Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 21:30:00 +0000
From: Joćo Paulo Monteiro <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: M-G: Worker-Communism


As I have said before, I don't think we must (or should) go in to party
building right now. We must first create a powerful, entirely new
economic movement for the workers around the world.
However, political tasks will always be present and a sound political
platform is a good instrument to face them. Incuring the risk of being
considered a sectist myself, I present here a work from comrade Mansoor
Hekmat, which I have already mentioned here. Developments and other
related materials can be found on http://www.wpiran.org/index.html .

Jo=E3o Paulo Monteiro





FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE WORKER-COMMUNIST PARTY

by Mansoor Hekmat


The following text is the translation from Farsi of part of the speech
given by Mansoor Hekmat at the first cadres conference of the
Worker-communist Party of
Iran. This conference was held in early May 92. This extract was
published in
Farsi, in International, paper of the Worker-communist Party of Iran
no.2, June 92. The present translation is reprinted from International
in English, no.2, March 93.

Table of Contents
Intorduction
1- The objective social character of worker-socialism
2- Internationalism
3- Socialism as the final objective
4- Marxist world-outlook and criticism
5- The causes of the historical non-success of worker-communism
6- Revolution and reform
7- The party and the class
8- The council movement



What forms the basis for our unity as a trend and a party? From which
general premises do we derive our concrete answers to questions facing
communism today? I think in the course of the past few years we have
said and written enough about our
differences, as worker-communists, with other tendencies within the
Left. So, here I
shall only touch upon those features which, in my opinion, characterize
our movement
politically, and form the political bases of the Worker-communist Party
of Iran (WPI).

1- The objective social character of worker-socialism

A central point that we consistently emphasized throughout our debates
of recent years is that worker-socialism is an independently existing
social movement and not a derivative of the activity of Marxists or
communists. It is an historically initiated, ongoing movement.
The struggle against capitalism with the aim of replacing it with
socialism, through a working-class revolution, is a living and firmly
established vision within the working class - it is a living tradition
of
struggle. The theory or the self-consciousness of this movement may, at
any given
period, be accurate or inaccurate, right or wrong. Nevertheless there
always exists a current within the working-class movement that aspires
to, and constantly tries to, push the entire class in this socialist
direction.

Our first distinctive point of departure is, therefore, that we see
socialism, communism, the worker-communist party, as taking shape in the
context of such a real and objective struggle by the working class, be
it at times weak and limited in scope, that is always in motion in
contemporary society. Socialism is not a model, a Utopia or a profound
design for society, only waiting for us socialists to implement it. It
is not an arbitrary design, or a prescription exported from the realm of
reason to the realm of practice. Socialism is, first and foremost, a
framework for a certain social struggle that is being waged inevitably
and independently of the presence or absence of a party; ... a social
endeavour that has continued nearly throughout the nineteenth and the
twentieth centuries, and is still, today, clearly observable.

Clearly, different social tendencies try to influence this movement,
this class endeavour, and guide it in the direction of their own
visions. Nevertheless the working-class struggle against capitalism and
for social equality, lurks underneath whatever cover other social
movements or parties try to wrap it in. This movement can be
distinguished from other movements in contemporary society by its
general social goals, by the substance and focus of its protest within
the present society, and by its socio-class origins. ... There is always
a part of the working class who are not content with a defensive
struggle, who do not believe they can get what is truly theirs within
the framework of the present system, who think capitalism should give
way to socialism, who believe that the bourgeoisie must be dispossessed
of the means of production, and, finally, who believe that to achieve
all this it is necessary to unite and make a revolution. This is nothing
but the very definition of worker-socialism.

Even behind the activities of right- wing trade unions, behind the words
of local labour leaders, however naive and timid such words may be, we
recognise
certain facts pertaining to the socialist tendency and the socialist
struggle of
the working class; facts that many radical Left tendencies are
essentially unable to see. For, right-wing illusions within the working
class are acquired, but the anti- capitalist tendencies, tendencies that
force labour leaders to speak up, are intrinsic and genuine.
Worker-socialism is the tendency within the class which creates radical
leaders, and maintains the constant pressure of radicalism on non-
radical leaders.

To recognise and emphasise, therefore, the existence of an objective,
socialist endeavour within the working class itself, notwithstanding the
intellectual expression it might find in different periods, is one of
our important characteristic features as a current and a political
tradition. We see beyond the daily activities of the workers' movement,
the objective existence of a socialist strand within the working class
and believe that communist organisation must develop in the context of
this real, social tradition of struggle.

The party we are forming today belongs in this tradition, and not in the
tradition of the Iranian radical opposition, or the radical Left at
large. The social and political origins of this party are not to be
found in the struggle against monarchy, against the Islamic regime,
against dictatorship or imperialism. This party is formed in the
tradition of workers' struggle for economic equality in society - a
socialist struggle that has been constantly waged in capitalism - and
only in there does WPI seek the source of its power and strength.

2- Internationalism

This is another characteristic of our tradition. Not only our
world-outlook but also our political practice has an internationalist
basis. It is evident, already today, that those who have the slightest
liking for the concept
of "the fatherland", including that spectrum in the Left who, on those
rare
occasions when they speak of workers and their demands, still refer to
them as "the workers of our fatherland", should not and will not join
this party. Nationalism has a strongly negative sense in our tradition.
Today, we speak of nationalism and patriotism with such a tone that
would have been inconceivable for the Iranian Left ten years ago.

The Worker-communist party has no nationalistic sympathies whatsoever.
We speak of mankind and then we speak of workers. These are valid
concepts for us.
We don't see as valid any other division and classification of the human
population
that may fall between the two. We do of course demand, and fight for,
the
abolition of every discrimination based upon various divisions and
categorisations of humanity; but these divisions do not, in themselves,
form the point of departure for our political work and political
organisation. We have not arisen from any national struggle, we do not
recognise national and state boundaries in our political and agitational
work. The class struggle, everywhere, is the focus of our activity. ...

We pursue a world strategy. And in Iran, where we have direct
involvement and influence, we pursue, as part of that world strategy, a
more direct
and more comprehensive political programme of action. ...

3- Socialism as the final objective

Socialism has been defined and interpreted in lots of different ways. We
are one of the few currents who emphatically maintain that socialism
should be identified with abolition of wage-labour and creation of
economic equality between people. It means equality in the status of
people in the social production.

This clearly distinguishes us from all those currents who identify
socialism with planned state economy, with industrialization, or with
redistribution of wealth, etc. We maintain that socialism requires the
abolition of wage-labour, and the transformation of the means of labour,
means of production, into the common property of society. Social welfare
and economic security of people can only be the result of such a
revolution in the economic foundations of society.

4- Marxist world-outlook and criticism

This party is being formed in the Marxist tradition, and in defence of
Marx. Worker-communism, in my opinion, will not get anywhere without
Marxism.
Defending Marx and Marxism, as a social critique, is a distinctive
feature of our
tradition.

There are a good many people these days who perhaps want to retain their
Left parties, to stick around in the political scene as socialists, but,
at the same time, reckon that in order to do so one should primarily
modify or revise Marxism. Such as, for example, trying to bring
together, "democracy" and "market" with Marxism and socialism. As far as
we are concerned, these are worthless absur dities... I believe the main
bulk of those who abandon Marxism are people who had accepted it in the
first place, not as a critical, enlightening outlook, but as a
fashionable school of thought that had imposed itself upon them. A great
many of them are people who had been using Marxist terminology as a
wrapping for views and social aspirations alien to Marxism. Until very
recently the world was swarmed with such Marxists.

I believe Marx's social criticism is indispensable for worker-communism
and the worker-communist party. And I personally see as one of our major
differences with most of the tendencies within the workers' movement
their neglect of Marx and the Marxist critique.

We are the Marxists of the workers' movement. We should challenge the
non- Marxist traditions in the movement. We should criticise, from a
Marxist
standpoint, the way they explain the condition of the working class, the
society, the economy, the state, religion, the political regime, etc.
This is a fundamental
objective of our tradition and our party that worker-leaders should
become Marxists.

5- The causes of the historical non- success of worker-communism

Our account of the history of the socialistic struggle of the working
class, and of the causes of communism's failure so far, is itself a
characteristic and
distinctive feature of our tradition.

The question every communist should answer today is, "Why did all this
happen? Whatever happened to communism?" Many have already come up with
what
they regard as answers. The tell us: "Marxian theory was wrong",
"Leninism was a
false contribution to Marxism", "socialism, in general, has always been
a Utopia; it's not practicable", etc., etc.

In response to explanations of this sort, or, rather, in explaining the
conditions of communism today, we put forward a totally different
argument. We say
what in practice came to a deadlock was another social and class
movement; a movement
that had no kinship, except in name, with socialism, with Marxism, and
with the
social movement of the working class. What we are witnessing today is
the defeat of a
certain pseudo-socialist social movement that emerged in the twentieth
century and was expressed and represented by the ruling parties in the
Eastern bloc and its various pseudo- socialist offshoots - supportive or
critical of the mainstream - outside that bloc. Indeed, this collapse
requires careful analysis in its own right. But what we have to explain
is the ineffectiveness so far of the socialist working-class movement as
distinct from this bloc.

The creation of this bloc had detrimental effects on the socialist
working-class movement. In fact, it was erected as a monument to the
defeat of the latter. The revolution of 1917 was the product of our
movement. But, we were defeated in the Soviet Union; not today, but a
long time ago. It was a long time ago that we were defeated there, were
forced into isolation, and lost the vast influence we enjoyed both
within the workers' movement and in international politics.

So, if we are asked today, "why communism reached nowhere a century and
a half after Marx?", our answer will be: the bourgeoisie inflicted a
serious defeat
on us in the aftermath of the 1917 revolution; a defeat we have not yet
been able to
recover from. It was, therefore, the rise of the Eastern bloc (and not
its fall) that
brought about the defeat of worker-communism. ...

In my opinion, the communist movement of the working class has [since
then] always existed alongside the official communism; and that's
exactly why we
should use, instead of the word "communism" which brings to mind this
official, non-proletarian stream, the term "worker-communism" in order
to refer to our own class movement...

We are able to explain the reasons for our own historical defeat. We are
able to show why bourgeois movements borrowed the slogans and the
language of our movement. We can explain why and due to which weaknesses
and shortcomings, our movement was defeated by nationalism in the
experience of the
Soviet Union. We can explain what the social bases and objectives of
this false socialism were. And, today, we can explain why this dominant
pole was itself
ultimately defeated, and so on.

As worker-communists, we do not recognise therefore the crisis of the
official pole of communism as the crisis of worker-communism, and
consider this a view
that distinguishes us from other tendencies. Our own problems, our own
isolation, our own inability to meet the challenges of the contemporary
world, and so on, are much older. As I said, the rise of the Soviet Bloc
was itself an indication of the
isolation of our social movement. Our response to the present-day
situation is
therefore not to revise the theoretical and practical principles of our
class
movement, but to intensify our efforts.

Allow me to add here a personal comment on a question about which other
comrades may have different views. I do not, by any means, regard the
victory of
 this worker-communist movement as inevitable. I don't even regard its
growth
as inevitable... The protest of workers against capitalism is, of
course, inevitable. But no one can claim that this protest will
inevitably occur under the banner of worker-communism - as a movement
with a particular political and economic vision and strategy. I do not
believe in this inevitability; and it is for this reason that the
conscious choices real men and women make at various stages, and the
actual practice of different movements at different junctures, is, to
me, vitally important. If we are to make any advance, these choices and
practices have to be correct and communistic. Living people and living
generations of the working class decide the fate of socialism and
communism.

The victory of socialism is not an inevitable and pre-determined outcome
of history. Perhaps in the 19th century the actual options open to the
bourgeoisie
seemed limited in the eyes of socialists at the time and so they could
have wondered "what the bourgeoisie could in the end really do to avert
the pressure of the vast exploited class?" Today, however, the
bourgeoisie is capable of physically destroying the world, they can
render it barren, they can see to it that the people are in
such dire need of bread and oxygen that socialism does not even cross
anybody's mind. A modern slavery could just as well be the destiny of
the world, at least for several generations.

In short, the issue here is the fate of a definite movement: the
socialist working-class movement. The cause of the present state of
affairs, the
cause of the survival of capitalist barbarism thus far, is that this
movement was
defeated at some critical turning point in contemporary history. We were
defeated in the experience of the Soviet Union; a defeat which
conditioned the fate of the world for many decades. We were not properly
represented, neither intellectually nor politically, in the fateful
controversies that took place in the 1920s over the post- revolutionary
course of the Soviet economy. We were not prepared in advance for that
challenge. None of the leaders of the socialist movement of the Russian
working-class entered that period with a clear economic vision, and thus
no resistance was organised, from the standpoint of worker-communism,
against the advance of nationalism and the bourgeois economic vision...
We did not succeed in keeping our class force under our own banner. For
we practically lacked, at a decisive stage and with regard to a cardinal
question of the post- revolutionary era, [i.e., the question of the
economic content of the October Revolution] any independent banner, or
programme...

Now our future too depends, in the same way, entirely on the actual
practice of our movement and its activists; on what they do, and what
visions they have
and hold out to the workers' movement. If we do it right, it will work
out; if we don't,
it won't. There is no historical inevitability here! ...

6- Revolution and reform

Another, and in my opinion very significant, trait of our political
tradition is the way we see the relation between revolution and reform.
The radical Left has always typically remained isolated from actual
social movements for reforms and has been, therefore, scorned by the
activists of these movements. The more "radical" a Left tendency has
been, the more isolated it has become, and the more incapable it has
remained of influencing the social circumstances of its own time. It
seems as if maintaining one's political integrity, or remaining radical
in one's programmatic ideals, has stood in inverse relationship to
gaining actual strength and influence. Revolutionary ideas appear
incompatible with effective action. The truth is, I think, that such a
contradiction has actually existed in the thinking of the radical Left.
For them, Marxism is merely a theory, and not a social movement that
ought to express itself in various practical dimensions.

It is characteristic of our tradition, however, that its communist
revolutionism is not only compatible with its daily activity to bring
about improvements in the conditions of the working people, and in the
economic, political, cultural, and judicial state of affairs in society,
but is inseparably connected to it. We see people and classes not as
politically static and shapeless but in constant struggle to improve
their society and their own living conditions. No communist can ignore
this actually existing struggle and at the same time call for a
revolution that apparently stands independent of it.

The question of the relationship between revolution and reform, and
hence the relationship of the revolutionary element with movements and
organisations geared to social reform, is one of the main pillars of our
outlook. For us, this question is a source of a series of programmatic,
tactical and practical conclusions. Issues such as the relation of
workers' revolution to numerous movements for liberty and social justice
that emerge within the existing society with narrower objectives, the
attitude of the workers' party towards unions, the relation between our
revolutionary programme for society and our immediate demands in various
areas, the issue of legal and underground work, etc., all hinge on a
certain understanding of the relation between revolution and reform.

However, understanding the significance of the struggle for reforms is
not identical with getting dissolved in reformism. It is true that
without getting involved in the current protests in society the
revolutionary communist element within the working class is bound to
remain marginalised and unable to effectively influence the working
class as a whole. But it is equally true that without explicitly
representing socialism and workers' revolution within the working class,
the worker-socialist tendency would not only fail to get anywhere near
its revolutionary objective, but would also leave reform movements
captive within the limits of short-sighted bourgeois visions and
policies...

It is not enough for us to appear, and be recognised as, a sincere and
active current in the workers' protest movements, as a current that is a
participator, and, indeed, part and parcel of these movements. This
would prove our distinction from the esoteric radical Left. Our
communism, however, begins at the point where we appear in these
movements, that is, within our own class, as a current critical of the
non-socialist currents, as a current that pursues a more fundamental
cause and a more radical change, as a Marxist current that propagates a
particular view within the class... .

Supporting trade unions and having close relationships with their Left
wing, strengthening the labour movement as a whole against the
bourgeoisie, is a vitally important task. But, we must scrutinize, as
communist workers, the visions, the policies, and the views of
working-class organisations and their leaders. To democratize this or
that industrial trade union in the USA, for example, is a fine job. But,
a worker- communist should also confront the leaders of such a movement
with questions such as: what's going to happen in the end, say, in
thirty years, after the union has hopefully been democratized? What do
you think of communism and Marxism? What alternative do you have for the
reorganization of society? How, in your mind, can workers' total
liberation be finally brought about?

The radical leaders of the workers in the USA, Canada, Germany, Britain,
etc., should be confronted with the question as to why they are not
communists;
why they have nothing to say and nothing to do concerning the economic
foundations of the present system, the state, religion, the educational
system, the equality of sexes, the war drive of the Powers, and so on,
and so forth. We do not criticise the
sectarian isolationism of the non-worker Left only to bow, in the next
step, to the vocational and equally isolationist attitudes of the
reformist workers' movements, and to their alienation from the general
cause of the working-class social revolution. We are that tendency
within the working class which sees the working class as capable of, and
duty- bound to, extensive intervention in economic, political, cultural
and intellectual life of society. We want the worker to emerge as the
force that presents the whole human society with a real alternative. We
regard socialist vision, theory, social critique, unity for social
revolution as vital; just as we regard wage rise, unemployment benefit,
the right to strike, and organising to bring about improvements in the
economic and political condition of the working classes as vital. Each
one of these aspects expresses a different moment in the life, the
struggle, the self- assertion, of the working class; aspects that we
regard as indivisible and indispensable. We must criticise all social
tendencies, working-class or otherwise, which break apart this whole and
keep workers away from the social revolution and the social revolution
away from the workers.

7- The party and the class

Another characteristic of our current is our understanding of the
relation between the party and the class. Our party is the party of a
certain
tradition of struggle within the class itself. Its relation with the
working class is
thus based on the relation of that tendency within the class with the
working class as a whole. This means, firstly, that it is not a party
formed by a number of social reformers for the salvation of the working
class, but one formed by a part, a tendency, within the working class
itself with the aim of uniting and leading the whole class towards its
class objectives. ...

Secondly, it is therefore clear that the worker-communist party is not
the party of "all workers" irrespective of their outlook and their
social and
political aims... In other words, it is neither a party derived from a
preconceived idea or theory that is now being held out to the working
class nor a party of all workers regardless of their social standpoint
or outlook. This is the party of the socialist workers who put forward a
more fundamental and comprehensive critique of the present system.

We consider ourselves not a political party outside the class, but the
party of a critical tendency, with a definite social outlook, within the
class itself. It is therefore important for us to confront other
tendencies within the class theoretically, politically, and
ideologically.

8- The council movement

With regard to general forms of organisation for working-class struggle,
we belong in the council tradition. We are a party advocating councils
as the main form for organisation and direct action of worker masses;
and it is from this standpoint that we deal with other forms of workers'
organisation...

If a current is really part of the class and seeks to unite and organise
it, it can reject other forms of organisation and demand the workers to
abandon those forms, trade unions for example, only to the extent that
it is itself able to point to an existing alternative for the workers to
join... If the council movement has established itself firmly enough to
be capable of undertaking those aspects of the defensive struggle which
are at present organised by the trade unions, then it would be quite
correct to ask workers to leave the unions and join the councils and the
council movement... Otherwise, if such an alternative is practically not
open to workers, then it would be a clearly anti-worker move to
undermine the unions. Our attitude towards trade unions cannot be of the
same sort as our attitude towards religious or state institutions.

In a certain sense, this is related to what I said earlier about the
significance of reforms and the relation between revolution and reform.
Trade unions safeguard, in one way or another, certain social reforms
and working-class gains. They are organisations for winning and
protecting reforms. One can imagine that today, in the absence of better
organisational alternatives for the working class, what wretchedness
would come to prevail in the world if there were no trade unions.

We endeavour to build and strengthen the council movement within the
working class. And as we progress we call upon workers to join this
alternative. We
recognise the value of unions for workers' struggles in the absence of
strong councils and council movements, but we do not abandon our
independent critical views
vis-a-vis trade unions.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---