Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

How compatible is Islam with socialism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, notme said:

But is that due to economics or culture?  What were they like before they started communism?  (I genuinely don't know.)

I've heard from some Cubans that Cuba is bad, and from other Cubans, it's great.  I think it depends on perspective. I don't know though - maybe someone was lying.

Well it depends what type of communism you are referring to. Many of these revolutions were inspired by the USSR, which believed in Leninism, which required a "strong State" to succeed.

Maoism and Stalinism were even bigger monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Because of Iran's opposition to Israel, its expansion of the Islamic Revolution beyond its borders, and the position it has taken on opposing Arab regimes, especially ones that are allied with the United States.

So you don’t think that American hostility to Iran is at all driven by economics? If so, then why did Iran initially nationalise key sectors of its economy, rather than open up following the ouster of the Shah? Certainly the U.S. has long opposed revolutionary Iran’s support for the Palestinians, but one would think that the U.S. would also wish to regain control of the Iranian economy. If the Iranian economy were fully capitalist, then the West would have already regained control of Iranian resources. By contrast, under the Shah the Iranian economy favoured foreign extraction and concession(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Northwest said:

So you don’t think that American hostility to Iran is at all driven by economics? If so, then why did Iran initially nationalise key sectors of its economy, rather than open up following the ouster of the Shah? Certainly the U.S. has long opposed revolutionary Iran’s support for the Palestinians, but one would think that the U.S. would also wish to regain control of the Iranian economy. If the Iranian economy were fully capitalist, then the West would have already regained control of Iranian resources. By contrast, under the Shah the Iranian economy favoured foreign extraction and concession(s).

No, I think Iran nationalised those institutions to protect itself from being vulnerable to a US economic campaign against it.

If Iran simply went through a revolution, and nationalised those sectors, but never opposed the US nor its allies, then the US wouldn't have cared at all, just as it doesn't care about the many other nations with centralised economies.

Look at current US-Vietnam relations, despite the fact that current communists in power in Vietnam were once enemies of the United States, they now enjoy a great relationship, mostly built up due to a common enemy in China. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 7/29/2021 at 6:58 AM, Sumerian said:

No, I think Iran nationalised those institutions to protect itself from being vulnerable to a US economic campaign against it.

If Iran simply went through a revolution, and nationalised those sectors, but never opposed the US nor its allies, then the US wouldn't have cared at all, just as it doesn't care about the many other nations with centralised economies.

Look at current US-Vietnam relations, despite the fact that current communists in power in Vietnam were once enemies of the United States, they now enjoy a great relationship, mostly built up due to a common enemy in China. 

@Sumerian

The U.S. did not normalise its relationship with Vietnam until 1995, following Vietnam’s shift toward a market economy:

Quote

...the Vietnamese government initiated the "Doi Moi" policy, or "renovation." This meant implementing a program of socio-economic reform to transform its centrally planned economy into a market-based system. The main features of this policy included the decollectivization of the agricultural sector, price liberalization, the relaxation of state control, the diversification of ownership rights, the establishment of a two-tier banking system, and the opening of the economy to free market forces. 6

In 1986, Vietnam initiated the Doi Moi policy and commenced the social and economic reform to revitalize the stagnant economy. ... It was not until late 1988 that the Vietnamese government made a turnaround into the array of the market-oriented transformation, and implemented a series of accelerated reform measures. Official price controls were abolished for almost all goods and services in the economy, and consumer goods sold through state outlets were priced at the free market level. 26 The Dong was devalued drastically to bring the official rate in line with the prevailing market rate. State-owned enterprises were granted more autonomy, and official state allocations and planning targets were abandoned. 27 ...

One radical change introduced by Doi Moi was the opening of the economy to foreign investment. Due to this feature, Doi Moi is well known as the "open door policy." ... The encouragement of foreign investment reflects both Vietnam's political preference and strategy. The domestic private sector was ideologically disfavored and had been constrained for several years. ... The Law on Companies and the Law on Private Enterprises, enacted on December 21, 1990, allowed private investors to start up and run their business as a limited liability company, shareholding company, or "private enterprise" (i.e. sole proprietorship). 32 ...

The Vietnamese Communist Party's Seventh Congress in 1991 was viewed as the watershed for the reform process in Vietnam. Comprehensive policies were adopted in anticipation of a mixed market economy.

Source

Also, following the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the post-Baathist government adopted free-market policies.

Quote

The new post-Saddam federal government should develop a modern legal system that recognizes property rights and is conducive to privatization; create a public information campaign that prepares the people for structural reforms and privatization; hire expatriates and Western-educated Arabic speakers with financial, legal, and business expertise for key economic positions; deregulate prices, including prices in the utility and energy sectors; prepare state assets in the utility, transportation, pipeline, energy, and other sectors for privatization; keep the budget balanced and inflation, taxes, and tariffs low; liberalize and expand trade; and launch an effort to join the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Source

Quote

In post-2003 Iraq, the United States perceived existing state-bourgeoisie networks as incompatible with its state-building project and sought to disband them.

Source

During the Iraq–Iran War the U.S.-backed Baathist regime began economic liberalisation:

Quote

Moreover, during the Iran-Iraq War Baghdad initiated a large-scale economic liberalization and privatization program, which ended up primarily benefiting cronies of the regime. The unintended consequences of this program included "high levels of inflation, unemployment, shortages in basic goods, growing and highly visible economic inequality, and the emergence of a brisk black market in foreign currencies."14

Source

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Sumerian

The U.S. did not normalise its relationship with Vietnam until 1995, following Vietnam’s shift toward a market economy:

Source

Also, following the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the post-Baathist government adopted free-market policies.

Source

Source

During the Iraq–Iran War the U.S.-backed Baathist regime began economic liberalisation:

Source

Even though these countries liberalised as a result of their relationship with the US, which will naturally bring about trade with the Western world, the regimes themselves did not fall, and Vietnam is just like China, it is capitalist but there is alot of central planning especially in key industries and sectors, and the Party is still very much in an authoritative position.

Speaking of which, the Iranian economy is not very different either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Quote

Within an unhampered market society, these advocates of aristocracy go on to say, ... prevails a tendency toward a diminution of the inequality of incomes. While the average citizen becomes wealthier, the successful entrepreneurs seldom attain wealth that raises them far above the average level. ... The private life of a modern entrepreneur or executive differs much less from that of his employees than, centuries ago, the life of a feudal landlord differed from that of his serfs. ...

It is, in the eyes of these pro-aristocratic critics, a deplorable consequence of this trend toward equalisation and a rise in mass standards that the masses take a more active part in the nation's mental and political activities. They not only set artistic and literary standards; they are supreme in politics also. They now have comfort and leisure enough to play a decisive role in communal matters. But they are too narrow-minded to grasp the sense in sound policies. They judge all economic problems from the point of view of their own position in the process of production. ...

The great experiment of liberalism and democracy has proved to be self-liquidating. It has brought about the worst of all tyrannies. ...

You have the choice ... between the tyranny of men from the scum and the benevolent rule of wise kings and aristocracies. There has never been in history a lasting democratic system. The ancient and medieval republics were not genuine democracies; the masses — slaves and metics — never took part in government. Anyway, these republics too ended in demagogy and decay. If the rule of a Grand Inquisitor is inevitable, let him ... be a Roman cardinal, a Bourbon prince, or a British lord ... [not – ed.] a sadistic adventurer of low breeding.

Source

It is interesting to note that the bourgeoisie promoted not just capitalism, but also later, socialistic ideologies.

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

In a traditional, feudal society, absolute wealth is minimised, while relative inequality is accentuated, especially between families (castes), clans, and extended kin, as well as between master and slave/servant/serf, though relations are more personalised and atomisation is nonexistent. Movement between classes and stations is largely unheard of. Wealth is centred on landholdings rather than production, and superfluities are less extravagant.

Economies are localised, self-sufficient, and decentralised. Barter is common, and banking, if any, is circumscribed. Currency is in a fixed commodity such as gold or silver rather than paper (fiat). This reduces the overall volume and circulation of money in society, except as needed. Speculative activity is practically impossible. Globalisation, whether enforced through public or private entities, is essentially absent.

The priestly and military functions reign supreme, in descending order, over those of the farmer, merchant, lender, labourer, and so on. Feudal landowners are considered superior to investors, including financiers, as well as manual workers. Mercantile activity is restricted to serving the needs of the feudal landowners, as opposed to mass production (industry) and social services. Spiritual rather than material considerations prevail.

In this environment the machine serves man rather than vice versa, while man, in his stead and according to his individuated capacity, serves the Divine Will, while acting within a strictly regimented socio-spiritual hierarchy, including one’s foreordained station (status) in life, ordained by Providence from birth. Each caste, clan, kinship network, class, and station can focus on perfecting its role, down to the man, rather than succumb to greed or indolence.

The feudal regime is impervious to bargaining, being impregnable, so Divine Will, hence Law, prevails. There is no free movement of labour. There are no modern ideologies, technologies, or synthetic “solutions.” Traditional remedies, customs, and religions are sufficient. Classical feudalism tends toward monotheism, which expresses the fixed “chain of being,” or the organically interlocking relationships, duties and obligations that comprise feudal society.

Feudal society is corporatist, based on primogeniture, and organises activity into hereditary occupations, including guilds. Feudal society brings out and suppresses the innate virtues and vices, respectively, of each man’s lineage. Feudal society is based on sacred oral tradition as well as the written Law, mediated and interpreted by priests or scholars. A divinely appointed figurehead stands at the summit of and encapsulates the offices of feudal society.

The basic feudal structure, worldview, and tenor was similar in all societies, from Christian Europe to India and Japan:

Quote

In Hindi, the word ‘bazaru’ is an insult. Translated as ‘of the market,’ it does not sound so bad. Translated as ‘peddler,’ it captures the derision of feudal society for the market. ... In popular religion, to provide God, or his middleman, the guru, free service is a sign of deep piety (similar to the concept of liege and its equivalent in feudal society – ed.). ... Feudal land-based economies of kshatriyas value Lakshmi as Bhu-devi (tangible land) while market-based economies of vaishyas value Lakshmi as Shree-devi (intangible value). These two economies vie for power to dominate society. In art, the former is represented as a pot of grain, the latter by a pot of gold.

The battle between the Old World of Europe and the New World of America is a battle between kshatriyas and vaniks, with the kings of yore and their Church not supporting the newly emerging bands of industrialists, following the scientific revolution, who needed capital for their business. So they split from the old Church (Catholic), and created their own new church (Protestantism), that did not look down on moneylending, and moved from Europe to America to create a republic that supported free enterprise and did not care much for inherited entitlement.

In India, the feudal orders were legitimised by brahmins, who helped establish new villages especially in the south, and created systems for tax collection for God’s first servant, the king. The market forces were patronised by the monastic Buddhist and Jain orders, who looked down on violence that was integral to war and agricultural activities.

India favoured the kshatriya feudalism to market-based economies of vaishyas.

Source

Several Shia narrations suggest that agriculture, on balance, is superior to all other occupations, suggestive of feudalism:

Quote

4– Imam al-Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said, 'The farmers are the treasures of mankind for they plant and harvest the good things that Allah has made grow. On the Day of Resurrection, they will occupy the best and nearest position [to Allah] and will be called the blessed ones.’[al-Kafi, v. 5, p. 261, no. 7]

5– Imam al-Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said that the verse of Allah: "And on Allah do the believers rely"[Qur’an 3:160], refers to the farmers.’[Bihar al-Anwar, v. 103, p. 66, no. 16]

 

6– Imam al-Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said, 'There is no occupation more beloved to Allah than agriculture, and every single prophet that Allah sent down was a farmer except Prophet Enoch [Prophet Enoch ((عليه السلام).) is known as Idris in the Arabic tradition (ed.)] ((عليه السلام).) who was a tailor.’[Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, v. 13, p. 461, no. 15898]

Source

Quote

The economic factor exercises a hypnosis and a tyranny over modern man. And, as often occurs in hypnosis, what the mind focuses on eventually becomes real. ...

Thus, in order to posit a new principle, what is needed is not to oppose one economic formula with another, but instead to radically change attitudes, to reject without compromise the materialistic premises from which the economic factor has been perceived as absolute.

What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system, but the value of the economy itself.

Thus, despite the fact that the antithesis between capitalism and Marxism dominates the background of recent times, it must be regarded as a pseudo-antithesis. In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based.

Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped" those civilizations that do not amount to "civilizations based on labor and production"—namely, those civilizations that, luckily for themselves, have not yet been caught up in the feverish industrial exploitation of every natural resource, the social and productive enslavement of all human possibilities, and the exaltation of technical and industrial standards; in other words, those civilizations that still enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom.

Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities. ...

In order to resolve the problem, it is necessary, first of all, to reject the "neutral" interpretation of the economic phenomenon proper to a deviated sociology. The very economic life has a body and soul of its own, and inner moral factors have always determined its meaning and spirit.

Thus, in every normal civilization a purely economic man—that is, the one who sees the economy not as an order of means but rather as an order of ends to which he dedicates his main activities—was always rightly regarded as a man of lower social extraction: lower in a spiritual sense, and furthermore in a social or political one.

However, beyond the strict limitations that were established within the overall hierarchical system prior to the ascent of the economy, the superiority and the right of a class as a merely economic class may rightly be contested in the name of elementary human values.

Marxism gives rise to the proletarian and class mentality where it previously did not exist, stirring excitement and creating resentment and dissatisfaction in those societies where the individuals still lived in the station allotted to them by life. In those societies an individual contained his need and aspirations within natural limits; he did not yearn to become different from what he was, and thus he was innocent of that Entfremdung ("alienation") decried by Marxism.

Nevertheless, we need to side against the idea or myth of so-called social progress, which is another of the many pathological fixations of the economic era in general, and not the legacy of leftist movements alone. To this effect, the eschatological views of Marxism do not differ very much from the "Western" views of prosperityboth Weltanschauungen [worldviews] essentially coincide, as do their practical applications.

In both Marxism and free-market economies we find the same materialistic, antipolitical, and social view detaching the social order and people from any higher order and higher goal, positing what is "useful" as the only purpose (understood in a physical, vegetative, and earthly sense); by turning the "useful" into a criterion of progress, the values proper to every traditional structure are inverted.

In fact, we should not forget that the law, meaning, and sufficient reason for these structures have always consisted in references for man to something beyond himself and beyond the economy, wealth, or material poverty, all these things having only a secondary importance.

Thus, it can legitimately be claimed that the so-called improvement of social conditions should be regarded not as good but as evil, when its price consists of the enslavement of the single individual to the productive mechanism and to the social conglomerate; or in the degradation of the State to the "State based on work," and the degradation of society to "consumer society"; or in the elimination of every qualitative hierarchy (“woke” ideology certainly suffices – ed.); or in the atrophy of every spiritual sensibility and every "heroic" attitude.

The notion that indigence is always a source of abjection and vice—and that "advanced" social conditions represent its opposite—is the fairy tale told by materialistic ideologies, which contradict themselves when they uphold the other myth, according to which the "good guys" are on the side of the people and the oppressed workers and all the "bad guys" are to be found on the side of the wealthy classes, which are corrupt and exploitative. Both of these are fairy tales.

Source

Quote

When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland was the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, which subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically.

In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favor investors over landowners.

It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. ...

Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile — it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. ...

 

This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can 'explain' the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandizement of monarchs and nations.

A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time 'explaining' World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.

In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house — the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.

Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments.

From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the banking elites is both absolute and subtle.

Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. — President Woodrow Wilson

The End of Growth — Capitalists vs. Capitalism

It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialization has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally we have reached the point where the paradigm of perpetual growth can no longer be maintained.

Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the bankers to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone else. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared.

Thus, capitalism has not been allowed to die a natural death. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalization, privatization, derivative markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of toxic derivatives. And when the planned collapse occurred, rather than industrial capitalism being bailed out, the elite bankers were bailed out. It's not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the bankers were too politically powerful to fail. They made governments an offer they couldn't refuse.

With the bailouts, Western governments delivered their nations in hock to the bankers. The governments are now in perpetual debt bondage to the bankers. Rather than the banks going into receivership, governments are now in receivership. Obama's cabinet and advisors are nearly all from Wall Street; they are in the White House so they can keep close watch over their new acquisition, the once sovereign USA. Perhaps they will soon be presiding over its liquidation.

In a non-growth economy, the mechanisms of production will become relatively static. Instead of corporations competing to innovate, we'll have production bureaucracies. They'll be semi-state, semi-private bureaucracies, concerned about budgets and quotas rather than growth, somewhat along the lines of the Soviet model. Such an environment is not driven by a need for growth capital, and it does not enable a profitable game of Monopoly. ...

 

In an era of non-growth, the focus of the game will be on the consumption side of the economy. The game will be aimed at controlling the necessities of life: access to food and energy. Population creates the demand for the necessities of life; the bankers intend to control the supply. Taxes will be mostly based on consumption, particularly of energy. That's what the global warming scare is all about, with its carbon taxes and carbon credits. ...

In terms of propaganda, this control over consumption is being sold as a solution to global warming and peak oil. The propaganda campaign has been very successful, and the whole environmental movement has been captured by it. In Copenhagen, demonstrators confronted the police, carrying signs in support of carbon taxes and carbon credits. But in fact the carbon regime has nothing to do with climate or with sustainability. It is all about micromanaging every aspect of our lives, as well as every aspect of the economy.

If the folks who are running things actually cared about sustainability, they'd be investing in efficient mass transit, and they'd be shifting agriculture from petroleum-intensive, water-intensive methods to sustainable methods. Instead they are mandating biofuels and selling us electric cars, which are no more sustainable or carbon-efficient than standard cars. Indeed, the real purpose behind biofuels is genocide. With food prices linked to energy prices, and agricultural land being converted from food production to fuel production, the result can only be a massive increase in third-world starvation. Depopulation has long been a stated goal in elite circles, and the Rockefeller dynasty has frequently been involved in eugenics projects of various kinds. ...

With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery strategy, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected 'solution'. Ground Zero can be seen as a metaphor, with the capitalist economy as the Twin Towers. And the toxic derivatives illustrate the fact that the collapse is actually a controlled demolition.

One can imagine many nightmare scenarios, given these various signals, these ominous signs. World Wars 1 and 2 were nightmares that really happened, with millions dying, and these same banking dynasties orchestrated those scenarios and then covered their tracks. We must also keep in mind the Shock Doctrine, where catastrophe is seen as opportunity — when 'things can be done that otherwise could not be accomplished'. We are still being impacted by the shock waves that were sent out on 9/11, and again when the financial system collapsed. And the really big shock, the general collapse of society, is yet to come. The ultimate version of the Shock Doctrine: 'If the collapse is total, we can accomplish any damned thing we want to.'

Source

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
18 hours ago, Northwest said:

Thoughts?

Agriculture does not require feudalism. 

Farmers are the source of food.  Of course they're valuable.  Farming communes are just as likely to succeed as plantations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/14/2021 at 1:38 AM, Northwest said:

Several Shia narrations suggest that agriculture, on balance, is superior to all other occupations, suggestive of feudalism

Hi comparing feudalism from Shia viewpoint with other kinds of feudalism likewise westerner feudalism is comparing apples with oranges nevertheless Sunni version of feudalism of Ummayads & Abbasids & Ottomans is compatiblre with your classical definition of feudalism which nevertheless our Imams (عليه السلام) likewise Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) have had farms & slaves but on the other hand they have been farmers on their lands without any difference & supperiority over other people who have been in their service which procedure of them for feudalism has been a unique way which has been in opposite of Ummayads & Abbasids & Ottomans  & classic feudalism but unfortunately has been negleted by everyone even by people who have been claiming following them which until end of Pahlavi era the classical feudalism has been the common feudalism but on the other hand after revolution we ssomehow could revive shia version of feudalism which has been introduced by our Imams under term of Jihad in argiculture or nevertheless we have a long way ahead of us for reaching to it's ideal point.

Quote

Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad

https://www.maj.ir/page-NewEnMain/en/0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...