What do u think about Iran, its government and its people?

I think Iran shares many of the problems common to most other countries of the world . And it also has some particular problems . It also has advantages over other similar nations in the region . Iran is relatively stable . If compared to say Iraq or Syria . But not as stable as say France . Within the context of present situation , I can list I the problems :

(1) Unemployment . I think the major factor is over population . Followed by sanctions . Iran needs to limit it's birth rate in the same way as say China did . Also removing sanctions will allow Iran to improve economy and employment . Russia can help Iran in setting up joint ventures and banks that evade American sanctions . By exclusively trading between two countries .

(2) Democracy . The Iranian revolution achieved victory in terms of becoming an independent state . However political parties are still weak . With no distinct large scale class participation in politics . This is particularly true of the working class . Russia can not interfere in Iranian politics . However through it's contacts with Iran . Using it's media . Setting up parliamentary contact group . It can help Iranian move to more stable and stronger position .

(3) Religion . Iranian are deeply religious . However a few religious laws need to be implemented with consideration of changing social and human conditions . Amputations , stonings need to stop . Sexual deviants need hospital treatment . Those guilty of minor religious misdemeanour need simple fines . Further contact between the two countries can help cultural exchanges . Visits by legal experts . Discussions with Russian religious authority who will face similar problems . And changing laws to be compatible with social conditions .

So in a closed economic system . Either by economic sanctions . Or by economic policy . Where there is no external trade . We could imagine an ideal economic system . Purely in economic terms . A non capitalist system . Where prices fall or stay the same . Where invested labour alone determines value or price of goods . A workable system . Based on collective raised consciousness and social responsibility .

Even here , economic collapse can be caused by :

(1) Overpopulation . Disproportionate to water and land resources .

(2) Environmental pollution and destruction . Loss of habitat and good agricultural land .

(3) Social breakdown because of destruction of social fabric , immorality and family life .

(4) Inefficient production ( not to be confused with capitalist unprofitability ) . Poor soil . Defunct methods .

(5) External or internal wars .

These are separate causes . Even in the absence of a destructive economic model . Lead to economic disaster . An open economic system . Relying on external trade . Complicates the model . The interconnected system , should be viewed as one . A weakness in one place , affecting the whole system .

Where invested labour alone determines value or price of goods

Why? Labor costs are just a fraction of production costs of every product - labor costs of an iPhone are about $30 and would be $50 if it was produced in the US.

(1) Overpopulation . Disproportionate to water and land resources .

How do you measure overpopulation? And if there are now 80 mln people in Iran compared to 30 mln 40 years ago, and now people have higher standard of living, then is Iran overpopulated or not?

@van oldenburgh

This type of calculation . That you mention . Is based on entities that buy in some raw materials . And manufactured goods . And process further by inhouse manufacture and assembly . But the goods purchased are themselves products of labour plus profits by the seller . This is further complicated by profits made by reseller . A price hike .

The ideal maximum population is difficult to estimate . But already water shortages indicate that maximum population has been reached . This is now about 81 million people . The air quality is so poor , that school have to be closed on red days . This is another indicator of limit of industrial growth .

The problems of human society are truly deep . Because as a society , humans live far away from the reality of their environment . Altogether , I am a pessimist . The destructive influences are far greater than any technical achievement . The lifespan of civilised humanity may truly be short .

Persians have always been in a way guardians of knowledge with strong will as a nation. I have always admire them but never understood them.

I could be wrong but from my perspective I think Iran needs to find a new form of organization that would be based on the efficiency and efficiency alone and than

apply religion in a way it would not interfere with the development. I think Iran can do it because stoic religion in a way mixed with muslim shia.

@victor

you are right . Iranians have a strong sense of history and identity . But we should not confuse the nobility of Iranian ancient cultures with modern day Iran . Same as we should not confuse the nobility of ancient Greece at it's apex , with modern day Greece . However the islamic shia faith unites and guides . And at the same time Iranians need to find modern solutions to modern problems .

All societies are struggling . It is a human condition .

nomadski wrote:
@victor

you are right . Iranians have a strong sense of history and identity . But we should not confuse the nobility of Iranian ancient cultures with modern day Iran . Same as we should not confuse the nobility of ancient Greece at it's apex , with modern day Greece . However the islamic shia faith unites and guides . And at the same time Iranians need to find modern solutions to modern problems .

All societies are struggling . It is a human condition .

I agree, any modern nation is different from what it was still take two nations who had two very different belief system and imagine than those two countries
than implement one and the same belief system that is different from previous two but now same for both countries. Both countries will now view and understand new belief system from their own perspective which was different as it was based on two previous different belief system. That difference in perspective is all it counts
I think that it was that little difference that lead to this situation now that made Iran strongest engineering and science powerhouse in its neighbourhood. Thats why I think that if Iran could do something even more in that direction it could do even better.

Well, IMHO, if Iran can ever shake loose from those religious nut jobs who rule their country with an iron fist, then maybe it could be fairly decent place to live. Sad when they were close to a popular rising years back after a national election, that no outside assistance was offered to help oust the mullahs. US just doesn't have the intel boots on the ground like it used to, although penetrating a country like Iran would not be easy . . . eyes everywhere.

Western society is basically a christian based government... if you don't believe me try walking around naked, or marry more than one person at a time.

Why shouldn't Iran keep their religious based government?

They haven't invaded anyone for quite some time now... the west cannot say the same.

@eric1

After trump and congress broke nuclear deal and imposed new sanctions , do you sense any difference in Iran ? In the mood of Iranians ? No ! I guessed so . Your eyes will not see . The Iimperceptible . The intangible . Yet the most beautiful . Iranians in the past few days , have suddenly grown more beautiful . More confident . They have now exorcised the dirt that is false hope in America , from their souls . But you can not see that . Here starts our victory . The sure steel that will pierce your armour .

Two points.

First about employment for ten million unemployed in Iran. A solution is to allow for job share scheme. A job worked by two people, instead of one. Each working for 3 or four days each. For seven days, instead of six. And both getting subsidy by state. Instead of one getting waged work. The other rotting away and angry.

Second point. All these people to form new political party of working class. And get proportional representation in Iranian Parliament. As  Dr. Ahmadinejad had requested from leadership. A few years ago.

https://youtu.be/wiicdFl_ppw

Example :

Person A and B and C, work six days a week. Person D does not work. But after job sharing scheme :

Person A and B and C work five days a week and person D works 3 days for A, B, C. And two days for A and B in the weekend.

This means, if working population of 30 million. Then total work hours per week before job share equals 30 x 6 =180 million hours per week. But after job share, with five day working week. Assuming 10 million unemployed put to work equals......... 30 x 5 + 10 x 5 = 200 million work hours per week. So economy grows by 20 million hours per week of work. With five day working week for all. So economy is really running 7 x 7.  But working week is 5 x 7.

There is an interesting post in Russian population thread that shows Iranian fertility rates vs. time. Even though the Islamic
theocracy took over in 1979, the birth rate did not increase and instead started to slowly and then more quickly drop. This
tells me that the Shah regime and the Ayatollahs were/are sitting on top of an evolving society that is not merely a
reflection of the leadership. Iran is showing the same development patterns and issues as the other developed countries
including the "liberation" of females and collapsing birth rates.

But the western MSM claims Iran is some backward theocracy. As usual, the western MSM is lying.

When I was born in 1961. Population was 20 million. Now, 60 years later it is 80 million. But economy is not growing. And there is water shortage. And pollution. But Islamic leadership in the past and now insist on population increase. The previous leader, apparently for reason of keeping enough number of troops fighting twenty year war against Saddam. The present leader, for obscure reasons, insisting that a strong Islamic country, is also a populous one. But for an orderly society, there is an ideal population size. One that can withstand war and famine. Not a country that is ever more increasing. But when I said, population too high. Some said, Queen of England had advised some Muslim girls against big families. So my advice is questionable.!!! In capitalist economy, an ever increasing population does serve the purpose of increased competition for work and lowering of wages. And ever increasing and unstable growth. Overproduction.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/overproduction-and-capitalist-crisis/amp/

Population decline could come about for many different reasons. War or famine or family planning or failing economy. In capitalist economy, excluding every other reason, then the only remaining reason is capitalist overproduction and decline. Because of the continued overexploitation and destruction of working class. So that ultimately, they loose the capacity to reproduce. The capitalists then import fresh non - unionised cheap labour. Both to increase population and to continue with production. So in most cases, population decline in capitalist economy signals the end stages of capitalist production. Or mature capitalism. Diminishing markets and resources. It is progress, only if something better comes afterwards. Otherwise it is not by itself progress. Capitalism in initial stages increases population. And later stages this population declines.

nomadski wrote:When I was born in 1961. Population was 20 million. Now, 60 years later it is 80 million. But economy is not growing. And there is water shortage. And pollution. But Islamic leadership in the past and now insist on population increase. The previous leader, apparently for reason of keeping enough number of troops fighting twenty year war against Saddam. The present leader, for obscure reasons, insisting that a strong Islamic country, is also a populous one. But for an orderly society, there is an ideal population size. One that can withstand war and famine. Not a country that is ever more increasing. But when I said, population too high. Some said, Queen of England had advised some Muslim girls against big families. So my advice is questionable.!!! In capitalist economy, an ever increasing population does serve the purpose of increased competition for work and lowering of wages. And ever increasing and unstable growth. Overproduction.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/overproduction-and-capitalist-crisis/amp/

The data tells me that even if the Shah was in power and 1979 did not happen, there would have been the same overpopulation you
describe. The data also tells me that in terms of TFR, the demands and talk of the Islamic leadership are not determining the
population growth dynamics.



The Islamic leadership only achieved a temporary blip on the birth rate in 1985 and totally failed to maintain it afterwards. And
the decline under the Shah as too small to matter. A birth rate over 6 is catastrophic for population size. In 1955 the birth rate
was 7 which is super high. Even Russia before 1917 saw a birth rate under 4 (I think it was 3.3). So the population growth
in Iran was due to dynamics that ignored all the changes in government from the 1950s to 1970s. Thus it was culturally driven
since there was no agitation for high birth rates before 1953.

The above data shows the typical rural to urban transition pattern. The regimes in power would have had to engage in
draconian policies such as China's one child limit to keep the population below 40 million. As of 2015 the birth rate is
below replacement (2.3) and Iran's population will contract.

I believe that poverty acted as a break on the birth rate decline in the early stages. But later it would be a boost since people
living in cities do not have many children to support themselves. Poverty is a big dis-incentive to reproduction in urban
environments.

Good graph. Thanks. So birth rate determined by economics. If it were not for sanctions and war , the birth rate would not have declined so fast. Since capitalism in Iran, is fairly recent. But I view this decline as positive. Since a non export import dependent economy, shrinks into a self sufficient economy. One that can withstand a blockade. While at the same time an industry or defence force, can be run by population of forty million. Relying on domestic agriculture. Not short of water resources. So despite the decline, I am optimistic. If they use opportunity to reorganise economy. Pull people out of poverty. Job sharing or fresh investment into agriculture needed. Wealth more evenly distributed. Birth rate of two is too high. It will keep population at eighty million. Iran will still need to import food. And therefore can be defeated. A population and birth rate, less than this is needed. I think it will happen naturally. But government can help plan for this. And not repeat the mantra of more Islamic children......

Do you have a graph cover the same period showing child mortality and life expectancy?

GarryB wrote:Do you have a graph cover the same period showing child mortality and life expectancy?

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/iran/mortality-rate

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=IR

It would make sense for the population growth to occur during the transition period after the 1970s when the birth rate
was substantially falling but the infant mortality rate was collapsing as well. Both process reflect development.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRN/iran/life-expectancy

Iran in 1950 was indeed very rural given the lifespan was under 40. I am actually surprised it was this low so I am not sure
about this data.

https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/life-expectancy-at-birth-male-years-wb-data.html

The drop in during the late 1970s and through the 1980s reflects the strife and war with Iraq.

http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2197/8-10-million-Iranians-died-over-Great-Famine-caused-by-the-British

It looks like foreign meddling created famines in Iran early during the last century. So that would be reflected
in the longevity.

You are a clever man kvs.

Hannibal Barca wrote:You are a clever man kvs.

It is all about interest and motivation.

I forgot to add above that longevity reflects infant mortality since it is the average that includes children under
the age of 5. Since the infant mortality in Iran was very high, that would drag down the longevity. So people
who lived past the age of 5 did not die before they reached the age of 40. They lived longer.

Since the infant mortality in Iran was very high, that would drag down the longevity. So people
who lived past the age of 5 did not die before they reached the age of 40. They lived longer.

Of course... lots of children dying at birth or soon after will massively effect average life expectancy... even in a small sample of 20 people...

Say the first ten die at age 70, 75, 62, 80, 50, 73, 81, 90, 35, 87 so added up together that is 703 so their average age is 70.3 years old... dying from all sorts of things including accidents and old age... but in a society with a high infant mortality rate where the other ten die as children or being born, so age 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 3, 0, 2, 1, 0, which added up results in a total of 9 so an average of less than 1... add it to the first ten and you get 712 in total and you get an average life expectancy of 35.6.

Obviously I pulled these numbers from thin air and they don't represent anything real, but they show how a high infant mortality rate could dramatically effect life expectancy figures even for a half sample that could be any western countries figures...

Yes. Fun with averages.

Now that I think about it, all the chatter about how New World aboriginals didn't live past the age of 40 is BS based
on brain-dead averages. High infant mortality is common to "primitive" cultures including hunter-gatherers. So
as with Iran, the real lifespan of a healthy person in the pre-Columbian Americas was likely well over 70.

I can claim this because there are records of aboriginals who lived to around 100 years of age who grew up under their
old time conditions (i.e. they were not older thanks to development including western medicine). I can see
how people living in the unpolluted wild who have adapted to this lifestyle for 100,000s of thousands of years
would not have artificially shortened lives. No heart disease and diabetes and no cancer either. Cancer is
not some old age disease, it reflects excessive sugar levels in the blood and exposure to chemicals that no
life on this planet was exposed to ever before. These chemicals are active compounds such as poly-aromatic
hydrocarbons which tend to be carcinogens, mutagens and teratogens.

And clowns who will chime in that wood smoke is deadly can go and get stuffed. Mammals have been exposed
to biomass burning since the dawn of time. Humans have been near fire smoke for millions of years and thus
have evolved to deal with the complex of chemicals found in wood smoke. No human is adapted to diesel
smoke.

Going by what direction we travel in.

https://youtu.be/VWECTBho9so

CF :

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/en.mehrnews.com/amp/155623/

The women can not carry children on motorcycle to work. And men can not push pram to work. So no place for kids or men or women...... In this world! I still think these Iranian women are super cool..... Being a motorcycle fan myself!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/02/iran-announces-lowest-voter-turnout-1979-200223135348311.html

I think this turnout is too low. 42 percent. In Tehran 25 percent. This means that problem exists for all political party or groups or fractions or lists. Even the constitution. Now we can only say that Iranian political system has little or no legitimacy. Government can only be viewed as transitional or care taker. Until new constitution and political parties form. The second step of the revolution. A democratic Republic.