چرا حزب آينده نگر براي ايران

چرا حزب آينده نگر براي ايران
من کيستم، چرا اينجايم، و به کجا ميروم؟

سام قندچی

من بيش از بيست سال است که درباره نياز به ايجاد يک آلترناتيو آينده نگر براي رهبري ايران به سوي قرن 21 نوشته ام و دو سال پيش مقدمه و پلاتفرم متن پيشنهادي براي حزت آينده نگر را تدوين نمودم. متأسفانه هنوز اکثريت روشنفکران مستقل ايران به چپ متمايل بوده و نشريات وابسته به چپ نظير ايران امروز نظرات من را سانسور کرده و منتشر نميکردند، با اينکه بسياري از نوشته هاي من در نشريات معتبر بين المللي منتشر ميشدند، و حتي کتاب اخير من تحت عنوان "ايران آينده نگر" توسط "جامعه جهان آينده"، که بزرگترين و معتبرترين تشکيلات آينده نگر در جهان است، مرور و توصيه Review شده است، ولي مطبوعات ايرانی، جتي آنها که به انگليسي منتشر ميشوند، درباره آن سکوت کردند.

غلط بودن شايعات برخي محافل چپ درباره عدم توجه آينده نگري به موضوع عدالت اجتماعي بيش از پيش آشکار شده است. نشريات چپ به اين بسنده کردند که شايع کنند اين نطريات با عدالت اجتماعي در تناقض است، در صورتيکه نظريات پان سوسياليستي اتحاد چپ است که ضد عدالت اجتماعي است. من نشان دادم که اين سوسياليسم است که از حل معضل عدالت اجتماعي در دنياي نو عاجز است، و مفصلأ در نوشته عدالت اجتماعي و انقلاب کامپيوتري موصوع را از نقطه نظر آينده نگر طرح کردم.

ودر مقالات ديگر درباره مارکسيسم و مالکيت دولتي واپسگرائي چپ را بحث کردم، و نشان دادم که چرا اينان سالهاست به مبلغين اصلاح طلبي ارتجاعي تبديل شده اند و نظير همتايان اصلاح طلب خود در رژيم جمهوري اسلامي، فکر ميکنند سانسور، تهي بودن نظرات آنها را ميپوشاند. اگر اينان حرفي براي گفتن داشتند، در 20 سال گدشته، بجاي سانسور، پاسخي به نطرات آينده نگر ميدادند. همانطور که نوشتم اينان نميتوانند ادعا کنند که اين نظرات بي اهميت است چرا که در معتبرترين نشريات بين المللي منتشر شده اند، البته نه در Monthly Review مورد علاقه چپگرايان، که ديگر نظير مجله مکتب اسلام کمونيستها ست، و آنقدر تهي است که هيج متفکر جدي در سطع بين المللي وقت خود را با آن تلف نميکند، و متأسفانه بين روشنفکران واپسگراي ما بيشتر خواننده دارد تا در ميان روشنفکران آمريکا، با اينکه در آمريکا منتشر ميشود.

به موضوع نياز حزب آينده نگر برگردم، اساسأ تا يک سال پيش توجهي به نطريات آينده نگري در ميان اپوزيسيون ايران نميشد، وليکن با شکست هاي متعدد چپ در ايجاد رهبري سياسي براي هدايت ايران بسوي قرن بيست و يکم، امروزه بسياري از روشنفکران علاقمند شده اند که به پيشنهاد من براي ايجاد يک حزب آينده نگر، و انجام اين مهم توجه کنند، و اين امر مايه خوشحالي است، چرا که در تجربه مشابه آمريکا در زمان جفرسون، وقتيکه روشنفکران عصر وي قانع شدند که حزبي با پلاتفرم ترقي خواهانه آن عصر براي پيشبرد جامعه بسوي دنياي نو لازم است، حزب دموکرات ايجاد شد، و براي بيش از يک قرن نقش تعيين کننده در ايجاد جامعه نو در آمريکا ايفا نمود.

حتي اگر قدرت سياسي توسط اپوزيسيون ايران گرفته شده بود، باز هم نياز به ايجاد چنين حزبي براي رهبري جامعه بسوي جامعه فراصنعتي لازم است، و در واقع در مثال تاريخي بالا، حزب دموکرات پس از پيروزي انقلاب ساخته شد. به عبارت ديگر اين مهم نه تنها براي پايان دادن به تئوکراسي ايران لازم است، بلکه مهم تر از آن براي شکل دادن دموکراسي ترقي خواهانه ايران آينده حائز اهميت است.

اگر امروز براي کشور هائي نظير آمريکا پيشبرد نظريات آينده نگرانه براي هدايت جامعه بسوي ساختار فراصنعتي، ممکن است از طريق ايجاد فراکسيون آينده نگر در درون دو حزب اصلي دموکرات و جمهوريخواه معني داشته باشد، براي ايران که اساسأ حزبي ندارد، کوشش براي ايجاد حزب آينده نگر بهترين راه براي رهبري جامعه بسوي ساختار فراصنعتي است.

در واقع نه تنها براي ساختمان ايران در رژيم آينده، بلکه حتي براي تغيير *واقعي* رژيم، نياز به تشکيل حزت آينده ه نگر است. دوست مرحوم من جک لي Jack Li تعمق انديشمندانه Meditation را جستجو براي پاسخ سوأل "من کيستم، چرا اينجايم، و به کجا ميروم؟" تعريف کرده بود. بنظر من اين سوألي بوده که همه روشنفکران ايران در 24 سال گذشته از خود کرده اند.

از خود پرسيده اند که فارس اند، ترک اند، کرد اند، بلوچ اند، يا عرب اند، آمريکائي اند، يا ايراني اند. از خود پرسيده اند چرا در ترکيه اند، يا در دوبي، يا در آمريکا، و هر روز از خود پرسيده اند که فردايشان چيست. البته منظور دوست من از پاسخ به اين سوأل، آنجه نيست که من نوشتم، هر چند نميگويد منظورش چيست، و نقل ميکند که تعمق انديشمندانه جستجوي شخصي است، واينکه هيچ کس براي ديگري نميتواند پاسخ دهد. ولي آيا اين سوأل "من کيستم، چرا اينجايم، و به کجا ميروم؟" حقانيت خود را به ايرانيان بعد از تجربه 1979 دو چندان ثابت نکرده است؟


***
تفاوت اساسي جنبش دموکراسي خواهي بلوک شرق و ايران

اکثر ايرانيان تصور ميکنند که نظير شوروي و بلوک شرق، تغيير رژيم در ايران نيز نيازمند يک حزب با قدرت اپوزيسيون نيست. برخي هم ميگويند که رژيم شوروي مانند جمهوري اسلامي قصي القلب نبوده و نتيجه ميگيرند که در ايران نياز به مبارزه مسلحانه است. بنظر من هر دو گروه يک فاکتور مهم در باره تغيير رژيم در شوروي و بلوک شرق را ناديده ميگيرند که در زير توضيح ميدهم.

تغيير در کشورهاي بلوک شوروي اساسأ توسط فراکسيون هاي درون احزاب کمونيست نظير گور باچف و يلتسين انجام شد و حتي تا امروز کساني نظيدر پوتين از مقامات بالاي حزب کمونيست سابق شوروي هستند، و استثنائاتي نظير تجربه چکسلواکي هم نتيجه رابطه نزديک اپوزيسيون درون سيستم (دوبچک) با اپوزيسيون بيرون سيستم (واکلاو هاول) بود.

مخالفين درون حزب کمونيست خواهان حفظ سيستم کمونيستي نبودند و علنأ سالها قبل از سقوط شوروي، در سفر هاي خود به انگليس و آمريکا، از آرزوي خود براي مدل آمريکا و اروپاي غربي، براي آينده روسيه و اروپاي شرقي سخن ميگفتند. کدام اصلاح طلب حکومتي ايران اينچنين سخن گفته که اينچنين بسياري روشنفکران چپ گراي ما شيفته آنان شده اند.

در نتيجه سوأل درباره ايران اين است که آيا حالتي نظير چکسلواکي است و اگر پاسخ ما نه باشد، آيا به تصور ما تغيير رژيم، نظير شوروي، از طريق فراکسيوني درون رژيم خواهد بود؟ اگر هردو را ممکن ندانيم، ديگر مسأله ربطي به قساوت رژيم ندارد. حتي اگر رژيم انقدر ستمگر نبود نيز براي گرفنن قدرت توسط اپوزيسيون خارج از سيستم، مدل شوروي کار نخواهد کرد. به عبارت ديگر اگر ما معتقديم که رفرميستهاي درون جمهوري اسلامي، خواهان حفظ جمهوري اسلامي هستند، اميد به آنها براي تغيير واقعي رژيم خيال باطل است.

آنچه گفتم به اين معني نيست که حالا بايستي اپوزيسيون مبارزه مسلحانه کند. حتي اگر تمام تغيير رژيم از طريق سياسي انجام شود، باز هم اپوزيسيون خارج رژيم براي رهبري تغيير رژيم نياز به تشکيلات قوي سياسي دارد. در انقلاب 1979، خميني تا لحظات آخر از مبارزه مسلحانه عليه رژيم شاه استفاده نکرد و ليکن از مدت ها قبل تشکيلات تنومند سنتي روحانيت با وي در مبارزه سياسي سمت گيري کرده بود، تشکيلاتي موازي رژيم و به همانقدر قدرتمند؟ حالا تشکيلات اپوزيسيون ايران کجاست؟ البته اپوزيسيون قوي تر از آنزمان است، اما تشکيلات اين اپوزيسيون کجا است؟

اکثر اپوزيسيون پس از تجربه خاتمي ميگويند که رفرميستهاي رژيم اميد آنها نيستند و اين امر مايه مسرت است. همچنين ميگويند که خواهان مبارزه مسلحانه نيستند و خواهان نافرماني مدني هستند و آنهم عالي. اما آيا آنها تشکيلات واقعي سياسي که داخل و خارج ايران فعاليت کند دارند؟ تشکيلات هاي واقعي سياسي خارج رژيم که طي تاريخ قدرت را گرفته اند، کادر ها و رهبران حرفه اي تمام وقت داشته اند، و نه فقط سمپات. البته سمپات هاي حزب، مهمترين تکيه گاه احزاب هستند و ليکن وظيفه رهبري يک حزب واقعي، رهبري کردن حزب است ، و نه دکتر يا مهندس و يا استاد دانشگاه بودن. نه تنها من ارزش آنهائي که تمام وقت، دکتر، مهندس، و يا استاد دانشگاه هستند را پائين نمياورم، بلکه آنها را براي پشتيباني از جنبش دموکراسي خواهي ايران ميستايم، وليکن حزبي که مدعي گرفتن قدرت است، نميتواند با پشتيبانان رهبري شود.

امروزه تنها حزبي که کادرها و رهبرانش تمام وقت در سياست ايران درگيرند، حزب مشارکت است، که رهبرانش نمايندگان مجلس و مسولين دولتي رژيم هستند. اگر اپوزيسيون سکولار، خاتمي و رفرميستهاي رژيم را نميخواهد، و خواهان آلترناتيو خارج رژيم است، فقط با ناسزا گوئي به خاتمي نميتواند به اين نتيحه برسد. بنظر من آلترناتيو ايجاد حزب آينده نگر است (http://www.ghandchi.com/348-HezbeAyandehnegar.htm)، و نياز به کادرها و رهبراني است که حاضر باشند تمام وقت کار کنند، و نياز به امکانات مالي است که بتوان آنها را تأمين کرد.

برخي از مدل جبهه ملي براي اين امر سخن ميگويند. بنظر من آن مدل هيچگاه براي کسب قدرت در ايران موفق نبوده است، هرچند بسياري از صادق ترين فرزندان ايران، نظير قهرمان ملي ما دکتر مصدق در آن تشکيلات بودند. دکتر مصدق شخصأ ثروتمند بود، و ميتوانست نمام وقت فعاليت کند، بدون آنکه تشکيلات به او حقوق بدهد. بقيه آنقدر موثر نبودند، چرا که شغل اصلي شان دکتر، مهندس، وکيل، و غيره بود، و نه کادر حزبي. البته موضوعات پلاتفرم هم مسأله بودند که موضوع اين بحث نيست.

پس از سقوط کمونيسم، بسياري از روشنفکران ايران، از مفاهيم حزب حرفه اي دوري ميجويند، و تصور ميکنند ديکتاتوري کشورهاي کمونيستي به خاطر پروفشناليسم حزب لنيني بوده است. واقعيت اين است که در کشورهاي غير کمونيستي نيز، سياستمداران تمام وقت کار حزبي ميکنند، بويژه اگر در برابر خود وظيفه *کسب* قدرت سياسی از رژيم ديگري را گذاشته باشند. مسأله استبداد کمونيسم در سيستم ايدئولوژيک آن نهفته است و ربطي به اين نداشته که لنين عضو حرفه اي حزب بوده يا نه. من درباره دولت گرائي و دلائل استبداد ايدئولوژي مارکسيسم (http://www.ghandchi.com/299-Marxism.htm) در جاي ديگر نوشته ام ونيازي به تکرار نيست.

اگر اپوزيسيون ميخواهد تا ابد اپوزيسيون بماند و بدنبال کسب قدرت نيست، نه به پول و نه به کادر هاي خرفه اي نيازي دارد، و ميتواند همه ساله بمناسبت روزهاي تاريخي تجمع کند، و به افتخارات گذشته ارج نهد، آنچه ملت هاي قديمي فنا شده انجام ميدهند، و همه چيز را ميتوانند پاک و خالص انجام دهند و از ناخاصي هاي عملي پيشبرد يک حزب واقعي بپرهيزند، و در حفظ آثار باستاني گذشته گان کوشا باشند. در غير اينصورت، حزب واقعي، رهبر و کادر و جمع آوري پول ميخواهد، اگر بخواهد کار جدي کند، و منظورم از کار جدي، فعاليت سياسي است و نه نظامي.

خلاصه آنکه حزب آينده نگر نه تنها پس از سقوط رژيم، بلکه براي تغيير رژيم لازم است!


***
انتظار غلط از جنبش دانشجوئي

قبل از بحث بيشتر درباره حزب آينده نگر لازم است به يک موضوع مهم اشاره کنم و آن موضوع انتظار غلط از جنبش دموکراسي خواهي دانشجوئي است. در کتاب ايران آينده نگر به تفصيل توضيح داده ام که همانگونه که انقلاب ارتجاعي 1979 سر آغاز تروريسم اسلام گرا بود، پايان تئوکراسي جمهوري اسلامي ميتواند سرآغاز بزرگترين تحول فراصنعتي در خاورميانه و نقاط ديگر جهان باشد. آيا هدايت چنين تحول تاريخي در توان جنبش دانشجوئي است؟ دريک سال گذشته اعتصابات پر قدرت دانشجوئي در آبان81، آذر81، و خرداد82 تا سالگرد 18 تير ادامه داشت، و سوألي که اين تظاهرات در فکر هر ايراني مطرح کرد اين بود که آيا جنبش دانشجوئي قادر است که رژيم را در ايران عوض کند؟

اين انتظار غلطي است که بخواهيم جنبش دانشجوئي و رهبري آن نقش حزب آينده نگر يا هر حزب ديگري را بازي کند. بنابر ماهييت خود، تشکيلات دانشجوئي تشکيلات سياسي حرفه اي نيست. جنبش دانشجويان دانشگاه ها بخش اصلي جنبش دموکراسي خواهي براي تغيير رژيم نيست و خود بخشي از جنبش جوانان ايران است. در سالهاي 1320-1332 جنبش *جوانان* قوي بود .و در سال هاي پس از اعتصابات اتوبوسراني در 1348 جنیش *دانشجوئي* برجسته بود. امروز کل جنبش جوانان و دانشجويان ايران از هر زمان ديگري در صد سال گذشته قوي تراست.

معهذا داشتن انتظارغير واقعي از اين جنبش غلط است و ميتواند باعث يأس شرکت کنندگان اين جنتش و ديگران شود. من اميدوارم آنچه در زير مينويسم را کسي غير شفيقانه تلقي نکند. من بيشترين احترام را براي جنبش دانشجوئي ايران قائل هستم، ولي تصور نقشي که اين جنبش قادر به ايفاي آن نيست، هم به اين جنبش و هم به بقيه جنبش .دموکراسي خواهي لطمه خواهد زد.

بنظر من رهبران جنبش دانشجوئي نطير آقاي طبرزدي انسان هاي متعهدي هستند که زندگي خود را براي آرمان دموکراسي در خطر فراوان قرار داده اند، وليکن نوع تجربه و دانش سياسي لازم براي رهبري يک حزب سياسي با جنبش دانشجوئي متفاوت است، و قرار دادن افراد در جايگاه غير واقعي به انسان هاي شريفي که هدفشان خدمت به آرمانهاي انساني است ضرر ميزند، ،و باعث نااميدي هم ايشان و هم کساني ميشود که انتظار دارند اين انسان هاي شريف تغيير رژيم را رهبري کنند. نتيجتأ هم ايشان و هم پيروانشان به تمناي شخصي براي اتحاد متوسل ميشوند، و پس از شکست در عمل، مقصر کردن يکيگر آغاز ميشود، بجاي انکه بحث ها بر روي پلاتفرم و نيازهاي مالي و تشکيلاتي ساختمان حزب متمرکز شوند، که به شکل آماتوري قابل حل نيستند.

يک جنبش و تشکيلات دانشجوئي نيرومند ميتواند به پيروزي رفرميست هاي رژيم جمهوري اسلامي و *يا* به پيروزي تغيير رژيم بيانجامد، بسته به آنکه احزاب سياسي رفرميست هاي رژيم آن را رهبري کنند و يا احزاب اپوزيسيون خارج از رژيم.

جنبش دانشجوئي از بسياري مسائل پلاتفرم سياسي بدرستي اجتناب ميکند، مسائلي که براي يک پلاتفرم حزب آينده نگر حياتي هستند. بسياري از جزئيات پلاتفرم براي اتحاد جنبش دانشجوئي در زمانهاي مختلف لازم نيسنتد، و بستگي به وضعيت معين جنبش دانشجوئي در هرزمان دارند.

ولي همين موضوعات برنامه اي براي يک حزب واقعي مدرن که از رفرميست هاي ارتجاعي فاصله ميگيرد غير قابل اجتناب است. و احزاب سياسي و تشکيلات هاي دانشجوئي دو نوع مختلف تشکيلات هستند و تفاوت در نامي نيست که به آنها داده شود، و اساسأ اولي دومي را هدايت ميکند. از سوي ديگر اگر احزاب سياسي وطيفه خود را به تشکيلات هاي دانشجوئي منتقل کنند، آنها را به شکست بيهوده کشيده ودر معرض نا اميدي قرار ميدهند و برنده چنين اشتباهي جريانات رفرميست رژيم خواهند بود که تشکيلات دارند و از اين جانبازي ها سود ميحويند.

اگر آلتر ناتيو ديگري ميخواهيم ميبايست حزب آينده نگري بسازيم که کادرها و رهبران آن 90% وقت خود را در شغل شخصي و 10% را در کار حزب نباشند. اجازه بدهيد تکرار کنم که چنين نسبتي براي حاميان حزب هيج اشکالي ندارد و منظور من رهبري و.کادر هاي حزب است که لازم است تمام وقت در حزب کار کنند.

همانگونه که در جاي ديگر نوشتم، اگر ما ايرانيان ميخواهيم رهبران ما مستقل باشند ميبايست براي احزاب خود اعانه جمع آوري کنيم و آن ها که ثروت مند ترند کمک هاي بزرگ تر کنند.


***
آينده نگري و سياست

شايد براي بسياري شيفتگان تکنولوژي هاي جديد تعجب انگيز جلوه کند که اولين صاحب نظران آينده نگر و تئوريسين هاي اقتصاد فراصنعتي افرادي بسيار سياسي بودند. در مقايسه در دو دهه گذشته در آمريکا آنان که پيشقراول تکنولوژي هاي نو بودند اساسأ از سياست فاصله ميگرفتند. بحران سه سال گدشته در سيليکان ولي Silicon Valley و مراکز ديگر تکنولوژي اين گرايش را عوض کرده، و بيشتر و بيشتر آينده نگر ها مي بينند که براي ييشبرد افکار خود جهت ساختمان جامعه فراصنعتي نميتوانند چشم اميد به سياست مداران مدافع جامعه صنعتي و کشاورزي داشته با شند.

در واقع با وجود بيش از 40 سال تشکيلات آينده نگر"جامعه جهان آينده" در آمريکا، حتي فيوچريست ها در حزب دموکرات يا چمهوري خواه فراکسيون خود را ندارند. همانطوز که اشاره کردم در ايران بدليل عدم وجود احزاب موحود، از ابتدا ساختن حزب آينده نگر بيشتر مفهوم دارد، ولي در آمريکا فراکسيون در احزاب موجود امکان پذيرتر بنظر ميرسد.

حتي تافلر که بيشتر به مسا ئل اجتمائي و سياسی توجه داشت، تکيه خود را بر نو سازي اقتصادي شرکت هاي سهامي گذاشت، تا احزاب سياسي. در واقع آينده نگر هاي دو دهه گدشته بسان اولين شيفتگان انقلاب صنعتي بودند که فکر ميکردند رجحان سيستم آنها توليد کهن فئودالي را بدون مقاومت جايگزين خواهد کرد و پس از چند عقب نشيني در انگليس، يعني در قلب اقتصاد صنعتي، در يافتند که جامعه کشاورزي براحتي تسلط خود را بر دولت از دست نخواهد داد. همين امر امروز درباره پاراديم جديد جامعه فرا صنعتي صادق است.

اولين آينده نگرها ي مدرن چه کساني بودند؟ دو نفر از معروف ترين پايه گذاران فيوچريسم مدرن اسيپ فلختايم Ossip K. Flechtheim در آلمان و برتراند دو ژوونل Bertrand De Jouvenel در فرانسه، در سال هاي پس ازجنگ جهاني دوم بودند. آنها هر دو از تحليل سياسي جامعه مدرن به اين نتيجه رسيدند که ميبايست فراسوي سرمايه داري و سوسياليسم رفت ، و آنان نطفه هاي تمدن نوين در حال شکل گيري را مشاهده، و مي ديدند که ليبراليسم و سوسياليسم ديگر توان ارائه راه حل گام بعدي بشريت فراسوي جامعه صنعتي را ندارند.

هرچند آنان خصائص پايه اي اقتصاد جامعه نوين در حال شکل گيري را نمی دانستند، اما برخوردشان مانند تيتو و برخي رهبران جهان سوم سال هاي 40 و 50 نبود که راه وسطي بين سوسياليسم و سرمايه داري را، بمثابه آلترناتيو سياسي سالهاي پس از جنگ جهاني دوم اتخاذ کرده بودند. فلختايم و دو ژوونل ميدانسنتد که نياز، رفتن بنياني فراسوي چامعه صنعتي است، و معتدل کردن سوسياليسم و يا مخلوط کردن سوسياليسم و سرمايه داري راه حل مشکل تمدن نوين در حال تولد نيست، و هر دو بسان فلاسفه عصر روشنگري نظير کانت، به تمام عرصه هاي زندگي و نه فقط سياست توجه داشتند. در عين حال آنان هيجگاه از عرصه سياست غفلت نميکردند، بويژه آنکه تازه از تجربه آلمان هيتلري بيرون آمده بودند، وديده بودند چگونه فاشيسم نازي که بيان بازگشت به گذشته بود، بمثابه آلترناتيو بحران سرمايه داري در سال هاي پايان 1920 و آغاز 1930 قد علم کرد.

آینده نگر بزرگ بعدي دانيل بل است که خصائص اصلي جامعه فراصنعتي را مشخص کرد. کتاب فرا رسيدن جامعه فراصنعتي "The Coming of Post-Industrial Society" دانيل بل کلاسيک انديشه آينده نگري است، و من تصور نميکنم هيچ کتابي به انداره اين کتاب تاريخِي 1973 دانيل بل، بر فکر اجتماعي مدرن اثر گداشته باشد. وي اقتصاد فراصنعتي با میناي دانش را، در برابر اقتصاد صنعتي با مبناي کار تعريف کرد، .و بعدها در مقدمه 1999 همان کتاب توضيح کاملي از دانش رمزي شده codified knowledge ارائه داد، آنچه امروز به آساني در ASIC هاي بغرنچ در توليد سمي کانداکتور قابل رويت است، و اينکه چگونه طرح هاي اينچنين، اقتصاد واقعي فرا صنعتي را از يک اقتصادبا سکتور سرويس عقب مانده جدا ميکند. در واقع مقاله جديد دانيل بل The Break Down of Time, Space, and Society سکتور سروِيس در جامعه قراصنعتي را از سکتور سرويس در اقتصاد عقب مانده تفکيک ميکند. ااما آنچه اختلاف تعييين کننده است همان دانش رمزي شده codified knowledge است.

باز گردم یه مبحت سياست. دانيل بل نيز نظير فلختايم و دو ژوونل بسيار سياسي بود. نطرياتش در نوشته هاي اوليه اش بر روي نقد از مارکسيسم متمرکز است که خود موضوع اصلي بحث هاي سياسي سال هاي 1950 و 1960 بود. معهذا با گذشت زمان فيوچريست ها کمتر و کمتر به سياست توجه کردند. چامعه جهان آينده World Future Society-WFS که تشکيلات اصلي فيوچريستي در جهان است حدود 40 سال پيش تأسيس شد و مرکز توجه آن بر روي موصوعات اجتماعي بود و هر چند موئسسين آن با پرزيدنت هاي آمريکا، چه دموکرات و چه جمهوريخواه ملاقات ميکردند، از منازعات سياسي خود را دور نگه ميداشنتد.

تشکيلات هاي ديکر آينده نگر نظير انستيتو علوم نوئتيک Institute of Noetic Sciences-ION که بوسيله ويليس هارمن Willis Harman تأسيس شد، بيشتر و بيشتر تأکيد خود را بر عرصه هاي معنوي زندگي گذاشت، و هارمن در اخرين سالهاي عمر سعي ميکرد فکر نو را به عرصه کسب وکار وارد کند.

ازآينده نگرهاي آناليتيک جان نيزبيت John Naisbitt و تافلر ها Tofflers گرايش هاي سياسي را دنبال ميکردند ولي توجه اصلي شان رهبري بارزگاني جامعه بود و نه ايجاد آلترناتيو جديد سياسي. هيچکدام یراي ايچاد حزب آينده نگر در آمريکا کوششي نکردند.

من در کتاب "ايران آينده نگر" نوشتم آنچه که آينده نگرهاي آمريکا از تجربه ايران ميتوانند بياموزند اين است که يک نيروي ارتچاعي قرون وسطائي توانست رهبري قدرت سياسي يک کشور را در قرن 21 بدست گرفته و براي 24 سال جامعه را به عقب ببرد.

در نتيجه فقط داشتن تکنولوژي و مدل اقتصادي و اجتماعي بهتر، تضمين موفقيت نيست، مگر آنکه نيروهاي چديد قدرت را بدست بگيرند، يا اقلأ بخش مهمي از قدرت باشند، و گرنه ميتواند بسياري دست آوردهاي دو دهه اخير از بين برود، آنگونه که در سيليکان ولي آمريکا در سه سال گذشته اتفاق افتاده است.

سياست مداران اقتصاد کهن براي اقتصاد کهن ميکوشند، همانگونه که سياست مداران جامعه کشاورزي سالهاي 1800 هنوز ميکوشيدتد توليد فئودالي را سوبسيت بدهند to subsidize و نه آن که صنايع نوپاي آنزمان را ثقويت کنند.

منازعات سياسي کنوني درباره آينده تعيين ميکند که آيا اقتصاد جديد راه به جلو مييابد و يا مانند آمريکا در 3 سال گدشته و ايران در 24 سال گذشته اقتصاد و زندگي ماقبل صنعتي و صنعتي جلوي پيشروي تمدن نوين را سد ميکنند. سياست و رهبري سياسي ديگر نميتوانند از طرف فيوچريست ها ناديده گرفته شوند و اميدوار باشند که جامعه قزاصنعتي بخودي خود پيروز شود. شايد ايجاد حزب آينده نگر ايران راهگشاي اين مهم در ديگر نقاط جهان شود.

به اميد جمهوری آينده نگر، فدرال، دموکراتيک، و سکولار در ايران

سام قندچی، ناشر و سردبير
ايرانسکوپ
http://www.iranscope.com/
3 مهر 1382
Sept 25, 2003

مقالات مرتبط
http://www.ghandchi.com/index-Page10.html

Futurist Party is Iran's Option
http://www.ghandchi.com/247-FuturistPartyOption.htm

لطفاً براي پلاتفرم پيشنهادي به فارسي روي لينک زير کليک کنيد
http://www.ghandchi.com/348-HezbeAyandehnegar.htm

I have been arguing for a futurist option for Iran's progress into the 21st Century for over 20 years and two years ago I wrote the Iranian Futuirst Party Platform, which was a proposal for the program of such a party. Since then I have written extensively as to why I think even if power was taken by the Iranian opposition, still such a party would be needed to ensure the progress of Iran towards a post-industrial society, after the regime change . At the end of this article, I will discuss some of the practical real issues that have blocked such a development. But let me first discuss the misconceptions about the models of how the regime change will happen and the wrong expectations of the Pro-Democracy Students' Movement.

I have detailed my views about Iran and the futurist party about two months ago, in my book Futurist Iran, where I noted the best way to end Islamist terrorism in Iran and beyond, is by forming a futurist Iranian leadership. In fact, if Jefferson saw the need to form a new party to build the ideals of the American Revolution, even after the Revolution had succeeded, the same could have been true for Iran, even if the regime had already been changed.

Last year's powerful student protests of Aban, Azar, and Khordad, till the July 9th anniversary of 1999 Iranian student protests, have put a question mark into every Iranian's mind as to whether the Students' Movement can really change the regime in Iran, and thus whether the need for formation of an alternative party is something that would be felt after the fall of Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), or is needed now to make the regime change?

Most Iranians have been looking at the events of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Block and think the regime change in those countries was not based on a strong opposition party, and believe the developments in Iran may happen the same way. Some others mention that Soviet leadership was not as ruthless as IRI and they conclude that armed opposition is needed. I think both groups are not seeing a more important factor about the regime change in the Soviet Block which I explain below.

The change in the Soviet Block basically was led by factions inside the Communist Parties in those countries and the leaders like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and even to this day Putin and others, were top brass of the former Soviet Communist Party. And the exceptions like Czech experience were based on a very close relation of the Communist reformers like Dubcek with opposition outside the system such as Vacalv Havel.

So the question for Iran is whether we think there is such a close relation like the Czech experience and if our answer is no, then whether the change and its leadership would be by some faction of IRI like the Soviet Union? And if we think neither one and that the change will have to be done by an opposition outside IRI, then the main factor is not about how ruthless IRI is. Even if it is not ruthless, still to win power by an opposition outside the regime, the model of Soviet change will not work, if we believe the IRI reformists are for keeping the IRI and not for changing the regime.

Now the above does not mean the opposition will have to do armed struggle. Even the whole change is by political means, the opposition outside the regime will still need a powerful organization if it is going to lead the change. In the 1979 revolution, Khomeini till the last days, basically did not do any armed struggle against the Shah's regime, but he had the powerful Islamic traditional organization siding with him, an organization which was outside of the regime and almost parallel with it in its power. Now where is the organization of the Iranian opposition today?

The monarchists and most republicans say they want to have nothing to do with the IRI reformists and that is great. They also say they do not want armed conflict and would like to use civil disobedience which is also great. But do they have a real organization politically active inside and outside Iran?

Real political organizations outside regimes, that have won power in history, have had professional leaders and cadres, dedicated to the task, and not just being part time sympathizers of a movement. Anywhere that the opposition *outside* the regime has won power politically or militarily, the opposition has had an organization of full time leadership and cadres that have been dedicated to the work of the party and not just doing it on the side.

Of course helping the cause on the side is fine for party sympathizers, but not for party leadership and cadres in a real party. A real party leader's job is the leadership of the party and not being a doctor or engineer or professor. Not only I do not belittle those who are a fulltime doctor, engineer, university professor, teacher, or worker, I actually applaud them for supporting Iran's Pro-Democracy movement, in any capacity they do, but a party claiming to fight to win power cannot be lead by sympathizers.

Today, the only party where its leaders are really full time involved in Iranian politics is Jebhe Mosharekat in Iran, where its leaders are IRI parliamentarians or are other functionaries of IRI. If the secular opposition does not like Khatami and the IRI reformists, and wants to have a real alternative outside of IRI, it cannot be achieved by giving insults to Khatami. The work is to put together the organization of full time politicians of the secular opposition outside IRI. I think such an organization would be a futurist party and it needs people who are ready to work in such a party full time, and also it needs financial means to support qualified leaders and cadres.

In conclusion, let me make a note about the Students' Movement. It is wrong to expect from the Students' Movement and its leadership to act as a futurist party or any party for that matter. By its nature, the students' organization is not a professional political organization and the movement of university students is not the main part of Iran's Pro-Democracy movement to change the regime and is part of the youth movement of Iran which is stronger than it has ever been in the last 100 years.

Nonetheless, setting too high of an expectation for such a movement will cause disappointment both for this movement and for others. I hope nobody to take it as being harsh when I write this note. I have the highest regard for Iranian students' movement but thinking of a role which it cannot play, is hurting it as well as hurting the rest of Iran's Pro-Democracy movement.

I think students' leaders like Mr.Tabarzadi are dedicated people risking their life for the Iranian movement, but the kind of political experience and knowledge needed for a party leadership is different from the students' movement, and setting wrong expectations even hurts these real dedicated people, and causes disappointment among the ones expecting them to lead the regime change, and they both end up making it a personal plea for unity, when in practice it fails over and over again, in the absence of discussing platforms and financial and organizational needs to build a real party, and it cannot be skipped by glossing over these realities and just hoping that all can be magically accomplished.

A powerful Students' Movement and its organization can help the success of IRI reformist faction *or* can help a regime change in Iran, depending on whether the political parties of the IRI reformists lead the movement, or the political parties of the opposition outside the regime lead the people.

Students' movement avoids a lot of platform issues that are critical for a real political party, which I have detailed in the platform of the Futurist Party. Many of these platform details may not be appropriate for the unity in a student's movement, depending on the state of the students' movement, but are a must for a real modern party that is going to distance itself from the backward views of IRI reformists. Political parties and student organizations are different kinds of organizations and the difference is not in the name one chooses for them, and exactly the students' movements need the leadership from the political parties. On the other hand, the political parties should not pass the task back to the students either, which is setting them up for failure, creating a wrong expectation from the students' movement and causing disappointments for students and others.

Whether one is a monarchist or a republican, in the absence of a powerful political party of the opposition, the winner of sacrifices of Iranian student movement and the rest of Iran's Pro-Democracy movement, will be the IRI reformists. If anybody does not like that option, instead of repeating more about the monarchy or republic or communism or whatever one had wished to be Iran's past, and instead of again calling for unity of such contradictory wishes, they better worry about making a real party rather than amateurish organizations, where the leaders and cadres are not 90% busy with their personal job and 10% supporting an organization. Again let me repeat that such a percentage of one's dedication is fine for supporters of the opposition, but the leaders and cadres of any such organization should work full time for the party in a professional capacity.

Many people give the example of Jebhe Melli as a model for a party today, but let me say that example was never successful to take power in Iran, although it had some of the most sincere people like Iran's hero Dr.Mossadegh with it. Dr. Mossadegh was personally wealthy to be full time dedicated to the political work, without Jebhe Melli paying him as a party functionary. All others were not that effective because their main job was being a doctor or engineer or lawyer and not being a party functionary. Of course, there were also platform issues too, but that is not my main topic here.

Basically a professional party needs full time leaders and cadres or it will not be able to be effective for a major regime change, as needed in Iran, to replace Islamic Republic of Iran. After the collapse of Communism, many Iranian intellectuals have become adamant about professional party concepts, and think that the reason for dictatorship in the Communist countries was the Leninist party professionalism or careerism.

The reality is that anywhere in the noncommunist systems, the politicians are full time too, especially if they had the task of taking the power from another regime. The issue of Communism and its dictatorship is related to the flaws of that ideology and has nothing to do with Lenin being a professional party member or not. I have discussed the issue of Marxism enough and no need to repeat.

Fundraising for the party would be one of the functions of the party and this is how an independent party can exist. It should openly raise funds in the open, and not like some cases where foreign assistance was accepted by some forces, without openly announcing it, because they thought it is below their party's dignity to accept funds. I do not see anything wrong with any party to accept assistance from any individuals or foreign country, as long as it is all in the open, and does not compromise The party's' ideals. Didn't the American revolutionaries accept help from France and wasn't even the Statue of Liberty built by France? Did it make them dependent or lackey of France, which is such a taboo for Iranian independent opposition?

If an opposition wants to stay opposition forever, rather than to take power, it will not need money or professional cadres and every year on anniversary of heroic events, they can gather and pay tribute to the past, just like some annihilated nations of the past do, and they can keep everything very clean and pure, and not be so-called dirty with practical realities like running a real opposition party, and they can keep the artifacts of the past glories in their museums. Otherwise a party needs full time leaders and cadres and needs major fundraisings in the millions of dollars if it wants to do anything serious.

I got too distracted from my main topic. I seriously think that not just building the post-regime-change Iran, but even Iran's regime change itself, requires the formation of a Futurist Party, to make a meaningful regime change possible. Iran is not the Soviet Block and needs the opposition *outside* the regime to make the regime change. I have already discussed the importance of such a party in my book Futurist Iran, and not much to add to my reasons as to why that is the kind of program Iran needs, to build a post-industrial society in the 21st Century to end Islamist terrorism.

Why instead of talking about history, we Iranians need to discuss how we can build the futurist party the same way Jefferson built Democratic Party in the U. 200 years ago? How can we raise the money to get the initial team started? Why Bush knows how to do fund-raising for his party, but it seems like we Iranians shy away to do fund raising for a political party? Why on one hand we want our political leaders to be independent, and on the other hand we do not want to raise the finances for the party to keep them independent and active.

Unless one is independently wealthy like Dr. Mossadegh was, no qualified Iranian politician can work full time for the movement, if Iranians do not start fundraising for their favorite party and to actively support the fundraisers. Why Bush can easily get a number of $2 million-dollar contributions in just one fundraising trip to California, but we have so many wealthy Iranians who live in the same California, and although they all say they want an *independent-outside-IRI-force* to succeed in Iran, they do not make any such *political* contributions, and think giving $10 to a charity is all they need to do for what they aspire to. Would this kind of attitude ever create an independent alternative for Iran? Khomeini had people going to Najaf and taking their khoms and zakat money to him. How are secular Iranians going to support an independent and outside IRI force remains to be seen!


Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/EditorIRANSCOPEhttp://www.iranscope.com/August 29, 2003

RELATED ARTICLEShttp://www.ghandchi.com/index-Page10.htmlhttp://www.ghandchi.com/index-Page11.html

Futurists and Politics
On the Need for Futurist Political Factions in the U.S.
http://www.ghandchi.com/258-FuturistPolitics.htm


It may sound very strange to tell the high tech enthusiasts of the New Economy in Silicon Valley that the early futurists and first proponents of the Post-Industrial society were very political people. In contrast, during the last two decades of flourishing of the high tech, the pioneers of the new technologies took pride in avoiding any political involvement, and focused on innovation and building the new economy.

Even people like Alvin Toffler who paid attention to the social side of the upcoming civilization, still focused more on reinventing the corporation and influencing business leaders, rather than thinking of political leadership for the U.S. and beyond. True he had always said that the change to the new society can happen peacefully or otherwise and Tofflers in their anti-war book had political discussions but they were concerned more about social goals of equal opportunity and peace than actually talking about the proponents of post-industrial society taking power in the U.S. and elsewhere, albeit peacefully, and driving a futurist platform as political leaders. Futurists did not see their role like the liberals, conservatives or socialists to take power.

All serious political forces never shy away from saying that they are for taking power, and not just writing critics or advising those who hold power, which is more of the work of journalists than political parties. A liberal would not try to advise a conservative to execute a liberal plan but strives for liberals to take power although will compromise depending on the strength of liberal factions at any time. Why futurists thought others can execute their plans was mostly because they thought objectively they had the best ideas and thought any disinterested politician should execute them.

Futurists and high tech technologists of the last four decades were more like the early enthusiasts of industrial society in 18th Century Europe who thought the superiority of the new industrial paradigm would automatically translate to replacing the old agricultural society to usher in the new industrial world of their time. It was true that from an unbiased view they had a superior plan to the old feudal system, and it took them a few major setbacks particularly in the heart of industrial society in England, to realize that agricultural society was not going to lose its grip on the leadership of the country, and throw in the towel, and would try hard to use the resources of the government to keep itself functioning longer through subsidies, and the proponents of the new society had to fight a major political battle with the old to be able to drive industrialization and make the industrial paradigm victorious, and the success would not be given to them on a silver platter and required a real political work. The same will be true for new post-industrial paradigm today.

The downturn of Silicon Valley in the last three years is getting the high tech enthusiasts and futurists to realize that just like the early industrialists, having a better technological, social and economic plan does not mean that automatically it will become the plan of the country and the world, and a political battle with the old industrial elite is a real challenge in the U.S. and abroad. Industries from oil to airlines got lion shares of government subsidies, and Silicon Valley went down the tubes in the last three years, and the bleeding of high tech has still not stopped and it is becoming the main battle of the upcoming presidential election in the U.S., with California recall of Gray Davis being the precursor of what lies ahead and already the Kerry, Lieberman, and Dean's platform debates are heating up.

Who were the first modern futurists? Two of the most well known founders of modern futurism were Ossip K. Flechtheim in Germany and Bertrand De Jouvenel in France in the years after WWII. They both reached the conclusion that one needs to go beyond capitalism and socialism, from a political analysis of the modern world, where they saw both liberalism and socialism no longer to be the viable solutions to take humanity to the next step beyond the industrial society, and they were seeing the seeds of a new civilization beyond the industrial paradigm to get formed, for which old solutions of industrial society were no longer an answer.

Although they did not know the basic economic characteristics of this new society that was being formed, their approach was not like Tito and some third world leaders in late 40's and early 50's who tried to have a middle road between socialism and capitalism as a political alternative in the post-WWII era. They knew that one had to go fundamentally beyond the whole industrial society, and moderating or mixing up solutions that had worked for industrial society, was not going to be the answer for the upcoming civilization, and similar to philosophers of early enlightenment like Kant, they looked at all areas of life and not just politics. Nonetheless they never neglected politics and were very political, especially after their own recent experience of dealing with Nazi fascism in Europe, when Nazism was some kind of returning to the past as an alternative to the crisis of industrialism in late 20's and early 30's.

Next major futurist who finally defined the fundamental characteristics of the post-industrial society was Daniel Bell. Daniel Bell's book "The Coming of Post-Industrial Society" is the classic of futurist thought, and I do not think any book has impacted the modern social thinking as Daniel Bell's legendary book of 1973. He defined knowledge-based post-industrial economy in contrast to the labor-based economy of industrial production and later in the foreword to the same book in 1999, he fully elaborated his definition of codified knowledge, as one can easily see today how the basic barrier to entry for complex ASIC in modern semiconductor production is the codified knowledge inherent in its design, and how such designs distinguish a real post-industrial economy from some service oriented old economies, where service does not mean real knowledge-based enterprises. As far as service industry, Daniel Bell's paper on The Break Down of Time, Space, and Society, clarified how the service industry of a post-industrial society is different from a service sector in a backward economy. However, the main differentiation is the codified knowledge as noted.

Let me return to the topic of politics. Daniel Bell was very political too. His views in his early works are focused on critic of Marxism, which was a major topic of political discourse in 50's and 60's. However, as time passed the futurists focused less and less on political topics. World Future Society (WFS) which is the main futurist organization in the world and was founded about forty years ago, basically did not get involved in the political battles in the U.S. where it is based, and its focus was on social topics and although would meet with presidents, both republican and democrat, they kept away from political battles. Other futurist organizations such as Institute of Noetic Sciences (ION) that was founded by Willis Harman focused more and more on spiritual aspects of life and Harman tried to bring his understanding of new thinking to the business world.

Analytic futurists like John Naisbitt and Tofflers addressed political trends but their involvement with business leadership took precedence over creating a new political alternative. None cared to strive for forming a new futurist party in the U.S. I have addressed the need for a Futurist Party Platform for Iran's future, where the political leadership of the country has been pushing it backwards to the Medieval world for decades, and a political leadership focused on a post-industrial society is needed to fundamentally change the course and form the Futurist Iran. Now as far as the U.S. is concerned, I think if not a futurist party, at least it makes sense to start futurist factions within the Republican and Democratic parties of the U.S., but I have not seen any such attempts.

The reality is that the first proponents of modern industrial world, whether liberal or socialist, were not political either and emphasized technology, social, business, and economic change and did not bother with politics and considered it as waste of energy. It may be ironic to say this today when all that socialism and liberalism has reduced to politics. In contrast the futurists who are interested in creating the new civilization of post-industrial society and its New Economy, still hope the politicians of the old industrial paradigm to do the work for them.

I think the experience of the last three years of Silicon Valley and other high tech centers of the world shows that the above is a wrong expectation. Only futurist factions in the political parties can understand and plan for the post-industrial society and it cannot just happen by itself, and it cannot happen by politicians of Old Economy using the New Economy enthusiasts as a voting block for a few more votes, and not really understanding and wanting to drive for a whole glacial change of Post-Industrial development in the U.S. and the world. It is in a way incredible that we being futurists and believing in planning for outcomes, have not applied the same principles to our own outlook for Post-Industrial society to design the political plans to achieve our goal.

It is time to form futurist factions in the major political parties of the U.S. Futurists and new economy enthusiasts are in great numbers in the U.S. but they cannot become a force to be able to impact the future as long as they are hoping political factions of old industrial world to do their work which is driving the post-industrial society, production and economy.

One thing that American futurists can learn from Iran's experience is that it was possible for a reactionary Medieval force to take political leadership of a country and push the society backwards in the 21st Century for 24 years and still counting.

Therefore just having a better technological, social, and economic model does not guarantee a success until one has the political leadership of the country or is a key part of that political leadership. This is what old industrial world has known for a long time and proponents of the post-industrial society need to come to grips with this reality, before a major reversal of all the achievements of the last two decades of the New Economy are lost.

Unless the above is achieved, major infrastructure projects that can fundamentally help the glacial change to the post-industrial economy will not happen. For example I have been noting the fiber to every home as the key project to make such a change today.

In response what I hear from old politicians is either to reduce the call to some Broadband patchwork like DSL or Cable Modem to get a bit more out of copper, or they tell me to wait and consider this as among many other projects they have which are mostly for old economy although with a lot of liberal jargon.

The current battles about the future will determine whether the New Economy will take the back seat for another four years in the U.S. or not. As I noted, in Iran, the New Economy has taken the back seat for 24 years and still counting. Political leadership and politics cannot be left alone by futurists anymore, and hope that Post-Industrial society and New Economy will win by itself. Old Economy politicians work for Old Economy and not for New Economy just as old agricultural politicians of England of 1800's still strived to subsidize the old feudal production and not to promote the upcoming industries or industrial agriculture.


Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/EditorIRANSCOPEhttp://www.iranscope.com/Sept 10, 2003