Worker Communism, radical conscience of the left of capital

1 post / 0 new
Internationalis...
Worker Communism, radical conscience of the left of capital
Printer-friendly version

The texts have been published by the Internationalist Voice; to read the texts please visit the site of Internationalist Voice. Below are published only the introductory part.

Web site: www.internationalist.tk

E-mail: [email protected]

Communist Revolution or the destruction of humanity!

 

Worker Communism, radical conscience of the left of capital (part 1) (New translation)

(Unfortunately, the old translation was not good and the text lost its coherence, rereading recommended)

  • Introduction
  • Azarakhsh (“Lightning”)
  • Sahand: sympathizer of the Alliance for struggle for Working Class Cause
  • Current three and Alliance for struggle for Working Class Cause (Arman)
  • Sahand and the Anti-Imperialist Struggle
  • The petty bourgeois Khomeini

 

Worker Communism, radical conscience of the left of capital (part 2) (New)

  • Changing the name of «Sahand» to the«Unity of Communist Militants»
  • The Marxist-Leninist ideology of the «Unity of Communist Militants»
  • The country of the «Unity of Communist Militants»
  • «Unity of Communist Militants» and the Iranian “communist” movement
  • «Unity of Communist Militants» and the theocratic faction of the bourgeoisie

 

********************************

Introduction

A political current’s appearance and formation reflects the historical conditions which surround it. Marxism demonstrates the ascension of the working class as a social class - for the first time in human history, a class was formed that was able to carry out the Communist Revolution and end the exploitation of human beings by other human beings. The Communist parties organized in the Communist International were opposed to the Social Democratic Parties that had joined the camp of the bourgeoisie. “Council communism” was an idealistic response to the failure of the wave of world revolution. Left Communism was a reaction to the failure of the wave of world revolution in defence of Marxism and proletarian objectives. Stalinism showed the triumph of bourgeois counter-revolution over the ruins of the October Revolution. Trotskyism was also a mechanical reaction to the rise of counter-revolution, which, because of the limitations in its evolutionary process, was integrated into the left of capital. Maoism was a product of the crisis in the imperialist contra-revolution camp. Now the question is, “Worker Communism” appeared as a product of which historical conditions and in response to which requirements?

Two answers have been given to these questions. We will consider both of them.

 

The first answer, given by bigwigs and devotees of “Worker Communism”, is that “Worker Communism” links back to Marx and is a continuation of Marxism. Ideologues of this tendency have tried for years to build a historical background to “Worker Communism” and to present it as a historical movement, a theoretical system with structural integrity and providing historical continuity. The theoretical coherence of a theory is a necessary condition but is not sufficient for its accuracy. However, a theoretical system such as “Worker Communism” which does not have internal consistency is no longer a Marxist theory but a set of positions and slogans that have been presented by the ideologues of the time; positions whose inconsistencies and affiliation with the ‘left of capital’ have been made clear over the course of history. Statements such as ‘historical continuity’ and ‘return to Marx’ have been used by the leaders of this movement in order to distort history.

The second response, offered by the critics of “Worker Communism”, states that “Worker communism” is without root, a personality cult and a sect like “Mojahedin” within the left movement.

It is very obvious that none of these answers are correct or convincing. “Worker Communism” is neither a continuing and developing process of Marx and Marxism, nor is it without roots. “Worker Communism” is a product of Stalinism, and emerged as a Stalinist circle. It was strongly influenced and fed by Maoism during its formation and evolution, although the founding of “Worker Communism” stems from the crisis of the «current three» and the need to reintegrate it.  Therefore, in order to defend Marxism we need to understand the formation of “Worker Communism”; this movement should be examined in the context of the development of social events, from the sympathizing with Azarakhsh (“Lightning”) to the flourishing period of this movement and then on to the demise of the parties and the small circles. If in the mid-1990s this political current was flourishing, by the end of the 1990s the current was beginning its demise, due to its internal contradictions.

Recently, the apostles of the French have been converted to the ideology of “Worker Communism” and announced that “Worker Communism” was first established in Iran, but will never be limited to the Middle East. As their Fuehrer declared, sooner or later the messages of the savior of humanity will conquer the West, Europe, America etc. In their message to the first congress of the Worker Communism Unity Party of Iran, these new apostles of the ideology of “Worker Communism” said:

“Worker-communism, as a movement of the working-class, is a world-wide product of the class struggle against capital. As a defined current, worker-communism was first established in Iran, but was never intended to be “middle-eastern”, but rather to express the needs of the class itself.

Reading Mansoor Hekmat’s writings closely, as far as they have been translated into English and other European languages, we can see many, many examples of the fact that he always considered that, sooner or later, worker-communist parties would rise in western countries, in Europe and in America. Building such worker-communist circles in various countries in Europe is a first step towards a party.

It is very important to understand, and then to make known, that worker-communism is not just a specialized branch of Marxism designed for middle-eastern issues …Now, it’s time for worker-communism to land in western countries, to be set up as a communist answer to the western working-class issues.”[1]

Most religions (ideologies) were founded or created in the Middle East region. The Middle East was an establishing center for the Abrahamic religions and dozens of minor religions. The establishment of the religion of “Worker Communism” should also be considered in this way.

In early December 2011, just when the missionaries of “Worker Communism” had announced the foundation of the “Center of proletarian communism in the Arab world”, with plans for a large campaign in order to spread “Worker Communism” across the Arabic countries, a political explosion occurred in the “Hekmatist” party, a crisis that also drew in sister parties from Iraq. What distinguishes the current crisis is its “coup” and “anti-coup” form. The party was split in two, with both sides trying to gain the upper hand in terms of leadership, facilities and ideological propaganda, all the while blaming the other for disrespecting the boundaries of political conduct. Each wants to bring the other to the party’s court for the infringement of organization and party order. Sister parties in Iraq play the role of mediator between ‘coup’ and ‘anti-coup’. There seems to be no end to the tragedy within this ideology. We will come back to these issues later.

In order to evaluate this political current, it is important to look through its history step by step. The bare and extremely reactionary, anti-communist and bourgeois nature of this current in every part of society must be made clear. For example during its radicalism phase, it enforced its role as the Marxism of the bourgeois in all social contexts. Through the manipulation of Stalinism and Maoism, this amalgam was put forward as pure communism under the name of “Worker Communism”.

In particular, at one point this political current tried to approach Left Communism, whilst deliberately hiding its contra-revolutionary nature. The obvious bourgeois nature of this current was criticized by the internationalists, and for this reason, the Italian section of the current, under the influence of Left Communism, began to criticize the positions of the current by publishing pamphlets publicly. As a result, Hamid Taghvaee, a member of the central committee of the Communist Party of Iran began his delirium and revealed the contra-revolutionary nature of his own current under the guise of a critique of the platform of the Internationalist Communist Party. This issue has led to the movement sometimes being mistakenly attributed to Left Communism (both in Iranian and non-Iranian political circles).

It was in this context that Babak Kasrayi, an adviser to the Central Committee of the Worker Communist party of Iran, in giving the reasons for his resignation, recently claimed “Worker Communism” as belonging to Left Communism (which it seems was criticised by Lenin about a hundred years ago), and he says:

“In general, ultra leftism (beyond the leftism) is probably the greatest plague of the whole tradition of “Worker Communism” in Iran and Iraq.

The indicator of this tendency is indifference and neglect of the traditions and struggles of the working class and the masses in general, and of their spirit and aspirations in each historical moment. Lenin, in his book ‘Left Communism: a disease of childhood’, is sharply critical of this tendency. It is interesting that many of the sympathizers to the positions of Mansoor Hekmat in Europe follow exactly the same tendency of ‘Left Communism’ that Lenin criticises.”[2] [Our translation]

Apparently, Babak Kasrayi is one of the central committee´s genius advisers who doesn’t know that "Lenin is an eatable and drinkable phenomenon!" [3] An adviser to the central committee of a party should have at least a basic knowledge of the history of his political current and his party, and shouldn’t need to refer to events from a hundred years ago, but rather simply to the 1980s and Hamid Taghveei’s “Towards Socialism” No.2.  All of these issues will be revisited in our text, and in particular we will respond paragraph by paragraph to Hamid Tagvaeei’s delirious slander.

It is essential to note that we do not in any way criticise the political apparatus of the left of capital. The purpose of this text (which will be a series of articles), rather than criticizing “Worker Communism”, is to defend Marxism and proletarian goals and aspirations in the face of the left of capital.