REPLY TO ANDREW VARVEL

[Andrew Varvel]

Dear Mahan Abedin:

My replies to your comments are likely to take quite a few installments.
Please accept my regrets about how long it takes for my replies. Here
goes...

To start, I'll relate a shortened version of the story about Ghashim and
the Devil.

"There was, there was not an intelligent and lively theology student named
Ghashim. He was studious and very clever, so Satan decided to corrupt
him. One day, in the garden of the madrasa, Satan appeared to Ghashim.
Satan was bronze faced and wore a tuxedo and black shoes. Two jet black
horns came out of his head. As Ghashim asked himself who this was in his
thoughts, the Devil answered, 'One of my favorite names for myself is
Mastema. Most people call me Satan. But you may call me Imam if you
wish.'

Of course, Ghashim knew that Satan is evil and must be rejected. However,
the young man did not know the difference between rejecting adversity and
embracing adversarial theology. So Satan told the young man to treat
other people with respect, to take care of widows and orphans, to be
honest in keeping accounts, and to follow his conscience. After this
meeting, Ghashim knew that Satan was evil, so he led his life in the exact
opposite of what Satan recommended.

Decades later, Ghashim would become the treasurer of charities for widows
and orphans. However, his embezzlement and profligate spending became
known and he fled to the border. At the border, he ran through seven mine
fields without a scratch because a voice within him told him where to
step. But then he recognized the voice that was telling him that a deadly
pit was in front of him. And that voice was Satan's.

Ghashim, as before, refused to listen to the voice and he stepped into the
pit and died. After his Judgment, he found his old acquaintance he
remembered from his old school days in Hell. Ghashim asked, 'Why did you
give me the advice at the school?' Satan replied, 'I gave you good
advice. But I knew that you hated me so much that you would do exactly
the opposite of what I recommended.' Ghashim asked again, 'So why did you
tell me about the pit?' Satan replied again, 'So you would have nobody to
blame but yourself.'"

Thus, I try to be careful to differentiate between the author and the
ideology.

Please also remember that one's worst opponents are not those who actively
oppose, for they are honest foes. One's worst opponents are those who let
their opponent's own mistakes trip them up, destroying their opponent from
within.

But back to globalization...

Globalization and "glocalization" have been around for many years. About
a century ago, Shell Oil exploited local Chinese customs to capture the
Chinese market from Standard Oil. It should not be surprising that
criticism of corporate capitalism has been pervasive for a long time.
Frequently, the sharpest critiques are from within.

The example you give about the decline of British manufacturing is a
result of the UK's entrance into the Common Market and its rejection of
the Commonwealth. Its importation of cheap wheat from Canada, Australia,
and the US improved its standard of living. However, the importation of
expensive and subsidized wheat from continental Europe increased labor
costs and shifted the entire index of comparative advantages for the UK.
The new mercantilism of the EU would encourage an increase in British
farming while plunging world farm prices. The economic circumstances are
NOT the result of globalization (as British manufacturing was the first
laissez faire economy) but rather the realignment of economic empires.
North American, Argentinean, and Australian/New Zealand wheat has
generally been rerouted to the Orient, fueling the economic growth of the
"tigers".

Historically, Iran was hard hit by globalization due to tariff exemptions
for Russian and British manufactures. Iran was inhibited from
strengthening its economy by a combination of factors, some internal and
some external. But for the future, Iranian culture (and economy) will
survive if it has the quiet self-confidence to survive on its own terms --
with or without the Iranian government. Foreign culture cannot threaten
the strong; it threatens the weak and morally naked.

It may surprise you, but I do not come from "Western civilization" per se.
The culture of North America does derive some of its heritage from western
Europe, but East Asian, Native American, and African influences cannot be
denied. I emphatically disagree with Samuel Huntington. Not only does he
oversimplify the world in a disastrous manner (reinforcing every religious
and racial bigotry in the world), but he radically misunderstands his own
society (as shown in earlier treatises he has written). Usually, "Western
civilization" is claimed to be invented by the ancient Greeks. But that
would make Islamic regions more truly "Western" than the western European
variants!

American civilization is what it is. One cannot reduce it down to the
X-Files, Seinfeld, Dallas, Dynasty, and Studio 54 any more than the
essence of Iranian (or Islamic!) culture can be reduced to nude dancing at
a Shiraz music festival and "temporary marriages".

Much of modern "individualism" is something of a misnomer -- a lot of it
is commercial collectivism. To make a long story short, I view true
individualism as involving voluntary cooperation -- not forced, but
genuine from within. That said, I strongly oppose the notion of the
collective soul as applied to religio-nationalistic movements.
Institutional loyalty is important, but it is often all too easy to
confuse the group interest for one's own with the effect that personal
selfishness is clothed in the rhetoric of collective spirit. This is
especially seen with leaders, as they are too often regarded as the "head"
of the "body".

There are many interlaced ideologies that you describe in your commentary
about globalization; I will try to sift them out as best I can.

You are correct that the hedonistic basis of capitalist mythology has
implicit religious overtones. For one thing, "enlightened self-interest"
is as hard to find as sainthood. Advertising is designed to appeal to
emotional short-term greed. Much of modern economics *should* reevaluate
morality and goodness as variables. However, much of the modern context
of free trade is Ricardian socialism. Believe it or not, Adam Smith was
quite skeptical of the influence of international trade on the sovereignty
of Britain.

As for the ideology of "modernism", I'm not a big fan of it. I do suggest
that you read the writings of the architect "Walter Gropius" some time.
An important popularizer of the "International Style", he founded the
Bauhaus. His arrogant disregard for the past, his attempts to ban
architectural history, and his tendency to run roughshod over everything
old made him an easy target for cultural conservatives in the 1920's and
Nazis in the 1930's.

However, when you refer to a system "going back 300 years", this brings us
to the Republican ideology of Spinoza (who was reacting against the ideas
of both John Calvin and the Catholic Church). Many modernist and
republican attitudes refer back to him. I do hope that you are familiar
with his ideas, since his commentaries are central in understanding the
theoretical dynamics of Velayat-e faqih (and will be commented on in the
next installment).

It may be possible that you are referring to "secularism" as a kind of
religion. I would tend to agree. I am not convinced that secularism is
necessarily opposed to universalist religions (principally Christianity
and Islam), but many versions of secularism have been patently
anti-religious. I hope that you are familiar with the generally
anti-religious attitudes of the Pied Noir in colonial Algeria as a more
extreme example.

I do concede that Islam, as a universalist religion, is enhanced by the
globalism of modern day but eroded by consumerist ideologies of corporate
capitalism. That could be said for other religions, too. Economic Islam
may present a long term alternative means to organize international trade
and manufacturing, but that would essentially be a cooperative economy in
an Islamic context.

As for my comments about Velayat-e faqih doctrine, that is the topic for a
later post.

Best wishes,

--AV--

Andrew Varvel