Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 06:01:25 +0000
From: Joćo Paulo Monteiro <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: M-I: Workers-Communism?


Dear Bob Malecki:


>From your torrencial arguing, I think I can discern three main
objections to Hekmat's document:

Objection n=BA 1 - Fine, but where's Trotsky on it?

Come on, now. Trotsky was a great revolutionary and a great writer. If
you study a little bit of the history of communism, you can't miss him.
In fact, a cyber-friend of mine (young Soman from Sweden, precisely) had
this party catalogued among the troskyites on his links list. He said
they looked kind of trots to him. We don't need to make proselitist vows
to be a revolutionary. I think we should stop that. 

Objection n=BA 2 - This party derives from the radicalization of new-left
petty bourgeois elements coming from the old pro-soviet and nationalist
Tudeh Party that naively supported the rise of the mullahs.

I don't know the whole story here. Hekmat was a founder of the Communist
Party of Iran that split from Tudeh in 1983. This Worker-Communist Party
here is a split from the C.P.I. itself. I don't know much about the
social outlook and the story of all these parties. From Hekmat's
account, it seems that the C.P.I. did have new-left intellectual
founders (the "Revolutionary Marxism of Iran" group) and, after merging
with the urban workers movement of the revolutionary period and a
kurdish marxist/nationalist group (Komala) made a split with the
"populist socialism" of Tudeh, trying to introduce serious marxism into
iranian politics. The C.P.I., however, soon became prey to burocratic
schlerosis and divided itself in right, center and left tendencies. Some
crucial debates about working-class organization and the Soviet Union
took place and, gradually, the left current separates itself from the
official party line, claiming to have a distinct class origin and
allegiance - worker-communism.
Hekmat's account doesn't detain itself in the national political
circunstances on which all this took place. In fact, I don't even know
if they were in clandestinity or in exile.


Objection n=BA 3 (by far the more serious) - It has "spontaneist" elements
on it.

I believe it does. It's definitely more luxemburguist or "trotskyist"
(from "Our Political Tasks") than leninist in the "What's to be done?"
sense. I have already said here that I think Lenin "bends the stick" too
far here. I don't go at all for that stuff of "revolutionary
professionals" and workers' that left to themselves can't rise above
trade-unionist conscience and so have to "import" revolutionary
conscience from outside.
This is a receipt for non-worker communism, state capitalist or
otherwise.
I don't believe Hekmat "bows" to the na=EFf reformism of the workers. I
think he has it straight and very clearly put indeed.



Jo=E3o Paulo Monteiro





Robert Malecki wrote:
>
> 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-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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