مارکسیسم

This article has resorted to the theory of discourse analysis and used its epistemological foundations and conceptual tools in order to respond to the superiority of Islamism in confronting the discourse of Marxism in the process of the Islamic Revolution of Iran. From this point of view, Islamism is considered as a semantic system that was able to marginalize it by using the fluid concepts and signs of Marxism discourse such as social justice and struggle against imperialism and become the superior and undisputed discourse of the revolution.Although the discourse of Marxism did not succeed in stabilizing its semantic system and was marginalized in the process leading to the Islamic Revolution of Iran; But he was able to introduce concepts and vocabulary into Iran's political literature and discursive space that did not have a place in the Arabs before. Concepts such as fighting against imperialism, fighting against capitalism, supporting the rights of the lower classes, revolutionism, armed struggle, social justice and anti-monarchy were the most important concepts that this discourse inherited and made permanent in the political-social atmosphere of Iran.

This article aims to explore a semi-hidden duality and contradiction within the ideology of Marxism, and the period under discussion is from the announcement of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the death of Stalin in 1953. The characters discussed in this article are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as the founders of Marxism and Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin as the first leaders of the Soviet Union. The concepts of nation, nationalism and cosmopolitranism and their corresponding concepts have been used frequently in Marxist works but the attitude of the founders of Marxism, Marx and Engels and the first political leaders of Marxism, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, who were the first leaders of the Soviet Union were not the same, both in the theoretical and practical aspects towards these concepts. In general issues such as nation and nationalism on the one hand and cosmopolitranism on the other are opposing concepts; Also, in ideology of Marxism, proletarian cosmopolitranism is proposed as an ultimate ideal. Therefore, it is expected that the attitude of Marxists towards the nation and nationalism has always been pessimistic and negative and towards cosmopolitranism, it has always been optimistic and positive, but the issue that this article intends to address and analyze is that their attitude towards these concepts and phenomena is not always based on this model and the duality and contradiction that is sometimes hidden and sometimes obvious in their speech and actions, is visible. This duality and contradiction appear from the founding and emergence of the ideology of Marxism by Marx and Engels until the later Marxists such as Georgy Plekhanov, Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg to the first leaders of Soviet Union and many other great Marxists. Sometimes the concepts of nation and nationalism can be seen in the works of the first thinkers and leaders of Marxism in such a way that they seem to have accepted these concepts as social realities, both in the objective and the subjective dimension and have a positive aspect. This is while these thinkers and leaders in their other works consider the nation and nationalism as a negative phenomenon that should be removed from the field of human societies.  Whenever the discussed thinkers consider the nation and nationalism with an optimistic attitude, it is assumed that they do not have much inclination towards cosmopolitranism or even reject it, because the nation and nationalism in general are not compatible with cosmopolitranism. While in many of their works, completely optimistic and biased attitudes towards cosmopolitranism and transnationalism can be seen and this is another aspect of duality and conflict under discussion. There is no doubt that the ideology of Marxism inherently does not want to be limited to a territorial area, even to the extent of a country. Considering its slogans and its content, this ideology is a universal thought and wants to include as many minds and lands as possible. Therefore, the tendency and partiality of early Marxists towards cosmopolitranism is a fundamental tendency and their optimistic attitude towards nationalism which is sometimes expressed, is superficial.Research Question: Based on the above-mentioned explanations, we can raise the question of what were the views of the founders of Marxism and the first leaders of the Soviet Union regarding the concepts of nation and nationalism compared to cosmopolitranism, and what are the reasons for the duality and conflict about it?Research Hypothesis: In this regard, it can be hypothesized that the reason for the duality and conflict of attitudes towards the concepts of nation and nationalism compared to cosmopolitranism in Marxism is the use of nation and nationalism as a tool to achieve ideological goals, including cosmopolitranism.

The research method is qualitative and is based on Quentin Skinner’s Speech and its data is collected from library resources. In this method, the author’s intention is the most important issue, and its ultimate meaning is in the author’s situation and objective intention. Also, the collected data has been analyzed in this article.

In this article, it is concluded that the discussed duality and contradiction arose because the founders and first political leaders of Marxism considered the nation and nationalism as a means to achieve their ideals and ideological goals, including the spread of Marxism and transnationalism.  In other words, they have no faith and respect for the nation and nationalism and only use these concepts as tools based on the idea of "the end justifies the means" used these concepts as instruments.

This instrumental use specially was to achieve these goals: the advancement of ideological goals, including the facilitation of proletarian revolutions and the achievement of cosmopolitranism. for the survival of the newly established Soviet government; To create a united front in support of the Soviet Union against the capitalist front; Compromise with capitalist enemy countries and finally the possibility of coexistence of different ethnicities and nations within the Soviet Union, including Central Asian nations and then trying to integrate them within the framework of Marxism ideology. These findings can answer some questions and issues related to Marxism, for example, in Central Asian countries and reveal the reasons for the failure of this ideology at the level of the international system. The results of this research can be used to analyze other Marxist tendencies, including Marxist parties and groups.

The present research is written in response to this sociological question, what are the reasons that led to the superiority of the discourse of Islamism in the process of struggles leading to the Islamic Revolution of Iran. In a space where the discourses of liberal nationalism and Marxism had an effective presence, how was Islamism able to establish its semantic system as a hegemonic discourse. In this regard, the discourse analysis theory of Lacla and Moff has been used as the theoretical and methodological basis of this article. Because the theory of discourse analysis is more compatible with the nature of the subject and provides a more accurate explanation of it. From this point of view, Islamism is considered as a discourse that, in order to fight against the ruling Pahlavi discourse and to establish its own semantic system, marginalized the ideologies of liberal nationalism and Marxism, and is recognized as the undisputed winner of the revolutionary battle. This research considers the main reason for the superiority of the discourse of Islamism in the conflict with rival discourses to be Imam Khomeini's ability to organize a comprehensive discourse that includes most of the concepts of liberal nationalism and Marxism discourses, and by creating a metaphorical space and covering a wide range of revolutionaries' demands, the existence of rival discourses has challenged

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as independent organizations from the government,Non-profit organizations and spontaneous and public members today play an important role in various legal fields such as political, economic, environmental, cultural, etc., so that these institutions are the main components of civil societyformed and are considered tools to strengthen the weak position of the people against powerful government institutions. In spite of this importance, non-governmental organizations in some societies are either basically not formed or in th ecase offormation, they are not very efficient in performing their duties and effectiveness, and in some cases losses and damagesMost of them follow, to the extent that in some cases they go out of the circle of the mentioned definition. This article is to examine one if the most important injuries of NGOs that is violence, base on the method of Descriptive-analytical. in such a way that firstly, the introduction and causes of the formation of two of the most important organizationsViolent means ideology-based organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Marxist guerilla organizations such asPeople's Mojahedin of Iran and then solutions to prevent violence in these organizationsIt also prevents these organizations from harming the society.

The main purpose of this article is to analyze the Marxist discourse using influential books in the process of the Islamic Revolution. In the process of the Islamic revolution, the discourse of Marxism is divided into two sub-discourses: the eclectic Marxist and the materialistic Marxist. Each of the two discourses tried to attract the people of the Islamic Revolution by using influential works and books. In this regard, eclectic Marxists from books such as the methodology of knowledge, the way of the prophets; Human path (Mohammed Hanifnejad) and evolution (Ali Mihan Dost) were used. On the other hand, materialist Marxists from books such as Kajraheh (Ehsan Tabari), Thesis for Mobility (Mustafa Shaaian), Analysis of the Position of Revolutionary Forces in Iran (Bijan Jazni), Tudeh Party and the Issues of Our Revolutionary Homeland (Noureddin Kianuri), Little Black Fish ( Samad Behrangi) were inspired.In this article, the author is looking for an answer to the question of how the Marxist discourse in the Islamic Revolution was reflected in influential books. The method used in this article is the method of discourse analysis using the discourse analysis theory of James Paul J.

In various sources, we have been reading that socialism and Marxism began their influence in Iran after the adoption of the Constitution along with the emergence of social democratic organizations and groups. In this study, we intend to address the following questions about Iran and Marxism: 1. When did the influence of Marxism begin in Iran? 2. What were the characteristics of the initial discourse of the Left in Iran? 3. How, under what circumstances, and at what level Marxism influenced the Moslem Iranians? The familiarity of Iranians with socialist thought occurred shortly before the culmination of Iran’s Constitutional Revolution in 1911. The introduction of socialist and Marxist thought to Iran, as a result of Iranians' encounter with Western intellectual and cultural system, provided the ideological basis for the formation of one of the nascent trends in Iran's political arena. Iranians' attention to socialism and Marxism at the beginning and on a general level was influenced by the political and inspirational slogans of Marxist intellectuals and activists, particularly those in Transcaucasia, rather than the ideological or philosophical aspects of these new ideals. These slogans were attractive to Iranian politicians and activists in that region because they were interested in helping the lower strata of society, specifically the workers. Considering the poor living conditions of this class combined with their growing size of population at that time, Marxism and socialism seemed to provide a new theoretical basis for solving the problems of the working class. Therefore, at the beginning of the spread of Marxism and socialism in Iran, their tenets and slogans were used in some political parties and groups’ manifestos and programs. An example of these parties is Ferqeh-ye Ejtemāʿīyun-e ʿʿāmīyun  (Social Democratic Party) which is considered to be the first Iranian socialist organization established by Iranian emigrants in Transcaucasia. Using the documentary research method, we systematically analyzed historical official documents  as our main data  sources. We argue that initially Iranians were influenced by the ideological slogans of Marxism rather than its theoretical foundations. At the beginning,  they were attracted to this ideology’s socialist foundations in the form of organizational goals for their political parties and groups before addressing its theoretical details. Of course, efforts were made to promote socialism and Marxism, but the level of their introduction to Iranians did not go beyond the basic principles and generalities. It is evident that Marxism and its call for a classless society did not have a great influence on the Iranian peoples' political view of society. However, Marx's social theories and Marxism’s commitment to political struggle to improve material conditions of the underprivileged social groups provided an intellectual basis of the research conducted by a number of contemporary Iranian scholars and influenced their political thought.

The New Left though emerged as an alternative to Orthodox Marxism in response to previous crises in the realm of Marxist thought and its various failures with regard to the evolutions in the political realm and the political. The main issue of this article is to bring a new pathology of the current situation by focusing on the dialectics between the New Left vs. the Political. In the other words the present paper examines the situation which the New Left has found itself in it dialectically. So it would shed light on the evolutions taking place in the New Left and the consequence of this evolution on the emergence of the political subject as the agent of change in the Marxist thought. In conclusion, it seems that the crisis of the subject of liberation and the priority of alienation in the New Left has become the fundamental problem of leftist thought that continues to this day.

The Orthodox Marxism approach is one of the main perspectives of analyzing Iranian history from the modern social sciences point of view. The Marxist scholars have sought to understand the logic of Iran's historical transformations based on Marx's theory of Historical Materialism. The main objective of this article is to present a critical investigation of the formation of this approach and identify the main themes of Marxist analysis of Iranian history. The main research questions are as follows: 1. What are the main characteristics of Marxist understanding of Iranian history? 2. What is Marxist scholars’ perception of the characteristics of society and state in Iranian feudalism? 3. What are the merits and weaknesses of this approach for evaluating the history of Iran? In the hypothesis, it is asserted that Marxist scholars based on the general theory of Marx's historical materialism believed that Iran, like other societies, had experienced the primitive communism modes of production, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, although, in each period, the general characteristics of modes of production had been combined with the specific characteristics of Iranian society, which had led to the formation of the “Iranian” type. Although Marxist explanations and analyses are considerably richer than those of their historical theoretical rival (i.e., the theory of Oriental Despotism), the inadequacy of the Marxist theory prevents it from being a satisfactory and wide-ranging guide for understanding the history of Iran.The findings of the present study are summarized as follows: the use of the Marxist approach to analyze the history of Iran dates back to the post-constitutional period and the beginning of Reza Shah’s reign (1925-1941). However, the most prominent scholars of this tradition included a group of Soviet academicians. Following the translation of this group’s works and the post-1941 dominance of the left’s discourse in the Iranian intellectual space, the Orthodox Marxist analysis gradually became the dominant approach of analysis of Iranian history until the early 1980s. According to these scholars, Iran, like all societies, has experienced the primitive communism modes of production, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. However, during each period, the general characteristics of modes of production had been combined with the specific characteristics of Iranian society, and the Iranian particular type had been formed. Therefore, these researchers sought to identify the "general" and "specific" characteristics of the Iranian state and society during the above-mentioned four periods.Focusing on understanding Marxist scholars' perceptions of the characteristics of society and the state in the period of "Iranian feudalism", the paper showed that in the group’s works 20 characteristics for the Iranian society and 11 characteristics for the Iranian state have been identified. The notable features emphasized in this analysis of pre-modern history of Iran include the domination of subsistence agriculture and social relations based on feudal exploitation, the diversity of forms of land ownership, the existence of a distinct class structure, the description of the state as a tool of the feudal class, the cycle of strengthening state ownership of land at the early stages of the establishment of the state and its weakening and disintegration due to the transfer of Iqta, the decentralized model of imperial administration, the repetitive pendulum of centralism-feudal separatism, the perception of the status of mūlūk al-tawā’if as evolved feudalism, the perception of social movements as class struggles. Such characteristics are fundamentally in conflict with the characteristics that Oriental Despotism theorists consider as the characteristics of Iranian state and society. However, the article showed that a group of Iranian Marxist scholars have attempted to include the themes of the theory of Oriental Despotism to explain Iranian feudalism.Based on his critical evaluation of the contributions of the Marxist analytical approach to study the history of Iran, the author concludes that this tradition had analytical advantages compared with the rival theory of Oriental Despotism, because of its consideration of historical dynamics, rejection of  static notions as well as highlighting the activism of social forces, and taking into account the complex center-surrounding relations. Despite its merits, the Marxist analytical approach does not have the necessary requirement for a valid analysis of Iranian history, due to its weakness which include the imposition of theory on historical reality, economic reductionism, analytical Westernism, analytical contradiction in the discussion of the position of state in the social system and finally ignoring the pivotal role of tribal actors.

The Islamic Revolution of Iran under the leadership of Imam Khomeini (RA) entered into a full-fledged and strategic challenge with rival organizations and parties due to following the principles and foundations of the Shiite and Ahl al-Bayt (AS) schools. One of these organizations is the People's Mojahedin Organization (MKO) with eclectic principles and foundations, which was established in the 1340s by three members of the student branch of the 'Freedom Movement'. From the very beginning, this organization claimed to save Iran from the yoke of American imperialism and its internal allies (the Pahlavi regime) by resorting to armed struggle. This terrorist organization has been an enemy of the Islamic revolution and principle of velayet- faqih for five decades despite all the ups and downs of its activities. The long-standing conflict between the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and the Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khomeini is in the religious, political, social and cultural fields. In the field of belief, non-belief in the universality of the principles and foundations of Islam and eclecticism with Marxist principles and foundations and 'confiscation of the desirable' Islamic concepts and values in order to cover and camouflage Marxist infidelity and atheism. In the political sphere, dependence on foreign and imported Marxist models. In the cultural and social context, disbelief in the real role of the masses in the process of revolutionary change.

Mohammad Reza Hakimi is one of the few Iranian thinkers who has focused on research on Islamic justice. The purpose of this article is to take the first step in presenting Hakimi's theory of justice, ie to extract its foundations based on Hamid Parsania's basic methodology. Research in this theoretical framework requires the use of special applied methods. Library research methods for data collection, and content analysis methods for data analysis are appropriate methods. Hakimi's justice research has been influenced by personal spirits, personal lived experience, schools of thought, social status and political currents of his time. Although Hakimi's affiliation with the school of segregation has not been ineffective in choosing the subject, source, method and scope of his theorizing, his justice and research are more influenced by schools, thinkers and socio-political currents such as Islamic and non-Islamic Marxism that believe in the centrality and originality of economics in epistemology. They were community issues. The most important epistemological foundations of Hakimi's theory of justice are "monotheism of the source of justice", "separation of sources, teachings and research methods", "realistic total Ijtihad", "equality in creation" and "centrality of economy in religion and society".

This article seeks to examine and analyze the role of each of the discourses (jurisprudential Islam, Marxism and liberalism) in the process of formation and victory of the Islamic Revolution according to the element of spirituality, emphasizing the guidelines and positions of Imam Khomeini, the Supreme Leader and especially the works of Martyr Motahari, In this article, the author tries to answer the question using descriptive-analytical method that considering the existence of liberalism, Marxism and jurisprudential Islam discourses in the months before and after the Islamic Revolution, why only the discourse of jurisprudential Islam plays a role in how the Islamic Revolution took place and the developments that followed? Findings show that despite the existence of liberal and Marxist discourses in society before and after the Islamic Revolution, the discourse of Islamic jurisprudence according to its concepts and due to the adaptation of these concepts to the long-standing requests and aspirations of the Muslim people of Iran played an important role in its formation, victory and subsequent developments Until today.

International political economy is a term that combines the major disciplines of the humanities, including politics, economics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and comparative politics. The basic element of this dynamic and inherent knowledge is that it proceeds in a two-way interaction. Schools and theories are derived from these characteristics. In this article, we have tried to deal with the evolution of international political economy from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present and its impact on human society.

The aim of this research is to study Radical theory ideals in Global political economy with emphasis on development. Thus, the main research question is the nature and meaning of development in the various Radicalism approaches including (such as) studies Colonialism and Imperialism, Dependency theory, Neocolonialism, Globalization, and the evolution of development concept in each theories. As his research is done in descriptive-analytic method and by desk research, the findings show that all theories has been presented (raised) permanent connection (relation) and links between dynamics of Capitalism system and its functions and the concept of development and underdevelopment in different national and international levels, and the inherent characteristics of capitalist system including exploitation, inequality, and inhuman relations has described in all theories. While understanding Radical’ ideals of  Radicalism theory in global political economy or international relationships has many complicated philosophy, but it contradict ideal western human as development basis, and the emphasis is on relative and indigenous nature of different communities ideals in relation to the issue of development. The concept of development, as how to make society equal in the light of economic relationships and production is not in the focus (heart) of attention, but the important matter is the emphasis on humanizing the existing relationships at all levels. However, Radicals have key role in development and promotion of literacy and philosophy related to development and underdevelopment issues, but in fact, they cannot provide an example of development model based on their opinions and assumptions on the national and international level.

Tudeh party of Iran which continues the communist party and the left discourse after the constitution and in line with the Soviet Socialist Revolution of 1917 it was formed, founded after the fall of Reza Shah. This party, classified in the parties, placed in the left-wing spectrum knew himself depended to Marxist thoughts which is in all political events among them: The north petroleum points, the Azerbaijan republic, the nationalization of the oil industry and ... took the side of the Soviet Union and promoted the thought of Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and its political doctrine. After the August 28, 1332 coup this party was completely suppressed by the Pahlavi regime and had to emigrate from the country. The Tudeh party was looking for an Iranian Marxism with the start of the Islamic revolution, return to Iran and with the support of the Imam's line and the schools, to confirm all the positions of the Islamic republic, but in 1362 by creating secret and spy agency and revealing the secrets of the system to the Soviet Union finally dissolved announced by the Islamic republic. The purpose of this research is Check Tudeh party's positions in relation to the Islamic revolution of Iran, in this research while analyzing the positions of the Tudeh party towards the Islamic revolution we seek to explain this hypothesis basically in a society tied to its roots and culture with the religion of Islam and formed an independent and popular revolutionary in it Marxist ideas cannot have a place in it even if that ideology wants to reconcile itself with the ruling system.

Ethnicity is one of the trends of the new era which some paradigms, e.g., globe after Soviet fall, globalization, and rise of the Postmodern discourses, has caused its spread through the globe in these years. Ethnicity, in countries with a long history or colonized countries, had not existed or had been a marginal issue. However, during Soviet era, it came to the political scene as a hone and supporter of the political ideologies. As one of the main trends in 20th century, ethnicity has been defined as the "National Question" under "Marxist-Leninist" paradigm which is explored in this paper. As a consequence of Soviet impact on Iran, ethnicity came to Iran, at first, as a complement of the left-Marxist discourses as well as Lenin theories. The "Communist Party of Iran" used this idea in the 1920's. Afterward, other parties, e.g., the "Tudeh Party of Iran" and other leftist parties in Iran used that as the means of their political ends, causing violence and insecurity until 1980's. This paper tries to analysis the Ethnocentrism regarding its basic causes, which mainly is Marxism-Leninism, and shows that Ethnocentrism in Iran is highly influenced by leftist-Marxists discourses. The Research Methodology in this paper is descriptive-analytical and information gathering is based literature review. The main presumption of this paper is that the ethnicity is a part of Marxism-Leninism discourse whereas has been stated as the "National Question" in Left political context. consequently, The leftist parties and organizations used the ethnicity as a political-ideological tool.

Iranian Islamic revolution since its victory has been analyzed from different perspectives but in these analyses, the theoretic point of view and searching a theoretic foundation for the revolution has been neglected. In fact, most of the books and articles on the Iranian revolution interpret it as a political and social phenomenon and based on this view, has been searched for its political, economic and social causes of the Iranian revolution. On the other hand some thinkers believe that the Iranian revolution is the ideological or discursive system which we should find its causes in socio-economic conflicts or the strategy of repression, exclusion and making other on behalf of adversarie's discourses.
The author in this dissertation believes that the reason of lack of theoretic analysis and theoretic foundation of the Iranian revolution is rooted in negligence of Dr. Shariati' books and writings among the research resources on the Islamic revolution. These writings provide theoretical resources for phenomenon of Islamic revolution.

International political economy is a field in which scientific and applied dimensions along with theoretical problems are fully considered and for this reason, it was divided to various schools. If those who are involved in this field can coordinate these different dimensions, this diversity will be regarded as an advantage for international political economy. This article analyzes the schools of neoliberalism and neo-Marxism on a comparative basis, although it also looks briefly at realism. According to neo-liberal approach, market mechanisms and the principles of liberalism which govern the functioning of economy are transforming it into a global economy by relying upon technological advances resulting from the competition and innovation in free market. The main point advanced by neo-liberalism is that the globalization of economy contributes to increasing prosperity and welfare all over the world including poor countries. In contrast, neo-Marxists believe that the structure governing international economy does not allow any possibility for development in underdeveloped countries. Neo-Marxists such as Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, Cardoso, Falleto and Wallerestein in the 1970 and also Robert Cox (critical theory) presented concepts such as uneven development, unequal exchange and core-periphery relation and tried to explain the structure of capitalism which govern the international economy. Also, the author addresses the critiques made about these two theories and describes recent theoretical discussions made by rationalists and advocates of critical theory as the latest theories advanced in international political economy.

This paper deals with the theoretical foundations and conceptual framework of International Political Economy. The main question is about the interaction of political and economic factors leading to the formation and development of International Political Economy. Different variables during the Cold War including the rise of international economic interdependence، collapse of the Bretton Woods system، emergence of new protectionism، the West- East détente، and the 1970s energy crisis contributed to the formation of IPE as a distinct academic discipline. The three most popular schools of IPE are liberalism، Realism، and Marxism arguing about the interaction of political and economic factors in international relations. The American and Britain schools of IPE represent two conflicting worldviews about the legitimate study of IPE. This academic discipline has been dominated by a set of five important issues: international trade، international finance، multinational corporations، North- South relations، and hegemony. IPE studies mutual interactions between political and economic factors in all the subjects mentioned above.

Revolutionary movements are very important actors in politics of our time; even if we may think they have come into place in response to the hegemonic and exclusive policies of the West. During nineteenth century, they showed to be very weak. In twentieth century, they come to the scene very strong. In first half of the century, it was Marxist movements to reach political power and challenge the West. In the second half, and especially after September 11, it has been the Islamic movements to be seen with the same capability. Here, the main problem is how the West sees these revolutionary movements against itself and, then, how reacts to them. In analyzing this problem and realizing master policy of the West, we utilize the conceptual framework of the ‘Western order’ and its hegemonic dimensions as final goal of that order will be referred and discussed.