ICC introduction

The text we are publishing below was sent to us by a comrade who has commented on our web site under the handle "Internationalist". We think that this text, on the real nature of the "Green movement" and the Mosavi opposition in Iran, is well worth publishing and bringing to a wider audience above all because it takes position clearly against the reformism of Mosavi who in the past - as the article points out - has been the artisan of the brutal repression of the Iranian working class and the population in general.

In describing the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the article rightly points out that the Shah's government had become a hindrance to Iranian capital, inasmuch as it created an intolerable situation not only for the population (hence the massive workers' strikes that broke out in that period, cf our article written at the time [1]) but even for the bourgeoisie - to the point where not a single fraction of the ruling class was ready to oppose his overthrow (a more detailed analysis see our article "Behind the Iran-US crisis, the ideological campaigns [2]"). The overthrow of the Shah's regime was a real blow to the American bourgeoisie, though the USSR was unable to profit from it and Iran never really escaped the Western bloc.

The article describes the split between what the comrade describes as the "theocratic" and "reformist" wings of the bourgeoisie, quite rightly in our view denouncing the impossibility of real reforms that would benefit the working class. It is less concerned with the possibility of a split in the theocratic wing itself. It seems to us that a possible aspect of the manoeuvrings going on in the Iranian bourgeoisie, especially the splits that have become visible in the clerical hierarchy, is due to the fact that Ahmadinejad is not merely a puppet of the theocratic fraction, but is in fact the leader (or at least a leading figure) of a military/police faction which belongs to the generation that fought in the Iran/Iraq war. This faction - which has the gangsters of the Basij as its armed force within the population, as well as the security services etc. - is busily extending its control over the economy, both the legal and the black-market economy (including smuggling of alcohol, drugs, and other illegal merchandise). As such, it poses a threat to the hegemony of the clerical faction which is divided as to how to react.

At all events, the importance of Iran as a strategic regional player in the Middle East power struggles, and of the working class in Iran which has been historically one of the most combative in the region, means that revolutionaries should follow the situation there attentively and we are glad to publish this contribution to what must be an ongoing discussion.

ICC

---

Introduction

 

What happened in Iran in the past few months? Was it a confrontation between bourgeois gangs? Has a communist revolution begun in Iran? How one can explain political situation within the Iranian political milieu? What do all of these events mean for the working class? It is vital and necessary for internationalists to evaluate, analyse, explain and learn lessons to look forward for the most effective and productive internationalist perspective and actions.

Birth of Islamic Republic a paradox

Shah, the king of kings, who was a reliable puppet generally of the capitalist world and in particular of the Western bloc, proclaimed that Iran was a stable island in the Middle East for the capitalist world. Capitalism needs a stable Iran in that region. Since Iran is among the world's top three holders of both proven oil and natural gas reserves and also geopolitically located in a very sensitive and important part of the world.

The stable island within a short period of time became destabilised and Shah's brutal repression couldn't help him to stay in the power, especially when the working class strikes and other movement started throughout the system particularly in the petroleum industry. The bourgeoisie needed an alternative to uphold the capitalist system. The Islamic Republic was a powerless product of the worlds' bourgeoisie to give an alternate to the national capital to set up a capitalist system after the Shah's regime.

Islamic Republic was born with a congenital paradox. Like other republics in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran has its president, parliament, election, but it also has the supreme leader (khamenei), God's shadow on the earth. The supreme leader has power over the law and can dismiss the president. Khomeini dismissed the first elected president of Iran, Banisadr in June 1981.

Capitalism needs stability to assure accumulation of capital both for internal and external investors. Within Islamic capitalism, there have always been two visions or trends to approach this goal. These two visions are theocratic and republic. Today, Ahmadinejad represents the theocratic and Mosavi represents the republic to enforce the capitalist system in Iran.

 

The theocratic vision of bourgeoisie

 

This wing of bourgeoisie has a state capitalist vision and very closed social control apparatus of society with an aggressive policy. They have bastions in the Pasdaran, the Basij militia, the priesthood and the state apparatus. This vision, state capitalism with aggressive policy is a risk factor both for internal and external investors. Western world has always proclaimed that this wing must adapt itself to capital's routines. To punish theocrats, Western bourgeoisie, through the German bourgeoisie made a gesture through the Mykonos trial. "In its 10 April 1997 ruling, the court issued an international arrest warrant for Iranian intelligence minister Hojjat al-Islam Ali Fallahian [3] after declaring that the assassination had been ordered by him with knowledge of supreme leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [4] and president Ayatollah Rafsanjani [5]"[1] After this, the bourgeoisie could present a better alternative to reinforce the capitalist system by introducing the new president, Khatami who was introduced as a president who wants "Dialogue Among Civilizations".

The disadvantage and consequence of the theocratic policy is insecurity of capital and loosing capital from Iran. The capital flight from Iran between 1973 to 1988 has been estimated about $8.16 billion. In contrast, the capital flight between 2005 and 2006 was about $200 billion.[2] Iran's Student Correspondents Association explained that the reason for capital flight is "the policies of the ninth government fear for the investment" (The government of Ahmadinejad).[3]

We must point out that this is an official report and exact figures prove impossible to obtain or is more than this. Security and guarantee of capital is necessary to assure accumulation of capital both for internal and external investors.

 

The republic (reformist) vision of bourgeoisie

 

As mentioned earlier, today, Mosavi represents this vision usually called reformist. Reformist Mosavi has changed his slogan from "Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic" to "Independence, Freedom, Iranian Republic".[4] What does it mean to be a reformist? Two important and well known elements within reformists are, Mosavi and Hajjarian.

It was during Mosavi's time, when he was the Prime Minster of Iran that hundreds of striking worker were jailed or beaten to death. Thousands of political prisoners were executed when the mass grave of political prisoners (Khavaran) was created and developed and so on.

Saeed Hajjarian, the master mind of reformism, was the one who created and built one of the world's most brutal organization of the century by the name of Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran. "The formation of the ministry was proposed by Saeed Hajjarian to the government of Mir-Hossein Mosavi and then the parliament."[5] We need to point out that the Ministry of Intelligence of Iran is one of the most horrible and dreadful in the world and it is very notorious in its torture and terror methods. Mosavi and Hajjarian are not less guilty than Ahmadinejad when it comes to workers right or other human right issues.

This wing of bourgeoisie strive for privatising parts of the industry, more opening and investment opportunities to the Western World and some reduction in the social controls. In an ideal world this gang try to adapt the national capital to the world capital's routines, to give assurance to accumulation of capital.

Now we need to address this question. Is social reform possible in our epoch? The First World War has proved that capitalism has entered in its decadence and no more permanent social reforms could be possible. Also, it is not longer possible to reform capitalism to make better life for people. As a result, the forms of struggle for the working class have been changed, the struggle for parliament, social reforms are no longer a struggle form for the working class. The fact is that in our epoch, in the epoch of decadent capitalism, parliament and elections are not different than a mystification and the main task of parliament, is to legislate wage slavery.

 

"Islamic Japan" or Barbarity of capitalism

 

Eight years of war had destroyed most of Iran's infrastructure and industry and it needed rebuilding. After the Iran-Iraq war when Rafsanjani took presidential office, his title was changed from commander of operations to commander of development. He proclaimed that Iran is going to be a modern, industrialized country, very similar to Japan in terms of development and economics progress, an "Islamic Japan" and recently the supreme leader (Khamenei) referred to Iran as Islamic Japan.[6]

Iran is one of the countries in the world that has many young people. Its labor force has been almost doubled in the last nine years.

 

That means each month about 125,000 jobs need to be created. However, in practice, it is impossible within a capitalist framework to create that many jobs. Unemployment rate rises in Iran and it has reached up to 12.5% (in real life the rate is always higher than the statistics).[7] In the mean time, Central Bank of Iran reported a 23.6% inflation rate in Iran[8], one of the biggest economic challenges of the century. Unpaid salaries for months are a dilemma for hundred thousand workers in Iran. "No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc."[9]

This means, in reality a worker must have two or three job to support his family and unemployment nightmare never goes away. In the real life the worker is working day after day to create more surplus value to the capitalists. The labour force is goods in the capitalist system but special goods that can create surplus value. Working class is target to be attacked on living conditions every day. With the current situation in Iran, millions of unemployed people, the young generation is suffering and they have no hope with this brutal capitalist regime. The ruling class know that young people are more headaches to them than an American or Israeli bomb attack.

 

Democratic Illusion

 

"Down with dictator!" has been a popular slogan in the last months in the streets of not only Tehran, the capital city of Iran, but also in the streets of all the major cities in Iran. The real meaning of this slogan is "Long live democracy!" which democratic mass medium have been blown on these illusions. To add this all democratic governments condemned the police violence of Iran. But the question is why this "honest" democratic mass medium have been shoot up when the butcher of bourgeoisie slaughtered more than hundred or maybe thousands prisons and workers each days in 1981!

What does that democracy mean? The following diagram shows unemployment rate in the USA, EU and Sweden that increase dramatically.

Democracy is not a legal phenomenon without an economic root. Unemployment, job stress and misery at work have been a nightmare for working class in the West world. In the capital's palpating heart USA, it is normal for a worker to have two jobs to support his family. In the cradle of bourgeois civilization, France, job stress and misery at work are reasons for a wave of staff suicides. "A wave of staff suicides which has seen more than 20 workers take their lives in the past 18 months - some leaving notes blaming job stress and misery at work."[10] The real number is 23 not 20! In the paradise of capitalism as a social democracy society, Sweden, where the social democratic governments have been in place for more than hundred years, unemployment has been a nightmare for working class. Unemployment rate is going to be increased dramatically in the next coming years. The National Institute of Economic Research published in its website: "During the forecast period unemployment will soar, and the unemployment rate will reach 11.4% in 2010 and 11.8% in 2011."[11]

 

For us, capitalist democracy and capitalist dictatorship are two sides of the same coin. Capitalist democracy is not a paradise for the working class without the same hell for other exploited in the dictatorship countries. Democracy is not a perspective for us but a very dangerous trap for our class.

 

The left of capital

 

After the election circus in Iran, which resulted in confrontation between bourgeois gangs, political currents took different positions based on the position and classifications. The left of capital as always tried to play its role as effective as possible. Tudeh Party, Fedaian Majority became directly mouthpiece to for Mosavi. The radical part of the left, "Worker"-"Communist" party of Iran proclaimed beginning of the revolution even presented the leader of revolution (Hamid Taqvaee) and on another ways supported the struggling bourgeois gangs.

Also, the other left activities have organized so many demonstrations to education the people of the world about what has happening in Iran. As an example, they have approached in so many creative ways to show the United Nation (UN) and the world what is going on in Iran. One of their requests was to close the embassies of Islamic Republic around the world because they believe those embassies are nothing but spying agencies. However, it is very obvious that UN is only a nest of vultures. These activities and practices of the left are very suitable for the Western World policies and interests to pressure the Iranian government.

In the absence of an established internationalist positions in the Iranian Political Milieu, the organizations who are acting such as left parties, misleading people and in the reality are carrying the interests of bourgeoisie and ultimately will manage to present themselves as leaders of workers and lefts.

 

Class struggle is the only alternative for working class

 

The working class in Iran is experiencing the miserable condition of living every day. They have been facing this situation for many years. The conditions and standard of living not only is decline, political situation getting worse. In the past few years, working class has been radicalized gradually and despite brutally of the regime, organized tens of protest actions or strikes all over the country.

Of course workers have been on the streets but they acted as individuals rather than as a social class. The only collective force reaction against the repression comes from Iran Khodro and bus drivers' side. We must avoid acting as cannon fodder for any of the struggling bourgeois gangs. We must expand our struggle, independent of all bourgeois gangs, against capitalism. Our slogan must be against wage slavery, exploitation, unemployment, inflation. We need to fight only for our class interests.

Capitalism is the origin of all misery and adversity in the world. Our interest is not in; to change rolling class as it happened 1979 without in class struggle and our aim must be directed to destroying whole capitalist system. This is only possible from an internationalist perspective. We don't have anything to lose but our chains and a world to win!

Our revolutionary responsibility are contributing to class struggle and building of the minority revolutionary organisation with aim to contribute to building of the world wide Internationalist Communist Party, the indispensable weapon for the victory of the Communist Revolution.

The working class is the only social class that can put an end to capitalist barbarism and misery. This alternative that communists had proposed in the past is more valid today than ever:

"Communist Revolution or the destruction of humanity!"

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykonos_restaurant_assassinations [6]

[2] https://iscanews.ir/fa/PrintableNewsItem.aspx?NewsItemID=219653 [7]

[3] https://iscanews.ir/fa/PrintableNewsItem.aspx?NewsItemID=219653 [7]

[4] Asia Times Online, Aug 22, 2009

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Intelligence_of_Iran [8]

[6] https://www.revver.com/video/641815/khamenei-on-iran-being-islamic-japan/ [9]

[7] https://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91586&sectionid=351020102 [10]

[8] https://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/6/Pages/07062009/06082009_218f... [11]

[9] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch0... [12]

[10] https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/09/france-telecom-staff-suicid... [13]

[11]https://www.konj.se/sidhuvud/inenglish/economicconditionsinsweden/econom... [14]

‘Social Darwinism' - a reactionary ideology of capitalism

The elements that have allowed the human race to advance towards civilisation have preoccupied philosophers and thinkers down the centuries. This is nothing less than a question of discovering the motor force of history. In 1848, the appearance of the Communist Manifesto offers a revolutionary vision of this question, one that places man and his activity on the social level at the heart of historical progress. This vision was evidently not satisfactory for the bourgeoisie, which was enjoying the triumphant ascent of the capitalist system. On one hand, because the rise of the capitalist class was based on an ideology of individualism; and on the other hand, it was much too early for the bourgeois to conceive, even on the strictly intellectual level, the possibility of going beyond capitalism.

When, eleven years later, Charles Darwin published the result of his work on the evolution of organisms as a result of natural selection it was tempting for the bourgeoisie to explore a theory of the development of human societies based on the mechanism of the selection of the fittest individuals. This tendency that was amalgamated under the term "Social Darwinism" is still active today, even if its hypothesis remains largely undemonstrated, and even if its point of departure, the competitive struggle for existence, was rapidly ruled out by Darwin himself as a way of explaining the evolution of man[1].

Definition of ‘Social Darwinism'

"Social Darwinism is a form of sociology, the postulates of which are:

As Man is part of nature, the laws of human society are, directly or almost directly, those of the law of nature;

That the laws of nature are the survival of the fittest, the struggle for life and the laws of heredity;

That it is necessary for the well-being of society to make sure these laws are properly applied  in society.

Thus understood, social Darwinism can be historically defined as a branch of evolutionism that postulates a minimal or non-existent separation between the laws of nature and social laws: both are subject to the survival of the fittest, and so it  considers that these laws of nature directly provides a morality and a political standpoint.

We can distinguish two different forms of social Darwinism. One is an individualist idea that considers that the basic social organism is the individual and that, on the model of a struggle between individuals of the same species, the fundamental laws of society are the struggles between individuals of the same group, of which the struggle between ethnic (or racial) groups is only an extension. The other form, on the contrary, takes an holistic approach and considers that the basic social organism is society, that the motor force of history is the struggle between races, and that the struggle between individuals of the same group is a secondary law, even prejudicial to the survival of the race (...).

Individualistic social Darwinism developed from the 1850's (thus even before The Origin of  Species) and constituted an important ideology up to the 1880's (...) It is mostly linked to laissez-faire economics, extolling the non-intervention of the state (...) Holistic social Darwinism, often overtly racist, above all developed after 1880. For the most part it advocated state intervention in society and protectionist practice (economic, but also racial protection:  ‘The purity of the race is in danger'")[2].

The most well-known representative of this ideology is a contemporary of Darwin, Herbert Spencer. Engineer, philosopher and sociologist, Spencer saw in The Origin of the Species the key which allowed the understanding of the development of civilisation, departing from the point that human society evolved from the same principle as all living organisms. From this standpoint, the mechanism of natural selection was totally applicable to the social body. Spencer was a bourgeois ideologue well-anchored in his time. Strongly marked by individualism and the optimism of the dominant class in an epoch where capitalism was fully expanding, he was greatly influenced by fashionable theories such as the utilitarianism of Bentham. Plekhanov said of him that he was a "conservative anarchist, a bourgeois philosopher."[3] For Spencer, society produced and formed the brightest elements who would be selected to allow this society to continue to progress. Deviating from Darwin, the concept of Spencer applied to society, became the "selection of the fittest".

Social Darwinism, such as it was called after its explanation by Spencer, posed in principle the superiority of heredity over education, that's to say the preponderance of innate characteristics over acquired characteristics. If the principles of natural selection are effectively at work in society, it's simply a matter of not standing in its way it in order to assure social progress and the eventual disappearance of "anomalies" such as poverty or particular weaknesses.

In its subsequent evolution, Social Darwinism would be taken up as the basis of political positions and justifications dictated by the necessities of capitalist development.

Still today, the theory of Herbert Spencer continues to serve as a pseudo-scientific premise for the reactionary ideology of the winner and the law of the strongest.

Repercussions, consequences and enduring ideologies

From a strictly scientific point of view, the works of Spencer inspired more or less varied studies, such as craniology (the study of the form and size of the skull, the results of which would allegedly reveal a certain order); attempts to measure intelligence or again criminal anthropology with Lambroso's theory of the "born criminal", the echoes of which are still being spread around today in bourgeois political spheres in attempts to detect future criminals as early as possible

The preponderance of the innate equally led Spencer to sketch out the contours of an educative policy whose repercussions are still visible in the British primary school system, which tries to provide the infant with an environment proper to its personal expansion, to its researches and discoveries, rather than an education susceptible to developing new aptitudes. It's also the theoretical basis that supports the concept of "equality of opportunity".

But the most well-known lineage of Social Darwinism above all remains in the idea of eugenics. It was Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, who put forward the first concepts of eugenics by following the underlying intuition of Spencer that if natural selection must mechanically lead to social progress, everything which prevents it can only hold back the successful rise of humanity. More simply, Galton believed that the measures of social order that the bourgeoisie was led to take, mostly under the pressure of the class struggle, would in time lead to an overall degeneration of civilisation.

Whereas Spencer was an adept of "laissez-faire", of the non-intervention of the state (one of his works, appearing in 1850, was called The right to Ignore the State), Galton advocated active measures in order to facilitate the work of natural selection. For a long time he more or less directly promoted policies of the sterilisation of the mentally ill, the death penalty for criminals, etc. Eugenics is still considered as a scientific stamp of approval central to the ideologies of fascism and Nazism, even Spencer's ideas already contain elements that lead to racist visions and a hierarchy of races. From the 19th century, the work of Spencer has been used to demonstrate the biological roots of the technological and cultural backwardness of the so-called "savage" peoples, scientifically justifying colonialist policies by giving them a moral, civilising characteristic, when in fact these policies were essentially a necessity imposed by the limits of domestic markets.

However, eugenics allowed for a supplementary step by envisaging the suppression of masses of individuals who were judged unfit and thus a threat to the progress of society. Alexis Carrel, in 1935, even advocated and described in great detail the creation of establishments where generalised euthanasia would be practiced.

But it's not just under the scientific or theoretical angle that Social Darwinism should be seen. This line of thought emerged in a historic context that it tried to accompany and justify. The influence of the period is fundamental to understanding how this current developed; similarly it's important to bear in mind that if the responses that it gave are globally false, the questions that it poses still lie at the heart of the understanding that man must have of his own social development.

Theorising the ascent of capitalism

When Darwin published The Origin of Species, Britain was in the thick of the Victorian period, and the European bourgeoisie was in undisputed power, ready to conquer the world. Society teemed with examples of "the self-made man", of men who came from nothing and who, borne by the rise of industrial capitalism, found themselves at the head of prosperous enterprises. At the time, the dominant class was still shot through with radical currents who called into question hereditary privileges which constituted a brake on the new forms of development offered by capitalism. Spencer frequented this milieu of "dissidents" who were strongly anchored in anti-socialism.[4] He saw in the black misery of the British working class the temporary scars of a society in the process of adapting itself; under the effect of the demographic explosion this society would end up re-organising itself, thus constituting a factor of progress. For him, progress was inevitable since man would adapt to the evolution of society, as long as if it were left free to do so.

This euphoria was largely shared by the whole of the bourgeoisie. Especially if one adds the strong feelings of belonging to a nation which had built itself up and which could be strengthened by wars, like France following the defeat by Prussia for example. The development of the class struggle, which accompanied the development of capitalism, pushed the bourgeoisie to develop another conception of social solidarity based on givens that it hoped were undeniable.

All this constituted the compost of a theorisation of capitalist ascendancy and its immediate effects; proletarianisation in sweat, colonisation in blood, competition in filth.

This gets to the fundamental character of Social Darwinism because from a scientific point of view it offers no correct answers to the fundamental questions that it treats.

An ideological stamp of approval without any scientific basis

Science has never, even with the best intentions, been able to demonstrate the hypothesis of Social Darwinism.

Even the name of this current of thought is straightaway incorrect: Darwin is not the father of eugenics, or economic liberalism, or colonial expansionism, or scientific racism.  Neither is Darwin Malthusian. Much more than this, he was among the first put forward the clearest rebuttal of theories of Galton and Spencer.

After exposing his vision of the development and the evolution of organisms in The Origin of Species, twelve years later Darwin published his work on the development of his own species, man. In his book The Descent of Man, in 1871, he contradicted everything that Social Darwinism put forward. For Darwin, man is of course the product of evolution and is thus rightly placed within the process of natural selection. But for man, the struggle for survival doesn't mean the elimination of the weakest: "We civilised men, on the contrary, do everything possible to put a brake on this elimination; we construct asylums for idiots, the disabled and the sick; we have laws on the poor; and our doctors use all their skill to conserve life up to the last moment. Everything leads us to believe that vaccinations preserve thousands of individuals who otherwise, because of their weak constitutions, would succumb to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their nature."[5]

Thus, through the principle of evolution, humanity extricated itself from natural selection by placing itself above the competitive struggle for existence, all of which contributed to favouring the process of civilisation, by moral qualities, education, culture, religion... what Darwin called the "social instincts". Through this he called into question the vision of Spencer on the preponderance of the innate over the acquired, of nature over culture. Through civilisation then, on the social level, natural selection no longer operates in the same way as at the level of organisms. On the contrary, it is led to select social behaviours that oppose the laws of natural selection. This is clearly put forward by Patrick Tort in his theory of the "reverse effect of evolution"[6].

Whereas ‘Social Darwinism' only sees in the evolution of human society the result of the selection of the fittest, Darwin on the contrary saw here the growing reproduction of the social instincts such as altruism, solidarity, sympathy etc. The first conception poses capitalism as the most appropriate framework for social progress, whereas the second demonstrates, with some weight, that the economic laws of capitalism based on competition prevent the human species from fully developing its social instincts. It is by eliminating this last historic fetter, by abolishing capitalism, that humanity will be able to construct a society where these social instincts will come fully into their own  and lead human civilisation to its fulfilment.

GD 31/10/9 

---

[1] This text uses quotes and approaches from several articles and texts that it would be fastidious to mention systematically. This is their order:

* Wikipedia (notably articles given over to social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton)

* Dictionnaire de Sociologie, Le Robert.Seuil, 1999 (article on "social Darwinism")

* Brian Holmes, Herbert Spencer, "Perspectives" vol. XXIV, no. ¾, 1994

* Patrick Tort, Darwin et le darwinisme, Que Sais-je?, PUF

* Pierre-Henri Gouyon, Jacques Arnould, Jean-Pierre Henry, Les Avatars du gène, la théorie neo-darwinienne de l‘évolution, Belin, 1997

[2] Dictionnaire du Darwinisme et de l'évolution, PUF, pp 1008-09.

[3] In Anarchism and Socialism.

[4] "as much as I hate war, I hate socialism in all its forms", quoted by Duncan, The Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer, 1908.

[5] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.

[6] Read our article on Patrick Tort's latest book: L'effet Darwin https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/04/darwin-and-the-descent-of-man [17]

From Rivoluzione Internazionale 143, December - January 2006.

1. Why go back over the critique of Cervetto's position?

For some time now a lot of comrades have written to ask us what we think of Lotta Comunista (LC), what are our criticisms of it or why is it that we do not consider it to be a proletarian group given that it "claims to be part of the Communist Left", "defends the positions of Lenin" and "is very rigorous politically". These comrades are usually sympathisers of Lotta Comunista who, although critical of it on certain aspects, nevertheless consider the group to be a reference point. Or else they are ex-militants who, in spite of having left LC and often with serious divergences on questions of organisation and analysis, continue to base themselves on the historic positions of LC, that is, on those of its founder, Arrigo Cervetto. The fact that there arises now a necessity to understand if LC answers the needs of the class struggle is by no means strange. All that is happening in the world; the acceleration of history that we are experiencing at all levels (the disappearance of the imperialist blocs, the collapse of entire sectors of the economy, ceaseless and devastating imperialist conflicts, the spread of misery and precarious work at the heart of capitalism, etc) produces not only increasing disgust for this society but also makes it necessary to understand it all clearly in order to see how to react, in what direction to go. In our opinion, this kind of clarity and response cannot come from a group that basically says that nothing has changed in the last 100 years and restricts itself to studying the component factors of this or that productive sector or to reiterating an economist vision of the world, while at the same time continuing a fatal policy of (‘critical') support for the unions, which are one of the sneakiest arms of the bourgeoisie against the workers. LC's inability to give an answer to the problems that the class is facing is not because it is not up to the original positions and politics of Cervetto. It is precisely because of these positions themselves and their method, neither of which have ever been those of the Communist Left or of Lenin himself, as we will show.

However it is not just that the political activity of LC is ineffective for the working class. The very fact that this group passes itself off as in continuity with the historic tradition of the workers' movement while deforming its content and teachings, acts as an obstacle to the process of political maturation taking place within the class and particularly within the new generation of elements searching for a class perspective. As Lenin said in ‘What is to be done?' criticising the Social Democrat Kricevski, one of the defenders of Bernstein's economism,

 "... is it possible to imagine anything more superficial than an opinion on a whole tendency that is based on what the representatives of that tendency say about themselves?".

For this reason we think it important to develop in this article an in-depth critique of LC that takes up its origins, that is, the method and positions of Cervetto. In doing so we will look at the essential points: the construction of the party, class consciousness, the relationship between party and class, the unions. In the discussion we will refer principally to Cervetto's two basic texts, "Class struggle and the revolutionary party" (1966) and "Theses on imperialist development, the duration of the counter-revolutionary phase and the development of the class party" (1957).

In this first article we will find out what kind of party Cervetto thinks that it is necessary to build.

2) What kind of party for the world communist revolution?

The pamphlet "Class Struggle and the Revolutionary Party" aims, as Cervetto himself says in the introduction "to bring out clearly the basic lines of the Leninist conception of the party". This introduction ends with the affirmation that "The need to confront the problem of the revolutionary party through a serious study of Lenin is more than ever urgent today. The formation of the Leninist party in Italy must of necessity include this step." (our emphasis). This brief passage about "the construction of the Leninist party in Italy" contains a whole programme. Given that, in the works of Cervetto (and of LC) in this period, we find no reference to the construction of the vanguard in other countries of the world we find ourselves asking: why only in Italy? Is it possible that the formation of the party that is to lead the world revolution of the international working class must arise only in Italy? But let's look more closely at the origin of this position, affirmed more than once by Cervetto and never contradicted by LC. Cervetto explains in his Theses of ‘57 that, "Given the current level of the world market, of which there are vast zones still in the early stage of capitalist construction (we are talking about 1957, our comment) the revolutionary problem of the advent of the socialist economy on an international scale, is not yet raised. (...). In order for these conditions to be realised concretely, the sectors of the backward economies (two-thirds of the world according to Cervetto, our comment) must all go beyond the first stage of industrialisation. (...) The problem of the socialist revolution at an international level will be placed practically on the agenda only when the economic development of the backward zones has reached a certain degree of autonomy and can no longer absorb the importation of goods and capital coming from the imperialist powers". "So the Communist Left must carry out its political action within the framework of an international evaluation". Where? In Italy of course, given that "the programme of action of the Communist Left" consists essentially of three points: to analyse the Italian situation, from which emerges "the tactic towards the PCI"[1] of "the struggle against the PCI leadership"; to "organise its own union current within the CGIL" and carrying out "negotiations with the anarchist comrades"; to "organise at a national level a series of groups that from a local base co-ordinate together at the level of the province and the region in order to form provincial and regional committees firmly tied to the centre".

We will not elaborate a critique of the megalomania contained in identifying the Communist Left with one's own group and even with one's own person, when the workers' movement has always seen it as ALL the currents and groups coming out of the 3rd International who defended the principles and method of Marxism against its degeneration and the betrayal of the old workers' parties.

The main point is that behind the mountain of words about the Leninist method, scientific analysis, the science of the revolution, etc, there is a complete absence of Marxist method and historic vision. It is amazing that in Cervetto's texts there is no reference whatsoever to how the question of the party has been dealt with within the workers' movement and what answers have been given in the various historic phases. If the Marxist method is to be used, as Lenin used it, the question of the party can only be addressed if situated within the economic and social context of the current historic period and referring to the experience of the workers' movement as it has matured during the various stages of the class struggle. Although the party is an indispensable factor for the revolutionary development of the class, it is also an expression of the real state of the latter at a given moment in its history and of the existing objective conditions.

To present capitalism at the end of the 60s as a system that has yet to fully develop its own potential, concluding that its overthrow is not on the agenda, shows a complete incomprehension of what capitalism is. The spread of the capitalist mode of production throughout the globe does not mean that every single corner of the earth must be industrialised. It means that the mechanisms of production and distribution of goods and the relations of production to which they give rise, govern the entire world economy. In particular capitalism cannot develop homogenously because the capitalist mode of production is based on competition. This means that at a certain stage in its development, once there is a consistent shrinking of the markets in which the surplus value contained in goods must be realised in order to be re-invested in new productive cycles, the development of the stronger national capitals can only take place at the expense of the weaker ones. As late as 1995 LC affirmed that "If throughout the 60s about two-thirds of the world's population was sunk into backwardness, today we estimate that this condition affects about a half of humanity". This is to confuse two completely different things. The economic collapse of entire countries (from the ex-Soviet Union to the famous ‘Asian tigers' and finally to Argentina), the dismantling of entire industrial zones in the advanced countries, the growing inability to integrate into the productive cycle a significant part of the labour force - all of which are effects of capitalism's senility because of its historic crisis - is taken to be an indication of adolescent growth.[2]

To return then to Cervetto's framework, we have to say that it is completely wrong on two levels. Firstly, because a party built on a national basis today would be unable to respond to the political needs of the moment. Secondly, because revolutionaries have striven towards the international dimension of their work from the beginning of the workers' movement. Let's look at the lessons provided by the history of our class.

In 1848 the Communist League was formed. This was the first real party of the modern proletariat and its slogan was "Workers of the world unite. Proletarians have no fatherland", which proclaimed its character as an international organisation. In 1864 there was formed the International Workers' Association, the 1st International, which was founded on the initiative of the workers of France and England and regrouped thousands of workers in the industrialised or developing countries, from America to Russia. Although both the proletariat and capitalism were in the midst of their period of evolution, the two political organisations of the class, while originating in specific countries, placed themselves immediately on an international level because as the Manifesto clearly explains, internationalism is not just a possibility for the working class which has no national interest to defend. It is also a necessity imposed by the nature of its revolutionary task. The struggle of Marx and the General Council within the 1st International against the federalist vision of the anarchists is based on this understanding.

The 2nd International was founded in 1889, in the midst of capitalist development, when reformism had a preponderant weight because the proletariat could struggle effectively to obtain real and lasting improvements in its living and working conditions. In this situation the International was essentially a federation of national parties fighting in their respective countries with different programmes at the level of parliamentarism, the unions, social reform, etc. The possibility of reformist policies not only determines the type of political organisation of the class (mass party) but effectively narrows the horizon of the proletarian struggle to the national framework, However even within the 2nd International, there was a minority, Rosa Luxemburg among them, who fought to see that the decisions taken by its congresses were implemented by the various parties in the respective countries.

From the very beginning of the workers' movement the international perspective has always been present within the various political organisations of the class. However, given the objective conditions of capitalist development and the numerical, political and social growth of the proletariat in this period, it was possible and necessary to form mass parties that acted at a national level to encourage this growth because the proletariat fought for the ten hour working day, for the vote, for the union, by confronting its own national bourgeoisie.

The 1st world war in 1914 and the explosion of the 1st international revolutionary wave, the high point of which was the proletarian revolution in Russia in '17, show the change in the historic phase of capitalist development. The system of capitalist production entered into its decadent phase and the epoch of war and revolution was opened up, which offered the alternative of communism or barbarism. The 3rd International (1919) was constituted around the fractions of the left minorities who came out of the 2nd International, including the Bolsheviks, and was based on the understanding that "A new epoch is born. An epoch of capitalist disintegration, of its internal collapse. The epoch of the communist revolution" (1st Congress). It firmly defended proletarian internationalism, conceived not as a federation of national parties, but as an international political organisation of the proletariat. Lenin himself, within the CI, fought against the idea of the ‘specificity' of each party that acted as a cover for opportunism and he defended against Luxemburg the need to constitute a world party even before communist parties had been consolidated or formed in each country. In spite of the difficulties presented to the revolutionary vanguard by the change in historic period, Lenin was able to carry out a struggle within Russian Social Democracy both prior to the formation of the CI and then within it, for the construction of an international and centralised party, which could speak with one voice to the proletariat of the whole world and give them clear political indications. This was because Lenin always began from an historic analysis and from the general and historic interests of the proletariat as a class, always bearing in mind what the workers' movement had already demonstrated and was then in the process of demonstrating.

It was on the basis of this understanding, defended during the counter-revolutionary period following the Second World War by revolutionary minorities such as Bilan and Internationalisme[3], that our organisation was formed in 1975 at an international level. It carried out an activity of confrontation and regroupment between various groups and nuclei of comrades who had emerged in France, Great Britain, Italy, USA and Spain following the wave of international struggles at the end of the 60s. Today the ICC is present in 13 countries and is able to intervene simultaneously towards the working class in these countries and wherever else it is possible to reach, because it starts from the conviction that the international framework is the departure point for national activity rather than being the result of the latter. For this reason it created an international central organ from the beginning in order to centralise its activity and speak with a single voice anywhere and at any time.

In this first article we have seen how the vision of the party defended by Cervetto completely departs from the international dimension and, by restricting  itself to the national framework, it lends itself to a 19th century vision of the party which is inadequate to the demands of the revolutionary struggle. 

Eva 1/12/5

see also

The conception of the Party held by Cervetto and Lotta Comunista (part two) [19]

The conception of the Party held by Cervetto and Lotta Comunista (Part three) [20]

---

[1] Italian Communist Party (the old Stalinist Party), the dissolution of which produced: Rifondazione Comunista of Bertinotti, Fassino's Democratici di sinistra and the Partito dei comunisti italiani of Cossutta and Diliberto.

[2] For an analysis of the various historic phases of capitalism and the political consequences coming out of them, see our pamphlet, "The Decadence of Capitalism [21]". Numerous articles on the manifestation of the economic crisis of capitalism are to be found on our internet site in various languages.

[3] The comrades of the Left Fraction of the PCI in France, who published Bilan and those who published Internationalisme knew how to protect and develop the political legacy of the old revolutionary parties, so enabling future generations to bind themselves to this r ed thread.