌دهد. 

تکامل بنیادی و

تکامل بنیادی و فرهنگی‌، خود به خود یک انقلاب تدریجی‌ است؛ یعنی اگر روی دهد دیگر نیازی به انقلاب نیست! چون انقلاب (به مفهوم کلاسیک آن)فی‌ نفسه خشونت آمیز است، با زمینه‌های فرهنگی‌ تکامل یافته سر سازگاری ندارد (ناسازگارانه‌ترین آن نافرمانی مدنی است).در این چنین شرایطی حکومت خود را با خواسته‌های و نرمهای فرهنگی‌ عموم وفق می‌‌دهد.متاسفانه اینها همه شرایط ایده آلی و ذهنی‌ است. در ایران عکس قضیه اتفاق می‌افتد، یعنی‌ حکومت خود را بر فرهنگ مردم تحمیل می‌کند و تصویر مصنوعی و دستکاری شده‌ خود را از تکامل فرهنگی‌ (بخوانید مذهبی‌)ارائه می‌دهد.

اینها البته همش بازی با مفاهیم است... 

RG

  بنده خود از حضرت نویسنده پرسیدم و ایشان اشاره کردند که هر زمان جناب روزبه گیلانی با روش برخورد خویش در مناظرات نشان داد که انقلاب مورد نظر ایشان خود "چند صد هزار" قربانی نمیدهد آنوقت برای ایشان مجوز انقلاب صادر می‌کنیم :)

تبلور فرهنگی‌ و تکامل بنیادی

جل ال خالق!!!

یکی‌ از این آقا بپرسه، چند صد هزار بیشتر از مردم ایران باید اعدام، شکنجه، زندانی، تجاوز جنسی‌ و غیره با دست این جلادان ولیت فقیه بشوند، تا به "تبلور فرهنگی‌ و تکامل بنیادی" برسند تا این حضرت نویسنده بهشون اجازه انقلاب بده!!!

Ari

1- War is imminent only in conversations as it has been periodically for years.  No one invited a foreign force so what is the point of that list and argument? You used a number (50,000) against another (5) to inject ethics? Your numbers and comparison are out of context and sound more like support of IRR (or at least status quo) than an anti-war stance. Iran has been at war for 30 plus years. Your definition of war seems limited to a foreign army vs. domestic. One kills fast and furious to take your money, the other kills consistenty and persistenly over a long time as it takes your money and wants your soul too. Your are presenting one war as better than the other, and consider it anti-war.

2-This view fits that of extreme liberal trapped in its own attempt at a perfect answer for all sides. Resulting in paralysis of analysis; very effectively expolited by extreme right and more likely to lead to eventual war.

Oktaby

oktaby

1. I would eagerly add your suggestion to the list reasons why a foreign force should not be invited into Iran.

2. Assigning a low priority to the explict discussion of ethics is a weakness of secular minded discourse (though not of secular philosophy per se); this neglect is successfully exploited by religion to gain the upper hand.

:(

I like the writing style but wish the content had mustered fewer biases and cliche assumptions. I would say that good people like yourself and with best of intentions make everything grey and more confusing. Too long a discussion that is best saved for a few glasses of wine by fireplace but here are some bullets:

-a better math: 5 stoned to death/year, ~300,000 executed, murdered, plus untold raped, imprisoned, maimed and deprived. That does not even include several hundred thousand, perhaps more than a million, dead from a war that need not have started, and then need not have lasted passed the second year. Roughly averaging 30-50,000 dead/year and counting, plus untold number of destroyed lives, families, opportunities and futures.

- two generation screwed up over 33 years and counting

- A whole nation on prozac, drugs, nihlism... and ertejaa

-'revolution' it was not and its roots were always violent. It was a shir ya khat with both sides of the coin being khat from its fugly beginning.

-'Takamol akhlaaghi' is not a pre-requisite of democracy. Americans were genociding natives while forming their democracy. Turkey hardly qualified as 'takamoled' when they formed theirs.

-Unless you understand who your enemy is, you cannot beat him at war or logic. That is why Iranians are still suffering IRR. I do not believe as smart as you are, you have solved the puzzle of who/what your enemy is.

-Arguing against war need not this line of logic. The simplest reason is: a foreign force won't have Iranian interest at heart. Never mind IRR, the mercenaries in place, is inviting it. But to suggest it'll be worse than what has been done to her already, in consequence or number of dead, hardly adds up. Unless you use caricatur math.

Respectfully

Oktaby

Anahid

The arithmetic is just an outline for a real analysis, a caricature as I have called it. There are far fewer than 5 stonings a year in Iran, and many more than 50,000 will die in a U.S.-Iran war. On the other hand, as you point out there's a lot more inhumanity going on in Iran that just stonings. Still, a look at Iraq and Afghanistan strongly suggests that based on a humanitarian calculation we should actively work to prevent a war--and not just  passivley not favor it.

We seem to have different ideas about the makeup of the Iranian population. If you and I were representative of Iranians in general the IRI would never have risen to power. The fact that this regime was able to overpower us says that, like Egypt, much of Iran suffers from a cultural time lag relative to the modern states of mind which you and I have. Since we our immersed in Iran's modern subculture it is hard for us to see and accept this--after all, most Iranians we interact with personally hold modern views. But events in Egypt hold up a mirror to the problem that plagues the entire Middle East--inculding Iran--making it easier to see Iran's Medieval forest for its modernized trees.

Ari, thanks for your comment

I am not pro US Iran war but I wated to emphasize that it is not just stoning of several women in a year. The same regime that does stoning of what you call 5 women in a year, is responsible for many more killings and imprisoning people and for making Iranian women second class citizens, and many more atrocities.

Some replies

Bavafa: You're welcome. 

masoudA: Point of logic, "lack of knowledge..." or "deliberately attempting to overlook..." It can't be both!   Khomeini in France which I reviewed supports the "foreign factors" view you seem to be conveying. So the second choice works better for your comment.

Anahid: Thanks for reading.  Here's my math in caricature: five stonings a year or 50,000 dead in a U.S. Iran war. So if we took 10,000 years (50000/5) to counter IRI brainwashings and come up with a culture that doesn't stone people we'd still be ahead in lives. You can plug in better statistics and the conclusion will still be overwhelmingly in favor of us patiently fixing our own problems.

Thanks Ari for your blog

I have heard others blame Iran's problems on its culture too but then waiting for that enlighting to happen among masses while many are suffering, I don't know about that either. Meanwhile under IRI, culture gets worse and worse. Wrote it before but worth repeating that in 1979 people could not imagine stoning women but now people in Iran or at least many in Iran have become desensitized to it which has to do a lot with constant brain washing done by IRI and also its instruments of fear.

Clueless

.......چرا انقلابی‌ که در ایران از قشر روشنفکر شروع شد به ولایت فقیه انجامید.

That one statement alone shows your lack of knowledge on the so called Iranian Revolution and your misunderstanding on who the Roshanfekrs have been and are in Iran.   No Iranian with any insight would allow himself to be aligned with Khomeini or any other akhoond.....a dreaded creature amongst Iranians for centuries.  

You seem to want to make a deliberate attempt to fully overlook so so so many foreign factors which have been controlling Iranian politics for so so so long.   

Just superb...

Thank you

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad