Mohammadreza Tajik and the Principles of 'Neo-Reformism' for Overcoming the Crisis / Unblocking the Deadlock by Considering What Is Possible, Not Just What Is Probable; Reform Paths for Society on the Brink of Iran

Perhaps the reform movement should follow a similar path, emerge from its hard discursive shell, speak in a new voice, build a relationship of understanding with the people, and move toward a different method and mode of collective action. But I know I am discussing a different civic action in conditions where society's capacity for civil and democratic change is in steep decline and suspension, and where at any moment a radical current or a disruptive event may emerge, and ...

Andisheh Group: Dr. Mohammad Reza Tajik wrote an article on the website of Mashak Nou about the "crisis and threshold situation of today's Iranian society"; A limbo and suspended situation in which the old order has died, but the new order has not been born due to the lack of cohesion of the forces. By drawing these "failures" in which solving problems have reached a dead end and traditional ways have lost their efficiency, the author considers the objective basis of society to be dense with faults and dissatisfactions.

In the face of this obstruction, the text presents its main hypothesis: the only model of effective change is a radical and reconstructed form of political action under the title of "rebellious reformism" or "neo-reformism". By standing at a critical and decisive distance from the ruling power and conventional reformism, this new discourse transfers its field of action to the micro-organisms of the society. Inspired by thinkers such as Claude Lefebvre, Miguel Ebensor and Andre Gores, this current seeks to create new forms of liberation and equality instead of seizing the power of the state. Finally, by inverting Marx's 11th thesis, the main task in this situation is not "immediate change", but "true interpretation and deciphering of the hidden possibilities in the current situation" in order to open a way out of the impasse from the heart of volitionism that is aware of the conditions. You will read this article below:

Hafiz from Khazan wind in Dehr Maranj grass

Think rationally, where is the thornless flower?

We are in a restless and rebellious situation. Liminal Position is the situation where "identity construction" is separated from its dominant and usual form. According to Victor Turner, the identity in the threshold position has a neither-here nor-there condition, a limbo that is full of ambiguity and indeterminacy, because the stability of the previous position has been lost, but the new position has not enjoyed the necessary stability, legitimacy, and formality.

Therefore, the obstacle represents a "border situation" that is associated with confronting and overturning the "usual order" and entering a "new order". Threshold position in Gramsci's expression is the same period of time in which the old is dying and the new cannot be born, because the new arrangement of forces has not yet found its final form.

In this period, although we are faced with "black holes" and the density and intersection of crises, faults and gaps, and dissatisfaction is widespread in the space, but it has not yet found the necessary structure and coherence, and the wave of dissatisfaction has not yet been able to express its demands and demands based on a positive horizon of political activism aimed at struggle based on a productive and coherent perception, or in other words, due to the lack of from a coherent intellectual-philosophical system; It is not able to renew its strength and structure so that it can enter the battle of politics and politics as an effective force.

In this situation, we are witnessing a clash of wills. On one side of this confrontation, we see the wills of resistance identities (according to Castells), who appear in the role of hysterical and pesotic subjects and try to give birth to the "new", and on the other side, we see the wills oriented to power that have drawn the sword in defense of the "old". The post-threshold era is the subject of the will of the victor in this history-making match.

In these circumstances, we are facing a situation that refuses to be settled. Maybe because in this state of affairs, the problems have become so dense and intersected, that whatever happens from treatment and medicine, the suffering increases and the unnecessary need. Some may say that it is obvious that the solution to a problem lies in eliminating its causes, but how?

The problem becomes much more difficult when we come to the question of how to answer this, because it puts us at the undecidable/unthinkable intersection, where one way is towards a kind of "revolution", the other way is towards a kind of "reform", the third way is the passive way, and the fourth way is the way of strengthening all these factors to the point of an internal collapse. reactive and promotional).

The sixth and seventh ways, etc., may be in a coup d'état, subversion to foreign support, subterfuge, transformation, active passivity (active inaction), internalizing confrontation and confrontation, focusing on a leverage point with high effect, possibility of intervention, low possibility of creating sensitivity and reaction, projecting strategic ideas without ideation, etc.

Among these options, some are still of the opinion that in Iran's current situation, there is no way out except for reform, and even if there is, there is no possibility of concrete action and hegemony.

They are trying to theorize and elaborate a kind of "neo-reformism" at a critical distance from what has been experienced under the name of reformism. Although the followers of this path are numerous and different, they reach a kind of unity under the great sign of reforms.

Here, we are only dealing with a copy of reformism that has the possibility and talent to enter the great race of "alternatives". Therefore, we base our discourse schema on the basis of this hypothesis (and perhaps in the opinion of the author "assumption"): "Today's Iranian society is the only one that accepts that reformist movement that is out of power and at a radical critical distance from it and is a channel for people's desire and will to change".

If we assume this hypothesis, we should try to present a picture of a different kind of reformism with the benefit of Claude Lefebvre's "freedom from incompetent democracy" and Miguel Ebenseur's "insurgent democracy", as well as "non-reformist reforms" or "revolutionary reforms" by Andre Goers, and "fundamental transformation" by Eric Olin Wright.

From this point of view, if we consider reformism not as a kind of political regime, but as a kind of action or mode of socio-political agency, the characteristic sign of which is a continuous critical attack on "self" and various forms of domination and totalitarianism (not necessarily power), or in other words, it is a relentless and continuous struggle between the ruling power aimed at stability, stability, totalitarianism, and living life. Let us assume the excitement of the demos, or consider it as a phenomenon that is constantly inventing itself and is based on a kind of "fraternal disorder", or a "split bond" - a non-dominant, unrestricted and politically egalitarian bond, or a kind of interpersonal relationship born from the explicit recognition of the fragmented nature of political communities, which seeks to institutionalize a kind of political community that is an obstacle to domination. be: institutions that are more a kind of matrix than a framework, and include an imaginary dimension, based on expectation and prediction, which are capable of creating customs, or to be more precise, have attitudes and behaviors compatible with the liberation they announce, or consider it a critical flow/discourse of domination that understands politics as the realm of freedom and liberation, and self-discipline is a political matter. recognizes, tries to create freedom through conflict and gives permission to social division to reveal itself in the public domain, its purpose is not to steal the power of the government, but to invent another political form, or to create the conditions for the realization of a unique and inclusive way of activity in the public domain, which brings with it the possibility of liberation from the political domination of the minority for the public, then, we can Radicalizing the characteristics of reformism, draw and formulate a new formulation of it.

Let us clarify here that this type of reformism, like Claude Lefebvre's "disqualified democracy", is not based on the principle of anarchy, nor is it necessarily and inherently against the state/power, although in the final analysis, it is aligned with the idea of Ebensor that: "In the current situation, political activism must be critical, radical, always active and negating the conservative formalism of the state, and in The result will be a rebellion, or it will turn into something against itself."

In other words, the political activist himself becomes a mask through which totalitarian and domineering powers can call themselves democratic at the same time. Insurgent reformism is not a form of government that allows the oligarchy to rule in the name of the people, nor is it a form of society that is organized by commodity power. This type of reformism is a non-stop flow and action against any autocratic change or power-seeking change. "Rebellious reformism" is a trend/discourse that recognizes the autonomy of the political and the aesthetic and egalitarian side of politics.

This current, before changing the existing order and system, thinks about changing its theoretical and practical logic, and prefers the interpretation of the situation (as it is, not as it wishes) to change it, and therefore, more in search of an answer to the question "What can be done?" is to "what should be done?".

Perhaps, in the current history, in order to secure and guarantee its effective activism as the most possible discourse game in the city, it needs to invert the thought and practical pyramid of its predecessors. In the book The Second Advent: How to deal with chaos? (Franco Berardi, translated by Sami Al-Mahdi) we read: "Perhaps it is only necessary to reverse Marx's famous eleventh thesis about Feuerbach; That is, the main basis of the revolutionary methodology of the past century and a half. Marx wrote there that philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; It is a matter of changing it"; And the philosophers of the last century also tried to do so. The results are disastrous.

The duty of philosophers is not to change; The world is constantly changing without the need for philosophers. The duty of philosophers is to interpret the world, to describe its tendency and most importantly, to tell the possibilities hidden in it. The main task of philosophers is to decipher the possibilities. The politician's eye does not see the possible and pays attention to the probable. The possible is the enemy of the possible. What is likely is a gestalt (a complete perceptual image and plan consisting of integrated elements in such a way that the whole body has properties that its individual elements lack) that allows us to see what we already know and at the same time prevents us from seeing what we do not know but is right in front of our eyes. Insurgent reformism also tries to provide a real interpretation and image of the present in which it is, and what it is and can be and do in this present, and think about change in the light of this guilt.

Another identifier of this trend is revealed in their historical and pragmatic character. Such a flow, like the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, believes that in situations where "there is no way, the way should be made by walking." ... but to say that "we make our way by walking" does not mean to pretend that we take away the ground we walk on.

The issue is not that the will creates itself and the conditions of its existence and life all at once or from the secret of absence, it is not that we imagine that "the real movement that overturns the existing situation" proceeds in an empty or undetermined space. Obstacles or opportunities characteristic of a particular terrain should not be neglected or denied their ability to influence the consolidation process in a way.

It should be remembered, according to Sartre, that obstacles appear as obstacles only in the light of the project of crossing them. It should be remembered according to Marx that we make our history without choosing the conditions of making it. We have to imagine the land and the way through dialectics, which, by creating a link between the objective and subjective forms of determination, is directed based on the priority of subjective forms.

This trend is trying to build its discourse house on the edge of a kind of "voluntarism focused on the conditions of possibility". Will, in the theoretical field of this current, is the same will that Gramsci considered to be synonymous with political or practical causality and tried to make it the foundation and basis of philosophy; And the young Lukács emphasized that "decision", "personal will" and "action by free will" strategically take precedence over the visible "facts" of a situation; And it prompts thinkers like Sartre, Simon de Boer, and Alain Badiou to emphasize the practical priority of individual independence and self-liberation, and to teach people: no matter how slow the situation and chained to your feet, you are always free to "make something from the heart of what is made of you" (Sartre).

This will and authority always finds meaning in the process of actively wanting or choosing, which calls a certain routine of action superior to another routine. Therefore, Sartre says: Freedom, since it is "always committed" "never exists prior to choice: we will never be able to understand ourselves, except in the position of a choice about to take place. Some time ago, Rousseau also proposed the idea that: the fundamental principle of every action is rooted in the will of a free being; There is no higher or deeper source. Without will, there is no freedom and discretion, no independence, and no "moral causation"... Every human being has the inherent right to self-reflection and personal will" and "a person either freely wills or is forced to will, there is no middle ground". Outside the circle of voluntary self-regulation, "nothing can be found other than the domination of the strong over the weak and its abominable consequences."

But this will is aware of the determinisms and implications that surround it, so it does not develop a plan or a transhistorical trace in the mind and knows that every stage of action has its own nature and essence and must act according to its restless and constantly changing historical impulses. He knows that he must always have a dialogical and dialectical relationship with understanding and understanding and influence.

Of course, he also knows that he should not surrender to the circumstances and be intimidated by its orders, and he knows that he should not be a prisoner of the dualism of opinion and action, thought and will, will and circumstances, because he considers such a dualism neither possible nor desirable, and he knows that thought, as Foucault specifies, is embedded in the actions themselves, and to be more precise, "it is there", in the institutions themselves. Thought is present in the back and forth systems and structures of discourse... Just like actions, it has a type of "positivity": like a type of "law" that did not originate from any subject, but can itself be the creator of the subject.

To sum up, that form and formulation of a reform movement, in our present time, has the possibility and ability to attract people who:

First, it should be at a critical distance from the trend of reformism.

Second, be at a critical distance from power.

Third, place the field of action in the micro-bodies of society and not only in the field of macrophysics of power and macropolitics.

Fourth, he should be familiar with the requirements and requirements of the time in which he lives in restless moments and consider them in his every character and method of action (in other words, he should consider himself as an innovator who is constantly inventing himself).

Fifth, it should be a channel for exercising the will of the people.

Sixth, to have the ability to create new concepts and formulate a discourse suitable for the current conditions of the society.

Seventh, to consider politics as the realm of freedom and equality and activism of autonomous subjects.

Shatam, in walking and walking, picture and draw his own way and walk (he should say that because he has to go),

Ninth, to provide a specific way out for specific situations (always play a part in the solution of society's problems),

Tenth, to recognize the plurality and difference of social and political logos (languages) and ethos (characters and attitudes) and not to think of yourself as the only game in the city, and to always think of a kind of overlapping of distinct and different wills.

11th, consider politics as the arena of tension between "desirable" and "possible", and avoid getting involved in passive moralism or immoral radicalism.