Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 15:33:25 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-G: Workers-Communism?


This is an attempt too reply to the document on "workers-communism" I found 
in the mail today which appears to be sent in as and Iranians contribution 
to the debate on both the past and the future. Actually after the debacle in 
Iran with the left and their support to the Mullahs a number of years back 
it is quite refreshing to see a document like this. Because the poor and and 
working class people in Iran certainly paid a very high price for the 
fundemental "Stalinists" political orientation that the Iranian "far" left 
had then and certainly in many ways have not broken with as of today. 

First I would like to comment on some of the GOOD things that i saw in the 
document and then go on to what i think is fundementally wrong both in its 
analisis and some of its conclusions.

First, I think it is important that the document recognizes the role of the 
working class as the revolutionary motor in society. While at the same time 
realizing and openly admitting that the working class actually can lose! I 
mean our Iranian friends are not taking the same path as some of our other 
neo-Stalinists of writting off the working class altogether!

Secondly, I like very much the recognition of the International character 
and the Internationalism of the document. The Iranian left has historically 
I think been anti-internationalist. And this new turn has more to do with 
the tens of thousands of Iranians living in exile after the fiasko in Iran. 
There is nothing better then exile for opening the eyes of people to the 
most inbitten Nationalists. But i do not like the "people" stuff because it 
is a left over of the Maoist popular front rhetoric...

I also like the document because it takes up the political bankruptcy of 
Stalinism, at least evolving from Moscow, but then the document appears 
quite silent on the Stalinist leaderships of China, Vietnam, North Korea, 
and Cuba. I think that this has its bases in that the so called far left in 
Iran leaned towards "Maoist" political solutions and saw the Tudah Party as 
the reformist "Moscow" orientated party in the region. So the position is 
understandable in concrete terms.

Now, I think that we have to get down to the fundemental wrongness of this 
long but interesting document. I think that the central problem is its 
complete capitulation to spontaninity! Capitalition to the conciousness of 
the working class as it is. It even goes so far as to defend the present 
"leaderships" of the trade union movement despite their fundementally 
pro-bougeois anti worker politics as being and expression more of the left 
missing the working class all together, rather then fighting to replace the 
present pro-bougeois leadership with a revolutionary leadership. This 
naturally is a tendency by our Iranian friends of putting a Stalinist 
interpetation on the working class. In other words even if you are a right 
wing Social democratic hack, you are our pal in the struggle against those 
horrible imperialists. Naturally they are the deadly enemies of the working 
class and should time and again be exposed for their rotten pro-bougeois and 
anti-working class politics. And if they are FORCED by their position to 
take a step in the interests of the working class we will march side by side 
with you. However we intend to keep the right of telling the workers exactly 
what your politics represent for them!

The reason for this fatal mistake is both real, but also historical and very 
empirical.
Our Iranian friend accuses the left in general of missing the working class 
and mostly carrying on sterile debates about historical fights. In a sense 
this is true if one were to look at the very special conditions that evolved 
out of the second world war and for our Iranian friend the very special 
conditions in Iran with the Shah and the oil money. One of the basic 
problems with the new left is that historically it a student petty-bougeois 
based movement both in the west and in Iran. This was partially because of 
the historical domination of the Stalinists and reformists in the workers 
movement. And partially because of the post war boom economically and the 
post war baby boom!

It was both good and bad. Good in a sense that these petty-bougeois youth 
made a left turn in history to investigate and agitate in politics outside 
of the dominant wing of Stalinism, reformism and bougeois ideology. In some 
cases especially Iran western and Iranian students saw a contradiction 
between Moscow Stalinism and Mao Stalinism (during the Maoist flirt with 
guerrilla movements) which led to huge battles where also the Trotskyists 
(who also had a petty-bougeois student base) could intervene. It was the new 
left expression of the end of the cold war! And came long before the fall of 
the eastern block countries and finally the disintegration of the Soviet 
Union. And also before the Chinese turn towards the politics of enrich 
yourselves. So in a sense the students just like in Russia one time were in 
fact unconciously the vanguard of what was and is to be a new era. 
Naturally, this movement, because of its petty bougeois base grew very 
quickly and also declined very quickly into babies and career making. In 
Iran it took far more of a dramatic turn with the Mullah bloodbath sending 
thousands upon thousands of these student leftists into exile. So in a 
certain sense our Iranian friend has drawn a conclusion that the left missed 
the working class all together. 

This is not really true! In fact it is only parts of the left that missed 
the working class.
And they missed the working class for very specific reasons. In the Stalin 
and Mao-Stalin dominated far left they missed the working class because of a 
CONCRETE political line. It was the line of the stage theory of revolution 
and popular front politics which in Iran for example led to the bizarr and 
what proved suicidal line of seeing the Mullahs as part of the dynamics of 
the Iranian Revolution. In other parts of the world like America it was 
expressed in the popular front versions of the anti-war movement and worship 
of the petty-bougeois guerrillas like Castro and not in the least Che! This 
because of the student petty-bougeois character of the movement and its 
worship of these types of movements not in the least Vietnam where the 
*real* action was, but also the political leaderships of these movements. I 
am quite sure that examples along these lines can be given in just about 
every country. But the bottom line in fact was not the "petty-bougeois" 
character of the students themselves but political line which was dominated 
just by the Stalinists and Mao-Stalinists in these movements. I should 
mention that even the reformist Social Democracy was effected by this huge 
student radicalization. It even in some cases like Sweden went so far as to 
support a lot of the third world liberation armies and in Vietnam led to a 
breaking of diplomatic relations with the Americans! However this 
radicalisation missed the working class because the political leadership had 
the political line of the Stalinists and Mao Stalinists! It was not just and 
unconcious mistake..

Going on to say that the left missed the workers and now saying that we have 
to go back and tail at best the backwardness of the working class is not the 
political answer. Just because you put on a pair of blue jeans or slacks and 
go to the local industry or office and bow to the backwardness of the 
working class for missing them will not change things. In fact it is only 
changing horses from the popular front, stage theory of Stalinism and 
Mao-Stalinism for reformism and economism! In other words back to the old 
debates between Lenin and the economists in stuff like "What is to be 
done!". In fact, I could say that the document is and unconcious attempt, 
albeit both polite and honest to try and break with the Stalinist politics 
of the new left as it was represented only to turn towards reformism albeit 
keeping a bit of Stalinist rhetoric and garbage in the wrtting of the document.

And in fact that is what our Iranian friend is doing! Naturally he is very 
sympathetic to read because of the very polite way he presents his views. 
However for poor and working class people it would mean a political 
DISASTER. Lenin was correct in saying that "trade union conciousness" is 
"bougeois" conciousness in the workers movement. He conter-posed a party of 
professional revolutionaries to solve this problem among others. And 
unfortunately our Iranian friend is bowing at the alter of just the 
backwardness of the proletariat and is telling us that we are being snobs in 
saying that a professional organisation of revolutionaries is VITAL for the 
success of any revolution! Although I to have a very workerist streak in me 
and many times have accused the left of being petty-bougeois and discussing 
issues basically on a level which any worker would find appalling at best. 
It does not change the political fact that the whole lesson of Lenin's 45 
volumes can be summed up with a party of professional revolutionaries 
changes the bougeois trade union conciousness of the workers at best-- to a 
revolutionary conciousness that will take them down the historical path that 
Marx set out for them as the revolutionary motor of history. But Lenin and 
the party and Marx are like one egged twins in the womb. If one dies so does 
the other or at best is doomed to a life of slavery under the present system!

Finally, I would like to say that I HOPE our Iranian friend and is 
supporters who quite clearly after the defeat in Iran are theoretically 
trying to find a way out of the dead end that Iranian new leftism gave them. 
(Death or a life in exile, like myself) That these people seriously begin to 
consider not taking a step backwards to the class that they missed. But a 
step forward and read both Lenin and Trotsky on the political and 
ideological struggle that has been taking place. Unfortunately the 
Trotskyists just as the far left in general (in this case our Iranian 
friends) have because of the domination of Stalinism and reformism in the 
leadership of the working class are still trying to come up with both "new" 
and really old formulas that just won,t work! For the youth their is and 
excuse (their youth) but for our generation it is a crime!

Only by once again turning to the fundementals of Marxism, Leninism and 
Trotskyism can the seeds of a future revolutionary International be sown. 
The death of Stalinism does not mean that we should turn towards the 
reformists and their historical solutions. Besides the Social democratics 
are deserting to the bougeoisie! So if you want to take their place, our 
Iranian friend and the bottom line of his political line is one way to go! 
However their is a better way and a way to building a revolutionary 
International. We might lose but it is better to storm the gates of heaven 
then bow at the alter of spontaninity!

Forward to the creation of a Revolutionary International!

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people
NOW ON LINE
--------------------------------------------------------


 

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people
NOW ON LINE
--------------------------------------------------------





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