ABOUT TOFFLERS, NEWT GINGRICH, REPUBLICAN PARTY, ETC.
It is funny to read the leftist critics of Alvin Toffler. They always either bring up the Tofflers' support of Newt Gingrich or they just copy some redneck attacks on Tofflers who hate Tofflersí support of liberty within the new social developments of our world today.
The reason for Tofflersí support of Newt Gingrich follows the view of some futurists in the U.S. who believe Republican Party is more separate and has less old shackles in its *economic* policies, from the industrial *establishment* of the North, the auto industry and labor, etc, and they think it can better go with the new directions of futurist plans than old the traditional democratic party apparatus. The Democratic Party was close to the 13 statesí early development and U.S. industry was built on their plans. Today that industry *is* the smoke-stack industry and it is the main block to the development of new economy and has to be fought with to make headway for the new economy. If one looks closely, still the US government basically supports the smoke-stack industry, who lobby best, and the fall of dot-coms never got any government help, whereas the auto industry and oil and airlines have been getting help from government for very long.
Personally I think it was Tofflers' error to view Newt Gingrich as an ally and I think both Democratic Party and Republican Party have potential for growth and at the same time have the problems that are noted. The Republicans are reactionary on many social issues and democrats are reactionary on many economic issues, but even that is not always true and is different from faction to faction. The same I think on Greens that are reactionary on many economic development policies.
Then one may ask why futurists do not make their own political party in the U.S. They think it is not the right thing to do and think it is best to work within the Democratic and Republican parties, although pursuing their own economic, social and political objectives, which both parties allow. Personally I think it would have been better if they created a separate futurist political party, but this is not something for me to decide. The futurists who actively pursue their ideas in the U.S. think otherwise and I respect their decision. I am sure they have their own reason not doing it but my opinion is otherwise.
Finally I hope Iranian intellectuals to read the original works of Tofflers and Naisbit and others rather than reading some redneck authors who like to call new ideas in the U.S. as hippie, etc. In fact one reason Tofflers and their associates are a lot in suits (www.toffler.com) has been to deal with this kind of notations of progressive ideas in the US by rednecks and it is funny some leftists post these redneck type posts as analysis of Tofflers.
Daniel Bell, Alvin Toffler, and John Naisbit have the most following in all the industries that are post-industrial in the US, and other parts of the world, and their ideas have helped the growth of these *real* developments, unlike the leftist nonsense which has no hearing anywhere in the world, and are repeating the same old slogans, who like the Islamists, do not want to forget the glory of their past, and insult the countries that are making the real progress, and forget the reality of Old Soviet Union, Eastern Block, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Syria, Iraq, etc, the places they themselves do not choose to live, and they enjoy the progress and democracy of the West, with all its shortcomings, *but* they advocate for Iran and Iranian people and intellectuals the junk imaginations of some leftist leftovers of the West, who have been behind the train of rapid change, and absolutely have *no* significance in any developments in the West, at least in the last 25 years.
Sam Ghandchi, Publisher
Feb 16, 2002
Alternative in 21st Century
¬Š —š« یś ”ی«”ی Ō— ř—š »ی” ś یė„
* The above article was first posted on Jebhe BB on February† 16, 2002