Political Sociology
Sajjad Sattari
Abstract
IntroductionThe author defines capitalism as “a natural consequence of human activity and success in the fundamental accumulation of capital, within any society, with any political economy structure and with any methods, forms, or means”. Although various forms of capitalism exist within ...
Read More
IntroductionThe author defines capitalism as “a natural consequence of human activity and success in the fundamental accumulation of capital, within any society, with any political economy structure and with any methods, forms, or means”. Although various forms of capitalism exist within each society, not all forms have equal opportunities to flourish; rather, a specific form of capitalism evolves and comes to dominate in each society. The present article aimed to shed light on the nature of this phenomenon by answering the following question: Why and how is only a particular form of capitalism considered rational in each society, and as a result, positioned for furthur growth and evolution?Materials and MethodsThe present study attempted to develop a specific theoretical approach under the concept of “Paradigm of Power” (Sattari 2011; 2023), offering a new supra-organismic explanation of its relationship with capitalism.Results and DiscussionThe author has four interconnected arguments:First Argument; If the state is defined as “a paradigm of power”, it can be claimed that in every society, there is an established paradigm of power and three social class including “paradigmatic class, anti-paradigmatic class and non-paradigmatic class”. Each of these classes creates its own capitalism in every society in the form of paradigmatic capitalism, anti-paradigmatic capitalism, and non-paradigmatic capitalism. However, these three forms of capitalism do not have an equal opportunity to flourish and develop in any society. Only paradigmatic capitalism constantly grows and becomes the dominant form of capitalism in all societies. The root of this phenomenon lies in the concern with preserving and reproducing “the paradigmatic order”. Every paradigm of power seeks to maintain and reproduce the paradigmatic order—or its structure of accumulation, hegemony, identity, and legitimacy—within society and to resolve this concern, it has a “mechanism of structural attraction and structural repulsion”. Under the influence of this automatic mechanism, every paradigm of power (such as paradigm of power of the Islamic Republic in Iranian society) merely attracts and developes its “affiliated and paradigmatic elites”.Hence, in every society, only those capitalist forces have the feasibility of long-term accumulation and growth, which are considered as “paradigmatic class” and have a strong correspondence and consistency with the paradigmatic order. Accordingly, every paradigm of power recognizes only compatible capitalism as “rational capitalism” and so on, by utilizing the legal, political economy and social tools, it systematically restricts, undermines, and drives incompatible capitalist forces toward decay. As a result, the established paradigm of power in each society gradually constructs an “compulsory pattern of survival” and “linear memory of accumulation and growth” in the collective consciousness of all three types of paradigmatic, non-paradigmatic and anti-paradigmatic capitalism and in this way, it often persuades and compels these capitalist forces to enter the path of conservatism and exigent compatibility with paradigmatic order to ensure their survival and continued growth.Second Argument; The conservatism and exigent compatibility of all three types of capitalism with the paradigmatic order should be regarded as the “instinctive, existential and biological solution of capitalism” because this solution serves as the main instrument of all these types of capitalism (even paradigmatic capitalism) to resolve their equation of survival and growth in society. As a result, all capitalist forces, despite their essential differences, are perpetually trapped in the “iron cage of the paradigmatic order” and they do not have the possibility of exiting the paradigmatic order or long-term opposition to it. Thus, while the process of capitalism formation varies across societies, its evolution follows a uniform pattern in all societies: alignment and compatibility of capitalism with paradigmatic order. This phenomenon can be termed as the “naturalized law of fundamental accumulation of capital” in every society.Third Argument; Under the influence of this naturalized law, a “forced similarity of action” emerges among paradigmatic capitalism, anti-paradigmatic capitalism, and non-paradigmatic capitalism in every society. In their competition and struggle for greater accumulation, all three forms of capitalism strive to integrate themselves into the super-organism of the state or the established paradigm of power in society. This creates a distinctive phenomenon that can be termed “the spontaneous self-alienation of capitalism”. Thus, contrary to Marxian interpretation that emphasizes the self-alienation of the proletariat in the production process; the author emphasizes the self-alienation of capitalism in the process of accumulation and identifies five main types of alienation of capitalism in every society.This inevitable process causes the “transmutation and annexation” of capitalism in the state or the paradigm of power and results in a condition that can be termed as “dual natural ownership”. This refers to the common ownership of the capitalist and the state or the paradigm of power over the accumulated capital in every society. Consequently, the fundamental accumulation of capital in all societies by all capitalist forces, whether paradigmatic, anti-paradigmatic, and non-paradigmatic capitalism is subject to the tripod logic of “indispensable adaptation”, “transmutation-annexation” and “dual natural ownership”. This tripod logic leads to the “emergence of processed capitalism” in all societies.Fourth Argument; The established paradigm of power in every society has an instinctive, existential, and biological tendency towards this processed capitalism and is compatible with its paradigmatic order scince without the so-called type of capitalism, it is not possible for the paradigm of power to maintain and reproduce its structure of accumulation, hegemony, identity, and legitimacy in the society, and it becomes contradictory within itself. Based on this, the established paradigm of power in every society is compelled to recognize only capitalism compatible with its paradigmatic order as rational, thus fostering its growth and evolution.This processed capitalism is the primary instrument of the established paradigm of power in any society to regulate its relations with social forces. By creating and maintaining processed capitalism, each paradigm of power directly or indirectly controls the social organization of work, income, and consumption within society, and in this way, strives to keep the individuals within its paradigmatic order. Due to its critical role, processed capitalism holds diamond-like significance for the established paradigm of power in every society and for this reason, processed capitalism can be termed as “adamantine capitalism”. The diamond-like nature of processed capitalism stems from its dual characteristics: its indispensable value in maintaining and reproducing the paradigmatic order and its hard nature and nearly immutable structure, which remains resistant to change—even by the paradigm of power itself.ConclusionOn the basis of these four arguments, it can be claimed that the development of a particular form of capitalism in any society is neither accidental nor arbitrary. Its roots cannot be attributed solely to transformations in the mode of production (as in Karl Marx’s interpretation), transformations in religious ethics (as suggested by Max Weber), or transformations in politics and governance procedures (as posited by contemporary interpretations of political capitalism). Fundamentally, capitalism in every society functions as a living organism engaged in constant interaction and coexistence with another super-organism—that is, the state or the established paradigm of power. These two living social beings, in their pursuit of continuous self-fulfillment of survival and development, operate based on their triple instinctive, existential, and biological requirements. Consequently, the nature of relations between the state (or paradigm of power) and capitalism in every society takes on a trans-economic, trans-political, and trans-moral character.
Political Sociology
Sajjad Sattari
Abstract
This article is a sequel of the article "The Power and Involuntary State of Exception in Iran" (Sattari 2022). By redefining "authority" (based on the three concepts of hegemony, social control and reproduction), the author explains the special existential conditions being formed in parallel with the ...
Read More
This article is a sequel of the article "The Power and Involuntary State of Exception in Iran" (Sattari 2022). By redefining "authority" (based on the three concepts of hegemony, social control and reproduction), the author explains the special existential conditions being formed in parallel with the movement of Iranian society towards an involuntary state of exception by formulating the theoretical approach of "Oriental Post-Authority Society". His basic question is, what is the fundamental result of the gradual occurrence of involuntary state of exception in Iran? The author has five interrelated arguments:First: The persistence of the "general crisis of capital accumulation" and the "expansion of digital technology" in Iranian society paves the way for the occurrence of two fundamental transformations (first: the transformation of economic roots of classes, and second: the transformation of utopia and the politics of class life) and these two transformations enters the society in a unceasing process of re-creation of a new existential situation with the characteristic of "self-reliance and self-rule". The author calls this emerging existential situation as the formation of an "Oriental Post-Authority Society" in Iran.Second: The main tripod of this developing oriental post-authority society is (first: the gradual construction of a political anti-theology in society by relying on the theological concept of the State of Innocence, second: despair of the possibility of political revolution or collective fear of its consequences, and third: the growing tendency towards everyday social revolution as an emergency alternative to political revolution. Third: In the formation process of the oriental post-authority society in Iran, a "new class birth" occurs and leads to the "birth of an autonomous class" and "the beginning of class autonomy in the history of Iran". This significant event intensifies the process of "increasing class displacement" in the society and the new autonomous class expands the main tripod of the oriental post-authority society even more by bringing together some layers of other social classes. In this way, a special situation emerges in Iranian society, which the author calls "a single society with two conflicting social realms" (first: the social realm of authority, and second; the social realm of anti-authority.Fourth: With the passage of time and due to the "generational transformation of traditional leaders", the social realm of anti-authority gains more expansion in society, particularly through the continuous impeachment and negation of official authorities and their desired symbolic order, the new autonomous class gradually exposes the social realm of authority to passivity, more social suspension, and even the potential danger of dissolution. In such a situation, a fundamental conflict between the "order, interests and survival" of the members of these two social realms (or the social realm of authority, and the social realm of anti-authority) is subsequently formed and the ground is paved for the outset of an inclusive dialectic in the society. The author calls this special event "the dialectic of official social authoritarianism with informal social anti-authoritarianism" and considers its gradual synthesis to be the "ambivalent crisis of praxis of power elites and social forces in the society".Fifth: The emergence of ambivalent crisis of praxis causes "mutual inability of power elites and social forces to conquer each other" and this exposes both actors to "erosion and historical recess". With the passage of time, this ambivalent crisis of praxis launches the room for the emergence of a situation that the author calls "involuntary collective aporia" (or the state of astonishment and intractability of basic problems in Iranian society). The continuation of this involuntary collective aporia causes existential anxiety and the spread of "pervasive general paranoia" in the society. This pervasive general disorder accelerates the process of suspension and social dissolution of traditional authorities and the process of the formation of the post-authority society in Iran.)Based on these five arguments, the article has five sections. In the first section; by providing a new definition of authority, the author explains the impact of the society's movement towards an involuntary state of exception in the "transformation of economic roots of classes" and the "transformation of utopia and the politics of class life" and, consequently, the beginning of the process of "formation of the oriental post-authority society" in Iran. In the second section; He determines the nature of this oriental post-authority society and its three main tripod. In the third section; the author explains the issue of "new class manifestation" or the birth of an "autonomous social class" in Iran and the impact of this "class autonomy" on development of the oriental post-authority society in Iran. In the fourth section; He describes the process of increasing social suspension and the gradual dissolution of the social realm of authority and, as a result, the "emergence of a single society with two conflicting social realms" in Iran. In the fifth section; the author mainly describes the process of occurrence of a dialectic (or dialectic of official social authoritarianism and informal social anti-authoritarianism) and its gradual synthesis, i.e. "ambivalent crisis of praxis of power elites and social forces" dealing with its conditional future.
Sajjad Sattari
Abstract
The author considers Schmitt's and Agamben's state of exception as "Voluntary State of Exception" and propose a new type of state of exception (entitled "Involuntary State of Exception"). Then he explains the foundation and possibility of this second type of state of exception in Iranian society. The ...
Read More
The author considers Schmitt's and Agamben's state of exception as "Voluntary State of Exception" and propose a new type of state of exception (entitled "Involuntary State of Exception"). Then he explains the foundation and possibility of this second type of state of exception in Iranian society. The author's main argument is that by the gradual combination of the four inevitable super-events (including "general crisis of capital accumulation", "expansion of digital technology in everyday life", "increasing class displacement" and "generational transformation of the dominant traditional power elites"), Iranian society is on the path of a triple great imbalance and an all-out historical discontinuity and ultimately, entering an involuntary state of exception. The author calls this potential state of exception as "Fundamental Question of Iran" and determines the specific process of its occurrence in four stages including "early formation", "great transformation", "liminality", and "hour of involuntary state of exception".According to the author, with the beginning of the "liminality stage" and especially with the oncoming of the "hour of involuntary state of exception" in Iranian society, the existential condition of power elites and social forces transform and everyone feel that they have entered a new historical stage. Therefore, excitement, anxiety and conflict grow in the society. From his point of view, although Iranian involuntary state of exception is not an ultimate and constant situation and there is a possibility of rethinking; However, both power elites and social forces are exposed to some specific great paradoxes.
Sajjad Sattari
Abstract
Purpose: With a new approach different from the common theories of the social contract, the writer has tried to propose the necessity and possibility of establishing a Middle Eastern tradition of social contract, especially in hydrocarbonic societies in the Middle East, and describe its nature, possibility ...
Read More
Purpose: With a new approach different from the common theories of the social contract, the writer has tried to propose the necessity and possibility of establishing a Middle Eastern tradition of social contract, especially in hydrocarbonic societies in the Middle East, and describe its nature, possibility and existence.
Methodology: The article has used the Explanative approach
Findings: This study has six main findings: first, social contract in the West was the result of the historical need of individual /society/ bourgeoisie to the absolute state (from the sixteenth century to the eighteenth); but social contract in the Middle East, will be the result of the Middle East’s both quasi-absolute and absolute states’ need to individual / society / bourgeoisie in the Twenty-First Century. Second, in parallel with » developments in commodity«, »movement of Consciousness in the Middle East«, and consequently, » structural transformation of the public sphere in the horizon of these societies«, dominant power elites in the Middle East lose the possibility of complete independence from “individual, society and knowledge/ capital /bourgeoisie technology” everyday and more and more. Thus, the historical equation of “strong states/weak societies” is changed gradually especially in the hydrocarbon societies of the Middle East and “empowering societies/ declining states” are formed along with.
Third, With the historical continuity of this process, at a moment of horizon of Middle East hydrocarbonic societies, a balance of power between state and society is formed and thus, “moment of power compulsion”, “Middle Eastern state of exception” and “exceeding tendency to the birth of subjectivity” have happened in the Middle East. Only at this moment and situation, not out of which, it is possible to move towards gradual establishment of a Middle Eastern type of social contract in these societies. Forth, All societies of the Middle East do not reach the moment of society and state power equality at the same time and alike. Nevertheless, in parallel with approaching this situation and moment, dominant power elites in these societies are faced with the dilemma of choosing “course of the violence, revolution and war” or “peaceful course of social contractualism”. Fifth, Success of new contractualism process depends on two fundamental prerequisite: “violence avoidance of the dominant power elites” and “tradition acceptance of change-seekers social forces” in the moment of power compulsion and Middle Eastern exceptional situation. Sixth, Moving toward the three pillars “new legitimate constitutionalism”, “tax Leviathan” and “responsibility-based constitution orientation” is the most justifiable logic compatible with the Middle Eastern social contract. With these pillars, possibility of occurrence of Middle Eastern social contract is practically better, because it guarantees traditional power benefit and new public will both.
Originality/Value: This study provides new and deep-rooted themes for thought, guidance for political action and a guarantee for benefit of traditional power and public good in the horizon of the Middle East hydrocarbonic societies
Sajjad Sattari
Abstract
The author formulates "Hydrocarbonism" (as an alternative to the rentierism and rentier state theories) and proposes a set of new concepts such as "Hydrocarbon Man, Hydrocarbon Society, Hydrocarbon Mode of Production, Quasi-Market, Middle Eastern State of Nature, Middle Eastern Social Contract, Middle ...
Read More
The author formulates "Hydrocarbonism" (as an alternative to the rentierism and rentier state theories) and proposes a set of new concepts such as "Hydrocarbon Man, Hydrocarbon Society, Hydrocarbon Mode of Production, Quasi-Market, Middle Eastern State of Nature, Middle Eastern Social Contract, Middle Eastern Social State, Welfare Technocracy, Rent Wishing Syndrome, Social-X-Factor, and Tax Leviathan". By proposing this new framework in the political economy and political sociology of the Middle East, he intends to answer the fundamental question of "How should we understand the nature and procedure (or modus operandi) of Middle East petro-societies and the elementary forms of life inside them?" The author has five interrelated arguments:First: "Tradition, oil and quasi-market" are a coherent whole and the main source of transition in the Middle East petro-societies from a "hydraulic mode of production" in the pre-capitalist era to a "hydrocarbon mode of production" in the 20th century. These three inseparable sources, more than any other factor, have influenced the life of the mind and living experience of man in the Middle East petro-societies and have given these societies a special content, with special values and special internal dynamics.Second: The endless unity of "tradition, oil and quasi-market" can be assumed as a "Middle Eastern State of Nature" which underlies establishment of a "Welfare Technocracy" (bold or pale) in these hydrocarbon societies. The power elites continuously utilize this welfare technocracy to purchase political goods from social markets and, as a result, constantly manipulate and distort "income, consumption and political life" in these societies.Third: The result of this "Middle Eastern State of Nature" is the passivity of hydrocarbon man and the reproduction of established paradigms of power in these societies. Therefore, the power elites consistently strive to preserve and perpetuate this special state of nature by using welfare technocracy.Fourth: However, welfare technocracy is not able to continuously produce the "Social-X-Factor" (or hope, respect, and trust in these hydrocarbon societies) and, consequently, leads to the expansion of alienation, the gradual decline of all forms of capital, and finally, the impossibility of "economic growth at the same time as deep-rooted political development" in the Middle East hydrocarbon societies.Fifth: Moving towards a "New Middle Eastern Social Contract" and establishing a "Tax Leviathan" is a prerequisite for the slow, difficult, and complex transition of these hydrocarbon societies from their specific state of nature to their special social state.Based on these five arguments, the author focuses on the Middle East hydrocarbon societies in their distinct historical existence and their social context. In this framework, he reconstructs the life of the mind and living experience of hydrocarbon man through empathetic experience with him.Accordingly, in the first section, while criticizing the reductionist nature of rentierism and rentier state theories, the author formulates "Hydrocarbonism" as an alternative theory. In the second section, he defines the hydrocarbon man and society and hydrocarbon mode of production and explains the historical process of constructing Hydrocarbonism in the Middle East petro-societies. In the third section, the author focuses on the nature and causes of permanent unity and alloy-type mixture of "tradition, oil and quasi-market" and describes how to turn it to a "state of nature" in the Middle East hydrocarbon societies. In the fourth section, he explains the internal logic of establishing welfare technocracy and its instrumental nature in the Middle East hydrocarbon societies. In the fifth section, the author elaborates on the passivity of hydrocarbon man due to his simultaneous weaknesses and benefits. In the sixth section, he describes the life of mind and living experience of man in the Middle East hydrocarbon societies. In the seventh section, the author highlights the inherent contradictions of these societies and finally, he emphasizes the necessity of moving towards a "new Middle Eastern social contract" and establishing a "tax Leviathan" in the Middle East hydrocarbon societies.
