File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1996/96-12-23.052, message 56


Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:54:44 +1000
From: rws-AT-comserver.canberra.edu.au (Rob Schaap)
Subject: M-I: Mansoor Hekmat's Statement


[Thanks to Joao Paulo, Mansoor Hekmat gives this list much to think about. 
I take to heart particularly the implicit warning and guide for action T
thought worth repeating below):]

'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 ...'

[I think it would not hurt this list if those who disagree with the above
try to articulate their differences specifically with reference to these
paragraphs.  To my mind, it's crucial stuff.  As far as I'm concerned, this
passage is right on the button, and expressed with laudable clarity.  

Any takers?

Cheers, Rob.]

 




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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005