“Does Neoliberalism Rule in Iran?” by Nezam Bahrami Komeil

Does Neoliberalism Rule in Iran?

(Escaping the Political through the Critique of Neoliberalism)

Dr. Nezam Bahrami Komeil

Pooyeh Mehr Quarterly, Spring and Summer 1400

 

Introduction

Before the 1979 Revolution, leftist currents and thinkers described the ruling system in Iran as a capitalist system and sought its destruction. The same group of leftists, in the early days of the revolution, labeled the Freedom Movement and the provisional government as liberalist and sought their elimination. Continuing this same approach, for over a decade some leftist thinkers have described the existing governments in Iran as "neoliberalist" and oppose their programs. In the view of these individuals, every unpleasant phenomenon in Iran, from theft and embezzlement and environmental destruction to the rising cost of educational and health services and social harms, is due to the dominance of a neoliberal approach in Iran.

This article is not about confirming or refuting neoliberalism, nor does it even point to its weaknesses or strengths; especially since the crisis of 2007 onwards has confronted even the defenders of this school with greater doubts. (Steger and Roy: 2019) My question is whether the Iranian government can be called a neoliberal government. Do the characteristics of a neoliberal government prevail in Iran? Is using this concept in the analysis of economic, political, and social issues and phenomena helpful?

Liberalism and Neoliberalism

The vital presupposition of all liberal ideas and policies is that all individuals enjoy an equal status as legal personalities, and this status is not subject to the differences and distinctions that may set them apart from one another. Usually (but not necessarily) this view is complemented by a philosophy of equal democratic citizenship rights. (Davies: 2017) Conceptually, liberalism in the political and social sphere can be distinguished from the economic sphere. "Political and social liberalism" emphasizes the individual and their freedoms and promotes values such as humanism, individualism, rationalism and autonomy, pluralism, secularism, tolerance, and civil and citizenship rights. Among the most important standard-bearers of liberalism are Voltaire, Montesquieu, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, Isaiah Berlin, Ralf Dahrendorf, Karl Popper, Raymond Aron, Hayek, and Rawls.

"Economic liberalism" is founded on principles such as production based on "comparative advantage," free trade and markets, and respect for private property. Economic liberalism is reflected in the thought of individuals such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Alexander Rüstow. Smith considered action based on free market theory (laissez-faire) and trust in the invisible hand of the market to be appropriate and sufficient for regulating economic relations and cycles. Smith and Ricardo, emphasizing two other principles, namely "division of labor" and "comparative advantage," stressed the importance of capital in production, as well as free trade and the removal of customs barriers.

Neoliberals believe that the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and his “welfare state” policies, which obligated the government to create employment and provide public services to the people, were among the causes of reduced economic growth, budget deficits, and ultimately rising unemployment and inflation in the 1970s. Milton Friedman, a pioneer of neoliberal economics, argued that Keynes’s political legacy played a particularly significant role in the expansion of governments that grow larger every day and increasingly interfere in every aspect of citizens’ daily lives. “In the aftermath of the Second World War, the liberals of the Freiburg School, most of whom were returning to Germany after exile, set about building a state: the Federal Republic of Germany. The purpose of this construction was determined by the atrocities that had occurred during National Socialism—atrocities that were all interpreted as the result of the interventionism of the Hitlerian state. Neoliberals consider themselves the founders of the state, and their characteristic is that they regard the foundation of this state as purely economic.” (Foucault; 2009: 95)

Neoliberals entrust the creation of justice solely and exclusively to the market and believe that economic logic must be the fundamental principle of any governmental decision-making. From this perspective, they not only reject the rule of politics over economics (socialism), but also consider the separation of politics from economics (liberalism) insufficient, believing that politics must serve the economy and the market. In short, economic logic should guide the micro and macro behavior of society, not political ideals and ideological values. According to David Harvey, “The role of the state is to create a good business climate, not to address the needs and well-being of the people” (Harvey; 2007: 71)

Abazari and Zakeri write: “Neoliberalism is the latest form of the capitalist system. For this reason, much of what Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Mauss, Simmel, Lukács, Adorno, and many others have said in their critique of capitalism and phenomena such as the extraction of surplus value, reification, commodification, the formation of the spirit of capitalism, class exploitation, and increasing inequality remains valid. But neoliberalism goes beyond the limits of traditional forms of capitalism and the last of them, the Keynesian economy. Neoliberalism is the process of transforming all elements of the world into commodities and all individuals into neoliberal subjects. Unlike the Keynesian economy, which, based on the idea of class compromise, tried to keep areas such as education and health safe from profit maximization, neoliberal capitalism, as evidenced by Gary Becker, even subjects emotional relationships to profit and loss and emphasizes that a mentality must be created in which, even in the most emotional relationships, one thinks of nothing but profit and loss.” (Abazari and Zakeri, 2018)

There is no consensus on the meaning of neoliberalism. Some have considered it a set of policy ideas that ultimately place market mechanisms in the position of policy-making for the whole of society. In other words, neoliberalism extends competitive markets to all spheres of life, including the economy, politics, and society. A group views neoliberalism as a class project to preserve and expand exploitation in socio-economic relations and the absolute rule of capitalism, operationalized through the commodification of forms of social life that were not previously commodities. Some see it as akin to an ideological space, and some consider it a historical period in the history of capitalism that began in the 1980s. (Cahill, 2018: 630) It can be said that neoliberalism has three fundamental dimensions: a justifying "ideology," a "mode of governance," and a set of "public policies." In the third dimension, neoliberalism pursues a set of economic programs and public policies such as: "deregulation of the economy"; "liberalization of trade and industry"; "privatization of state-owned enterprises"; and "the greatest possible reduction of government commitments in health, education, and welfare services." (Steger and Roy; 1399: 19) A very important point is that reducing neoliberalism to the third part causes many political systems that are inherently different from one another to be placed side by side merely for pursuing a few similar economic policies. In other words, a government that implements neoliberal public policies with a libertarian and humanistic ideology and democratic mechanisms is worlds apart from a government that pursues the same policies with a militaristic ideology and authoritarian mechanisms. A difference that all leftist critics and even some defenders of neoliberalism have ignored or downplayed. In this regard, researchers examining scholarly articles published on neoliberalism between 1990 and 2004 have concluded that in most of these articles: 1. Neoliberalism is not defined. 2. Neoliberalism carries an ideological load; that is, its precise application is unclear, and it is a term with a negative connotation used for critique. 3. This concept has been used for a wide range of political, social, and economic phenomena and situations, such as a set of economic reform policies, a model for development, an ideology, or an academic model. (Taylor and Jordan: 2009) Neoliberalism is a very elastic concept that has been used repeatedly without considering the history of its usage. This concept was initially a modifier of Keynesian and institutionalized liberalism and defended the eighteenth-century free market. Later, in the seventies, it emerged in the Spanish-speaking countries of South America, especially Chile. English-speaking leftists used this concept to describe the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in the United States and Britain. Neoliberalism also refers to policy changes in Australia and New Zealand, the turn of the Mitterrand government in France, and economic restructuring in the Scandinavian countries in the 1990s. Neoliberalism has also been applied to the development of the European Union since 1992 and the public policies of the Washington Consensus." (Dunn: 2016, 3) This ambiguity and fluidity is one of the reasons for the inappropriate uses of this concept, which we will address later.

But assuming the acceptance of the definition and picture presented of neoliberalism, we want to know whether such a phenomenon is dominant in Iran, and whether the Iranian government can be considered a neoliberal system, and whether other social phenomena can be analyzed with such a criterion and presupposition or not?

The History of Neoliberalism

Neoliberal economic policies were first theorized through the efforts of individuals such as Friedrich von Hayek (founder of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947) and Milton Friedman (the prominent economist of the Chicago School). Hayek considered any government intervention in the economy as a fateful turning point "on the road to serfdom" for individuals, leading to new forms of engineered despotism. In Hayek's view, economic freedom is not subordinate to political freedom; on the contrary, economic freedom determines the type of politics, ethics, and other aspects of free societies. For this reason, the thoughts of Hayek and Friedman are placed under the concept of "libertarianism." While libertarians generally agree with mainstream liberalism on the priority of individual freedom, they are completely opposed to other liberal values such as equality and social responsibility. (Steger and Roy, 1400: 21 to 23)

Rising unemployment and inflation resulting from the policies of welfare states, rooted in Keynesian ideas, prompted some economists and politicians to return to classical economic theory while seeking to reduce government responsibilities in welfare matters and increase economic austerity for citizens. The sharp rise in oil prices in 1973 plunged Western countries into stagflation and gave critics of Keynesian economics the opportunity to take center stage for politicians. Augusto Pinochet, the military dictator of Chile, operationalized neoliberal economic policies from 1975 with the direct advice of Friedman and Chicago School economists. In the Western world, the realization of neoliberalism refers to the 1980s and the premiership of Thatcher in England and the presidency of Reagan in the United States. Neoliberals reduced income tax rates, made the stock market more prominent than banks, and transferred government property and services, from water and electricity utility companies to public rental housing, to the private sector.

David Harvey relates another historical aspect of neoliberalism to China. By choosing its own particular path toward "socialism with Chinese characteristics," or as some prefer to call it, "privatization with Chinese characteristics," China was able to create a type of market economy under state influence that brought about staggering economic growth (averaging nearly 10 percent per year) and raised the standard of living for a considerable portion of the population for over twenty years. According to Harvey, compatibility between authoritarianism and the capitalist market had also already been well established in Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. (Harvey: 1386) As Charles Bettelheim explains, after Mao's death, the economy was prioritized, and the criterion of profit replaced ideological values. From then on, factories were no longer places for raising the class consciousness of workers; the factory had to yield more profit. Deng Xiaoping had begun reforms in the economic sphere of communist China, which from the perspective of opponents was considered a form of revisionism in Marxism and Maoism. (Bettelheim: 1357)

Within this very history presented by leftist critics of neoliberalism lies a very great omission. They ignore the fact that "although Chile was the first country to start a monetarist program of economic liberalization and privatization of state assets, the declaration of such a policy by Margaret Thatcher in Britain and other democratic countries caused the said program to lose its undemocratic character." (Stepan; 1978: 251) In other words, the application of common monetary policies and economic programs among several countries is not a license to lump them together under the code name of neoliberalism. Ignoring such a distinction indicates that for radical leftists, the discussion of political freedoms and democracy essentially holds no value. Juxtaposing countries whose economic policymaking (whether neoliberal or socialist) is a function of totalitarian ideologies alongside countries that implement the same policies while maintaining democratic principles is a great fallacy.

Neoliberalism in Iran

As I have previously explained at length, the three glaring errors made by leftist critics who label Iran's political system neoliberal are: 1. Reducing neoliberalism to its economic dimension. 2. Forgetting the place of the political in liberal and neoliberal systems. 3. Equating the reduction of state responsibilities with the reduction of state power. (Bahrami Komeil: 2019 and 2018) In addition to the previous discussions, one can consider criteria for identifying the type of government and, by examining their totality, conclude whether a political system is neoliberal or not. The most important of these criteria are as follows:

1- What kind of government are we facing?

In his book Politics, Aristotle distinguished despotic governments from non-despotic ones. In his view, the authority of the statesman (politikos) is exercised over those who are free by nature, whereas the authority of the master (despotes) is exercised over those who are slaves by nature. (Wiener, 2010: 85) In the eighteenth century, Montesquieu created a turning point in the study of this field by distinguishing free societies from despotic ones. For Montesquieu, the difference between free and despotic societies is that in despotic societies, the legal status of intermediary groups and classes is refused recognition, and the despotic government insists on immediate and unquestioning obedience to the rulers' decrees. Whereas in free societies, power is limited, autonomous groups are recognized, and obedience is based on consent. (Ibid: 101)

With this preamble, it must be said that critics of neoliberalism must first clarify the type of government (despotic–non-despotic). Does the government consider itself a temporary agent of the people or their permanent master? Do the rulers recognize any rights for the people, and do they fundamentally see them as being in a position to criticize the government? Does the government consider itself obliged to persuade public opinion and gain the consent of the majority? If the answer to these questions is negative, criticizing the policies and programs of a government that fundamentally considers itself the owner of the country and the holder of authority over the people is meaningless. It is exactly like the inmates of an asylum criticizing the asylum directors' plans and proposing better programs for them. Leftist critics in despotic countries should, instead of repeating the thoughts of Foucault, Polanyi, Agamben, Bourdieu, and Harvey, sit in the classes of Aristotle, Montesquieu, and John Stuart Mill; because until the issue of despotism and freedom is resolved and the state-nation relationship is formed, addressing subsequent issues is pointing to the wrong address. It is exactly like speaking to the peasants of a feudal system about the harms of DDT and greenhouse gases.

Therefore, the first question is what kind of government we are facing and how the transfer of power takes place. Are we facing a democratic government where the non-violent transfer of power is possible, or is a non-democratic government before us? Analysts who lump all governments, from democratic Western countries like Canada, France, and Sweden to non-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia, together with the neoliberal suffix, attach no value or importance to the role of the people in the transfer of power, and this stems from the fact that the existence or absence of democracy is a marginal issue for them, which at best finds meaning under the economic structure.

2- In whose hands is power?

Another important criterion in identifying the type of government is to see who the main policymakers and decision-makers of the government are and by which individuals and groups the country is run. We call a government a "military dictatorship" that is run by a group of military personnel, with or without uniforms. We call a government a "single-party dictatorship" that is run by a group of politicians who are members of one party. A monarchical or aristocratic government is run by a king or a group of hereditary nobles. Similarly, according to leftist definitions, in neoliberal countries, although a semblance of democracy may exist, in reality, it is the capitalists, large economic and media corporations and enterprises that place politicians in seats of power and determine the political agenda of society.

Now the question is whether in Iran the core of power is composed of the aforementioned strata and groups, and the government is managed by them. In post-1979 revolution Iran up to the present day, have a number of capitalists, bankers, and merchants directly and indirectly held the most important positions in the country, from the Supreme Leader to the heads of the three branches of government, members of parliament, governors, and so on? In presidential, parliamentary, and Assembly of Experts elections, is the determining factor in the candidates' victory the level of support and their campaign spending, or the decision of the Guardian Council?

3- Whose interests are prioritized?

Karl Marx believed that the state is a puppet and guardian of the interests of a specific class. He considered the mode of production (the totality of productive forces and relations of production) as the base of society, to which other dimensions of social life, such as the type of government, are subordinate. In any case, except for transitional conditions where the forces of old and new classes are in balance and the state thereby gains relative autonomy (Bonapartism), under normal conditions the state protects the interests of the ruling class. Later Marxists moderated this claim and granted more autonomy to the state. But in any case, to identify the type and characteristics of a political system, we must ask: in the political system under discussion, the interests of which class or strata are prioritized? The macro policies and laws of the country facilitate and boost the business of which strata? The largest share of the budget is allocated to which sectors and groups? If the demands of groups and classes differ, the demands and needs of which group are placed on the agenda?

In a militaristic developmentalist government, the largest share of the budget goes to the defense and military sector; in a labor government, the largest share goes to workers' welfare; in a religious government, the largest share of the budget is allocated to religious institutions and custodians; and in a neoliberal government, the largest portion of the budget is spent on preserving the interests of capitalists, industrialists, and giant corporations, and macro policies are also adopted based on the demands and necessities of this group. Have we encountered such a situation in post-1979 revolution Iran?

4- What are the goals and ideology of the government?

To distinguish governments, it is essential to specify their main goals and the ideology that justifies them. In neoliberal governments, the security of capital, free trade, inflation control, export growth, and granting more concessions to employers and capitalists are considered the main goals of the government. In all interactions, policymaking, and decision-making, the state considers the economic interests of employers and large private enterprises as the main criterion. All governments support their goals with a set of beliefs and values. In a religious government whose goal is to realize God's will and create a society based on religious commands, a set of values, beliefs, narratives, and rational or traditional reasons is propagated and promoted by the ruling class to legitimize that religious government. It is clear that a fascist government, built on racial superiority or the expansion of the military state, propagates a different set of values, myths, and scientific, rational, historical, or emotional reasons. Similarly, a neoliberal government propagates an ideology that legitimizes the goals and managerial approach of that government. For example, with various reasons, it propagates the priority of the value of money and capital over labor, purely material calculation based on prioritizing economic profit and loss, the sanctification of private property, the importance of the free market and economic competition, and "globalization." The ideology of a neoliberal government creates this awareness and belief in people in various ways that humans are economic animals for whom the calculation of material profit and loss is the most important decision-making criterion. More money and wealth bring more happiness, and the ultimate happiness of the individual lies in access to more goods and services. Other differences, such as racial, linguistic, national, ethnic, religious, and ideological differences, hold little importance in neoliberal ideology. Now the question is whether this ideology is propagated in schools, government organizations, the state broadcasting service (IRIB), and government platforms. Is the slogan "Death to this or that country," which has dominated the country's foreign policy for the past forty years, a result of liberalist ideology and the rule of neoliberalism in Iran?

5- Where is the site of conflict?

Different approaches cause the prioritization of issues, the manner of analysis, and the solutions offered for them to vary. Therefore, a very important question is: on what basis and criteria does each approach prioritize issues and analyze phenomena? If the “neoliberal critique” approach spreads in a society and becomes dominant in the minds of thinkers and analysts, then the prioritization, analysis, and presentation of solutions for issues and phenomena—or, in short, the site of struggle—will change. “Those who see the greatest danger in the spread and prevalence of neoliberalism ultimately view the main site of struggle in society as the ‘bad market–good state’ binary and place other binaries in subsequent priorities” (Dunn: 2016). In this context, Adam Hanieh, an analyst admired by Iranian pseudo-leftists, says in his analysis of the Arab Spring events that the “state–civil society” binary cited by liberal analysts is a false binary. By “state,” Hanieh means the authoritarian and totalitarian Arab states, and by “civil society,” he means the demand for democracy and civil rights. The conclusion is that, in Hanieh’s view, the “despotism–democracy” binary is false (Hanieh, 1399). Of course, not all leftists take such an explicit stance; instead, they try, by prioritizing another binary, to divert the site of struggle in Third World countries away from the “despotism and totalitarianism–freedom and democracy” binary.

In domestic politics, pseudo-leftist critics, by attacking the logic and mechanisms of the market on the one hand and supporting the state and nationalization on the other, ultimately turn the “bad market–good state” binary into the most important issue in society. Consequently, in analyzing all harms and deficiencies, they see the invisible hand of the market, and they consider the solution to all ills to be the restriction of private property and nationalization.

In foreign policy, critics of neoliberalism, by attacking the capitalist system and the process of globalization, ultimately make the “globalization–anti-globalization” binary the paradigm for their analysis and stances. In this state, any current that stands against the process of globalization and the chain of US-led capitalism is praised, even if it is the leader of North Korea or the al-Qaeda group.

The bitter irony and ultimate contradiction of some leftists is that while in the past they viewed the state merely as a superstructure and a reflection of the stages of societal evolution, acting as the agent and guardian of the ruling class’s interests, they now defend this very agent of the ruling class with all their might so that it does not, God forbid, submit to market logic. Leftists whose greatest pride is opposing privatization in favor of nationalization have forgotten Marx’s critique of the Gotha Program and his opposition to Lassalle’s statist ideas. In his critique of the “Gotha Program,” Marx writes: “Instead of the socialist organization of labor arising from the revolutionary struggle to transform society, it now emerges with the assistance of the state, through producers’ cooperative associations—associations created by the state, not by the workers. Indeed, it could only occur to Lassalle that the new society could be created with state assistance and loans, just like a new railway...” (Marx, 1385: 29). Criticizing Lassalle’s statism, which seeks cooperation with a free and good state, he writes: “Real freedom means transforming the state from an organ imposed upon society into an organ completely subordinate to society. Hence, states today are free to the extent that they have been able to limit the freedom of the state” (ibid: 32). A similar critique was leveled by Friedrich Engels in 1891 against the “Erfurt Program,” where he wrote: “State monopoly under capitalism is not the end of capitalism, and it should not be considered state socialism” (radiozamaneh.com). One must ask the comfort-seeking leftists: if you have abandoned the idea of socializing the means of production and worker participation in the administration of society, that is understandable; but why, in the name of fighting neoliberalism and with a justice-seeking posture, do you fuel the nationalization of the means of production? Marx believed: “The foundation of the capitalist system rests on this basis: that the material conditions of production, in the form of land and capital, are in the possession of non-workers” (Marx: 1385). When there is no sign of worker ownership, what pride is there in blocking private property and pouring water into the mill of state ownership?

6- Where Does Totalitarianism Stand?

The word “totalitarian” was first introduced by the Italian theorist Giovanni Gentile in 1925. Benito Mussolini operationalized Gentile’s theory by coining the term “totalitarian state.” A totalitarian state is one responsible for directing and controlling all aspects of individuals’ lives and all dimensions and institutions of society. A political system in which the state determines everything from what people eat, wear, and think to the content of their artistic, cultural, social, educational, and economic activities is called a totalitarian system. In totalitarian systems, the political dominates the social (society), and the government is not only the manager but also the master and lord of society. Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Maoism are examples of totalitarian governments.

The most important characteristics of twentieth-century totalitarian systems, more or less agreed upon by researchers, are:

1- The existence of an official ideology supported by the state that encompasses all dimensions of people’s social life.

2- Control and use of mass media to guide public opinion.

3- Promotion and sanctification of power and violence.

4- The existence of a leader or a single-party system that operates above the law.

5- Bureaucratic direction of the economy through state control.

6- Opposition to democracy and an independent parliament, replacing them with neutered ballot boxes or displays of popular support in street demonstrations and public gatherings. (Gurian, 1386: 336)

Now the question arises: considering the characteristics of neoliberal and totalitarian systems, to which spectrum is the ruling system in Iran closer, and which model can better analyze Iran’s conditions? The importance of raising this issue lies in the fact that if we accept that a country’s ruling system is closer to a totalitarian system, we must support freedom, civil rights, civil society, diversity and plurality of lifestyles, and their manifestations in individuals’ lives. However, if our analysis is that the system in question is closer to neoliberal governments, political and liberal demands will naturally not be a priority, and we must focus more on economic concerns, public and welfare services for the lower classes, and, to some extent, the realm of social justice.

Neoliberalism in Iran

The time has come to show, by presenting some examples in the political, economic, social, and managerial dimensions of society, whether neoliberalism has become the dominant discourse in Iran and to what extent employing this concept can be useful and illuminating in analyzing and clarifying issues.

In the realm of foreign policy, neoliberal countries ally with those who can best and most fully supply their economic resources. The question is whether Iran’s friendship with countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, China, Russia, and poor African nations has been to preserve economic interests, or have non-economic interests and ideological goals been the priority? Our country’s foreign policy, which is founded on opposition to America, Israel, and the Western world, and policies such as supporting movements that Westerners consider support for terrorism—in whose interests among the neoliberal strata, from merchants to bankers and stockbrokers, have these been? Was climbing the walls of the American, British, Canadian, and even Saudi embassies carried out based on market logic and the economic interests of neoliberals?

According to definitions, in a neoliberal economy the private sector holds the largest share of gross national product; the state does not own firms or economic enterprises and must in no way be a competitor to the private sector. The question is: in a country where the share of the state and semi-state entities in the economy is estimated at between 70 and 80 percent, and the percentage of government employees relative to the private sector has always been high, how can one claim that the country's economy is neoliberal and that market logic prevails? In Iran, are the private sector and the owners of large companies—such as the owners of petrochemical plants, shipping lines, banks, large insurance companies, etc.—the decision-makers, or are the majority of these companies and enterprises state-owned or semi-state-owned? Some Iranian leftist critics have repeatedly considered the privatization policy on the stock exchange as instances and evidence of the Iranian government being neoliberal. Can the mere sale of state assets under non-transparent conditions to semi-state entities serve as an example of a government being neoliberal? Just as state ownership of companies and factories does not necessarily mean a government is socialist, the sale of those companies and factories (to the semi-state sector or the sale of less than 50 percent of the shares of these enterprises) does not signify the operationalization of neoliberal policies. One must see what difference this change of ownership makes in production relations, policymaking, and the management of enterprises; otherwise, one can move from one situation to another without any fundamental change taking place. Does the Tehran Stock Exchange hold the same position as stock exchanges in Western countries? During the period of full oil sanctions from 2019 to mid-2020, the Tehran Stock Exchange experienced its highest rate of growth, and in other periods of crisis, instead of a decline in indices, it has always faced rising indices, proving that it operates completely contrary to market criteria.

Is Iran's automotive industry and the performance of Iran Khodro and Saipa like the performance of General Motors and the American automotive industry? Have the exports of these automakers to Syria and Iraq been carried out based on economic equations? Are the managers and board members of these companies geniuses of economics, management, and entrepreneurship, or have other criteria been used for their selection?

Is the disruption of the internet and the filtering of social networks, which cause enormous economic losses to people's businesses and the country's economy, carried out according to the principles of neoliberal economics?

In the realm of banking and credit institutions, which of the banks and institutions that have troubled the country's financial system have their roots in the application of capitalist and neoliberal logic? The boards of directors of these banks and institutions have been affiliates of the government and have grown in a non-competitive and non-transparent environment, using political influence and information rent; what does this situation have to do with neoliberalism? The largest bank debtors have been the son-in-law of this minister, the son of that lawyer, and the representative of that office; in which Western neoliberal country does such a situation prevail? Was the payment of approximately 30 thousand billion tomans from the country's resources in the years 2017 and 2018 to settle the debts of credit institutions such as Afzal Toos, Iranian, Samen al-Hojaj, and Samen al-A'emmeh carried out based on neoliberal monetary policies? Salvemini, the Italian thinker who experienced Mussolini's rise to power and rule, writes: Whenever an important branch of the banking system or one of the large industries whose interests could be passed off as the "supreme interests of the nation" was in danger of collapse, the government stepped in and prevented its collapse with emergency measures. In Fascist Italy, the state pays for the mistakes of private investors. As long as business was good, the profits went into the pockets of private investors. When the market stagnated, the losses were imposed by the state on the taxpayer's shoulders. Profit is a private and individual matter; loss is a public and social matter.

During Mussolini's time, a ruling and intertwined minority dominated Italy, whose four main pillars were military chieftains, high-ranking state officials, big capitalists, and party leaders. Each of these four groups had interests that were linked to the interests of the other three groups, both consolidating them and, in turn, gaining greater consolidation through this process. (Hughes: 1376)

In the realm of sports, are the heads of federations appointed based on neoliberal policies? Does neoliberal economics dictate that women do not have the right to enter stadiums? Is the absence of Iranian athletes against Israeli athletes based on the logic of neoliberalism? In education, is merely establishing non-profit schools enough to claim we live under a neoliberal regime, while the content and textbooks of these schools are more ideological than those of public schools? Under which neoliberal principle does the selection system for teachers and other government employees fall? In neoliberal countries like the United States and England, are 70 percent of seats in lucrative fields such as medicine and dentistry determined by state and ideological quotas? If the Islamic Azad University and tuition-based universities are symbols of neoliberal policies, does the selection process for professors at these universities also follow a neoliberal model? Is a university professor who criticizes America, capitalism, and neoliberalism more likely to face dismissal and be forced to sign a pledge, or a professor who supports America and neoliberalism? In reality, what is seen in Iran is not public versus non-public (private) education; rather, we have 'free public' education and 'non-free public' education.

Neoliberals, focusing on rising inflation as the most dangerous economic consequence of government intervention, oppose government interference in the economy and price controls. All neoliberals consider sustained low inflation more important than any other goal (including job creation). Over the past forty-two years, have our fiscal and monetary policies been aimed at controlling inflation? Meanwhile, according to global statistics, for most of the past years, our country has consistently been among the top ten countries in the world with the highest inflation rates.

Some individuals, realizing that the label of neoliberalism in no way fits the ruling system in Iran, have begun offering other justifications. A group of them claims that when they speak of neoliberalism, they mean a kind of culture that has come to dominate the world, and one must fight against that culture and its values such as money-worship, the expansion of market logic into human relations, greed, comfort-seeking, hedonism, and so on! The answer is that if you consider neoliberalism a culture, then set aside your previous claims, forget about activity in the political sphere, and pursue cultural and ethical work.

Another group says that neoliberalism should not be sought within a single country. Neoliberalism is a global system of domination in which all countries, from America and Switzerland to Pakistan and China and the tribal dictator in Africa, are situated. Of course, some countries are at the top of this chain, and others, like that African despot who forces members of an enemy tribe to work as slaves in mines to export raw materials for neoliberalism, are at the bottom of the chain. In response, it must be said: even if we accept this incorrect argument, the mode of struggle against neoliberalism at the top of the spectrum is not the same as at the bottom. In that despotic tribal African country, the priority of the struggle is to eliminate despotism and embrace human rights, not to speak of fighting commodification and the stock market. Furthermore, the outcome of such an argument is that one must detach from the global chain of neoliberalism. That is, a repetition of Lenin's words, who considered capitalism and imperialism a global chain in which the advanced Western countries were its strong links, and the weak European, Asian, and African countries were its weak link. Interestingly, with this justification, North Korea and Iran, which have the least connection to this global chain, are on the right path and are considered the most non-neoliberal countries in the world!

The Concept of Neoliberalism and Its Weakness in Analysis

According to Aristotle, a definition must be comprehensive and exclusive. The definition of “neoliberalism” is not exclusive, because those who subscribe to this concept consider all the countries of the world to be more or less neoliberal, and we do not understand which countries, objectively and concretely, are non-neoliberal. The problem with this situation is that when critics of neoliberalism claim that a certain flaw or harm is a consequence of neoliberal policies, they do not introduce a control group so that, by examining the situation there, it can be determined what that flaw or harm is like in countries that are not neoliberal. The question arises: why, out of the vast flood of left-leaning researchers, thinkers, media, universities, and research centers, has no one yet taken any action to determine the ranking and position of countries based on the criterion of neoliberalism? If we consider topics such as democracy, good governance, corruption, happiness, transparency, etc., the results of various studies (with slight differences) show the position and ranking of countries; but based on the criterion and subject of neoliberalism, no documentation exists. Perhaps the reason is the negligence of leftist researchers; perhaps, if we take the indicators considered by the left for distinguishing neoliberalism from non-neoliberalism as a basis, England, China, America, Russia, and France would likely be on one side of the spectrum, and Canada, Qatar, Iceland, Sweden, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela on the other!?

In the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell proposed another characteristic for presenting a definition, which was “analytical power.” That is, a definition must be comprehensive, exclusive, and “analytical.” A very important point is that the label of neoliberalism, as presented by leftist critics, is not “analytical.” By presenting numerous examples, the weakness of this term’s analytical power can be demonstrated. For instance, according to some Iranian leftists, after the death of the Imam and from the presidency of Mr. Hashemi onwards, neoliberalism has ruled in Iran; this group implicitly posits an inherent and profound difference between these two periods. Whereas it seems that the Islamic Republic regime has not undergone a structural and fundamental change.

On the sidelines of the G20 summit in Japan in 2018, Vladimir Putin, in an interview with the Financial Times, said that liberal values and the era of liberalism and liberal democracy are over, and liberals can no longer impose their will on other countries as they did in the past. Some European countries and European Union officials reacted sharply to this statement and defended the ideals of liberalism and liberal democracy. But the analysts who use the codeword neoliberalism from morning to night and place Russia and China alongside Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada offered no interpretation or analysis of Putin’s words and the European response. The reason is clear: neoliberalism has little capacity for analyzing such news. If both groups of countries are neoliberal, then why do they suddenly line up in two opposing camps? If one day a war breaks out between Russia, China, and North Korea on one side and Europe, America, and Canada on the other, which side will the critics of neoliberalism take? Find the answer in the reaction of the ancestors of these groups to Hitler’s rise to power in Germany and the coup d’état of August 19, 1953, in Iran.

Critics of neoliberalism cannot analyze the protests of Hong Kong citizens in 2019 and 2020 by clinging to this ineffective concept. Was it not the case that, in their view, before the handover of Hong Kong to China, a neoliberal system ruled in this very small (but pioneering) region, and British and American companies and banks were in charge there? So why are the citizens of this region averse to being placed under the renewed sovereignty of the Chinese government? Scatterbrained thinkers like David Harvey say that China has moved towards neoliberalism since the 1980s; so what are the Hong Kongers’ protests and the Chinese government’s pressure on them about, if both are neoliberal? If both societies are trapped in the clutches of large factories, companies, and banks and pursue the logic of profit and the market, then why is being under the Chinese flag so painful for the Chinese of Hong Kong? The answer lies in something that is of little importance to the radical left and critics of neoliberalism: yes, freedom, democracy, civil rights, and respect for the individual—concepts that the radical left has no understanding of. It is for this reason that they consider France, Sweden, Canada, and Hong Kong just as neoliberal as they consider Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the Chinese Communist Party.

Those who use the concept of neoliberalism to attack capitalism cannot distinguish between the “capitalist dictatorship” implemented by Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet, Putin, and the Chinese Communist Party, and “liberal capitalism” as practiced by the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, the United States, and Hong Kong. They place one-party, state-bureaucratic systems like the current government of China and Putin’s Russia alongside Western liberal democracies, which are multi-party and popular. The most they can argue for such a false comparison is to say that the governments of the second group have a semblance of democracy and have seduced the people with more sophisticated tricks. It is clear that such a view is rooted in a kind of authoritarian mentality that allows one to claim they know what is best for others better than the others themselves. Once and for all, it must be said to all authoritarians—from the left and the religious to fascists and chauvinists: if liberals and neoliberals and Western democracies, with their media, propaganda, hegemony, culture industry, and in short, by manipulating people’s minds, deceive them and impose their own desires by steering people’s tastes and interests, then please, you do the same. Please operationalize your brilliant ideas and transcendent beliefs through propaganda and the manipulation of people’s minds—but with their consent—and stop using force, threats, coercion, imprisonment, exile, breaking pens, and burning newspapers to realize your ideal society.

The despotism that has ruled this land for centuries is not rooted in private property and neoliberalism. It is not as if we had freedom and democracy, and then suddenly Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani and the Executives of Construction came along with neoliberal policies and took that paradise away from us. It is better to return to the famous question of Abbas Mirza, the crown prince of Naser al-Din Shah: “What happened that the West progressed and we fell behind?” The answer to this question cannot be found by bashing liberalism, humanism, and neoliberalism. Without freedom and democracy, chasing after a state-run or private economy is a mistake. What difference does it make whether the state squanders and plunders most of the country’s resources, or the private sector? Whether statesmen and government agents embezzle, or capitalists and representatives of the private sector?

Another mistake of David Harvey and other critics of neoliberalism is that they have suspended the history of societies and, without considering other variables, have latched onto only a few public policies and economic programs. Harvey is, of course, aware of this shortcoming, which is why in his book he places the experience of neoliberalism in the United States and Britain in one chapter and the experience of neoliberalism in Chile in another. In this vein, some Iranian leftists say: we are not talking about the entire government or political system; rather, we speak of policies and programs that have become dominant in the world and that all governments more or less pursue. Policies such as: 1. Transferring public affairs to the private sector 3. The ever-expanding process of commodification 4. Privatization of health, education, and public services 5. Temporary labor contracts and the removal of capital market regulations and restrictions 6. The dominance of large corporations and international companies 7. The destruction of the environment. With such a definition, leftist critics of neoliberalism see themselves as critics of neoliberal policies that, for example, in Iran began during the presidency of Mr. Rafsanjani.

This justification has numerous flaws: first, if neoliberalism is to be confined solely to economic policies and programs, why should the concept of “neoliberalism” be used to describe such a situation? Couldn’t economic concepts like “monetary economics” or “radical privatization” describe the conditions we have in mind better and more precisely? What is the fundamental necessity of using the term “neoliberalism,” which is willy-nilly etymologically linked to “liberalism”? Isn’t this language game, in which the left is particularly skilled, because they want to hypocritically pursue the distortion and weakening of liberalism by bashing and attacking neoliberalism? The second objection is that wasn’t the left’s critique, especially that of the Frankfurt School, against the positivists that they were not holistic thinkers, that they fragmented and patched up subjects and paid no attention to the totality? So how have some leftist critics forgotten the totality of governance in different countries? Is the mere fact that all these governments pursue programs and actions like the privatization of education, the exploitation of the environment, and the casualization of labor contracts sufficient to lump them all together? If Turkmenistan or Saudi Arabia abandoned neoliberal policies like temporary labor contracts and privatization in education, health, and public services, and continued on their authoritarian path as before, would the main criticism of these governments be resolved and no significant problem remain? Third, with such a definition of neoliberalism, the entire world would more or less be following neoliberal policies. Even the government of Cuba, which administers part of the country for revenue generation based on market economy and open-door laws, and part of whose income comes from sex tourism, would be considered a neoliberal state. In short, the term “neoliberalism” is more of a propagandistic and ideological pretext for bashing liberalism and criticizing the status quo without offering any alternative or clear horizon than an analytical tool for deeper and greater understanding.

The Attack on Neoliberalism: A Cover for Conservatism and Populism

In advanced Western societies, which have a democratic political system and a liberal (or neoliberal) economic system, analyzing phenomena from a leftist perspective can be considered a critical approach and can help expand social justice. But in authoritarian countries where private property exists, yet the economy is state-controlled, the more radical the leftism, the less critical and more conservative it is. The height of conservatism is to critique casino capitalism or the objectification of the female body in the capitalist system, and make similar statements, in a totalitarian society (like Saudi Arabia or Turkmenistan). The negation of private property, the critique of free-market logic, talk of completely dismantling the banking system, and criticism of owners and factory bosses do not worry any dictator. If, in these same societies, the imaginary leftists had the courage to speak a few words in defense of women’s rights, political prisoners, media freedom, and corruption in bank embezzlements, they would realize that behind their leftist posturing lies a mountain of fear, deceit, and conservatism.

If you are a critic of the monarchical system, you have accepted a one percent risk that you might be utterly ruined should the former crown prince of Iran return. If you take the same approach toward the People’s Mojahedin Organization, the conduct and actions of ISIS, or any other political creed, you have accepted the risk that if that creed and school of thought you opposed triumphs, you might face some pressures in the course of your normal life. But if you write articles and give speeches from morning till night criticizing neoliberalism and its malevolence, no matter which government dominates in the future—from the most democratic and liberal governments to the most dictatorial ones—no one will bother you. Neither the Shah, nor the Mojahedin Organization, nor the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor separatists, nor patriots, nor die-hard racists, nor fascists, nor communists, nor any other individual or group will bother you, and you will remain in complete well-being and safety. Of course, you will maintain the posture of a revolutionary critic who is a supporter of the dispossessed for the rest of your life, while being a full-fledged conservative who, by attacking a “hypothetical enemy,” has insured yourself against the trouble of fighting real enemies.

On the other hand, the potential for populism has always existed alongside leftist individuals and currents. Laclau and Mouffe, two post-Marxist thinkers, emphasized in the 1980s that populism is not an entirely negative, destructive, and harmful phenomenon; on the contrary, it can also have very positive functions. In the view of this pair, socialists should not shun populism and, in fact, should use the capacity of populism to gain power, albeit in the service of realizing socialist goals and expanding social justice. These two thinkers regarded populism as a kind of radical democracy that can help create a better society (Mouffe: 2019). The attack on neoliberalism, especially in rejecting economic austerity policies, defending permanent labor contracts, and expanding free public services, is a subject favored by the working class and the low-income stratum of society. For this reason, some socialists, by portraying neoliberalism as the symbol of all harms and deficiencies, strive to divide society into two poles: the defenders and beneficiaries of neoliberalism, and the opponents and sufferers of neoliberalism.

.

---

.

Conclusion

1- "Neoliberalism" is a concept for describing a phenomenon that has occurred in the economic sphere of Western countries since the mid-1970s. Countries that had experienced liberalism had reached the conclusion that continuing Keynesian economic policies was causing increased unemployment and higher inflation, and that these policies needed to be revised. Forgetting the liberal and democratic dimension of Western countries and using this concept in places lacking those characteristics has led to numerous fallacies. For example, it was pointed out that placing Pinochet's Chile alongside Reagan's America and Thatcher's Britain is illogical and fallacious. It is exactly like saying: since Marx and Marxists consider the economic foundation to be the main factor in the change and evolution of societies and attach more importance to the economy than to other spheres, they can therefore be placed alongside Adam Smith, Hayek, and the neoliberals! Because both groups have spoken of the priority and importance of the economy over other spheres! The mistake of communists and radical Marxists is that they reduce society to its economic sphere, and mere similarities in the economic programs of countries convince them to place inherently different societies side by side. They so highlight the economic contradiction between "rich" and "poor" that they can no longer see other differences, such as the political contradiction between "rulers" and "ruled," or the social contradiction between "citizens" and "non-citizens." For example, severe wealth inequality exists in both France and Russia; but can this reasoning be used to set aside the other differences between these two countries and place them side by side? Therefore, first, from certain superficial economic similarities between Chile, Russia, Britain, America, and China, one cannot conclude that they are of the same type and all neoliberal. Second, the country of Iran, even in the economic sphere, does not share those same superficial economic similarities. Because of these very differences, it must be kept in mind that perhaps the slogan "Death to neoliberalism" in America may help expand the freedom, justice, and rights of American citizens; but in China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, "Death to neoliberalism" will do nothing to help expand freedom, justice, democracy, and human rights.

2- “Neoliberalism” is not an analytical concept, and one cannot use it to analyze the highly significant issues and problems of societies like Iran. This conceptual tool may reveal certain harms in advanced Western countries, but in countries where democracy and civil rights have not reached the necessary maturity, it is of little use and focuses on effects rather than causes. For example, in Iran, thinkers and analysts who used the code word neoliberalism to analyze every harm and weakness had no analysis whatsoever regarding how elected and appointed officials—such as the president, members of parliament, the head of the judiciary, and the heads of large economic holding companies from steel and petrochemical complexes to the Mostazafan Foundation and its Shasta subsidiary—come to power. They said nothing about the role of neoliberal policies in the vetting of the six presidential candidates in 1400 (2021) and the final election of Mr. Raisi, or similar cases. Regarding the parliament’s highly significant plan to control and restrict cyberspace and the internet, titled “Protecting Users in Cyberspace,” they were unable to demonstrate the role of agents of neoliberalism; just as they remained silent on the misguided policies for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic—from the refusal to import certain vaccines to the simultaneous production of seven vaccines and officials’ slogans about being a model for other countries, etc.—which imposed heavy human and financial costs on society.

3- Since critics of neoliberalism view the entire world and all countries as being under the domination of neoliberal policies, they have nothing to say from a positive, constructive standpoint. None of them has ever pointed to the coordinates of the ideal society they envision. Critics of neoliberalism must answer: which political system among the world’s more than 200 countries comes closest to their ideal (non-neoliberal) model? Commentators who consider all the world’s countries—from Chile, Russia, and India to South Korea, the United States, Brazil, England, Japan, and Sweden—to be in the grip of neoliberalism: which country do they consider free from neoliberalism? Merely attacking neoliberalism will not specify any model of governance. It is exactly like a group that speaks from morning to night in criticism and condemnation of the thoughts, beliefs, and actions of ISIS members. But until they state what alternative and substitute idea they have in mind, no one will understand whether this group has democratic and humane origins or is a group affiliated with the Taliban.

Critics who consider neoliberalism to be the final stage of capitalism (and who, of course, previously considered casino capitalism, finance capitalism, commercial capitalism, fascism, and imperialism to be the final stage of capitalism)—have they not grown weary of these promises? Thinkers who say that liberalism, capitalism, and the free market, in all their manifestations, have failed in the world’s countries, and that even social democracies are going nowhere and have fallen captive to neoliberalism—what path do they propose? If they are seeking a new path that has not yet been experienced in the world, they surely have a mirage in their minds that will lead to nothing but misery. Such words were spoken by Hitler and Mussolini in the twentieth century, and by ISIS and all dictators seeking a “third way” in the twenty-first century. Those who say, “We see all types of democracy realized in the world—from direct and indirect to organized and council-based—as deficient, and we want to invent a new democracy that will leave everyone astonished,” and give it names like people’s democracy, workers’ democracy, mystical democracy, Islamic democracy, humane democracy, radical democracy, Iranian democracy, etc.—rest assured, they have nothing to offer the people of their country but misery. Such claims may bring individuals fame, but this fame comes at the cost of being stalled in achieving those very existing, imperfect democracies.

4- Attacking and criticizing neoliberalism in democratic countries where the political rights of individuals are recognized and where political activity to gain power is an accepted matter is a real activity that can bring about change in the existing situation. But attacking and criticizing neoliberalism in non-democratic countries where political activity to gain power is a crime is an unreal activity that has no effect on the existing situation; because society is fundamentally in a pre-political stage, that is, in the stage of despotism. As long as Despotism has not been eliminated and society has not entered the stage of polity, criticizing government policies is fundamentally impossible and meaningless. It is only in a democratic and non-despotic society that citizens are in a position where they can act and take steps for or against government policies. In a society where the state-nation relationship has not been established and the government considers itself sovereign over the lives and property of individuals and views them as subjects, speaking of merely criticizing the government's economic policies is nonsense; because such a government does not consider itself accountable to the members of society (the nation). First, the relationship and ratio between the state and the nation must be clarified, and then the leftist intellectual can seek to critique and propose their suggestions for better administration of society. Until the matter of democracy, freedom, and civil rights is resolved, speaking of state and non-state (private) is not logical. The expansion or contraction of the state in democratic countries like Sweden and Germany may affect social justice and the expansion or reduction of public services; but focusing on this debate in authoritarian governments like Pakistan and Belarus means agreeing with the expansion of rent-seeking and systematic corruption. Similarly, if in Pakistan and Belarus, the issue of democracy, freedom of expression and religion, and civil rights is defined as the main problem and concern of society, it is far more realistic than placing the complications and harms of neoliberalism at the center of analyses.

Instead of repeating the views of the latest leftist thinkers like Harvey, Žižek, Agamben, and Badiou, which are suited to the conditions of Western societies, Iranian leftists would do better to heed the advice from 70 years ago of Franz Neumann, who had tasted German Nazism. Neumann "wrote an admiring introduction to Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, and in it, identified the main distinguishing feature of that French thinker's writings as the clear difference he drew between despotism and every other type of government, and considered the importance of his famous theory of the separation of powers to be that the independence of the judiciary could be guaranteed by nothing less than that theory." (Hughes; 1376: 131)

Dan Bill, who himself has leftist leanings, writes in the renowned journal "Capital & Class," which publishes the thoughts of leftist thinkers: The left should abandon the concept of neoliberalism. This concept, used by leftist academics, is not endorsed by opponents and has not been accepted in public discourse. This concept has not been of much help in identifying strategic priorities and bringing clarity to political choices. (Dunn, 2016: 1) Max Horkheimer had said: "Whoever is not willing to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism." (Hughes, 1376: 141) It seems more correct to say: "Whoever is not willing to talk about totalitarianism should also remain silent about neoliberalism."

.

---

.

References

Abazari, Yousef and Zakeri, Arman (1397) Three Decades of the Coexistence of Religion and Neoliberalism in Iran

Steger, Manfred and Roy, Ravi (1399) Neoliberalism- Logos Publishing, First Edition

Bettelheim, Charles (1357) China After Mao- Translated by Abbas Milani, Rozbehan Publications

Burdeau, Georges (1383) Liberalism- Translated by Abdolvahab Ahmadi- Ney Publishing, Second Edition

Bahrami Komeil, Nezam (1397) Neoliberalism in Iran- Iran-e Farda Monthly, Issue 47, Esfand 1397, pages 61 to 64

Bahrami Komeil, Nezam (1398) Culture, Society, and Self-Foundation- (Article: Neoliberalism in Iran- From Reality to Fantasy), Pouyeh Mehr Eshragh Publisher, First Edition

Davies, William (2017) “What Is ‘Neo’ About Neoliberalism” – This piece was published by the Tarjomaan website on 23 October 2017 under the title “How Does Neoliberalism Differ from Liberalism?” and translated by Seyed Amirhossein Mirabutalebi.

Silone, Ignazio (2019) The School of Dictators – Translated by Mehdi Sahabi, Mahi Publishing, 7th Edition

Foucault, Michel (2009) Neoliberalism and Liberalism – Dialogue Quarterly, Issue 54, December 2009

Marx, Karl (2006) Critique of the Gotha Programme and Two Letters – Translated by A.M., Pezhvak Publications

Mouffe, Chantal (2019) In Defense of Left Populism – Translated by Hossein Rahmati, Akhtaran Publishing, 1st Edition

Wiener, Philip (2010) Dictionary of the History of Ideas – Translated by Khashayar Deyhimi, Ney Publishing, 3rd Edition

Harvey, David (2007) A Brief History of Neoliberalism – Translated by Mahmoud Abdollahzadeh, Akhtaran Publishing

Hanieh, Adam (2020) Lineages of Revolt: Issues of Contemporary Capitalism in the Middle East – Translated by Ladan Ahmadian Heravi, Research Institute of Culture, Art and Communication

Hughes, H. Stuart (1997) Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought – Translated by Ezzatollah Fooladvand, Tarh-e No Publications

Donya-e-Eqtesad Newspaper – Newspaper Issue: 2466 Publication Date: 2011/09/27

- Cahill, Damien and … (2018)The SAGE Hand book of Neoliberalism – SAGE Publications

- Dunn, Bill (2016)Against neoliberalism as a concept- capital & class journals

- Stepan, A (1978)The State and Society- Princeton University Press

-Taylor C. Boas & Jordan Gans-Morse (2009)Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy

to Anti-Liberal Slogan- St Comp Int Dev (2009) 44:137–161

- www. radiozamaneh.com/481661/

.

---

.

PDF file of the article “Does Neoliberalism Rule in Iran?”

.

---

.