Good Day,

I am not a specialist, but here are some starting points. I am sure those in the field will have some more specific suggestions:

• Boroujerdi, M. (1996). Iranian intellectuals and the West: The tormented triumph of nativism. Syracuse University Press.
• Gheissari, A. (2010). Iranian intellectuals in the twentieth century. University of Texas Press.
• Devos, B., & Werner, C. (Eds.). (2013). Culture and Cultural Politics Under Reza Shah: The Pahlavi State, New Bourgeoisie and the Creation of a Modern Society in Iran. Routledge.
• Abbas Milani, Lost Wisdom: Rethinking Modernity in Iran, Mage Publishers, (2004). ISBN 0-934211-90-6.
• The fourth generation of Iranian intellectuals, Ramin Jahanbegloo, (2000).
• Secularism, national identity, and the role of the intellectual, by Ramin Jahanbegloo, (2005).
• Ramin Jahanbegloo, Iranian intellectuals: from revolution to dissent
• Farhad Khosrokhavar, The New Intellectuals in Iran, Social Compass, Vol. 51, No. 2, 191-202 (2004)
• Afshin Matin-asgari, Iranian postmodernity: the rhetoric of irrationality?, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 13, Number 1 / Spring (2004).
• Gheissari, Ali. Iranian Intellectuals in the 20th Century. Austin University of Texas Press, 1998.

Cheers,

Leo

thank you very much

Hi

The excerpts of Arteshbod Hossein Fardoust would work.

ATB

Thank you, dear Fatemeh for your response.

But I think that would only provide a brief historical background of the era, perhaps an overtly biased one. I am looking for the recent works which focus on the reading of different European and, in most cases, leftist thinkers who were publicly read or were known in the spheres of Iranian thinkers of the time like Sartre, Nietzsche, and others.

My pleasure

Sorry, I'm not an expert in this field and this is the only related book I read in the realms of the era. By the way, hope to find those sources soon.

Wish you all the best

Thank you very much

It would be highly heroic to defend Iranian capital from the unjust slander of Pahlavist Leftism.

Thank you dear Adel for your reply.

But I am not trying to defend the Leftist tendencies of Iranian intellectuals, however slanderous they might have been; rather, I want to evaluate the kind of responses they provided for or against western intellectuals like Sartre and Heiddeger.

Well, Sartre (in)famously was so cozy to communists, like the majority of Paris intellectuals. They were probably even more supportive of Maoist revolution. Merleau Ponty even wrote book in defense of Stalinism. Althusser too was never hostile to Soviet Union.

Heiddeger was an unrepentant Nazi. So we are talking about very different creatures and their shared geographical location hardly translates into political affinities.

The so-called "third-way" position: neither capitalism nor "Marxism" is hardly a novelty. It is as old as capitalism running a straight streak from Adam Smith himself, down to Hitler and Trump.

Although it has to be said Marxism is a theory of capitalism and not an alternative socio-economic system. The alternative to capitalism is inherent to capitalism itself if one is a scientific anti-capitalist. That is socialism. Few terms have been subject to abuse, misuse and misunderstanding as socialism and that persists up to now. One needs to define precisely what one means by that otherwise, it is totally useless to throw it around at least in a serious academic context.

Adel Saeid

I do not who you are up against. Maybe you just got carried away by my question. what is the third way that you take the initiative to assume I am upholding and one more thing, it is absolutely wrong to dismiss a philosopher merely because they had a mistaken political affiliation. Sartre made a lot of mistakes but also made a lot of contributions to existential philosophy and literature.

about your second paragraph, Adam Smith is not in the same vein as Hitler and Trump, neither intellectually nor politically really. But again, as if out the pure air, you assume already what is my plan and thesis for an article. to say that Marxism is a theory of capitalism is worse than slanderous and wrong...it is blackmailing a theory, marxism is a critique of capitalism plus other things like how to make people work less and live more enjoyably and leisurely.

Talking about a serious academic context, I would sincerely invite you to take a look at journals like Sartre Studies International and Textual Practice or similar studies.

My original question was not that "help me define socialism", but whether any new books and articles have been published recently

best.

To imply that Sartre was a crude third-wayist and not a socialist is cheap charlatanism enabled by the ignorance of your audience and partly by your career-climbing opportunism.

It is harldy a secret that your whole shbang seems to be promoting some semblance of third-wayism to an ingnornat/opportunist audience and misrepresenting some serious socialist philosophers in the process.

You did not answer any of my objections.

again you assume to know about me I do not know how and why. But I think you just need someone so that you can bait them.

I have no words for you but wish you luck.

"Judge not lest ye be judged"

BTW: there is a heated debate whether Sartre was a Marxist or a socialist or not this is examined by

Betschart, A. (2019). Sartre was not a Marxist, Sartre Studies International, 25(2), 77-91. https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/sartre-studies/25/2/ssi250206.xml

Well your biblical motto says all about the real value of your "criticism".

Those are bold claims for someone who does not distinguish between socialism and Marxism and thinks the debate on the specific theoretical influence on Sartre intends in any way to refute Sartre's socialism.

I would hesitate to take seriously any "objections" raised by someone who doesn't judge because he doesn't want to be judged.

That someone consistently faithful to this tenet could possibly tie his own shoes or cross the street much less "object" to a proposition is seriously suspect.

However, you, as much as i hate to burst your bubble, made definitive judgments when u definitevely cleared Adam Smith of harboring any fascistic tendencies which overlooks his racist colonialism to say the least and when u said "it is absolutely wrong" to associate Twenieth Century Western European philosphers with political movements they openly endorsed and further that those _fascism and communism_ are equally "mistaken".

Yet the academic consensus is not only that Sartre was a socialist but a Marxist.

The crude third-wayism which u attributed to Sartre and i imagine you will try to foist on other socialist philosphers, thereby discrediting the Iranian Left could only evoke sympathy from Iranian capital and will never be anything resembling serious academic work.