The Nature of Our Economic Relations and the Orientation of Ideologies

The Nature of Our Economic Relations and the Orientation of Ideologies

1- What name would you give to the “prevalent” and “existing” economic relations in contemporary Iran (at least over the past one hundred years)? Of course, this question is not exclusive; a similar question could be raised regarding the economic relations of Turkey and Pakistan.

2- Some of the names considered for these economic relations in public discourse are: • Non-barter economy • Monetary economy • Modern economy • Market economy; some also call this economy an “economy based on capitalist (or modern) relations.”

3- These “new economic relations,” like “bureaucratic relations and structures” in Iran, may not possess all the characteristics of the bureaucracy envisioned by Max Weber. It is a natural fact that the efficiency of Iranian bureaucracy is lower and more costly than that of German bureaucracy; however, in any case, one cannot refer to this mode of “bureaucratic relations” in Iran with names like “feudal” relations or “x relations.” These bureaucratic relations in Iran must be accepted and acknowledged, with all their shortcomings. But we must devise solutions for reforming and enhancing the agility and efficiency of the bureaucratic relations and organizations present in our society. What we said about bureaucratic relations can similarly be said about “new economic relations or structures” and the “market or capitalist economy.”

4- Apparently, the economic relations of Iran today are market-based or capitalist. As Max Weber put it, in these relations, an effort is made to operate in a non-plundering, non-predatory manner, based on the production of wealth and services, rationality, cost-benefit calculation, order, and accounting (we will not focus on the issue of oil rent here). Simmel called these economic relations “monetary,” and Marx called them “commodity-based.”

5- It is clear that in our society, these market, monetary, and commodity-based economic relations are approached differently based on various ideologies or political discourses. Or a different prescription is offered for their treatment. For example, liberals say: let the “market economy” do its work without much state intervention, and societal problems like unemployment will gradually be brought under control. Social democrats say: let the “market economy” function, but the “state” must also intervene for the benefit of the weaker strata (the teachings of the welfare state). Neoliberals said: do not be afraid and relieve the “welfare state” of its duties. Outsourcing, deregulation, and respect for competition and free trade on a global level are what pave the way. They believed that each of these private companies standing on their own feet, if well-formed, plays a better role than a “welfare state” in serving society (for instance, in job creation). Or socialists say: these prevalent economic relations are “capitalist” and exploitative and must be overturned. Ownership without ownership, competition without competition, the economy must be planned and command-based, onward toward non-commodity and non-competitive relations.

6- It seems that one cannot fight the “current economic relations” in Iran, just as with bureaucratic relations, but to reform them, one must defend the strategy of respecting the “market economy and the state’s tax (and welfare) policies.” To put it more simply, it is reasonable to defend “social democracy” in the realm of economic relations.

7- An approach like that in paragraph 6 is certainly opposed to economic relations conducted with the intervention of the “hidden state.” Because the hidden state can allocate economic resources non-economically (mainly politically and based on identity) at their source (such as foreign currency resources) and violate economic logic or market logic. In other words, in the market-state approach mentioned above, the state means an institution with overt (not hidden) policies.

8- My point is addressed to those who are concerned about Iran's economic relations. It would be better if they stated clearly: what do they consider Iran's current economic relations to be? And what should be done about them? And what is the connection between their answer to this