Firstly Dr. Shariati, like hundreds of educated Iranians, was incessantly being hounded by the Shah's Gestapos. While in Iran, he spent some time in jail, and while outside he was under constant surveillance until the whole odyssey ended with his mysterious disappearance and death in London in June 1977.
Secondly throughout his active years in Iran, he was never fully accepted by two groups of Iranians: the Western-imported intellectuals, and the indigenous religious fanatics, of whom he so vehemently, painfully, and lucidly, but not antagonistically in the present work. As he often described himself, he was one of the many "wandering" freethinkers who was harassed and hated by the zealots of both camps.
I dare say that since establishment of Islam in Iran, Dr Shariati has been among the very few who ingeniously exposed the kernel of Islamic Principles rarely discussed or realised by former as well as contemporary thinkers. He masterfully separated the dross and non-essentials foisted upon Islamic principles for centuries. Specifically, he de-institutionalised Islam, freed its lofty principles from the many perplexing and impure elements, and put them in a simple an common-sense language.

Dr. Shariati's interpretation of Islam have unraveled many riddles and unveiled a faith with unlimited depth, precision, logic, activity, vitality, and simplicity. (I have noticed that most of the Iranians who come across Shariati's writings become flabbergasted. These individuals are forced to take a retrospective evaluation glance at the popular carrions of rites and rituals that are often related to Islam.)
While Iranian masses were unaware of Ali's contributions, there were, however, small groups of mostly college populations (among whom he often lectured), who were in constant touch with his ideas. The inspirations from his lectures, such as the present ones, were enough to travel underground, from heart to heart, and provide the necessary life and fuel for the fruition of the Islamic revolution.
What is Dr. Shariati's message? Based upon the Quranic principles, he provides matter-of-fact answers to the inquiries that have vexed philosophers and theologians for centuries. For example: how to save humanity, especially the third world, from exploitation, imperialism, poverty, and disease; how to save man from the talons of compulsive consumption, scientism, machinism, the pangs of loneliness, fake arrogance and alienation; and finally how to pull man closer to God in order to enrich his life and establish a world based upon justice, peace, and equality. Unlike many armchair philosophers and intellectuals who are used to living in ivory towers, Dr. Shariati has kept the balance between theory and practice with the latter having preponderance.
Dr. Shariati's style is unique. It is fresh, humorous, flowery and extremely earthy. As compared to many famous writers who are usually boring and repetitious, no two of his books are alike.

Due to his short and tumultuous life, he unfortunately never had a chance to edit most of his books. Many of them, including these two lectures were later transcribed from tape. As a result translation at times becomes very challenging, but gratifying. However, before taking up the translation, I took the liberty of slightly reshuffling, organizing, and editing the Persian manuscripts. And as far as possible I tried to protect the original text and the flavor of All's earthy style. God bless him.

We are living in a difficult period of history, upon the threshold of making an important choice. It is an utterly important and sensitive moment, with a mission and responsibility loftier than any other period in the past. It involves choosing between two opposing poles:

1) A multi-dimensional pole that we have inherited from the past, and
2) A multi dimensional pole that we have inherited from the West-though sheer imitation.

Machinism

Machinism is a sociological phenomenon. It is a particular social order, not marketable, consumable, technical product or commodity. Although it is related to the factory, engineering, tools, and calculation, it has nothing to do with the machine itself.
In order to survey machinism as a phenomenon (social order) first it is necessary to glance at the phenomenon of proprietorship. This is due to the fact that machinism is based upon proprietorship, it is a form of monopoly. However, before doing so, I would like to provide a little background.
According to the nineteenth century historical determinism and sociology, a human society is divided into two layers: foundation (bottom, cause, structure), and superstructure (top, effect). The foundation consists of steady props which play the primary role, while the superstructure is changeable-secondary. For instance in feudalistic period, feudalism is the bottom, and religion being the consequent is the top. Naturally, in this case, religion has to adapt itself to the feudalistic order. The same thing is true about literature, painting, art etc. They are all part of the top. Once the foundation shifts for instance to the bourgeoisie, relative to the bottom all the factors in the superstructure will also change.
Further, the following divisions were believed to be then consecutive states of societal evolutions developed in the nineteenth century. In a nutshell they are:

1. ln this period men live in groups and there is no particular social order. People live off the land and sea. Everyone is equal and independent. There is no aristocracy, farmer, or slave. Nor is there complex means of production. If there is any available, it is accessible to all. Since there is no complex means of production, population is not divided on the basis of expertise of ownership. This is the period of equality of men due to the fact that what creates equality is the economic foundation.
2. Slavery: Farming evolves. In this period the resources are limited. Unlike the sea, land is not available to everyone. Further, farming requires special tools but not everyone can afford them. Some those who cannot afford to buy or rent the tools have to toil for those who own them. At this point society splits into two layers and slavery becomes the foundation.
3. Serfdom: Slavery changes to serfdom. This is the former slave, but now he is a serf. Though he is free, he is still dependent on land. The lord cannot kill him but he is subject to the will of the lord. When the lord sells his property, all the serfs go with it too.
4. Feudalism: Servitude changes to feudalism which is a minority aristocracy. Although the serf is free to go anywhere he likes he resorts to farming and becomes dependent on aristocracy. He still lacks many rights, civil and social.
5. Bourgeoisie: The social determinism changes the foundation to the bourgeoisie. The class is neither farmer nor aristocrat; it is the middle class. By getting hold of the industry and the means of production, by and by this class comes to own the industry and machine.
6. Capitalism: A new phenomenon develops. Now the bourgeoisie own the machine and keep producing more and more surplus. And the profit of the surplus goes to no one but themselves. They keep growing bigger and bigger until industrial capitalism is bom. In the mean time the workers become more and more deprived. The situation creates a class conflict, that will eventually lead to class consciousness among the workers. Meanwhile the exploitation continues to grow until the whole thing blows up and the machine fall into the hands of the people. Finally the foundation changes to socialism.

Ownership is the Foundation

As I mentioned the foundation supports the total social order. It is the skeleton, the structure. However, unlike the nineteenth century philosophers who believed the previous six divisions act as foundation, I believe there is no more than one foundation. And this is neither bourgeoise, feudalism, capitalism, machinism, serfdom, nor slavery. It is ownership which is of two kinds; private (monopoly) and social (public).
I am not of course, ignoring the societal transformation from one phase to the next, or denying the existence of various cycles which is what some historical epoches contain. The point is that ownership is the only foundation, whether in its exclusive or social (joint/common) form.
Once ownership is monopolised, the society split into two opposite poles and the relationship between these poles varies relative to the social and historical vicissitudes. Naturally, according to the dictates of historical determinism, the individual rights, mode of thinking, the outlook, and culture also change. But still the antecedent, ownership, remains intact.
Thus, I believe in history there have always been no more than two foundations; the period in which the resources, tools, and the consumer goods have been accessible to everyone, and second, the period in which the commodities have been monopolised.
In the "social" foundation the material resources (like the spiritual resources) are available to everyone. While in "class" foundation, resources are monopolised and, as a result, the society is polarised. Once polarised, the relationship between the two poles will also change.
Suppose yesterday I was a slave and a master owned me. And today I am a serf and the same master is over me; tomorrow I will be a farmer and still the same man bosses me. Which one has changed, the bottom or the top? Obviously the top. However, whenever there is a change in the bottom there is a concomitant change in our class statuses as well as our relationships. This is not by any means a superficial change that protects the status quo and caracteristics of the existing polarities, rather it is a fundamental change.
When men lived in tribes, all the members had an equal access to resources; forest and sea. When a change in the top took place the tribe which was fishing moved to the forest and began to hunt. This change from sea to forest is not fundamental due to the fact that the common denominator - the tools and the material resources are still accessible to everyone. Likewise in slavery, serfdom, feudalism, and bourgeoisie, the common denominator in all is private ownership. Feudalism and bourgeoisie resemble fishing and hunting rather than public and private ownership. However, there is no similarity between the two latter types of systems.

The Twist of Ownership -Machinism

There are two sharp curves in man's history, one of which is private ownership (monopoly) (Editors note: Due to transcription or other problems, no mention can be found of the second "curve" I gather it is machinism and the resultant problems.) It affects social relationships, morals, religion, and transforms the social foundation. It creates new ills, changing men's brotherhood and love to duplicity, deceit, hatred, exploitation, colonization and massacre.
In the past simple societies, everyone used to go to sea and jungle and pick according to his need. There was no greed and competition. The resources were accessible to everyone. However, once monopoly ppeared, greed disease, distress, as well as new patterns of thinking emerged and a single individual stared to hoard enough material to last a few generations! This picture of hoarding and working hard, day and night, is typical of an individual of our time and is characteristic of a fundamental change. Perhaps great religions (I mean elementary religions, specifically those without any previous continuity or history. For instance, Islam is a complementary religion due to the fact that it has had an ancient background; Abraham Moses Jesus Mohammed. While Zoroastrianism stared without having any precedent.) sprang up in response to the problems of such periods.
While studying the "non-precedented" religions, I noticed that most of the great individuals (I am not concerned here about the truth or falsity of their doctrines), such as Buddha, Laotse, Confucius, and Zoroaster in the East, and Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in the West, who had a prophet-like mission, were all contemporaries. This is very surprising indeed. All these great religions emerged after the mission of Aristotle, Plato and some other Greek philosophers. And they all emerged between the 5th and 6th Century B.C. (The gap of 100-150 years from one school to the next is not really considerable.) Why? Because these schools appeared as reactions to the deteriorating conditions of their societies mainly created by the shift from social-ownership to private ownership. Further in response to private ownership (which is the source of various ills, among which are the disruption of social relationships and the negation of values), varieties of religions and moral-philosophical schools, based upon either revelation or reason, sprang up in order to guide man.
We witness the identical pattern in the nineteenth century. Most of the great schools and particular ideologies that exist today emerged in that era. Why? Because in the nineteenth century humanity left handicrafts and farming behind and stepped into the machine age and machinism spawned new anxiety, distress and myriads of problems. And simultaneously various schools appeared as response and to solve and alleviate such problems.
Particularly after the French revolution the bourgeoisie pushed aside the medieval aristocracy and began to rule because it got a hold of science. While in the past science was a territory of religion, the bourgeoisie rested it and cashed in on it. Therefore, it became the "money" class; consuming, hard working, broad outlook, constructive spirit, future oriented, and ironically possessing a lowly world viewl These are the prominent characteristics of this class. Bourgeois sums up the whole existence in one word; consumption, the more the better. Life's purpose lies in consumption and satisfaction of material and economic needs.
Since bourgeois provides the society's material needs, naturally the transformation of man from a moral-ethical being into a consuming creature is to his class advantage. Moreover, he puts science (which has always been an instrument for seeking truth, discovering the secrets of existence, finding man's ideals and knowing God) to personal use. He assigns one job to science which is what Francis Bacon once said, "I don't want you to go after truth. You did it for two thousand years and found nothing!" Bourgeoisie seek power from science. As a result the replacement of power for truth -which was the original slogan of science-created the phenomenon of scientism. Scientism is the scientific power for discovering the laws of nature, the bourgeoises goal is to satisfy man's economic need by employing such laws.
Specifically what is scientism? A typical scientist claims that he only recognizes man's material needs as valid, and further he asserts that, he is not concerned about the best, the ethical, and the reformatory aspects of things; he is not a prophet! We notice here that spontaneously a scientist changes direction; seeking and knowing the truth is switched to seeking power and employing the material laws. This is the point where scientist joins hand with the bourgeoisie.
In the course of history science was transformed and made progress; so did the ruling class. Science ends up to scientism and the ruling class changed to bourgeoisie and finally in the 16th and 17th centuries both of them merged together. It must be added that in the course of history, knowledge and the ruling class were always enemies. So were science and money. However, suddenly science began to seek power as did bourgeoisie and spontaneously science and money wedded. In such a transaction, of course, it is obvious who played the role of the husband and which one the wife. In Europe bourgeois owns the scientist and pays his alimony. Have you ever seen a scientist supporting a capitalist?
The common world views between a bourgeois and a scientist are materialism and realism; both of these terms have identical connotations. To be a realist or a materialist is to be heedless to human ideals and pay attention only to existing realities. It is to satiate our instincts during our life span and seek comfort; the more the better. Therefore to a bourgeois and a materialist the world is limited to the process of transforming a philosophic outlook into a realistic one. This is a lowly vision and a base world view devoid of direction, expansion, thinking and soul, and capable of discerning as far as the length of one's own hand. Therefore, in place of religion, theosophy, idealism and the virtues which were man's props, realism and materialism were replaced. That is, the grounds were prepared by the bourgeois and the scientist to better man's economic condition. The product of this illegitimate marriage was money, science, and machine. In short everything was overturned because the machine has the following characteristics: (I am describing the machine as a reality and a special being. Here, the machine is discussed as a sociological phenomenon rather than a technical one. A technical phenomenon has no characteristic, while a sociological one has feeling, direction, and movement, it plans and competes with man. This what I mean by machinism.)

Progress is Production

A machine is not capable of holding its production constant in time. In the third and fourth year it must produce more than the first and the second year, otherwise it will die. Regardless of whether we are in need of goods or not, a machine has to step up its production. For instance, I know of a factory that has been producing table cloths in my home town for the past forty years. Ever since its inception it has been producing the same kind and the same number of table cloths. In spite of the fact that the price of the machinery has gone up considerably in recent years, the owner likes to get rid of the whole thing at a loss. This is due to having kept the production constant. Since salaries and the price of raw materials have also gone up, and in the meantime new competition has become introduced, there is only one way to prevent bankruptcy; to step up the production (regardless of consumer's need). This is the only way to keep the machine alive.

Luxury (fun)

The merchandise produced must not only be of a better quality but must have more "pazzaz" because the competitors constantly try to introduce similar but prettier and better qualities. Further, man, having a "fun-seeking" nature, will naturally go after the prettier one. As a result lower quality and homelier goods will rot in the market. At this point, in order to survive, the owner has a couple of options; upgrade the quality or add pazzaz.

Price Reduction

On the one hand, the machine must step up its production and add luxury and, on the other hand, it must lower the prices. This situation introduces contradiction in the order of machinism. Why? Because on the one hand prices have to be reduced, and simultaneously the overhead and the price of raw materials keep rising. Sometimes this condition ends up in disruption, even to class explosion.

Tendency Towards Independence

Machine always has a tendency to become independent of man. As it evolves, a thousand employees will be reduced to a hundred. By and by most of the workers and technicians will be reduced to a handful and eventually it changes to automation. Automation is a frightening aspect of the future. In that period man will be in the grips of a deathful existence. It is a "time in which all men will wish death, Hedayat (A famous Iranian author who committed suicide in France.) believed.

The Universality of the Machine

A machine is not capable of respecting people's nationality, locality, race or religion, your market and my bazaar. It is perpetually busy glutting the globe (deterministic production). How does this occur?
In order to crush the competitors, the engineers introduce something new. The production is then stepped up and within a short time there will be tenfold increase in production, while the number of consumers hardly changes in the same period. And so, every year, according to the geometric progression, production keeps rising.
A friend of mine who had revisited a cardboard factory in Japan after ten years told me that the production of the factory had changed from one kilometer of cardboard ten years ago to eighty thousand today. But in the same period the market demand had not changed considerably due to a low birth rate in Japan. In such a case, in order to get rid of the surplus, the attack must be focused upon the foreign markets. This is called the machine determinism, imperialism of the machine, world conquest, or cannibalism of the machine.
There are however, two difficulties in trying to penetrate the markets of the globe; politics and changing people's values. The political factor will prevent the industrialist from influencing foreign markets because people will resist. At this point the capitalist will either resort to a political ruse or actual military attack. (The World exploitation as exists today has its birth in this latter tactic.)
But military conquest is not the ultimate goal. Further, dominating the local markets through military force is not enough. Because we will not succeed in doing away with the local costumes, but people still won't buy our merchandise, they keep producing their own necessities. At this point the industrialist resorts to second alternative.
The aim of this alternative is not force but manipulation and ultimate change;; that is, to change the values in order to sell shampoos, shirts, and lip sticks, since they must be modernised at any cost. And once modernised, they will more than willingly swallow whatever they are offered. Finally, the day comes when all the aborigines have become "civilised." This is the birth of cultural exploitation.
How do we change aborigines to modern man? Certainly we must separate them from their religious beliefs, culture, and their values which are resisting the consumer goods and the new order. We mush force on them our own values. And before long they will sell their livestock, farms, material and spiritual values in order to consumer our merchandise.
Through the previous process of change, not only the consumption in various parts of the third world has been transformed from its classic mode to the modem form, but also a symbolic consumption, unprecedented in Europe has replaced it. European consumption is the objective. A European first chooses a suit and then he wears it. If he likes a food he eats it; if he likes a music he listens to it. But it is not so in Asian and African countries. In these lands when an individual chooses clothes, a car, or a tie, he is not after satisfying his own needs alone but someone else's too. That is consumption is a medium through which an individual vicariously transforms himself into a civilised class.

In European restaurants, cafes, and homes I often happen to hear a record being played. If those sitting around did not like the music they would simply voice their objections. But it is not so in Iran and in the third world. In these countries not only does an individual have to pretend that he likes the music and force a smile, but also he interprets the music for you tool An interpretation so lopsided that it could blow the composer's top off! Why does this man listen to something that he neither enjoys nor can he object to? Because the music represents a "superior" taste and a "superior" race and so objection and rejection are tantamount to being inferior in race and taste. He must accept ill As you notice, we do not utilize the products in order to satisfy our social and economic needs, but to symbolize a superior order, race and civilization. We do not ordinarily choose, we swallow.

Negation of Originalism

What is originalism? Simply it consists of values. Before machinism took over people used to experiment, experience, and choose. There was variety, taste and growth in literature, religion, art, aesthetic and so forth. Machinism consists of a machine that constantly produces surplus, to such an extent that local markets cannot absorb them. As a result everyone ends up using the same product. Eventually all men become part of the same mold of consumption! This is the revolution of standardised and fake human beings. This is why Teheran looks very much like any other city in the world; Istanbul, Paris, New York, all look alikel The same is true about the place of work , home, decoration, they all look the same! These are indicative of the fact that people do not use their imaginations anymore. The Irani, Arab, Chinese, American...do not try to be creative and all have surrendered to the imposition of machinism. Suddenly man is destroying his creativity, subjecting it to a prescribed framework, as Marcus aptly stated, "The process of becoming one dimensional".

Technocracy

A class crops up called the technocrats. They control the destiny of the society. Simultaneously this class creates a complex system call bureaucracy. Why is that?
Imagine an employee in an organization who has occupied a box office. By and by this man comes to feel that he is the box office. And people begin to see him as Mr. Box Office. This man's whole existence, his ideals and aspirations are all closed in this box. This is the process of transformation of man into a cog, an individual having lost his identity in a vast and complex organization imposed on him. (Max Weber.)
What does to be "imposed on" mean? In the prebureaucracy era man was conscious of what he was doing because he had chosen his job. For instance, if someone asked me who I was, I would respond that I am a butcher. What is it to be a butcher? Preforming certain kinds of chores, I would retort. The point is, when I chose to be a butcher I knew what it meant then, and I am quite conscious of what I was doing. (Martin Heiddeger, Kari Jasper.)
However, this kind of "butcher consciousness" does not exist in a bureaucracy. You end up being in Room #X, working under Mr. X. For instance, you are put to typing; all you will do is typing. And what you do has no direct relation to what is produced in this organization as the final product. You cannot identify the connections. You are conscious of what you do because you are alienated. In short, a bureaucracy is an intricate organization resembling a cobweb. And individuals are pigeonholed into slots where they don't like to be.

Fascism

Fascism is a particular socio-political-philosophical-psychological-economic order. Modern fascism is a special blend of racism and dictatorship created by technocratic class. By fascism I do not mean Hitler's or Mussolini's orders alone, rather it is a gargantuan growth of technocracy's tentacles. Gurwitsch believed that in the 17th and 18th century Europe moved towards individual freedom, democracy and liberalism but today the West, even France is going towards chronic form of fascism, which (unlike the naked Italian and German fascism) is hidden behind the facade of democracy and liberalism.
Willy nilly machinism leads to technocracy and bureaucracy and in turn both lead to fascism-why? This is due to the fact that the technocrat is a class devoid of root and ideology. Although it attempts to create an ideology, it ends up with racism and fake pride. And in order to impose itself, since it belongs neither to capitalist nor to masses, it resorts to dictatorship and crime.
Finally, machinism, unlike the past, turns exploitation into a more tragic drams. Exploitation is profiteering by another party who has had no part in the process of production.
In the past relation between the exploited and the exploiter was very simple. There was no middle man. Imagine that I finished a job that was worth $20 and I was paid $10. In this case I was exploited $10. But today the machine is standing between me and the owner. The machine has increased the production to such a phenomenal rate that now instead of $30,1 produce $3000 a day; all surplus. Who owns the surplus? Obviously not the workers. The machine does not need money either. It all goes into the pocket of my boss. Now my boss pockets $2990. This kind of exploitation is based upon surplus value. This profit keeps climbing higher and higher, creating the sort of class rivalry that exists today.
Never in the history of man has the class gap been so wide and rivalry so keen-even in the period of slavery. As compared to the old boss and his employees, the gap between today's capitalist and this proletariat has widened a thousand times.
Surprising enough, a so-called sign of progress in our time is to unbourgeoisify the workers. I think this is worse than slavery. The worker's class in today's Western countries, unlike the workers and farmers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, are lost. While being workers, they cherish the wishes and feelings of their bosses, pretending they are living like him.
Unbourgeoisification is a new phenomenon. That is, the more the machine produces, the fatter the capitalist gets and the thinner the workers become. And in order to prevent a blow-up, the capitalist creates a false feeling in the workers; this is called the power to purchase. If a worker's salary is $1000 a month he is assured that he is capable of buying a car that is worth $10,000.

Interpretation of Man

Religion assigns a God-like status to man. That is, man is a creature who is capable who is capable of elevating his lowly and animal-like existence and reach to the absolute manifestation-God. The old schools and their philosophies recognised man as an ideal-maker who possessed superior virtues and desires. Machinism, however, defines man as being not a rational animal, as Aristotle put it, not an ideal maker, as Plato ,and not a God-like being, as religion defines him, but a consuming animal.

Have you ever met people who constantly talk about shopping? It is as though these individuals have only one dimension, "buying." They spend two hours to prepare themselves for shopping and two hours in actual shopping and when they are finished they end up with the things they dont need.

The creation and imposition of need in our age is a fascinating phenomenon. Once upon a time people on fixed salaries used to have financial planning. We used to hear that so and so was saving so much forsuch and thus. But nowadays, not only has the forced consumption sextupled, but also unprecedented and bizarre items have found their way into our homes.
Once upon a time a pair of scissors used to do several things, one of which was clipping our nails. Nowadays there is a nail clipper that cost 20cents, a nail file 30 cents...suddenly we end up with a complete nail-clipping gadget consisting of ninety-eight parts! Obviously such a fancy machine will create a complex among those whose machines are composed of only seventy parts.

And so, the individual who cannot resist the temptation will go hungry in order to buy the ninety-eight part machine. This asinine cycle is insanely attacking everyone. Living has been turned upside down; we have to buy our luxury items with cash and pay installments on our food! This is just the beginning of machinism. no wonder our philosophers and moralists used to put a great emphasis upon thrift; it meant freedom from slavery and forced consumption.
Cultural exploitation and cultural mania find their way through comparison, imitation, competition, artificial and symbolic consumption. And standardization and arificialization of men takes place within the molds imposed by machinism for the sake of universal consumption. The looting of values spiritual resources, disappearance of men's various colorful experiences, the death of history, creation of distance among human beings, and cutting of the continuity of the present generation from its past-in order to make them rootless and phoney-are all part of a grand scheme in order to control and manipulate. The individual who is connected to his past historical experiences can resist the tide. What kind of an individual am I talking about? Heroes such as Lumumba and Nehru who are two worid idols. These individuals, at the height of their power, used to appear in the United Nations in their own native attires, while a phoney individual constantly worries about his appearance and consumption-Why? Because machinism negates all values and strips of ethical standards in order to augment the numbers of consumers and boost their consumptions. Further machinism sets the worth of an individual upon the amount of his consumption.

Man

Man is composed of two halves; the tool-hatf, and the human half. The eyes, hands, fee, and tongue are all part of the tool-half. These are our tools but not our selves. When I hold a pen, the pen is an extension of my tool-half; the fingers. Likewise, my glasses are an extension of my eyes. Glasses are a technical product that strengthen the eyesight. The same is true about shoes, a spade or an axe.
However, the case of a machine is different. Not only does the machine become independent of man but it is also interferes with our human-half. When I calculate with a pencil I am using the tool-half but a calculator is an extension of our human-half. By using a calculator my thinking becomes stagnant.
The intrusion of the machine into the human half may go so far as to paralyze man; it destroys creativity. Imagine a type written page that can be imposed upon millions of people, while before the advent of the typewriter everyone was free to use his creativity to the utmost in calligraphy. These are, of course, minor problems as compared to the major ones.
Take for example sociologists. They have sold themselves out to statistics. When a sociologist steps into a village in Iran, he does not concentrate on human beings, he keeps distributing questionaires. Once they are completed he submits them to the computers and based on the results he will judge his society! As you see man in his place of work is becoming more and more estranged to himself.

The Contrast Between East and the West

Never before in the history of mankind has there been so much distance between the East and the West. The unmeasureable and unprecedented fissure is widening everyday to such an extent that by the year 2000 the income of a European will be up 100%, while that of an Easterner will rise a meager 3%.
Moral crisis? Sin? Why? Because all of today's philosophies have been summarised in this way: genuineness lies in material existence. And when the only thing valid is material living and life's goals consist of seeking the maximum comfort, what is there left to strive for?
Is man any more comfortable today? The answer is emphatically nol But why is man's comfort being sacrificed? to attain perfection? to reach the truth? to attain exaltation? to reach Nirvana? No! To horde the means of comfort. This is what Camus and Satre mean when they talk about absurdity."
But the universe is not hollow. It is not vain. It is not stupid. It is only the imposition of machinism that created a hollow life and phony men. And a phony individual is only capable of visualizing a hollow life. The theater of the absurd is begotten be a hollow order; to exist in order to consume and to consume in order to exist.
In the new world revolution, replacement of something for something else is the consequence of machinism. For instance, replacing profit for value. And it appears that today's generation does not primarily rely on humanistic values and moral principles.
Nowadays, if you want to marry, no one is going to ask you how intelligent, dignified, and genuine you are and how much you know. But you are certainly asked how much riches you possess. Otherwise, "what" "who" and "how you are", are of no interest.
Nowadays a plumber, a mechanic, and a carpenter are making inordinate amounts of money-Why? Because a society whose main goal is production and consumption depends on individuals who have a share in the production processes. But what can a philosopher produce? Since he cannot hold a screwdriver, he is of no use. In Europe one of the main concerns of a graduate in philosophy is what to do once he gets out of the college. On the other hand a graduate in a technical field or accounting has no problem finding a job. Beginning with the first and second grade there is even a keen competition between the east and the west to steal the best brains in such areas. The bureaucracy is only interested in finding brains, not how individuals think. They must be able to obey what the bourgeois tells them to do.

Man cannot forever remain imprisoned in such molds. Fortunately, it seems that man's multi-dimensional molds are disappearing. This is my own personal experience in Iran and Europe. In both places I have noticed that those students who were in technical fields showed more zest towards literary works, movies, and theater than those who were in social science, literature and law. Needless to say, since these students are caught in a lifeless order of machine logic, their spirit thirsts to revolt and sin. Such feelings are much more prominent in US. and England than France, Italy or Spain.
All of the foregoing implies that our values have been replaced by profit motive. That is, a worthy human being is being replaced by a profitable man. Today's motto is religion of profit, comfort and progress in place of perfection, power in place of truth, discretion in place of love, intelligence in place of faith.
Machinism is an order imposed upon the machine and incidentally. Machine can save man. How? Before the emergence of the machine, man had to work twelve hours in order to satisfy his elementary needs. Nowadays a machine does the same job in an hour, leaving man eleven hours of free time! The same machine, however, swallows it right backl Because various wants and needs are imposed on us be advertisement, fashion shows, competition and psychology.
In order to satisfy me elementary needs I work one hour with the machine, but machine and capitalism create artificial necessities that are a hundred times the cost of my elementary needs. Yes, the machine leaves us free time hours that can creatively be used, alas, it gobbles them right back.
To sum it all up, in order to save ourselves from scientism that brought about machinism, and in order to save nature and the material world from materialism and machinism, and finally, in order to save man from all these we must recognize machinism and destroy it. We are tat the cross roads, ready to select. What should we do in front of machinism?

We can neither reject nor negate machinism, like Ghandi did. Machinsm is here to stay and negation is to bring man to a halt. We cannot afford to be reactionary, nor can we give in so it could crush us-like it has.
Machinism is an experience that Western man is well familiar with. We must not repeat the same mistakes in the East. As Fannon believes, we must not try to make a second Europe out of Africa and Asia; as America was made. America has both machine and machinism. Is it ideal to make a third America out of Africa, and a fourth Europe out of Asia? Do we want to create two more Americas? Which freethinker likes to cherish such an ideal? As much as this is not an ideal, to stand stationary and squat over our fossilised traditional molds are not ideals either. Gandhi's movement and his views were only valuable as a resistance against the enemy in a certain period of time in history; only as a tactic rather than ideology and faith.
Instead of trying to negate humanity be embracing the order of machinism and imitating the West; instead of galloping madly towards consumption, we can move hand in hand, side bye side, and create new patterns of thinking.