ravanvajahan.com

Masoud jaan

I think you may know that I have been familiar with your way of thinking regarding this issue, for over 10 years, since the time that you and I shared and published our materials in Jebhe Melli forum under direction of Mr. Morteza Anvari. You may also remember that there were some others in that forum, who cheered you up for wrtiting the same things that you continue to write today, from whom, some have come to realization of this matter that it takes more than some so called "scholarly" materials from suspicious elements and some documents from unreliable sources to reach the conclusions that for you seem to be written in stone. I am surprised that you still use the so called "scholarly" materials written by Mr. Hussein Lajevardi to justify your claims even after I mentioned his undeniable association with NIAC to you a few months ago while yourself are against the agendas of such group. I can only assume that would satisfy your unreasonable hate towards Pahlavis which is your motivation to deny many undeniable historical facts and magnify the value of baseless and suspicious sources to justify your claims.

My friend, I have no intention to convince you of anything because my experience with you shows that such efforts would be futile from the beginning. What I express here or anywehre else, is to provide readers with a different perspective regarding matters that have been subject to misinformation and disinformation for a very long time. That's all. I appreciate the comments made by other respectable members but I do not intend to get into any debate over such matters.

Best Regards

Dear Masoud,

I don't disagree with your comparison of Mubarak versus the Shah. My point was to compare the Shah versus Saddam. I would also add that Jamal Abdul Nasser (the founder of the current Egyptian republic) himself was guilty of using chemical weapons against his "Arab brothers" in Yemen. 

School under Pahlavi (II)

Though my last year of highschool was in the US, my tenth and eleventh grade was in Iran, Tehran, Dabirestan Farhang. Monireih.

We had an unused library in the form of a locked room with thousands of books inside that room in our Highschool. So as young and energetic tenth graders (with the aid of a few older students, and the consent of the Nazem and others) we decided to unlock the door and put all those books to good use. 

It was a magnificent sight. We wrote the titles of all the books on sheets of paper and posted the entire collection on the walls next to the "Library," for all the students to see. 

It took less than two weeks for the highschool to recive a letter from "somewhere," on the "un-healthy" books that had to be taken out and not made available to students in there. You could not belive the list. Some of the most ordinary titles, that somehow, somewhere were deemed by some authorities to be "un-healthy" for the kids.

Needless to say all the books in that list were confiscated by the Nazem and...

VPK: As far as gettting rid of IR, please explain to us how you and your cohorts have helped or assisted any struggles against IR. Please be specific and cite any: Students' groups, workers' formations, women's association or any other entity INSIDE Iran that you might have assisted.

Posting offensive, uncouth "comments" on IC 24/7 does not qualify as activities towards overthrowing IR. Cheers 

P.S. Not sure where you went ot school, but I attended school in Tehran, Kermanshah, and Tabriz (only for half a year) and in every school that I went to I vivdly remember those cold early morning BS rituals of :" Shahanshah Ma Zendeh Bada, Payed Keshvar Beh Farash Javedan, Kaz Pahalavi Shod Molk Iran,.. "

Were you guys taking a nap when they were singing those "songs?"

responses

R.G. jaan,

Thanks.

MK

=====================　

Areyo barzan,

My grandfather was NOT a Qajar prince, nor any of my family has any Qajar blood. They were highly educated. You are soooooooo clueless about our history, it is amazing. Many many Iranians had gone to Europe to get university education in the 19th century. Many of them lead, inspired the Constitutional revolution in 1905-06, and many helped write the Constitution, helped gather support for it, and then defended it.

My grandfather was NOT the first modern physician in Iran. There were many many people before him. And they were not Qajar princes.

Please read an actual history book so that you would not write nonsense after nonsense.

MK

============================

Dear Arj,

Thank you for your contributions.

Best,

MK

=============================

Anglo’snokar,

Mozakhraf nagoo.

Masoud

==============================

Sohrab jaan,

You do not want to accept the overwhelming amount of actual DOCUMENTS and scholarly analysis, then I do not know how else to convince you. All one can do is to present DOCUMENTS and scholarly analysis from diverse perspectives. There exists an overwhelming scholarly consensus that the Shah was nokar of the UK and US. The documents proves this, the Shah says this, his advisers such as Nahavandi says this,.....

Scholars from all sorts of countries and all sorts of paradigms say this. It is like scholars and evidence shows that the earth is not flat, but someone keep saying that the earth is flat and they do not accept the words of "scholars."

Best,

Masoud

========================

Amir jaan,

The Shah, Mobarak, Qaddafi, Saddam, and IRI are all terrible dictatorships. Certainly, the IRI is the worst in many respects.

I disagree with you saying the Shah was the least bad. Mobarak is a zillion times better than the Shah, or more accurately, the Shah is a zillion times worse than Mobarak. I can give you many examples. One, Mobarak only killed a few people and after few weeks agreed to leave power. Compare this to the fascistic behaviour of the Shah. The Shah mass murdered about 2,900 unarmed Iranian protesters from June 1977 until the collapse of his regime. Had the Shah had one millionth the decency of Mobarak and left in June or July 1977, monsters like Khomeini could not have come to power. It was the Shah PROLONGED mass murder of our people that radicalized the situation and undermined the moderate and decent forces like the JM.

Two, Mobarak and the regime of "Free Officers" (Nasser, Sadat, Mobarak) came to power independently and were independent. They gained the independence of Egypt from the UK. They did what they regarded as the national interests of Egypt. The Shah was nokar of foreign powers and did what was against the national interests of Iran again and again. As the documents clearly prove the Shah was nokar from 1941 and for the purpose of having absolute power. In the struggle to gain our independence, the Shah collaborated with colonial powers to subjugate Iran in 1941 and in 1953.

Best,

MK

School under Pahlavi

I went to school under Pahlavi also it was very high quality. We spent virtually no time on "propaganda". Most of my time was spent on Math and Science. The rest on various other subjects.

I don't know where this garbage about propaganda is from. Because I was there and did not get any of it. The feuds between Mossadeghi and others will never be resolved. That gang will never help rid us from IRI.

If we get rid of IRI that gang will try to impose their 60 year old ideas on people. When it does not work they will go nuts and become violent. The good news happens to be they are getting too old to be able to do much.

As Far As I Have Read,

Sohrab_Ferdows has said many wise things on this site. I wish many others would follow suit and put an end to these ongoing useless efforts to prove the "other side" wrong!

What a joke: comparing the Shah to Saddam!

Yes, in that case, not only Mobarak, but Saddam and Gaddafi were better than, not only IRI, but any Islamist alternative -- just like Shah, they were secular (albeit religious in weird ways!), there was a relative economic stability in addition to social freedoms under their rule such as no mandatory hejab -- and with some even more social benefits such as universal health care and free higher education than that of Iran under Shah!

Iran under the Shah, with all of the wrongdoings committed by him and the regime that he headed, was arguably the least bloody and repressive state in the entire Middle East. The number of executions during Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's 38-year reign was in the several hundreds -- a number exceeded by the IRI within the first few months of coming to power. Saddam deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Kurdish and Shia civilians during his time in power. And some brain-dead people actually compare the Shah to Saddam! Heck, Saddam even provided universal health care and free higher education -- and the Shah supposedly didn't even provide those things!

خدمت جناب آقای سهراب فردوس

Re "Khaens"

Dear Siavash; on the contrary, I was 11 when I went back to school under IRI, which means I spent nearly all my primary school years under Shah's regime! I remember both regimes' tacky propaganda and coersive tactics to dictate people's political demeanours. I remember that on the accoasions of 4th and 9th of Aban (Shah's and RP's birthdays) approaching, we had to line up in the school yard and listen to the Savak-associated principal's daughter's rant about the felicity of the occasions and sing "Shahansha Ey Sayeh'ye Khoda..." (Shah being the shadow of god...) and that we were being forced to buy Shah's new book while were told not to even mention his old book (in which he apparently talked about the despotic nature of one-party systems)!

With regards to MK and whether his generation were as you perceive "Khaens" without even a reasonable explanation, I have to disagree with you entirely! I don't know MK except through his writings here, but I should tell you that (despite differences in POVs) I have utmost respect for his convictions and his unconditional committment to democratic values (so far as I've seen from his writings) which I've only seen shared by few on here! Moreover, I have siblings of his generation (50-55?!) who were secular, pro-democracy university students who opposed Shah and his despotic rule. What kind of an alternative do you suppose they would've had? To forcefully become a Rastakhiz member?! My parents were lucky enough to be retired at that time, but for younger people it wasn't that easy! Shah had created the Rastakhiz party, forced people to become its members, go to jail or leave the country! At the same time, he had built the infamous Evin prison for political crimes and was in the process of building and adding the dreaded Gohardasht prison for more future political prisoners!

If anyone, it's you who ought to wake up, open your eyes and see were Shah was going! His mini rows with the West was not over the interests of the nation, but because the rentier economy he was addicted to was crumbling if the oil prices crashed, and they were on their way down due to the U.S. and Saudis behind-the-scene collaborations! In all likelihood, there would've been a rebellion sooner or later considering the way the political situation (with advent of Rastakhiz party) and economy (albeit not as bad as IRI's yet, still with doubling and tripling inflation rates) were heading!

You may say that he was still better than IRI with regards to social freedoms! Yes, in that case, not only Mobarak, but Saddam and Gaddafi were better than, not only IRI, but any Islamist alternative -- just like Shah, they were secular (albeit religious in weird ways!), there was a relative economic stability in addition to social freedoms under their rule such as no mandatory hejab -- and with some even more social benefits such as universal health care and free higher education than that of Iran under Shah! But still, people stood up against these despots as did Iranian people against Shah, for there's only so much a people can take! However, IMO, the folly of Khomeini managing to take over the movement, is one of Shah's own making -- which has been discussed to death before, and I'm not planning to perpetuate that endless discussion with his blind supporters! Here's a link to Abbas Milani's (who IMO is lenient towards Shah) interview on his book on Shah: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0l7g1HwEuk&feature=related

Water boy,your job description is to fetch water, like Gunga Din

Mosaddeghollahis dilemmas

1. Mosaddegh's appointment, as PM for the second time, was endorsed by the Majles (17th), hence he is erroneously labelled as the democratically elected !! PM, yet Mosaddegh proceeded to dissolve the same Majles (17th) that had given him the seal of approval as being unrepresentative of the people! Never mind that he had no constitutional rights to do so.
2. To legitemise his unconstitutional plan to dissolve the Majles, he called for an equally fraud-ridden referendum under the spurious excuse that the law is made for the people and not the people for the law!! Mosaddegh's referendum of 1953 was identical to the Islamists referundum of 1979 which claimed legitemacy for the Islamic Republic. Poor Mosaddeghollahis cannot accept one and reject the other!!
3. Mosadegh's famous claim that he was the sole "interpreter" was another unconstitutional gaffe of the highest order. What is then the difference between him and the autocrats he was supposed to oppose?

And I'd Like To Add!

Why such debates now? Except for the enemies of Iran and Iranians, who is gaining from such "blood feuds?" If this issue hasn't been solved for the past six decades, it'll never be solved by you. It seems neither side has any trust in Iranians. It wouldn't be surprising if future generations found this charade as farcical as it is when they think about Iran and how it was offered to a bunch of murderous mullahs on a silver platter!

دکتر مصدق و دائی جان ناپلئون

در این میان دیدگاههای برخی شرکت کنندگان در بحث با ارائه مطالب نادرست و نتیجه گیریهای دلبخواهی بازتاب طبیعی بعضی مطالبی است که در مقاله بالا پیش کشیده شده. بدون شک، واقعیتهای تاریخی با تعبیر و تفسیربهای این و آن و برچسب زدنها قابل دگرگونی نیست. واقعیتهای تاریخی گواه هستند که دار و دسته حزب توده و برخی عوامل مشکوک درون آن و نیز بعضی شخصیتهای مغرض و مشکوک در پیرامون مرحوم دکتر مصدق از مهمترین عوامل اشتباهات تاریخی او بودند. اینکه ما به بهانه وقایعی که در آنروزها اتفاق افتاد برخی حقایق تاریخی را که در دوره پادشاهان پهلوی و در جهت پیشبرد و آبادانی کشور اتفاق افتاده نفی کنیم بسیار دور از منطق و عقل سلیم است.برای مثال مدرسه دارالفنون که بوسیله امیر کبیر بنیان گذاشته شد اگر چه امکانات آموزشی محدودی را برای بخش بسیار کوچکی از افراد متمول جامعه فراهم کرد و نقطه آغازی بود برای آشنا کردن مردم ایران با روش نوین آموزش علوم اما هر گز کارش از محدوده خواص بیرون نرفت و بعد از آن هم، تا زمان رضا شاه بزرگ، هیچ کوشش جدی برای عمومی کردن آموزش علوم و گسترش آن بصورت سازمان یافته در میان عامه صورت نگرفت. وارد شدن به جزئیات این امور و دیگر مسائل برای یک نتیجه گیری درست، هرگز با ندیده گرفتن حقایق انکار ناپذیر تاریخی امکان پذیر نیست. و برای آن دسته از خوانندگانی که با جدیت و علاقه این بحثها را دنبال میکنند باید اینرا بگویم که، یک اشاره یا مقاله برای روشن کردن حقایق تاریخی بویژه وقایعی که دستخوش بسیاری تحریفها بوده و بسیاری افراد ، سازمانها و حتی برخی کشورها از آن بهره برداری سیاسی کرده اند، بسنده نیست. این کار نیاز به کار تحقیقی جدی دارد و در این راه هرگز نباید فریب القاب علمی و نامهای دهان پرکن را خورد چه بسیار از همین مطالب ظاهرا "اسکالرلی" و پژوهشی تنها برای ارضاء هدفهای شخص یا گروه خاص پرداخته شده و هیچگونه ارزش واقعی تحقیقی ندارد.

بسیاری از مقاله ها یا کتابهای ظاهرا تحقیقی به وسیله اشخاصی نوشته شده که  فاقد توانائی کنار گذاشتن پیشداوریهای خود در باره مطب مورد تحقیق هستند و همین موضوع کار آنها را بی ارزش میکند. گروهی تصور میکنند نام فلان موسسه علمی یا فلان مرکز انتشاراتی معتبر برای اعتبار بخشیدن به یک مطلب باید کافی باشد اما این موضوع به هیچ روی حقیقت ندارد. و دیگر اینکه، تکرار کلیشه هائی که بی پایگی آنها با آشکار شدن حقایق تاریخی مربوط به دوران پهلوی در سی و چند سال اخیر پدیدار شده، هیچگونه اثری در بهتر کردن اعتبار آنها نخواهد داشت.

Arj's National pride and destruction of Iran for 32 years

"....attacking people's national pride as "daei jan Napelon complex," he/she tries to debase the people's legitmiate grievences with foreign powers' interference in our national affairs and propping of Shah as their puppet." Arj

Dear Arj,

you're the generation of so called "Islamic revolution". If I am not mistaking you were 9 years old when revolution took place so you were raised with slogan of "Death to America" or rather viewing U.S or western world as a "Great Satan".  I am not sure that you are aware that your revolutionary generation with all those grandiose delusion against Great Satan is fading away day by day. I am not sure that you are aware the kind of thinking as you are following such as "Puppet" and all these provocative terminalogy against shah is fading away in the light of misery of our nation for 32 years and destruciton of our beloved country. Those words might have been appealing in 60's and 70's, but not anymore. Time changed my friend. You were not born when people such as masood kazemzadeh were provoking people against shah and inviting them to march against him on streets of Iran. I remember those days and all those promises vividly. I was naively falling in traps as you are still stucking in that trap. These people were "KHAEN" and they betrayed our country and destructed our nation to the extend that we are on the verge of getting boombed. Can't you see that?  Open your eyes my friend. Don't get decieved with these stupid,yet shinny slogans. imperilalist...socilism....communist.... mazdak... and mitraism... Our people were naive in 1979 and listen to these monsters who claimed Khomainie is truely democracy. If you don't believe me, please google and listen to Dr.Karim Sanjabi's tape in those days. He was praising khomainie as a democratic person. He was the leader of these groups in those days. I personally shaked hand with that bastard. Don't follow these garbages. We have one leader who can unite us against foreign influence and prevent Iran to get bombed and he is crown Reza Pahlavi at this time. Please open your eyes before it is too late.

Sincerely,

Siavash

                      GOAL : RESTORING MONARCHY. 

Souri jan

okay, your secret will be kept with me

But I'm still very curious why you attack Shazdeh? He was so nice to you? What's wrong? LOL

Stay well.

سوری جان آفرین به هوش شما - راز من نزد شما محفوظ

دل برد ونهان شد

هردم به لباس دگران یار بر آمد

گه پیر و جوان شد

...

Sorry, I delete my poste. Not worth the headache.

جناب جهانشاهی

چه به موقع جمله معترضه را مرقوم داشتید. با تمام نظریات شما موافقم و درود به شما می‌‌فرستم.  حتما توجه دارید که شازده قراضه مومنت مومنت صریحاً  علت حمایت از رئیس قبیله یعنی‌ مصدق را به زبان بی‌ زبانی‌ ابراز داشتند.  ماحصل کلام شازده قراضه این است که ما مصدق را نه به خاطر اینکه خودش مستحق احترام است محترم می‌‌داریم بلکه چون می‌‌خواهیم حداقل یک نفر را به عنوان "سمبل" (به فتح سین) آزادیخواهی داشته باشیم او را احترام می‌‌گذاریم. طفلک شازده خبر ندارد که "سمبل" آزادیخواهی ما همانند "سمبل" (به ضمم سین) بابا دوستعلی که عمل غیر ناموسی کرده بود نزدیک شصت ساله که از ترس شیر علی‌ قصاب از توی تنبون در نیومده چون میدونه که  مردم غیرتمند کوچه و بازار دیگه گول این قبیل شامولتی بازیها رو نمی‌‌خورند و با یه ضربه عضو شریف رو از بیخ می‌‌کنند. 

ارادتمند

آنگلوفیل 

Smoke and mirrors!

Yet again, more sophistry from the author in an attempt to depict the situation as a level playing field! First by attacking people's national pride as "daei jan Napelon complex," he/she tries to debase the people's legitmiate grievences with foreign powers' interference in our national affairs and propping of Shah as their puppet.

Next, he tries to equate Mossadegh's resorting to referandum (as if refering to people's opinion is a crime!) to Mohammad Reza Shah's crushing the constitution by putting CIA and MI6 in charge of determining the nation's fate! Not to mention his siding with the British when they tried to block the oil nationalization in ICJ and were defeated by Mosaddegh who represented Iran! Moreover, as the other sophistries go, the author doesn't miss a chance to condemn a popular maovement just because among the masses were the supporters of Tudeh party, while at the same time claiming to stand for democracy!

Well!

may be you were an exceptional Ghajaar prince whose Gf wassnet to west to study while the rest of the country were illiterate .

But that still does not change the reality of our siociety.

And for your information I hve read my share of history books from vriety of sources.

The only diffrence is that I was not picky to only read the books that agree to my abetite

Dear Masoud: Well Said!

Karl Marx also saw bourgeoisie as the most progressive and revolutionary class up to the time where it gives birth to the more revolutionary proletariat. Organized proletariat owes its mere existence to the role the bourgeoisie played historically. Lenin also talks about the birth pangs of the proletariat after the revolution and proletariat's inevitable emulation of the bourgeoisie in the initial stages after coming to power. The market is too broad as it is and cannot be part of the civil society. As in the case of the US with all the giant corporations and lobbyists which influence state's policies to a vast extent, including the whole market among the forms or features of civil society is missing the point. Of course, US being a democracy the democratic institutions are in place and cannot be compared to a totalitarian state like the Islamic Republic

Mind is a Terrible thing to waste :-)

Areyo barzan,

Please pick up a history book and read what historians and scholars write.

On a personal note on me you are 100% wrong. My grandfather was a Western educated medical doctor BEFORE the rise of Reza Shah. :-)

Have you heard of dar al fonon? Have you heard of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution? Have you heard of the elections for Majles in 1907 and again and again and again??????

Please instead of writing nonsense, READ a book on our history. And please stop insulting our brave women who played major roles in the constitutional revolution.

Best,

MK

Masood Jaan

The more you play that broken record the more annoying an less effective it become, as nowadays most of us have accepted our errors and move on

Now! If by women groups you mean Majles Rozeh khooni and by political parties you mean Heyaat Emam Hosein then I like very much to know what you actually call the free press at the time when 95% of the people were illiterate and most of the other 5% could only read Koran without knowing the meaning. So please mate pull the other one it has got bells on it lol.

The fact of the matter was after Ghajaar we were an illiterate rural society just like today’s Afghanistan. There were no schools no modern universities even no hygiene or modern hospitals (remember Khazeeneh?) If it wasn’t for the Pahlavis and their progressive programs you would not even know the meaning on civil society or democracy today and instead had a turban on your head hurdling a few sheeps in the mountain around your village, just like our Afghan brothers

 Now! If you read my previous article you will see that the last thing that I can be accused of is being a monarchist

But I always stand up tp unfounded BS from whom ever

areyo barzan

You obviously do not know our history.  May I suggest you read the following:

William Morgan Shuster, The Strangling of Persia (New York, The Century, 1912), pp. 198, 191f, 193.

the passages are also found in Masoud Kazemzadeh, Islamic Fundamentalism, Feminism, and Gender Inequality in Iran Under Khomeini, pp. 14-17.

 //www.amazon.com/Islamic-Fundamentalism-Feminism-Inequality-Khomeini/dp/0761823883/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326121259&sr=1-1

interjection

دوستان گرامی، از همه ی شما بخاطر اینکه در این گفت و شنود شرکت فعال دارید و یا آنرا دنبال میکنید سپاسگزارم.  بخصوص از

«anglophile» و «Shazde Asdola Mirza»

که در این مورد همفکری شان را با لطف و محبت بیان کردند

.
من سعی کردم در این نوشته از مقایسه محمد رضا شاه با مصدق پرهیز کنم و وارد جنگ های حیدری و نعمتی نشوم. بنظر من جنبش ملی کردن نفت بیشتر یک جنبش پوپولیستی بود تا راه نوینی برای رسیدن به دمکراسی. امروز نفت ما ملیست ولی دمکراسی نداریم.

ازاینرو با Veiled Prophet of Khorasan موافقم

اساس دمکراسی در درجه اول اعتماد به تفکیک قوای سه گانه ست و مصدق هم نشان داد که برای رسیدن به هدفش (فرض بگیریم ملی کردن نفت) تمایل داشت از این مرز عبور کند. بنظر من رفراندوم مصدق نمایانگر گرایش مصدق بسوی تمرکز قدرت و در نتیجه دور شدن از مسیر دمکراسی بود. هدف خیر داشتن هر شیوه ای را توجیه نمیکند.

جامعه مدنی
مردمی را که بجای اعتقاد و پافشاری به تفکیک قوای سه گانه به رهبرانشان اعتماد میکنند( چه مصدق، چه شاه و چه شیخ) مشکل میتوان بعنوان یک جامعه مدنی بالغ ارزیابی کرد. بنظر من بهترست بین توده های معترض و جامعه مدنی فرق گذاشت. جوامع و دولتهایی که بر اقتصاد تک محصولی استوارند (اینجا نفت) جامعه مدنی پیشرفته ای ندارند. ازاینرو باید در آینده سعی کنیم از وابستگی به اقتصاد نفتی فاصله بگیریم.

بنظر من، هر جنبش اعتراضی جنبش دمکراسی نیست. بخش بزرگی از توده های هوادار مصدق هواداران حزب توده بودند و یا مثل آنها فکر میکردند. و حزب توده همانطور که میدانیم سیاست رسیدن به دولت مقتدر و نظام توتالیتاریستی را دنبال میکرد. اینها نشانه هایی از یک جنبش مدنی قابل اعتماد نیستند. تاریخ جهان پر است از جنبش های حق طلبانه ای که به توتالیتاریسم منجر شدند. نمونه اش انقلاب خودمان.

تا فرصتهای بعدی برای همه ی شما شادی و موفقیت بیشتر آرزو میکنم

Civil Society and Democracy

There are different definitions of the term "civil society."

some consider all that is not the state (government broadly defined) to constitute civil society. But most scholars do not regard individuals on their own as constituting a society. But rather individuals in organizations in the polity that is not part of the state is what is meant by civil society institutions. What constitutes the state, of course is different in different societies. If the state owns the media (newspapers, radio, tv as was the case in the former USSR) then the media is not part of the civil society. Same with educational institutions, or unions, etc.

If a labor union is part of the state (in the former USSR or Mexico under PRI, or the yellow unions under the Shah or vf regime) then these unions are not part of the civil society.

For mainstream scholars, the stronger the civil society institutions are, the higher the likelihood of transition to democracy. And when there is democracy, the higher the likelihood of democratic consolidation.

For Gramsci, he wanted to explain why the revolution occurred so easily in Russia but the revolution failed in 1919 in northern Italy. Gramsci’s used a concept that Machiavelli had deveoped. Gramsci’s explanation was that Russia did not have a strong civil society. The Tzar was all powerful. Therefore, when there was a minor crisis such as the defeat in WWI, a small revolutionary force such as the Bolsheviks could make a frontal attack and capture the state. There was no civil society preventing them from doing so. In developed capitalist polities, there existed strong civil society institutions. Therefore, the communists had a long battle to capture the hearts and minds of the population. They had to win over the various civil society institutions. The bourgeoisie had an ideological and cultural hegemony (people voluntarily supported the ideals and mores of capitalism). The Marxists, Gramsci argued, had to counter the hegemony of the bourgeoisie.

In the 1960s, structuralists such as Barrington Moore argued that the social classes themselves such as the capitalist class or the feudal class constitutes powerful civil society groups which form powerful interests apart from the state. Such powerful civil society groups are essential for having democracy. "No bourgeoisie, no democracy" wrote Moore in his classic The Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship.

Therefore, to have democracy, we need to have powerful groups that are not part of the state which can stand up to the state managers/rulers. Such groups include capitalists (and their groups), labor unions, teachers’ associations, and yes, professors associations, and the like (women’s groups, student groups, journalists groups).

The biggest crimes against democracy committed by Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah was their crushing of our civil society groups (political parties, women’s groups, independent newspapers, labor unions, etc).

My 2 cents,

Masoud

Ali jaan

Ali jaan,

1. If you read the seminal scholarly article by Habib Ladjevardi, you will see based on the documents, what Mohammad Reza Shah did from the getgo. There is no ambiguity on his plan. The Shah told the UK and US that he would serve their interests and asked them to help him become a dictator. If he was popular then why in the world he would need the help of the UK and U.S. to have more power. When you serve the interests of other countries instead of the national interests of your own country, what happens? The people are not stupid (most of the time). So, the only way is to be a terrible tyrant in such a situation.

2. When the Allies invaded and removed Reza Shah, it is widely said that people were happy to be gotten rid of a horrible tyrant. People hated Reza Shah. Today due to the horrendous repression and reactionary policies of the fundamentalists, people have developed a liking for Reza Shah for his gholdori and repression of the akhunds. Of course, such people suffer from historical amnesia and forget that Reza Shah repressed ALL the people. Reza Shah even killed his own top supporters!!!!!!

3. I do not share your opinion that Mohammad Reza Shah was popular between 1941 and 1953.

4. Only a small minority supported him. His power was based mostly on brute force. Some in the cities supported him. And of course the big landowners. The Shah courted Grand Ayatollah Brujerdi, so that he would have his support (because he needed it).

In actual free elections in Tehran and some big cities that were clean elections, JM won almost all the seats. The supporters of the Shah did not win a single seat in Tehran for example, the place where the election was clean and honest.

Best,

Masoud

Way before Wiki was started Adam Smith wrote about Civil Society

As a matter of fact he is THE first writer to come up with such a notion.

For him the Market was the embodiment of Civil Society as opposed to the State (keep in mind that at the times of Adam Smith the market and its functions barely existed, hence his genuis).

So if we base the definition of Civil Society on a normative base, the definition you offer, since it excludesMarket is a defintion null and void.

Since Adam Smith we have had many other different variation of Civil Society.

As mentione before the concept and the reality of Civil Society IS NOT NORMATIVE, BUT HISTORICAL.

Adam Smith has one definition (the original and the first one)

Antonio Gramsci has another one.

At the early stages of the 21st century with the advent of information technologies we probably will have some features in Civil Society that had not existed before.

Hence my initial point: Civil Society is not a unchanging, always staying the same NORMATIVE reality/concept.

Civil Society is an ever evolving HISTORICAL phenomenon, created very much in accordance with the historical, geographical, anthropological, specifities of each society. Hope that helps, cheers 

Dear VPK

As I stated I do agree with most of your comments and I am not trying to make excuse for our unrealistic expectation like wanting 600 Rials oil money per person per day. As it was promised by Khomeini and the idiots that followed him to the hell that is IRI.

But the problem with that attitude does not lay with oil nationalization. It has more to do with our psyche as a nation. It has to do with our mindset of wanting something for noting and not accepting responsibility for our actions or towards our country.

Oil money was just another tool and if it was not that in would have been another thing like wanting to go to heaven and leave in a hore house (called Behesht) with all the Hoories, rivers of milk and honey for ever without actually having to do anything. or paying for it. While we remain greedy, stupid and unrealistic there is no shortage of tools to manipulate and use us. Furthermore to eliminate this problem one needs to eliminate the cause and the force behind that tool rather than the tool itself

Those were and still are our problem and as you can still see it in this very site with Iranians and the so called “intellectuals” who after 30 years still are not prepared to face the truth and accept their own mistakes.

We need to take back control and accept responsibility for our actions.

We need to understand that there is noting free in this world.

We need to learn to think long term

We need to learn to be impartial in our analysis and always consider the realities of the era we are talking about

We need to learn to be rational and think before acting

Furthermore to defend our rights we may some time need to take up arms and fight against an advisory much stronger. But giving up and handing over our rights is and should never be an option