Sep 01

Part one

The power of scientific communism in step–by–step criticizing the growing social phenomenon of counter revolutionary classes, determination of short term and long term policies in struggles against enemies in according theory with practice and to develop the problems of communist/ social/worker revolution vis-à-vis new specific and clear global contradictions.

For this reason, scientific communism with any dogmatic view: Anarchist, Economist, opportunist, collaborationist proletarian class struggle, etc. has been combated. These deviant views have never been able to contribute in advancing the revolutionary struggles of the working class globally and only in rhetoric of ultra-left and right, except disrupting the progress of workers’ struggles, including the leadership of the communist party do not have flashy militant dossier and conversely inflected lot of harms to the struggles of the working class in which we proceed with brief review of them.

In the decade of 1900-1910 the number of left and right opportunist organizations with outline of the stage of the fulfilment of democratic and socialist revolution in feudal-imperialist Russia under Tsarist tyranny rule of monarchy, under the leadership of proletariat with incorrect perception of assessment of the ability of the organized forces of the working class in unity with the peasantry had an capitulation approach regarding the stage of the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia under the leadership of its bourgeoisie. They openly attacked Russian social Democratic Worker’s Party (Bolshevik Party led by Lenin) for the working-class participation in bourgeois democratic revolution and attracting vast masses of peasantry as an ally and creation of revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants. By calling or perceiving peasants who formed the majority of Russians, none-revolutionary, they opposed Lenin’s correct analysis of the need for unity of workers with peasants to end the exploitation and oppression by feudalism to create favourable conditions for preparation of transition to socialist revolution.

Lenin in Note 1 of “Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution” stated: “By the Party’s tactics we mean the Party’s political conduct, or the character, the policy and methods of its political activity. Tactical resolutions are adopted by Party congresses in order precisely to define the political conduct of the Party as a whole with regard to new tasks, or in view of a new political situation. Such revolution that has started in Russia has been created a new situation. …, the complete, resolute and open rupture between the overwhelming majority of the people and the tsarist government. The new question concerns the practical methods to be adopted in convening a genuinely popular and genuinely constituent assembly (the theoretical question concerning such an assembly was officially settled by Social-Democracy long ago, before all other parties, in its Party program). Since the people have broken with the government, and the masses realize the necessity of setting up a new order, the party which set itself

the object of overthrowing the government must (necessarily consider what government to put up in place of the old, deposed government. question concerning a provisional revolutionary government arises. In order to give a complete answer to this question the Party of the class-conscious proletariat must make clear: 1) of a provisional revolutionary government in the revolution that is now going on and in the entire struggle of the proletariat in general; 2) its towards a provisional revolutionary government; 3) the precise conditions of participation in this government; 4) the conditions under which pressure is to be brought to bear on this government, i.e., in the event of there being no Social-Democrats in it. Only after all these questions are made clear, will the political conduct of the Party in this sphere be principled, clear and firm.”

Then, Lenin pointed out to the resolution on a provisional revolutionary government in the Third Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, iterates how to solve these problems, and wrote:

Our task is now to show proletariat and all the people that the slogan “Revolution” is not enough and the real content of the revolution must be defined clearly, explicit, consistent and definitive. But, this definition includes the only slogan that can properly express the “decisive victory” of the revolution and that – is “the slogan of revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry “. (in note 2 of this book)

The history of the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the Communist parties in the first half of the twentieth century clarified the authenticity of policy by attracting peasants to militant union under the leadership of the proletariat in implementation of democratic revolution that took place new quality from this revolution in the interest of the proletariat, the ground for this transition to a socialist revolution were provided.

In this move,one part of the bourgeoisie which were among opposing absolute monarchy, feudal ownership and imperialist interference in some of these countries were in the stage of bourgeois democratic revolution. Revolutionary communist parties with adoption of Temporary and accurate tactical policy prevented this section of bourgeoisie to join the rank of the rulers and imperialism in this stage of bourgeois democratic revolution. In this situation by witnessing the independent participation of heroic struggle of the workers and peasants against counter- revolution and no longer had hope of this militant force under its rule, had no other choice but to join in a political alliance with the Communist party’s front.

The condition of the united front was consisted of: no war with each other, acceptance of advancing of the independent struggles of the forces of this front and absence of dependence on each other, and if this bourgeoisie violates in belligerency to the interest of workers and toilers would be fiercely reprimanded and not final and the emphasis on the fight against the ruling bourgeoisie. In this manner, they temporarily formed a political union.

After the victory of this revolution, matter of transition to socialist revolution which naturally in struggle with this section of remaining bourgeoisie was carried forward, they established the power of socialist workers’ state. Defenders of Trotsky’s views (positions) within the communist party amongst in China were demanding to by-pass bourgeois democratic revolution and instead were pushing to implement socialist revolution by urban revolt. At that time, the working class in China constituted only 3% of the population and 80% of China’s population were peasants and feudal relations were prevalent. This leftist view of urban workers’ uprising not only faced with severe defeat, but the leading supporters of this view surrendered to Chiang Kai-shek, the counter revolutionary leader!

But, under the above conditions where 10 million peasants of Yenan’s region had waged fierce fighting to over throw feudalists was an instructive lessens which the Chines communist party leadership by analyzing the concentration power of the ruling counter-revolutionary in the cities and the existence of vast agrarian regions with rulers’ weak link, pursued the pass of long term armed struggle through the creation of liberated bases from the feudal domination and ultimately surrounding the cities and acquisition of power. This accurate analysis from the existing objective conditions brought about brilliant victory for ending the New Democratic Revolution under the leadership of the working class after 22 years armed struggle and finally transition to socialism. While all the passive and Loquacious left and right have not taken even a smallest step in helping the worker’s revolution and the liberation of peasants and other toilers and surrendered to the reactionary rulers.

Another example is that, Marx and Engels concerning readiness of the evolutionary conditions in advanced capitalist societies where outbreak of proletarian revolution was recognized to be appropriate. However, with the development of capitalist system some of this system made transition from the free competition stage to monopolistic competition in the last quarter of 19th century and early 20th century, this transition became imperialist stage and dominance of rival monopolies, intensification of contradictions between imperialist countries and the creation of imperialist rivalry in spread of world plunder, for the re-division of regions under their influence, the creation of weak links under the dominants of imperialists and the outbreak of imperialist world wars were analyzed by Lenin and the possibility of breaking up of these weak links were created. In such circumstances, the victory of the anti-capitalist revolution, under the leadership of the working class and the Revolutionary Communist Party amongst in feudal Russia-imperialist was created and the centers of world revolution was transferred from the western imperialist countries (drowned in the struggles of the reformist worker movements) to the backward countries including in eastern Europe and Asia.

History of the movement of world revolution puts the seal of approval on the accurate analysis of Lenin in newly created conditions. But, the social democratic parties, the so called “defender” of Marx and Engels’s views in deceiving the working

class of the imperialist countries, changing its nature to reformist parties were unable to recognize the changes of new conditions of world contradictions and even instead of defending the workers’ revolution in Russia in October 1917 under the leadership of Soviet Communist Party, in the guise of democracy under the leadership of Kautsky, they started condemning it as a “coup” and not revolutionary, and also supported imperialist war of their own country in World War I and with participation of imperialist countries, the social democratic parties were transformed in to social-imperialism that still exist in this context.

Despite all the victories of the democratic and socialist revolutions under the leadership of the working class in the past, today Iranian Trotskyists and quasi-Trotskyists, they reject the two stage revolution under the leadership of the working class in the semi-feudal countries and in the same way which anarchists uninterruptedly defended the immediate abolition of the state after the victory of workers’ revolution, they also do not tolerate single stage socialist revolution in all countries even if underdeveloped, with a leap from semi-feudal to socialism, ending the democratic tasks by dismantling feudal system under the leadership of proletariat. This anti-materialistic – dialectical narrow- minded and deviation from scientific communism and the perception of class contradictions of these societies from the stage of the democratic revolution in Iran in the past (from 1921 onwards) before the rule of capitalism (from the decade of 1961 onwards), struck a heavy defeat to the young communist party of Iran in which the feudal relations were dominant at that time in Iran.

From the 1940s decade onwards, the leadership of Tudeh Party of Iran with its social democratic nature in struggle against the direct intervention of the imperialists in struggle against imperialism followed the national bourgeoisie which even continued during the revolution of 1979, this party continued following the religious clergies. Naturally, at the stage of the rule of capitalism in the 1970s and later, and in particular the rise of the February 1979 revolution, in the incense of a leading communist party and guidance of the struggle against the royal system even fulfilling the remnants of democratic task and the transition to socialism was also depended on the organization of the working class in terms of political, party line and demands, were not done. The intermediate bourgeoisie faction in collaboration with petite-bourgeoisie (instead of big bourgeoisie) colluded with imperialism under the religious banner and seized the state power and then, started suppressing worker’s movement and spread fascist aggression.

In addition to the historical deviations, after the 1979 revolution, Mansour Hekmat by raising the banner of opportunism and left revisionism with the scheme of quasi Trotskyist views were more successful than Trotskyists in destroying communist and workers’ positions and in this manner, proceeded to reject communist principled issues:

The rejection of “ learning from the masses and teaching the masses “ with labeling “ populist outlook, made it possible to isolate Kumeleh, revolutionary toiler organization in Kurdistan from enjoying bondage and credibility among the peasantry of Kurdistan; propounding the elite omnipotence of the leadership of the masses, without proving their qualification in leading the masses resulted in the confusion of the ideologues and finally lead in to splits within the communist party in to various factions; propagating the split by repressing Democratic Centralism within the recently founded Communist Party of Iran and advancing unhealthy ideological struggle within the party; dismantling the newly formed party which as Shahrokh Zamani (worker communist activist executed in prison en Iran) believes, by the gimmick of “worker, working out”, fascinated the intellectuals to himself; The economistic vision of the dictatorship of the proletariat, with the scheme of its temporariness, after the acquisition of political power, and then the rise of the advance of the socialist economy which, contrary to Marx’s teaching explicitly categorized this topic of the historical period of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat in the Critique of the Gotha Program; plan of ultra-class democracy, “ the unconditional political and organizational freedom ”, which are now “ highly proactive positions “ and prevalent language of the many “leftist”, including “Left and Communist Party Cooperation Council “ and all of this is vis-à-vis unconditional freedom and constraint defending socialism against the conspiracy to overthrow the remaining of capitalism and The petty-bourgeois strata; elimination of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism from their theoretical propaganda in publications based on the anti-dialectical view, is denial of the various stages of the development of the bourgeoisie in the last period of its life; injecting their crowd’s false claim of “ History of invincible ones “, while under his direction, before his “ Communist Party “ even raises its flag, by his own hands divided the party in to different sects which in reality had anti-critical view to activities, ideologies, and their correction based on “ self-criticism “; denial of the existence of national struggles, negation of the genius of nationality and nationalist movements and tactically being silence about the existence of Kurdish national movement which they were once active within it; justifying the gaining of power through coup with only few thousand party members rather than emphasizing on the revolution which is a matter of millions of masses under the leadership of the communist party; the negation of the achievements of the working class and the Soviet Communist Party in building socialism and defending leadership’s essential changed of this party, instead of realizing the existence of class struggle within the party with perverted Trotskyists, they defend the perverted leaders); the rejection of the creation of the worker’s syndicates based on their bourgeois nature and the creation of workers’ councils under all conditions of struggle; and other views that have been penetrated in the labour movement, have created sun an aura in the left-wing opportunist rhetoric, especially among intellectuals oriented toward communism which justified sectarianism among them.

With his quasi Trotskyist learning they brought from abroad to Iran, he succeeded in deflecting the Revolutionary Organization of Kurdistan’s toiling masses- Kumeleh as a so called “The Communist Party of Iran “, create the unity between Kumeleh and Ettehade Mobarezan and destroy the party??!

In addition to left-wing revisionism, which continued with the banner of “Hekmatism” of the aforementioned deviations, the right revisionism of the “ Worker’s Way “Jelly alliance of communists and leftist” in front unity type also in triggering the “ Organizational Pluralism “, instead if raising the banner of principled unity, fundamental points of, program and tactics for the creation of the communist party in Iran, they propagate the triviality of the dictatorship of the Proletariat which “ascribed only two or three times by Marx,” and this type of highly non-responsible approach to the nature of the necessity and exertion of the dictatorship of the class states, even though by the working class and creating doubts in Marx’s teachings, perturbing the role of the Manifesto of the Communist Party propelled its propaganda by reliance on the Communist Manifesto; political pluralism and stamping on the none necessity of the creation of the Communist Party, fomenting sectarianism by this organization is part of their other deviations which arise from their none-proletarian position.

These left and right opportunists and left and right revisionists are the extenders of historical revisionism in the postmodern stage. The scheme of “Human Revolution “is part of the outbreaks of class distortion of the worker’s revolution and not of all human beings is the final deviations of the working-opportunist workers! It is the expression of other revisionist deviations in rejecting of the necessity for the creation of a communist party and in contrast, proposal of workers’ council by Mohsen Hakimi as an alternative; The emphasis on the lasting political alliance of the communists and the lefts by the leadership of the “ Organization of Fadaei Aghalliat “ which induces the policy of stagnation over time; Forming poles with the communists and leftists by the leadership of the Communist Party of Iran; Or, more precisely, all the organizations of “ The cooperation Council of the Communists and Left forces “ are not only raising the banner of the creation of a single party in Iran, but also at the level of the communists of the world reduced to forming block of communists and left-wing eclecticism and practically abandoned the leading center of the revolutionary workers’ communist party, which is actually indorsed by the enemies of the working class; The decline in the role of the working class as a result of the growth of industrial technology by organizations, is another set of major postmodern deviations of major anti-scientific communism have infiltrated Iran’s conscious labour movement which is seriously even the cause of the existence of a capitalist society due to the exploitation of the hard/mental work. And even the existence of great global producing and service crew power is denied.

Eliminating these divergent views is of great importance in arming the Iranian working class in the creation of its revolutionary communist party. Ignoring this conscious struggle against reformism, economism, opportunism, sectarianism, liquidationism, fomenting theoretical/practical/organizational dispersion, being remained in the sinister circle without deep ideological criticism of these deviations, advancement would not be achieved. This situation has progressed to the extent that the critical encounter of diversionary views, even manifest itself in hostility which reflects the deep degree of petite-bourgeoisie views in existing organizations. Whereas, after decades of dispersion and sectarianism, critique of views without material and practical basis can bring qualitative change in the growth of communist movement armed with revolutionary theory and practice and rejection of sects.

The interpretation and presentation of the last three to four decades about different stages of deviations, is merely to attract the attention of the communist comrades, and especially among the workers of the communist activists, to the critical approach (and exposing) of the new postmodern deviant ideas in opposition to attract of communist comrades and specially worker communist activist to criticize and disclose new deviationist postmodern views that are opposing scientific communism teachings by unfounded “innovations”, and there is a vital necessity for the theoretical coherence and dialectical practice in the communist and worker’s movement in Iran. Below we will point out to some of the existing failures whether in class analysis of capitalist system or the need for adoption of sharp-sighted revolutionary tactics, perceiving dialectical twist and turns of struggle and not just “one- sidedness!”, till in the new situations, distinctive queues between the forces of revolution and counterrevolution, and the specific current revolutionary policies are precisely determined and serious communists within these sectarian organizations start contemplating:

Part II

*– The existing deviations stems from the recognition of capitalist system as a material phenomenon in motion and its uneven development in all countries:

It is imperative to pay attention to these common features of national and international capitalists:

1 – To be the exploiter, oppressor and the main enemy of the working class;

2 – Hard-line internal and external rivalry of capitalism in dominating position for raw materials, cheap labour force and world markets;

3 – Material phenomena in motion, birth, growth, and maturity with specific characteristics at each stage;

4 – The working class is the gravedigger of the capitalist system;

5 – The need to take tactical steps and specific strategies of the working class struggles against this system;

6 – Disregarding these specifications, means being passive in changing the world.

To be content oneself and to pretend because of the exploitative and tyrannical nature of capitalist systems in all countries, there is no difference between them, to forget the internal and external rivalry between capitalists and between imperialist countries in expanding regions under influence to the level of global, regional and vicarious wars!

Thus, when the proletariat has the program of the workers’ revolution, the practical stage and advancement of the class struggle on the basis of precise revolutionary proletarian tactics is necessary in any given circumstances, and the absence of these tactics is an unforgivable foolishness. Historically, especially in the last two centuries, it was being governed by some feudal states. But, if a faction of the bourgeoisie of such country in the past times wanted to abolish the feudal system and disrupt the imperialist intervention for the sake of independence from imperialism, it was solely because of its own interests, and another faction of the bourgeoisie that is dependent on imperialism and in alliance with feudalists, the working class in spite of not being in majority in the society, but being armed with a revolutionary communist party, could it be possible to win the struggle of the working class in such a country without considering the existence of temporary contradictions among capitalists, separation of the main and minor enemy in its struggle? Or, temporarily – if necessary – with a sector of bourgeoisie in its struggle against feudal – compradors’ rulers, the working class party for its victory in the first step against the main enemies, must form a political united front with the quality of independence and without dependency and at the same time non-aggression toward each other, the working class becomes powerful in advancing and leading the new Democratic Stage of Revolution, or say that it does not relate to me because of the bourgeois nature of the revolution? Surrendering to the achievements of the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution in abolishing

feudalism and disruption of imperialist intervention by the faction, called national bourgeoisie, temporarily losing the consolidation of the unity of the working class with the peasantry and usurpation of political power has other meaning? Even today, if a country is facing with this level of growth, ceasing the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution by the working class with the quality of New Democracy under the leadership of the working class can be conceived.

Otherwise, guidance and direction of this revolution will be given on the silver platter by the working class to the “anti-feudal and anti-imperialist” national bourgeoisie (which its antagonism to imperialism is solely because of its own interests and not basic contradiction with compradors’ capitalists and imperialism), which after being placed in power will act unstable and not pursuing in struggle against feudalism and imperialism. While, in practice, the working class, by uniting itself with the enormous power of the peasants, have gained an independent force in this struggle, and with the initiative, it will prevent the power to fall in the hands of bourgeoisie? Refusal from this revolutionary tactic is foolish act. The history and compilation of scientific communism gave a positive answer to this frontal alliance, and the new democratic revolutions under the leadership of the working class followed the victory took positive step in the realization of socialism.

Of course, in a country where the bourgeoisie has gained state power and capital relations, despite the remnants of the feudal system, such as the role of religious forces in power, solving the elimination of the interference of religion in government, the oppression of women and nationalities, etc. Only within the framework of the stage of the socialist revolution, immediately after the victory of the workers’ revolution will be solved. In these countries, there is no other national bourgeoisie in which many historically conceive the conflict of interests between national bourgeoisie and domestic bourgeoisie as being the same. But, even in this field, they bring up different buts and ifs: Trotskyists don’t believe the victory of the revolution in one country, but they depend- it on a permanent global revolution in other countries. That is, the idea of a possible revolution in one country and instead the beginning of fulfilling the tasks of socialism in one country, exportation of a “permanent” revolution by this country itself transforms it in to impossibility. Is it difficult to understand that the revolutionary situation, due to the uneven growth of different contradictions and the absence of the emergence of a revolutionary crisis in one time in many countries, is the empty promise of giving workers time to gain power in several countries, which in practice is not even capable of continuing the revolution in their own country which is the result of ultra-legist rhetoric which has no objectivity in the history of the working class and has not even gained victory in several countries neither. But the workers’ revolution has been realized in a country!!

Even today, there are three tactics of struggle against the proletariat to gain power in the third world capitalist countries:

1 – The overthrow of the ruling bourgeoisie through the worker’s revolution;

2 – In the event of imperialist military intervention to overthrow the ruling bourgeoisie class and transforming that country into a postmodern colony, the resistance of the domestic ruling bourgeoisie against this imperialist aggression in preserving its sovereignty;

3 – The domestic ruling bourgeoisie, in the wake of its weakness accepts not to suppress the communist organizations and the working-class claims, and calls upon the working class to fight against the invasion of imperialism. What should be the tactics of the working-class revolutionary Communist Party in such situations?

In the first case, the task of overthrowing the ruling bourgeoisie is clear and uniting with the vast sectors of the toiling masses is the priority of the working-class party. In the second case, if the ruling system in this country in its defense of its rule opposes imperialist intervention, at the request of the Communist Party, to prevent an independent struggle of the working class, the working class must fight both the domestic bourgeoisie and the expulsion of imperialism assault for advancing the growth of the workers’ revolution. Not by saying that this is “the battle between the Tigers” and has nothing to do with us, stay passive until one of the tigers win the war and then exacerbate of the workers and toilers. In the third case, the working-class struggles provided having the right to organize politically and organize for their claims and refrain from being temporarily suppressed, without having to go under the bourgeois leadership in the struggle against imperialism, independently liberate some regions and at those moments do not start civil war against the ruling bourgeoisie and somehow, does not go along with the imperialists in their domination in the country to build up areas with reliance on its armed forces and under its own leadership and to continue the struggle against imperialist aggression and transform itself to a power that is backed up by the masses of the people. After the 1979 Revolution in Iran, the Kurdish mass movement was a quintessential which right after the beginning of the Iranian regime’s early stages of the war with Iraqi regime and the help of the imperialists, a large part of Kurdistan – in the absence of the communist party – was liberated by the militant Kurds, But with the deviations of the Kurdish political forces by alliance with Iraqi regime, all the liberated areas were lost, and the ruling counter-revolution also refused to cease fire with Iraq, and in other parts of Iran, during this destructive war, the working class did not achieve specific liberation struggles.

If we look at the current war in Syria, the left-wing organizations opposing the ruling Syria’s regime, instead of exposing and fighting against forces relying on other reactionary governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, and the intervention of the imperialists, are fighting alongside of these enemies against Assad regime. After 6 to 7 years, the Syrian civil war continues with more than one million people dead and disabled, 7 million displaced people and massive ruin and misery of the masses of the people? The absence of clear tactics of the Syrian working class and its organizations, the initiative instead of falling into the hands of the revolutionary working class in advancing the revolution, the initiative has fallen into the hands of domestic and international reactionary forces, and the working class failed to benefit from the mass movement against the ruling regime to consolidate its revolutionary position.

In all of these analysis, the struggles of the working class, along with adopting revolutionary tactics, independent political presumptive compromises progress from ruling bourgeoisie of the country and not emulating it. The greatest art of the working-class party is to find subtle tactics of the decisive struggle to overthrow the capitalist system, and to seize power in these countries, rather than remain passive in these wars and to become spectator of foreign and domestic warfare which means nothing but, economistic perception of the class struggle of the working class against bourgeoisie and reducing the sharp revolutionary dialectics to the level of rigidity – similar to the imperialist wars that are aimed at expanding its sphere of influence in the world – and in this respect, it remains meaningless as Don Quixote and does not serve the growth of the workers’ revolution and even with the bludgeon of the rulers they become cannon fodder.

Thus, if in the imperialist state, the class struggle of the working class is mainly to overthrow this system; but in the third world countries, due to imperialist intervention and the influence of petite-bourgeois and bourgeoise’s compromising policies, the left political organizations and even in the arena of working class demands reduces the role of the leading militant working class to the level of reformism and in this manner intrigue and prevent the rise of the revolutionary struggles of the working class in these countries.

In Iran, due to the increased risk of direct military intervention of imperialism, in Iran, in an effort to create an imperialist puppet state, the working-class struggle to overthrow the capitalist system in Iran, is at the same time, the struggle against interventionist imperialism which for the creation of defending working-class basis actively function. What is already being said in Iran by the left compromising organizations of the ruling bourgeoisie justifies the false claim of being “anti-imperialist” by the rulers and to follow them. The other petite-bourgeois and bourgeois organizations, in effect, they yield to capitulation to imperialism. An example of yielding to domestic bourgeoisie and to US imperialism by the petite-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie forces – like Mujahedeen, Monarchists, Nationalists with the help of the imperialists – is serious warnings so that the working class does not go under any of these propagandas and independently organize its liberating activities. National liberation of oppressed nationalities is possible only today by the proletariat in the multinational capitalist countries, and not by the bourgeoisie of any nationality, in which the abusive situation in Iraqi Kurdistan represents this fact that the national liberty of every nationality is solely dependent on the leadership of the working class of the different nations in each country.

Summarize: the acceptance of this historic fact in the revolutions of the past under the leadership of the working class shows the truth of the conclusions of scientific communism, which neither had illusion about bourgeois nature of the capitalist class, nor had ever recommended a permanent unity or being under the hegemony of the national or imperialist bourgeoisie. But, the experience of follower of the right-wing opportunists, from the factions of the bourgeoisie of Iran, the vision of the left opportunist is in paying the atonement of the sins of right opportunism, has opened a vast space among the left organizations to oppose the scientific communism about anti- imperialism. While specific analysis of the specific conditions through composing of scientific communism in each country is the essence of achieving proletarian policies.

Thus, by adopting specific stages of capitalist development, the stage of socialist revolution in Iran, the adoption of the principled tactical struggles and the revolutionary policies of the proletariat about the unity of the workers and the toiling masses, is the key to achieving the strategy of the revolutionary struggle, and all the forces that do not believe in these existing distinctions of the periphery capitalist and imperialist stage, must be considered as the accomplices of today’s postmodern revisionist deviations.

This discussion is not merely as an imaginary scene. If imperialist armed intervention takes place in Iran, or if a faction of the bourgeoisie of Iran, such as the monarchists and the “nationalist” organizations, side with imperialism against the present rulers to seek power, and by “die hardly” inviting workers and toiles to be recruited for wide spread strike and to draw them to their own, they set the stage out of the opportunity to jump to power and want to create a new illusion among the revolutionaries and the workers so that a number of left forces or workers to follow the ruling bourgeoisie or monarchists, just as it occurred in 1979 Iranian revolution which renegade clique of the clergies usurped power. Historical comedy being repeated to the benefits of monarchists and “nationalists”, will make another disgrace on the forehead of the capon communists who lack a clear analysis of the current situations and hoe to adopt its correct independent tactics against the reactionary bourgeois forces or remain in the opposition and in the avoidance of attempts to establish a revolutionary communist party in Iran, become obstacle for being at the head of workers and toilers unity and consequently strike another blow to the interests of the workers.

* – Anti-dialectical perception of the phenomenon of the evolution of the capitalist system:

We are now witnessing that the imperialist system has imposed the dominant barbarism on the world stage in the realization of the “new world order” and the “free world market” by force and bullying and relying on destructive invading armies. As an example, US imperialism around the world has created more than hundreds of military bases to suppress any popular opposition in major strategic areas, NATO also as an invading imperialist military alliance of some of these countries are training for the suppression of the governments of the countries to preserve imperialist domination. We are witnessing that, in full imperialist domination, including the most important economic and strategic areas in Africa, the Middle East, East Asia, and Latin America, the barbarian wars are imposed on the people, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displacing Hundreds of millions of children up to elderly, to flee from battlefields in order to proceed to conquer and plunder the world.

By ignoring these facts, some people claim that “the ruling system of the world is capitalist”? And in the realization of the globalization of capital, this system has become global and Conflict of the interests of the capitalist countries which stems from the fundamental competition of the capitalist system, they draw it to unquestionable non-materialist one sidedness. While refusing to determine the role of major and non-major of each of the capitalist systems, in domination of the world. They are adhering to the one-sidedness and obvious of the following poem: “Sabzevar’s (Iranian city) felt is wool – under the eyebrows of the people are eyes. What is running in the stream is water – who is not awaken, is in sleep” which from wool both felt and carpet is made in which they imagine that felt which is non-coherent and carpet being durable to them is identical. Also, human eye interim seeing has traits that not all the eyes are identical etc. The important thing today is to determine the real role of the imperialist rule in the world and not to put the Somali bourgeoisie, Eritrea and Yemen in a row with the imperialists in the sovereignty of the world!! This does not mean for instance, the bourgeoisies of these countries to be perceived to be progressive. The expression of “sovereignty of all bourgeoisie together” or, “all the same ruling the world” indicates a one-sided view of the existing objective reality. This vision or point of view is “seeing the tree and not seeing the forest” which does not find a descent crystallization in showing political forces and the people the exact knowledge of the powerful global enemy and

the global plundering nature of imperialism along with the reactionary status of perimeter capitalism, and does not see any distinction between the battle among two imperial capitalism and the third world capitalism which the struggle against both principal and non-principal enemies is necessary condition in different moments. If today, for example, the imperialists attacked Somalia and made this country a post-modern colony, some will say that since the imperialists are more advanced than the reactionary Somali bourgeoisie, they must surrender with the white flag to the thrill of the imperialist aggressor army. This position is indeed treacherous position, not surrender to the world’s most atrocious capitalist.

Thus, by adopting the various stages of the development and development of the capitalist system from the free competition stage to the stage of the monopoly competition of the imperialist system, and the evolution of imperialism to the final stage of the modern world order and neoliberalism in order to create the postmodern colonialism of the world, interim firmly taking the quest for the victory of the workers’ revolution, must not diminish the bulk of imperialism as the enemy of the global working class which is a type of view point that negates scientific communism that has been analyzed from the evolution of the capitalist system. Non-acceptance of this modern revisionist deviation, which is propounded by a part of the left-wing opportunists, the right-wing opportunist in justifying that the so called “anti-imperialist” being the rulers in the backward countries, in emulating from the ruling bourgeoisie of the country, they will crash and other opportunists, negate the category of the anti-imperialist struggle. While the exact recognition of the nature of each capitalist tact is the adoption of precise revolutionary tactics, not emulating from the national bourgeoisie or imperialism, but a struggle to overthrow the domination of internal bourgeoisie and driving out imperialist aggressors. The communists must criticize these two revisionist deviations.

*- The nature of the global capitalist system depends on the exploitation of the working class. The denial of the disappearance of the working-class due to the growth of the technique and the advanced automatic production and tool, is to deny capitalism in the world:

If we look at the history of the evolution of the capitalist system, even in the 19th century, claims were made that, with the expansion of more use of the machine, these auto-recourse tools of work force became alive, and the role of workers in generating surplus value was shrinking.

Marx thoroughly dismissed this theory, including in Grundrisse, the Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, 1859 (Vol. II, p.?), and Capital, vol. I emphasized the continuation of the capitalist system relying on the exploitation of labour force. Which creates surplus value. He proved that the role of manufacturing machines as a consuming value in part of the capital:

“The machine is circulating, only potentially is fixed capital. Yes, this distinction between fixed capital and working capital, which relies first on the relationship between the material existence of capital, or its accessible presence and its present value as consumption, must be restored in the form of capital production in the form of twofold capital Fixed income and working capital are also be proven. Since the re-production of capital, in any form, is not only the realization of the objective time of work, but also the re-production of a surplus value, then the production of fixed capital cannot, in this sense, differ in the production of working capital. Thus, the maker of tools

or machinery – in all its forms, in which the fixed capital in its material form, in its objective existence as a use value, before transforming to capital in circulation, it is first in circulation before it is consumed, – There is absolutely no difference in the way in which capital is realized, no matter whether it is in the form of fixed capital being reproduced or in the form of working capital. For this reason, economically, there is no new setup here. But when fixed capital, by the same token, and not initially as working capital, inters in its circulation by its producer, and as a result, when its subtle consumption, whether for production or for consumption, is sold, It turns out – in the first instance of the circulation of capital and the conversion of commodities into money, it does not matter from the seller’s point of view that the commodity in its turn enters into the field of productive capital or that it inters directly into consumption, because in his view , The commodity that is separated from him and exchanged with money is always more of a certain consumption value … ”

After 158 years of this Marx’s analysis, today not only the number of workers in the expansion production has not diminished, but workers over one billion – in China and India – have transformed to the greatest growth of machinery in advanced capitalist countries. And even in the capitalist countries, the productive role of the working class has not gone down in any way, and imperialism has not diminished the commercial venture, and, in addition to the indigenous worker, has brought the cheap global work force to the labour market.

Now, in addition to the 200-year history of machine-building, robotism, by engaging robots in the “automated” mode of production, on the one hand, at the same time, the diversified expansion of production by workers and the transfer of monopoly capital to the level of global monopolies, on the other hand, is advertised in a deviant form. The direct agents of the imperialists, with a distorted perception of the evolution of the imperialist system, are struggling so hard to dismiss the teachings of scientific communism and saying that the role of the working class as the most conscious class in the world has ended, and by serving the continuation of the capitalist system, entangled themselves in an endless crisis.

Postmodern revisionism in this context should also be exposed as modern revisionist in power and ancient revisionist who seek to sanctify or purify the imperialist system.( James Petras in the article “Artificial Intelligence is the Source of Capital Income”: Frankenstein or the Capitalist Money Machine Introduction Special Report of the Financial Times, February 16, 2017), on ” The use and potential risks associated with artificial intelligence has been published. “, Contrary to ordinary mercenary journalists who serve as editor-in-chief and political pillars as Washington speaker, he writes:

The writer, Richard Walters, cites several major problems accompanying AI from ‘public anxieties, to inequalities and job insecurity’. Walters pleads with those he calls the ‘controllers of autonomous systems’ to heed social and ‘political frictions’ or face societal ‘disruption’. Experts and journalists, discussing the long-term, large-scale destruction of the working class and service jobs, claim that AI can be ameliorated through management and social engineering. This essay will proceed to raise fundamental issues, questions leading to an alternative approach to AI relying on class analysis. We will reject the specter of AI as a ‘Frankenstein’ by identifying the social forces, which finance, design and direct AI and which benefit from its negative social impact. The best and the worst of the experts reporting on AI assert that it is an autonomous system, devoid of any link to the class structure within which it operates. Their version of technological determinism, above and beyond the needs and demands of capitalists, has fits neatly with the corporate ideology of the trash journalists and pundits. The fundamental questions that must be raised include: 1) ‘AI’, for whom? 2) How are the productivity gains of AI to be distributed between capital and labour? 3) How are work time, income and pensions distributed between the owners of technology and the labour force? And 4) What kinds of socio-economic activity does AI serve? ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and related technological innovations are financed, designed, controlled and ultimately applied by the major corporations and financial institutions in order to reduce the cost of labour and to enhance profits and competitiveness between capitalist rivals. AI and similar capitalist technological changes, along with the overseas relocation of information technology and manufacturing production are the principal destroyers of workers’ employment and living standards in the US. AI technology, alongside vast spending for imperial wars and military procurement, multi-billion-dollar bank-bailouts and the promotion of finance-over-productive capital represent the forces driving down wages, salaries, living standards, pensions and, lately, life expectancy for the marginalized working class and rural population….far from being ‘autonomous’ and subject to abstract ‘controllers’, AI, IT and high technology serve to concentrate wealth, power and profits for multiple sectors of the ruling class who determine how such technologies will be used.”

In view of the issues raised in this article, we are calling upon all the organizations, loyal to scientific communism not to underestimate to the deviant views of departing from the revolutionary theory of the working class and seriously combat with any new outbreak of these deviant views on the denial of imperialism and the rejection of the views of scientific communism and thus play a worthy role in servicing this revolutionary theory in the creation of the revolutionary Communist Party of Iran.

K.Abraham -7 april 2017 (18 farvardin 1396)

written by admin

Mai 05

Scrutiny and profound knowledge and the causes of the phenomenon of birth, growth, adolescence, maturity, old age and finally reaching the final period of oldness evolution of capitalism is inevitable. Imperialism is the last stage of its old life and to prevent the collapse of capitalism that has reached the stage of barbarism and tries desperately to survive. Without distinction of fundamental factors of evolutionary movement of persistence existence of this system and its keeping up, the positions of political, institutional, military and its operations, as factors of non-essential and server to its mobility and viability are of its fundamental factors. Non-essential factors that determine the evolution of this system are not part of creating the right conditions for fundamental factors. But, lack of distinction of the place of these factors, our understanding of the evolution of this phenomenon and its historical limitation will be unsuccessful.

The birth of capitalist system and the creation of capitalist class with the transition of manufacturing period, and making use of production tool based on machinery means of industry by the second half of the 18th century, large manufacturing production plants due to mass production with concentration of workers gradually took over the workshops. Since then, the working class in England in opposition to capitalist class came into existence.

With the discovery of the means of production with the help of machineries and only the large work force, establishing the exchange of commodities, especially with the transition to capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, the usurpation of power by the advance European capitalist exploiter countries and capitalist competing vendors soared. With the gradual elimination of feudal relations of production supremacy, capitalist productivity relation, based on two determination factors below, were established:

The process of immediate production of capital is consisted of labour process and surplus-value process, is the process that results in the product- commodity and its determining motive is the production of surplus value.“ “Potentially, surplus-value of productive work force in one pole in memorized wage and surplus value in the exchange pole appears in the form of de facto metamorphosis of profit.” “Whatever the measure of value of commodity is higher, practically equally more open space for in-between prices will exist”. “Daily shows of competition such as especial state of descending sale or unusual declining of commodity prices in particular fields of industry, etc. for this reason is justified”. “Fundamental law of capitalist competition, which the political economy is not able to perceive it and thereby general profit rate and therefore, the production prices regulates.” (Karl Marx)

As a result, two determining factors (production, exchange-competition) ultimately, access to profit throughout the rule of the capitalist system tantamount two compasses and holding the first role, uninterrupted had been continuous motivation of this system. Increased interest rates and competition in exchange of produced commodities in this process, with the more accumulation of monetary capital and production, the creation of capitalist monopolies, syndicates, cartels and trusts, the basis for the transition from the era of “free competition” of thousands of capitalists with average wealth to the period of “monopolistic competition” of handful of capitalists with great wealth bearing access to massive wealth culminated.

Access to the vast raw materials and mass production, its disposal and transformation of banks from simple monetary intermediary to financial and industrial capital, employing colonial policy, seizing the determination of exorbitant production prices and to levy duties on imports and intensification of their competition, the concentration of wealth and capital in imperialist system in the era of ruling monopolized production and exchange system, created huge dimension to this system. Monopolies ‘competition in the pursuit of obtainable cheap labour force, plunder of abundant and cheap raw materials, including from the underdeveloped countries by imperialist countries and seizure and expansion of spheres of influence, loaded with plenty natural resources and cheap labour forces, the capitalist rivals in the First and Second World Wars in the twentieth century caused the re-division of other imperialist spheres of influence.

Meanwhile, the struggle against capitalism and imperialist domination in the colonies and semi-colonies, victories of the socialist and New Democratic revolutions under the leadership of the working class and the communist parties in the emancipation of the workers, peasants and deeply oppressed masses of the dominance of feudalism and capitalism and finally, the war against the world colonialists plunder of imperialism by the broad masses, these countries began to emancipate themselves. With the growth of domestic productions in these countries, without the interference and plunder of imperialists, somewhat new obstacle against the imperialist productivity and export of free market was established and also low price domestic products of these newly liberated countries somewhat were welcomed by the domestic market of imperialist countries. Thus, the range of imperialist supply of unconditional production and exchange faced with new growing problems. So, the imperialist financial concentration and monopolized rivalry to confront the situation was required to deal with.

In the last quarter of the twentieth century, a new solution was launched to achieve accessing more huge wealth in order to develop more advanced and more valuable automation and industrial productions by spending huge money resources in the discovery of these equipment and plants to increase even more concentration of fewer financial monopolies. The accumulation of capital in fewer and fewer of the old monopoly was adopted:

Merger of even more existing global capitals in ongoing giant monopolies through speculation and the creation of about 500 massive global monopolies in which some of them had an annual income of more than total annual income of one or two poor third world countries, is called globalization of capital. According to a recent report from Oxfam’s annual meeting of the huge capitalists and governments in Davos, Switzerland, on January 17, 2017 stated:

8 billionaire’s wealth worldwide is build-up of 6 Americans, one Mexican and the other one from Spain have equivalent to total wealth of 3.6 billion people around the planet. The massive increase in the gap between rich and poor people, has direct impact to spreading dissatisfaction of people all over the world against capitalist governments…. these inequalities are disrupting communities and undermine democracy.”

To plunder more labour force and cheap resources of the world (with the merger of production and exchange capitals under these huge monopolies) in order to maintain their criminal rule with bullying approach and transition solution to the globalization of capital, under the pretence of a free market (neo-liberalism) and the removal of countries’ boarders to win over global markets realization of a “new world order” based on the supremacy of military armaments for survival of imperialist capitalist system was used to create a huge gap between rich and the poor.

But, this manoeuver of imperialist system failed and could not completely impose this “New World Order” on the vast majority of the world’s population and their incomes to be above the existing limit. The uneven development of capitalist system among the capitalist has created new capitalist poles in rivalry against the only leading pole, US imperialism after WWII, even the escalation of contradiction within the same pole also forming and the dream of realization of globalization of global capital and global free market has not advanced under American imperialist leadership and the progress of this veteran imperialists is faced with serious problems. Financial and economic crisis of most imperialist countries (United States, Europe and Japan) engulfed from 2008 onward and still due to lack of solution, persistence of this crisis of globalization and neoliberalism running.

This failure has led to disengagement from this situation, some temporarily and apparently resorted to the notion of stepping toward retreatment and nationalism, to fascist capitalist system, because the over accumulation of competitive capital, profit and exchange answered, thus the current over monopoly system based on the survival of the rule of capitalist system is practically under question mark. The fascist parties in hostility against refugees, racism, militarism, raising gradual walls on the borders, imposing costumes on imported goods, etc. and desperate attempt to survive though, for a short stage by some imperialist countries are being considered. This is the beginning of the collapse of the capitalist system which is no longer able to obtain cheap labour force worldwide, increasing interest rates and being able to fuel even greater level of monopolistic competition. The clarion of the final agony of notorious imperialist systems are increasingly being heard which is not abridged in the economic field and engulfed the superstructure of these countries.

Scrutiny of none pivotal solutions of the other capitalist systems moving forward by some analysts about the past strategic approaches is that the attention must be paid in the oriented leadership system: Such as the importance of global strategic regions (geographical and political or, geo-political), establishment of military base to prevent riots, maintain and expand the regions of influence, control of energy in the appropriate regions. But, the inability of the imperialist monopoly system of the US as a single pole power in the use of all these solutions for growth on its development, and the prevention of financial and economic crisis cannot be the problem solvers. Advancing these mentioned points which we will refer to them below, because rate of profit gain reaching saturation point and the widespread domination of global market has not been unlimited and onrush without breaking down of the global resistance versus the New World Order is not possible.

However, according to the above assessment, points relating to “Geo-politics, Globalization and World Order” (written by Federico Pierastini, December 19, 2017), Federico wrote:

“Globalization has forced the concept of sovereign states directed by their citizens to be replaced with an international superstructure led by the United States, driving away even more citizens from the decision-making process. The European Union, and in particular the European Commission (not elected, but appointed), is unpopular not only for the decisions it has taken but also for the perception that it is an imposter making important decisions without ever having been elected.

Basically, with the end of the USSR, the international order went from a relationship between states made up of citizens to a relationship between international superstructures (NATO, UN, IMF, WTO, World Bank, EU) and citizens, with the weight of the balance of power decisively in favour of the globalists with the economic burden resting on the shoulders of people.

The international order and globalization are therefore to be interpreted according to the logic of Washington, always looking for new ways to dominate the globe, preserving its role of world superpower.

It is also for this reason that it is important to understand some geopolitical theories that underlie US strategic decisions in the pursuit of world domination. These theories are some of the most important with which Washington has, over the last 70 years, tried to pursue total domination of the planet.”

This paper meantime suggests some relative truth in an effort to create the reasonable conditions to maintain its position of leadership in the imperialist system, does not make desirable hint to the fundamental disability in the fulfilment of its needs. Failure of the imperialist efforts in exploiting its military power, establishing a new world order, free market and acceptance of the hegemony of US imperialism one after the other points raised by Federico, is faced with full global scandal. This system is no longer able to raise yet more capital and wealth beyond exclusive global domination and plundering the poor countries and promoting beyond exclusive competition.

To prove this, lets pay attention to Donald Trump’s anomalistic positions and contradictory stance during US presidential debates: I am soliciting America to become powerful again which must be returned to its leadership; we must not be responsible for being world’s gendarme and why pay most of NATO’s expenses and our European NATO members pay lower share; we must leave United Nations, return of our capitals from abroad to inside to fix production and the United States’ domestic economy and at the same time extension of the wall to prevent the entry of cheap labour, getting customs regulations of commodities against free market and to prevent the import/export of foreign production to the US and vice versa.

It is not clear to what extent he is able to fulfill these claims and super monopolies with their number one role in guiding the US government and yet to be effective throughout the prospect of a new world war in these areas. For example, from early 1990s, Britain played an important role in globalization of capital along with the US, left the European Union with oriented venture with America which was persuaded by Trump. Euro, the common currency of the European Union could not unite all EU member countries around this currency. France is also making strenuous efforts to bring nationalist fascist party with its torn flag in power. But, in the German Parliament madam Sarah Wagenknecht , the leader of German left faction party demanded the dissolution of NATO and called for the creation of European Security system and with such security system to attract Russia. Eastern European countries joined in European Union, insecurities in continuation of these affiliations have been formed that is against centralism in confine of European pole. The production of domestic economic growth in China has been growing steadily and in the next decade compared to the American productions will play hegemonic role and has challenged America. Financial and economic crisis in the veteran triplet imperialist countries (America, Europe and Japan) is continuing and uncertain circumstances have gripped these countries and conflict between these countries along with uneven growth of new imperialist countries – versus America that is against multi-pole world – becomes acute.

Thus, recovery from financial and economic crisis in the current circumstances and inability to incite world war III because of the risk of losing sovereignty of monopoly capital’s hegemony, destruction of the world and global resistance against America’s hegemony has elicited till “New World Order” not to be open-handed to commit bloodshed and crimes such as poverty, cruel exploitation of workers and masses of the people all over the world, causing hunger and homelessness of billions of people with the income less than $2.00 per day, drowning refugees in the seas, destruction of countries (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, south Sudan, etc.) and bringing even children to exploitation market in proportions of hundreds of millions, imposed homelessness and unemployment in proportions of billions, bringing women in to prostitutions and…, day after day in the sea of blood created by this new world order, this evolving capitalism has fallen in turbulence of death. {(1) – www.Ayenehrooz.com}

But, toward the blind class interest resorting to “solution” of frightful rescue from the financial crisis – imperialist economic system in World War III and finding justification for the necessity of the war from the point of view of public opinion that can be coupled with tremendous risk, should not be ignored. Hereon, growth of conflict between imperialists or imperialist poles can lead to the occurrence of two likely front build- up:

Rapprochement of European Union to Russia and in this manner to BRIX and creation of strong alliance in the world (from the continents of Europe up to Asia between Atlantic and Pacific Ocean) and isolation of America and Britain because of the hegemony seeking of United States of America unbridled imperialism. Probably America’s efforts in bringing Japan to the US-British alliance or keeping it neutral. Meanwhile, United States with futile efforts tries to reconcile with Russia or attracting it toward itself or making it neutral that in this case there are no possible ground or guarantees of exist. Thus, alliance of European and Asian imperialists is more likely which can transform in to a great power in the imperialist world both militarily and global influence and force the barbaric and plunderer superpower leader to retreat in igniting World War III. But, this warlike “solution” like a solution to end the financial – economic crisis will reach nowhere and eventually this old giant global capitalist system gradually falls deeper in self- created global quagmire. If the readiness of workers and toilers to set in workers’ global revolution exists, imperialist system will stop functioning. This reactionary phenomenon would not be destroyed by itself and toughly scrambles to preserve its jurisdiction hegemony.

But, if we look realistically to the susceptibility of the working class in the realization of this revolution, the lack of unified and solid global working class syndicates and the lack of leadership of the existing struggles under the banner of the working class revolutionary communist parties, and vis-à-vis due to imperialist divisive policies and petite-bourgeois Machiavellianism in collaboration with imperialist bourgeoisie, provoking and spreading the despicable sectarianism and alien to the workers’ demands among these struggles, or resorting to illusory social democracy by using the name of working class has elicited the claws of the political revolution led by communists not decisively sink deeply in the throat of global imperialist system. Still radiant global vanguard without the unity of communists, without the worker’s socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat, without the elimination of private ownership of the means of production and exchange and without destroying the exploitative relation and the old class societies, a powerful, prosperous, free and pioneer global socialism does not emerge.

But, with winning over such splendour system, no more traces of war and bloodshed, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, bringing the global environment on the brink of total destructive state, and thousands of years of private property over means of production and exchange would seize to exist. New socialist world with full eagerness of progressive creating humanity belonging to majority of workers and toilers will blossom like beautiful rosary. The rising of this forerunner human redemptive future must function in vast bright dimensions for changing the reactionary old system. To achieve such a bright future, it is essential to lead sectarians who are “alien to the position of workers” to the dustbin of the world history and the people who are conscious in class struggle and global unity of the working class and toilers must further wave the banner of “the masses are the makers of history” and with their unity under the scientific and revolutionary banner to make yardstick of militancy, practical. In the current situation of growing fascism, lack of understanding of this reality about the urgent need for more decisive communist unity and firm rejection of diluted criticisms from right or left, justification of the communist movement under brutal fascist repressions will not be tolerated and accepted.

K. Abraham – January 28, 2017

—————————————————-

Upon completion of this article, a week later, including comments below for your information and accurate judgement intended for present article, I bring the following quotes from Ayenehrooz (“Iranian proletarian Party”).

(1) – Global Economic Order is about to change

Donald Trump’s approach, as mentioned in the introduction, brings the existing order in management and guidance of the global economy with serious challenges. “Jean Sebastian”, economist, international trade expert and director of the Center for foresight studies and France’s data gathering in this regard says: “My feeling is that we are transitioning to a new situation. This new condition, not only means the end of norms and institutions which after the Second World War was created to manage trade and economic relations in the world, rather as the end of the order from 1990 and with the collapse of Berlin Wall has been ruling over the economy of the global trade. This period has also been accompanied with the dominance of the United States on international political relations. We should not forget that during this time, many advances in technology, especially in the field of information and communication technology, has been achieved globally. Establishment and expansion of the World Trade Organization is also peculiarities of this period. In short, that new world order that was created in this period, was mainly organized and guided by the United States. But, today we are witnessing that with the initiative of America and Donald Trump, this bygone order is severely cracked. Hence, to manage international economic relation, a new way must be designed.”

In the same way, “Christian Harbolo”, director of advanced high school of War Economy in France believes that Trump’s approach is the underlying of the change in current world economic order:

We had focused our own view of the world more than we should have focused on the continuation of the previous world order. Such an order that especially in the western world, in the context of hegemonic power and its lateral allies had been defined. Today this order has lost its true meaning. Now, we are in a multipolar world. At the present, the main problem of America is that how it should behave toward China. China is not only emerging as a major economic power with an aggressive approach to business, but on the contrary, as a great power it is reckoned a major problem for America. One can easily observe that Donald Trump is trying to change the existing disposition and “paradigm”. “Economic Nationalism”, as what Donald Trump declares is based on the approach of boosting industrial production and to create employment in the territory of America. This approach, as seen, is followed by Theresa May, prime minister of Great Britain. In the future too, some other countries in the world will follow this approach. Thus, we can conclude that bilateral economic-commercial approach, gradually will replace the multilateral economic-commercial approach. However, the world has been transformed in to a multi-polar world” ….

Doubts about the economic war

According to 24 Hours Report, Jean Sebastian also thinks regarding the current uncertainties on the out brick of the economic war between the United States and China: “I think that the current contradiction and conflict of interest in the world onto the past is very worrying. Before the fall of the Berlin wall, trade agreements were being practiced as a tool for strengthening political relation between the countries. The Marshal Plan is in this direction. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we witness a turnaround in this context in the United States. This means that foreign policy has become a tool for economic purposes. In this regard, President Bill Clinton in 1990 created the America’s National Economic Council and in practice, the economy has become a strategic objective for America.

In the current situations, we are on the threshold of a new stage. Stage where trade and economy became a strong pretext for political tensions. As a result, we are faced with a new approach and we must learn how to manage it. Concerning the economic war, it cannot firmly be declared that the out brick of such war, is inevitable; but it must be said that a lot of concerns and doubts in this regard exist.” Thereupon, it can be said that with Donald Trump’s approach, the global economy will face new challenges. The implications of these challenges are unpredictable. In the event of out brick of economic war between major global economic powers, tensions could also spread to political/military grounds. What is certain, years to come, politically and economically are going to be very tense years globally.

written by admin

Mai 05

Scrutiny and profound knowledge and the causes of the phenomenon of birth, growth, adolescence, maturity, old age and finally reaching the final period of oldness evolution of capitalism is inevitable. Imperialism is the last stage of its old life and to prevent the collapse of capitalism that has reached the stage of barbarism and tries desperately to survive. Without distinction of fundamental factors of evolutionary movement of persistence existence of this system and its keeping up, the positions of political, institutional, military and its operations, as factors of non-essential and server to its mobility and viability are of its fundamental factors. Non-essential factors that determine the evolution of this system are not part of creating the right conditions for fundamental factors. But, lack of distinction of the place of these factors, our understanding of the evolution of this phenomenon and its historical limitation will be unsuccessful.
The birth of capitalist system and the creation of capitalist class with the transition of manufacturing period, and making use of production tool based on machinery means of industry by the second half of the 18th century, large manufacturing production plants due to mass production with concentration of workers gradually took over the workshops. Since then, the working class in England in opposition to capitalist class came into existence.
With the discovery of the means of production with the help of machineries and only the large work force, establishing the exchange of commodities, especially with the transition to capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, the usurpation of power by the advance European capitalist exploiter countries and capitalist competing vendors soared. With the gradual elimination of feudal relations of production supremacy, capitalist productivity relation, based on two determination factors below, were established:
“The process of immediate production of capital is consisted of labour process and surplus-value process, is the process that results in the product- commodity and its determining motive is the production of surplus value.“ “Potentially, surplus-value of productive work force in one pole in memorized wage and surplus value in the exchange pole appears in the form of de facto metamorphosis of profit.” “Whatever the measure of value of commodity is higher, practically equally more open space for in-between prices will exist”. “Daily shows of competition such as especial state of descending sale or unusual declining of commodity prices in particular fields of industry, etc. for this reason is justified”. “Fundamental law of capitalist competition, which the political economy is not able to perceive it and thereby general profit rate and therefore, the production prices regulates.” (Karl Marx)
As a result, two determining factors (production, exchange-competition) ultimately, access to profit throughout the rule of the capitalist system tantamount two compasses and holding the first role, uninterrupted had been continuous motivation of this system. Increased interest rates and competition in exchange of produced commodities in this process, with the more accumulation of monetary capital and production, the creation of capitalist monopolies, syndicates, cartels and trusts, the basis for the transition from the era of “free competition” of thousands of capitalists with average wealth to the period of “monopolistic competition” of handful of capitalists with great wealth bearing access to massive wealth culminated.
Access to the vast raw materials and mass production, its disposal and transformation of banks from simple monetary intermediary to financial and industrial capital, employing colonial policy, seizing the determination of exorbitant production prices and to levy duties on imports and intensification of their competition, the concentration of wealth and capital in imperialist system in the era of ruling monopolized production and exchange system, created huge dimension to this system. Monopolies ‘competition in the pursuit of obtainable cheap labour force, plunder of abundant and cheap raw materials, including from the underdeveloped countries by imperialist countries and seizure and expansion of spheres of influence, loaded with plenty natural resources and cheap labour forces, the capitalist rivals in the First and Second World Wars in the twentieth century caused the re-division of other imperialist spheres of influence.
Meanwhile, the struggle against capitalism and imperialist domination in the colonies and semi-colonies, victories of the socialist and New Democratic revolutions under the leadership of the working class and the communist parties in the emancipation of the workers, peasants and deeply oppressed masses of the dominance of feudalism and capitalism and finally, the war against the world colonialists plunder of imperialism by the broad masses, these countries began to emancipate themselves. With the growth of domestic productions in these countries, without the interference and plunder of imperialists, somewhat new obstacle against the imperialist productivity and export of free market was established and also low price domestic products of these newly liberated countries somewhat were welcomed by the domestic market of imperialist countries. Thus, the range of imperialist supply of unconditional production and exchange faced with new growing problems. So, the imperialist financial concentration and monopolized rivalry to confront the situation was required to deal with.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, a new solution was launched to achieve accessing more huge wealth in order to develop more advanced and more valuable automation and industrial productions by spending huge money resources in the discovery of these equipment and plants to increase even more concentration of fewer financial monopolies. The accumulation of capital in fewer and fewer of the old monopoly was adopted:
Merger of even more existing global capitals in ongoing giant monopolies through speculation and the creation of about 500 massive global monopolies in which some of them had an annual income of more than total annual income of one or two poor third world countries, is called globalization of capital. According to a recent report from Oxfam’s annual meeting of the huge capitalists and governments in Davos, Switzerland, on January 17, 2017 stated:
“8 billionaire’s wealth worldwide is build-up of 6 Americans, one Mexican and the other one from Spain have equivalent to total wealth of 3.6 billion people around the planet. The massive increase in the gap between rich and poor people, has direct impact to spreading dissatisfaction of people all over the world against capitalist governments…. these inequalities are disrupting communities and undermine democracy.”
To plunder more labour force and cheap resources of the world (with the merger of production and exchange capitals under these huge monopolies) in order to maintain their criminal rule with bullying approach and transition solution to the globalization of capital, under the pretence of a free market (neo-liberalism) and the removal of countries’ boarders to win over global markets realization of a “new world order” based on the supremacy of military armaments for survival of imperialist capitalist system was used to create a huge gap between rich and the poor.
But, this manoeuver of imperialist system failed and could not completely impose this “New World Order” on the vast majority of the world’s population and their incomes to be above the existing limit. The uneven development of capitalist system among the capitalist has created new capitalist poles in rivalry against the only leading pole, US imperialism after WWII, even the escalation of contradiction within the same pole also forming and the dream of realization of globalization of global capital and global free market has not advanced under American imperialist leadership and the progress of this veteran imperialists is faced with serious problems. Financial and economic crisis of most imperialist countries (United States, Europe and Japan) engulfed from 2008 onward and still due to lack of solution, persistence of this crisis of globalization and neoliberalism running.
This failure has led to disengagement from this situation, some temporarily and apparently resorted to the notion of stepping toward retreatment and nationalism, to fascist capitalist system, because the over accumulation of competitive capital, profit and exchange answered, thus the current over monopoly system based on the survival of the rule of capitalist system is practically under question mark. The fascist parties in hostility against refugees, racism, militarism, raising gradual walls on the borders, imposing costumes on imported goods, etc. and desperate attempt to survive though, for a short stage by some imperialist countries are being considered. This is the beginning of the collapse of the capitalist system which is no longer able to obtain cheap labour force worldwide, increasing interest rates and being able to fuel even greater level of monopolistic competition. The clarion of the final agony of notorious imperialist systems are increasingly being heard which is not abridged in the economic field and engulfed the superstructure of these countries.
Scrutiny of none pivotal solutions of the other capitalist systems moving forward by some analysts about the past strategic approaches is that the attention must be paid in the oriented leadership system: Such as the importance of global strategic regions (geographical and political or, geo-political), establishment of military base to prevent riots, maintain and expand the regions of influence, control of energy in the appropriate regions. But, the inability of the imperialist monopoly system of the US as a single pole power in the use of all these solutions for growth on its development, and the prevention of financial and economic crisis cannot be the problem solvers. Advancing these mentioned points which we will refer to them below, because rate of profit gain reaching saturation point and the widespread domination of global market has not been unlimited and onrush without breaking down of the global resistance versus the New World Order is not possible.
However, according to the above assessment, points relating to “Geo-politics, Globalization and World Order” (written by Federico Pierastini, December 19, 2017), Federico wrote:
“Globalization has forced the concept of sovereign states directed by their citizens to be replaced with an international superstructure led by the United States, driving away even more citizens from the decision-making process. The European Union, and in particular the European Commission (not elected, but appointed), is unpopular not only for the decisions it has taken but also for the perception that it is an imposter making important decisions without ever having been elected.
Basically, with the end of the USSR, the international order went from a relationship between states made up of citizens to a relationship between international superstructures (NATO, UN, IMF, WTO, World Bank, EU) and citizens, with the weight of the balance of power decisively in favour of the globalists with the economic burden resting on the shoulders of people.
The international order and globalization are therefore to be interpreted according to the logic of Washington, always looking for new ways to dominate the globe, preserving its role of world superpower.
It is also for this reason that it is important to understand some geopolitical theories that underlie US strategic decisions in the pursuit of world domination. These theories are some of the most important with which Washington has, over the last 70 years, tried to pursue total domination of the planet.”
This paper meantime suggests some relative truth in an effort to create the reasonable conditions to maintain its position of leadership in the imperialist system, does not make desirable hint to the fundamental disability in the fulfilment of its needs. Failure of the imperialist efforts in exploiting its military power, establishing a new world order, free market and acceptance of the hegemony of US imperialism one after the other points raised by Federico, is faced with full global scandal. This system is no longer able to raise yet more capital and wealth beyond exclusive global domination and plundering the poor countries and promoting beyond exclusive competition.
To prove this, lets pay attention to Donald Trump’s anomalistic positions and contradictory stance during US presidential debates: I am soliciting America to become powerful again which must be returned to its leadership; we must not be responsible for being world’s gendarme and why pay most of NATO’s expenses and our European NATO members pay lower share; we must leave United Nations, return of our capitals from abroad to inside to fix production and the United States’ domestic economy and at the same time extension of the wall to prevent the entry of cheap labour, getting customs regulations of commodities against free market and to prevent the import/export of foreign production to the US and vice versa.
It is not clear to what extent he is able to fulfill these claims and super monopolies with their number one role in guiding the US government and yet to be effective throughout the prospect of a new world war in these areas. For example, from early 1990s, Britain played an important role in globalization of capital along with the US, left the European Union with oriented venture with America which was persuaded by Trump. Euro, the common currency of the European Union could not unite all EU member countries around this currency. France is also making strenuous efforts to bring nationalist fascist party with its torn flag in power. But, in the German Parliament madam Sarah Wagenknecht , the leader of German left faction party demanded the dissolution of NATO and called for the creation of European Security system and with such security system to attract Russia. Eastern European countries joined in European Union, insecurities in continuation of these affiliations have been formed that is against centralism in confine of European pole. The production of domestic economic growth in China has been growing steadily and in the next decade compared to the American productions will play hegemonic role and has challenged America. Financial and economic crisis in the veteran triplet imperialist countries (America, Europe and Japan) is continuing and uncertain circumstances have gripped these countries and conflict between these countries along with uneven growth of new imperialist countries – versus America that is against multi-pole world – becomes acute.
Thus, recovery from financial and economic crisis in the current circumstances and inability to incite world war III because of the risk of losing sovereignty of monopoly capital’s hegemony, destruction of the world and global resistance against America’s hegemony has elicited till “New World Order” not to be open-handed to commit bloodshed and crimes such as poverty, cruel exploitation of workers and masses of the people all over the world, causing hunger and homelessness of billions of people with the income less than $2.00 per day, drowning refugees in the seas, destruction of countries (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, south Sudan, etc.) and bringing even children to exploitation market in proportions of hundreds of millions, imposed homelessness and unemployment in proportions of billions, bringing women in to prostitutions and…, day after day in the sea of blood created by this new world order, this evolving capitalism has fallen in turbulence of death. {(1) – www.Ayenehrooz.com}
But, toward the blind class interest resorting to “solution” of frightful rescue from the financial crisis – imperialist economic system in World War III and finding justification for the necessity of the war from the point of view of public opinion that can be coupled with tremendous risk, should not be ignored. Hereon, growth of conflict between imperialists or imperialist poles can lead to the occurrence of two likely front build- up:
Rapprochement of European Union to Russia and in this manner to BRIX and creation of strong alliance in the world (from the continents of Europe up to Asia between Atlantic and Pacific Ocean) and isolation of America and Britain because of the hegemony seeking of United States of America unbridled imperialism. Probably America’s efforts in bringing Japan to the US-British alliance or keeping it neutral. Meanwhile, United States with futile efforts tries to reconcile with Russia or attracting it toward itself or making it neutral that in this case there are no possible ground or guarantees of exist. Thus, alliance of European and Asian imperialists is more likely which can transform in to a great power in the imperialist world both militarily and global influence and force the barbaric and plunderer superpower leader to retreat in igniting World War III. But, this warlike “solution” like a solution to end the financial – economic crisis will reach nowhere and eventually this old giant global capitalist system gradually falls deeper in self- created global quagmire. If the readiness of workers and toilers to set in workers’ global revolution exists, imperialist system will stop functioning. This reactionary phenomenon would not be destroyed by itself and toughly scrambles to preserve its jurisdiction hegemony.
But, if we look realistically to the susceptibility of the working class in the realization of this revolution, the lack of unified and solid global working class syndicates and the lack of leadership of the existing struggles under the banner of the working class revolutionary communist parties, and vis-à-vis due to imperialist divisive policies and petite-bourgeois Machiavellianism in collaboration with imperialist bourgeoisie, provoking and spreading the despicable sectarianism and alien to the workers’ demands among these struggles, or resorting to illusory social democracy by using the name of working class has elicited the claws of the political revolution led by communists not decisively sink deeply in the throat of global imperialist system. Still radiant global vanguard without the unity of communists, without the worker’s socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat, without the elimination of private ownership of the means of production and exchange and without destroying the exploitative relation and the old class societies, a powerful, prosperous, free and pioneer global socialism does not emerge.
But, with winning over such splendour system, no more traces of war and bloodshed, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, bringing the global environment on the brink of total destructive state, and thousands of years of private property over means of production and exchange would seize to exist. New socialist world with full eagerness of progressive creating humanity belonging to majority of workers and toilers will blossom like beautiful rosary. The rising of this forerunner human redemptive future must function in vast bright dimensions for changing the reactionary old system. To achieve such a bright future, it is essential to lead sectarians who are “alien to the position of workers” to the dustbin of the world history and the people who are conscious in class struggle and global unity of the working class and toilers must further wave the banner of “the masses are the makers of history” and with their unity under the scientific and revolutionary banner to make yardstick of militancy, practical. In the current situation of growing fascism, lack of understanding of this reality about the urgent need for more decisive communist unity and firm rejection of diluted criticisms from right or left, justification of the communist movement under brutal fascist repressions will not be tolerated and accepted.
K. Abraham – January 28, 2017
—————————————————-
Upon completion of this article, a week later, including comments below for your information and accurate judgement intended for present article, I bring the following quotes from Ayenehrooz (“Iranian proletarian Party”).
(1) – Global Economic Order is about to change
Donald Trump’s approach, as mentioned in the introduction, brings the existing order in management and guidance of the global economy with serious challenges. “Jean Sebastian”, economist, international trade expert and director of the Center for foresight studies and France’s data gathering in this regard says: “My feeling is that we are transitioning to a new situation. This new condition, not only means the end of norms and institutions which after the Second World War was created to manage trade and economic relations in the world, rather as the end of the order from 1990 and with the collapse of Berlin Wall has been ruling over the economy of the global trade. This period has also been accompanied with the dominance of the United States on international political relations. We should not forget that during this time, many advances in technology, especially in the field of information and communication technology, has been achieved globally. Establishment and expansion of the World Trade Organization is also peculiarities of this period. In short, that new world order that was created in this period, was mainly organized and guided by the United States. But, today we are witnessing that with the initiative of America and Donald Trump, this bygone order is severely cracked. Hence, to manage international economic relation, a new way must be designed.”
In the same way, “Christian Harbolo”, director of advanced high school of War Economy in France believes that Trump’s approach is the underlying of the change in current world economic order:
“We had focused our own view of the world more than we should have focused on the continuation of the previous world order. Such an order that especially in the western world, in the context of hegemonic power and its lateral allies had been defined. Today this order has lost its true meaning. Now, we are in a multipolar world. At the present, the main problem of America is that how it should behave toward China. China is not only emerging as a major economic power with an aggressive approach to business, but on the contrary, as a great power it is reckoned a major problem for America. One can easily observe that Donald Trump is trying to change the existing disposition and “paradigm”. “Economic Nationalism”, as what Donald Trump declares is based on the approach of boosting industrial production and to create employment in the territory of America. This approach, as seen, is followed by Theresa May, prime minister of Great Britain. In the future too, some other countries in the world will follow this approach. Thus, we can conclude that bilateral economic-commercial approach, gradually will replace the multilateral economic-commercial approach. However, the world has been transformed in to a multi-polar world” ….
Doubts about the economic war
According to 24 Hours Report, Jean Sebastian also thinks regarding the current uncertainties on the out brick of the economic war between the United States and China: “I think that the current contradiction and conflict of interest in the world onto the past is very worrying. Before the fall of the Berlin wall, trade agreements were being practiced as a tool for strengthening political relation between the countries. The Marshal Plan is in this direction. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we witness a turnaround in this context in the United States. This means that foreign policy has become a tool for economic purposes. In this regard, President Bill Clinton in 1990 created the America’s National Economic Council and in practice, the economy has become a strategic objective for America.
In the current situations, we are on the threshold of a new stage. Stage where trade and economy became a strong pretext for political tensions. As a result, we are faced with a new approach and we must learn how to manage it. Concerning the economic war, it cannot firmly be declared that the out brick of such war, is inevitable; but it must be said that a lot of concerns and doubts in this regard exist.” Thereupon, it can be said that with Donald Trump’s approach, the global economy will face new challenges. The implications of these challenges are unpredictable. In the event of out brick of economic war between major global economic powers, tensions could also spread to political/military grounds. What is certain, years to come, politically and economically are going to be very tense years globally.

written by admin

Sep 18

” Wherever is struggle, there is also sacrifice, and death is natural. But, we contemplate about the interests and sufferings of the great majority of people and if we lay down our lives for the sake of the masses, our death would be worthwhile. However, we must try by all means to reduce unnecessary victims as much as possible.

Humens inevitably die, but all deaths will not have equal value. Death for the sake of people’s interests outweigh the mountain “Tai”, but service the fascists and  to die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than feather “, Moa tse tung, Collected Works, Vol. III

On the Occasion of the Death of Heroic Worker, Shahrokh Zamani

Today, we became incredibly aware that the bloody hands of criminal Islamic Republic regime deprived the shining life of long life struggle of comrade Shahrokh Zamani. Sharokh proudly showed that he stood firmly against bullying of the torturers of the Islamic regime which according to the rule of the above corrupt and immortals by fabricating unjust cases and shrewd efforts, willing to do any type of menial and filthy torture at the service of reactionary system, including massacre of young adults and slaughter of adversary peoples which is advanced in tyrannical manner and have no respect for humanity toward the human rights in present century.

Our perished worker comrade not even a moment during his captivity interrupted his service of the movement and worker’s advancement in class struggle and he became a shining role model in the history of the worker’s struggles. And it was this insistence that the anti-worker ruling enemies were prompted to destroy this invincible and conscious son of the working class and based on the initial news, in order to show regime’s brutalities, the forensic examination of the cause of death is necessary since in circumstances, he enjoyed the blessing of health and had a smiling face and cheerfulness, which clearly showed his invincibility. So, based on the above observations it turns out that what is happening in the prison, is the policy of gradual elimination of adversaries and the continuation of the slaughters of the 80s.

For this reason, the call for the workers of the world and insistence on the defense of human rights and political prisoners must be reduplicated and prevent militant revolutionaries in the prisoners to die under barbaric torture and thereby vicious and vile conspiracy of a handful of ruling anti-humanity to achieve destroying defiant Iranian people.

EACH INSTANCE DRAW A STAR DOWN TO THE EARTH AND AGAIN

THIS WORISOME SKY IS FULL OF STARS

We condole his absence to his family and firmly try to transform this sad loss to a force of the continuation of struggle. W should learn from Shahrokh Zamani’s teachings for the unity of the communists, to unite the workers, and all toilers and do away with lowly and filthy sectarianism.

Practice his heroic resistance in the fight against the enemies of the working class.

IRAN’S RANJBARAN PARTY – September 13, 2015

written by admin

Jan 01

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO HELP AND SUPPORT HASSAN TAFFAH

To all labor and revolutionary forces, trade unions of western countries, Turkey, the entire world, international parties and revolutionary organizations, also local and international public institutions.

Iraq’s Federation of Lawyers and the International Federation of Lawyers and Jurists

Dear presidents and member of above entities, no doubt you are aware that Hassan Taffah who is member of both listed organizations, is over five years that secret security service agency of the Islamic Republic is after him with conspiracy and making false records against him. This reactionary agency was forcing Hassan to use his law office illegally in Dubai to work for the Islamic regime. in other words, to buy illegal weapons and money laundering for the Islamic republic when Hassan as a militant, honest and honorable person refuse to cooperate with authorities. In retaliation for his honesty and integrity, they brought all kinds of accusations with false records against him. Following these accusations, he was tried and imprisoned. In Hassan’s case, there is no charge and no documented or verifiable evidence of his guilt and without any evidence and witness, through illegal trial he was convicted. Now, it is your duty to defend and support an honest, honorable attorney, and a member of the national and global advocacy with all your strength. By any reason, if you are unwilling to defend your member, how do you think other defendants and “convicts” could trust and rely on your defense and duty to discover the truth and defend the rights of human beings? Now, in reality your defense of Hassan Taffah, is defending you own reputation and proof of your ability to achieve the human objective of (legal) attorneyship.

As an imprisoned worker, who, innocently like many other political prisoners in Iran have been falsely charged, trialed and imprisoned, thank all of you and while, intimately shaking your hands, asking you to do anything nationally and internationally possible for the rescue of Hassan Taffah.

I am cordially asking from all labor and revolutionary forces, trade unions of western countries, Turkey, the entire world, international parties and revolutionary organizations, also local and international public institutions to protect and defend Hassan Taffah who was one of the Iraqi revolutionary activists and now is illegally imprisoned. To rescue this honorable revolutionary, we must help the Federation of Iraqi Lawyers and International Federation of Lawyers and Jurists, as well as preparing, planning and executing the required practical steps and protest actions.

To introduce Hassan Taffah, I like to draw your attention to the following:

Hassan was born in Iraq, he became a lawyer and started practicing law in this country. He is a member of the Federation of Iraqi Lawyers. This attorney who was born in an Iranian Family residing in Iraq, like many other Iranians in Iraq have been kicked out from this country under Saddam and with his family returned to Iran. Hassan in 2008 , did not cooperate with secret security service agency and as the result, he was arrested by the security forces and was taken to

section 209 of Evin Prison. He was charged with acting against Islamic system, acting against national security and propaganda against Islamic revolution and then sentenced by judge Salavati in the revolutionary court, branch 15. In the appeal court, the charge of acting against Islamic system was removed and finally because of two remaining charges, was sentenced with 15 years imprisonment in exile. By confirming his sentence, he was transferred from Evin to the prison of City of Rejaie for exile. He had a law office in Dubai and was practicing as a well known Iraqi attorney. Because of his public connections and having an office in Dubai, Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence on number of occasions proposed to him for illegal cooperation, outside of arm (and other accessories) embargo to provide the regime with their arms requirements. He did not cooperate with them and for this reason alone, he was arrested. Now, he is suffering from leukemia, elderly or sick person under the law is exempt from prison, and this is announced by the doctors and have been stated in the case files. Hassan Taffah is a member of the Communist Party of Iraq and has spent about half of his live in various prisons.

From the prison of the City of Rajaie, Shahrokh Zamani

December 30, 2014

Reproduction and distribution: Committee to support Shahrokh Zamani

March toward wider protest with the slogan of:

Imprisoned Workers and Political Prisoners Must Be Freed!

written by admin

Jan 15

Every year with the arrival of the anniversary of great October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, an occasion for celebrating this great historical event of the 20th century comes about, and the Iranian left pundits while praising it, also actively participate to commemorate this event (through their voice and pen). But while praising, their language of critiques, at the end give such understanding to the listeners and readers that “from the mountain of October Revolution just a throwaway weak and poor mice was born that did not last neither!” In these analysis, Instead of dealing with all aspects of the contradictions of Soviet society at the time, we do not hear, any talk about October Revolution’s achievements at all and instead, they put forward unilateral assessments against the Soviet proletarian government which instead of providing authentic experiences to advance the revolution in Iran and the world, only misleads the viewers and readers and simply speaking it results with no accomplishment except, intensifying theoretical eclecticism and, ultimately promoting fruitless revolution. Disrespectful to the truth

The October Revolution was a worker’s revolution, led by the vanguard proletarian party, armed with the theory of scientific communism and creative in its applying with Russian conditions and solving many sizable and small existing contradictions one by one in that country and simultaneously confronting with many imperialist interferences.

Another revolution occurred in China as a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, which usurped power 32 years after Russian October Revolution, in October 1949, again it was under the leadership of a vanguard proletarian party armed with revolutionary communist theory and practice in which with the leadership and the victory of New Democratic Revolution, the transition to the socialist revolution started.

Other successful revolutions like the ones that occurred in Albania, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, the communist parties also in these countries under different names led the revolution.

Under the leadership of communist parties and organizations in many other countries, such as Iran, despite their weaknesses ay the time, the democratic or the workers revolutions were not successful.

Nearly in 100 years after the October Revolution in Russia, in no country of the world a worker’s revolution under quasi-Trotskyite’ view has ever been occurred and even adversaries like Trotskyists which declare their views as being the most correct , have not achieved any success at all.

Anybody who respects the efforts of the global working class struggles, must realize that these examples are sufficient to know that according to the teaching of scientific communism as well as honoring the proletarian revolutionary practice, would have to have faith in the necessity for the existence of the leadership of vanguard working class party and for its realization, try with all power and sincerity not to maintain a position of having both “multi party” and “single party” solely for the sake of keeping everybody happy.

Backtracking from this viewpoint, including the claim that despite the existence of multiple communist parties in each country, the proletarian revolution can be advanced, is an extremely anti-dialectical/anti-communist perception that I will mention below.

Why a single party?

To guide a revolution in each country or the entire world requires the knowledge of the science of history, current situation, constant study of the contradictions of each society and also to be armed with correct strategy and tactics in advancing class struggle and life and death struggle against the ruling enemies. It is not necessary to prove that among every individual or groups of any class such quality cannot be found. Therefore, the

proletarian teachers from the outset in accordance to the perception of consciousness of the working class of its issues, said that there are three major sections: Advanced, moderate and backward regarding the working class were considered which was dialectical materialist perception of their conditions and primarily the organizational policy of the vanguard working class and with reliance on the advanced and then, attracting the moderates and finally together attracting the backwards.

Even the bourgeoisie for achieving their goals, realized the need for party building. But, with one difference: Working class which wants to eliminate self-alienation in the class world, wrote “Workers of the World Unite” on its banner and the bourgeoisie that under any circumstances wants to hold on to its ruling, took on the policy of “Divide and Rule” and these bourgeois parties without any fundamental differences among themselves, via their numbers, are the cause of alienation in society.

Believers to the necessity of the existence of various communist parties in each country must have the audacity to criticize the proletarian teachers and not deceitfully pose themselves as defenders of their views and in vain try to undermine scientific communism in their own petty-bourgeois advantage, attempt to disperse organizational work and in this manner to retain their loyalty to their revisionist views!!

Claims of Working Class Stratification

Some put forward a theoretical justification of the need to plan for various communist parties in each country to bring working class stratification and to consider this division of labor sufficient for the existence of multi working class parties.

In explaining these distinctions, they say, factors of consciousness, gender, race, nationality, religion, employment, unemployment, etc. are the kinds of differences that cannot be organized in one party.

In this claim the basis for the unity of the working class which is selling its labor force in supply and demand market of labor and capital and intense exploitation by the capitalist and finally no private ownership of the means of production and exchange, except being labor forces which form the materialist unity of the working class is ignored and instead, factors of superstructure are put forward. If we analyze all aspects of this type of claim, we reach to a point where the existence of working class is under question mark and similarly, denying the existence of other classes and reducing the human society to the level of lawless chaos!! Giving priority to subjectivity over objectivity is pure idealism. Also, this is the lack of commitment to scientific communism’s fundamental view points regarding the organized leadership of the class struggle of the workers and toilers.

The existence of a single party does not mean there is a sense of complete point of views unity within it. Even, on a daily basis, in dealing with tactics and in certain party strategies, differences would arise. Based on the true doctrine of democratic centralism, the communist party, seeks to peruse and address different views regarding policy, organization and practical method, which is advanced in accordance to majority decision and the minority has the right to retain its view within the party, but must implement the majority decision until it is proven which side has the correct views and if the minority view turns out to be correct then, the party would revise its decision and in this manner, the class struggle would be advanced in harmony and strong party unity and in practice, division within the rank of proletarian party’s function does not occur.

But, this important principle would be violated by those who do not maintain the interests of the organizational unity of the working class within the party and prefer individualism. When the conflicts arise, they either undermine the majority views or split from the party. The result is factionalism, splitism, dissocistism and the weakening of the united rank of vanguard working class that prevails and the conditions for abuse by the capitalist system within the rank of working class would be created. A large

part of current organizational turmoil is caused by individualist’s anarchism in the organizational arena and it is no more than the expression of the influence of the petty-bourgeois ideology within left political forces.

Revolution was Okay but, failed and inconclusive

Some of the left elements after exquisitely praising the working class in their achievements of the October Revolution, immediately bring about grounds for defeat, so that working class after a decade of its rule, has being dominated by capitalism, bring it down from its power.

Such a view, perceives the working class leader to such an extent being absolute that if the leader ever dies, the vanguards of the working class would not have the needed capabilities to guide the party, the class and eventually lose the society and immediately, without a stark struggle against bourgeoisie, surrender to capitalist system!!

This is a one sided petty-bourgeois perception of the complex phenomenon of the advancement of socialist revolution. It is certain that the struggle against the power of the workers’ council whether by the local bourgeoisie, petite-bourgeoisie, and the feudal lords or whether by the imperialists, was launched from the next day of the victory of the October Revolution. Initially in the form of open civil war it was being advanced and then, with lack of success in this manner, destruction of fortress of socialism from within especially by the petite-bourgeoisie in the form of provoking bureaucracy and penetrating for domination within the party, the terror of Lenin, the undisputable leader of the October Revolution were carried out. Externally, the lack of revolutionary progress in the other capitalist countries along with the failure of labor uprisings, materialized the conditions for high concentration of global counterrevolutionary to knock out the nascent workers state.

This experience demonstrated that to what extends the role of united leadership, armed with the scientific communist theory, correct analysis of the situations, adopting the correct policies in continuation of revolution and the worker’s power is important. But fueling conflicts, particularly at the level of the CPSU leadership by those like Trotsky who was factionalist, created serious problems for implementation of party decisions.

Someone consider the cause of failure as inability to advance the rule of councils, without embracing the fact that the communist party functions far more aware and knowledgeable than councils, because it is both labor related and is armed with theory. In fact, we witnessed this case before the October Revolution in which the councils were after Mensheviks and the Social-Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks were attempting to apply Lenin’s April’s Thesis which was finally accepted by the councils. This clearly showed that the council and the communist party must be like lips and teeth close to each other and do not disregard the guiding role of correct party policy and its ideology in advancing the revolution.

Iranian socialist critics do not care that the Soviet Union faced German fascism as a worker state and not as a bourgeois state. Hitler’s fascism was after rivalry with other imperialist powers for dividing the world to their sphere of influence, and the Soviet Union did not have any sphere of influence. But, since the Soviet system was anti-capitalist system, for this reason, fascism brought the greatest imperialist counterrevolutionary military force in to war for smashing the Soviet Union. While, the imperialist powers tighten the grip against the German’s expansion of its influence for gaining more territories in the world and tens of Nazi German’s divisions had to pay attention to the west which they did not!?

These critics deny the destructive role of revisionism in corrupting the party and the usurpation of power in Soviet Union or, at least they do not bother to criticize it. This was revisionism which broke apart the unified worker’s movement that was under the influence of social democracy in the capitalist countries during imperialist WWI and then, for destroying the Soviet Union, all the way collaborated with local imperialist bourgeoisie.

The genuine communists within the Communist Party of China and few other communist parties stood up against modern revisionism which was able to usurp the leadership within CPSU by resorting to coup and more than 50 years ago made it quite clear to the working class that revisionism is a right reactionary process and serves the bourgeoisie to restore its own state power. They specified that modern revisionism will also provoke split within the working class movement and their predictions were proven to be correct.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that cause of outbreak of dispersion including invasions against the revolutionary proletarian theory and denying its achievements of the past 160 years, was the creation of distrust of its cause which resulted in excitation of all kinds of revisionist views like “councilism”, “pluralism”, “individualism” in the absence of organizational commitment, “human revolution” and desertion from acceptance of proletarian party building…etc.

There is a tendency these days that denies Socialist and New Democratic Revolutions. This tendency actually stems from infected petty-bourgeois world outlook which promotes absolutism to such an extend where they claim that in China, a country of 450 million people (of which 400 million were peasants) with the dominant rule of feudal relations and only with a few million workers, the worker’s revolution must take place, this view creates split within the leadership of the Chinese communist party during the years 1925 -1930, and the Trotskyites were the holder of its banner ! Today, after over half a century, yet the quasi-Trotskyites reject also the New Democratic Revolutionary stage under the leadership of proletariat and with one sided perception of permanent revolution which Marx expressed, reject the history of the two great revolutions in Russia and China and under this pretext, in countries where bourgeois revolution still has not occurred, they are shouting for socialist revolution. It is equally meaningless and utopian to say that the child at the beginning of its process of growth, to left weight or attend the university…etc.? Continuous growth of baby would not be the reason for not considering different stages of its growth!!

These tendencies toward absolutism have no connection to scientific and dialectical materialist view of the communists and it stems from petite-bourgeoisie’s mentality which is rendered under the guise of left and extremism.

Since the communist motions are conscious and scientific, they believe that revisionism’s theoretical dispersion have created such organizational dispersion and finally individualism and sectarianism among the communists that it becomes an obstacle in revolutionary progress of working class.

Despite what the left pundits with their viewpoint of denying reality, portray the working class global situations, is not so bad. The situation of the worker’s and communist movement which has come out of hard and imposed defeat, is presently growing. The evil and reactionary nature of capitalist system is so widely exposed that not only among the working class, but among the widespread masses of people has brought awareness that is everyday increasing and the global capitalist system due to distrust of people has turned in to turbulences.

In such circumstances, it became necessary that the conscious forces within the working class to stand up against sectarianism and all kinds of negativism which are posed by the intellectual lefts, and warn them that the working class is not so one sided or as is prevalent among the people, is not “ingratitude” to negate its own achievements in the past 160 years and to submit itself to confused views of the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois.

October Revolution and the achievements of the socialist countries which at their pinnacle were the working class and its vanguard party, still will remain alive and the working class and the communist parties will learn from mistakes of these countries and with their revolutionary optimism will continue their united struggle.

“The future is bright and the road has many twists and turns, do not fear from difficulties and death” (Mao)

K. Ebrahim, November 29, 2013

Ranjbar,103, November 2013

written by admin

Jan 08

To the Iranian trade unions,

To trade union activists, friends and supporters of trade unions,

With regards to deterioration of Reza Shahabi’s health which was pointed out in the latest statement of Tehran Bus Transit Workers Union (Syndica Vahed), in the most recent visit of Reza Shahabi with his family, the impact and signs of pain and suffering were sadly apparent on his face. The aforesaid statement reads: “Drawing the attention of reputable labour and human rights organizations to continue the campaign for release of this labour rights activists [i.e. Reza Shahabi], the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company once again demands his immediate release from prison and his urgent and effective medical treatment. We request from the authorities to arrange for immediate payment of his deferred unpaid wages so that the family- wife and two student children- of this imprisoned and tormented worker at least could manage the economic hardship and backbreaking high expenses of daily life and their rent.”

Unionised workers, Raza Shahabi and his family demand “Reza Shahabi to be hospitalized in the next few days and undergo further surgery. After surgery, he has to stay in an unstressed environment with necessary means and services to his avail.

Why Reza Shahabi- bus driver and a member of Syndica Vahed- and Mohammad Jarrahi- painter/ decorator and cancer patient and member of Tehran Painting and Decorating Workers Union- who are both suffering from various illnesses, should be kept in prison? Why these two workers cannot be released from prison and have to live in pain and suffering? Whose interests outside the prison do they threaten?

We demand from the authorities to release these captive workers so that they can receive medical treatment. We appeal to our sister and brother workers and trade unions and World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and human rights organizations to mobilize their efforts by all possible means for the freedom of these unionized workers.

The Union of Metalworker and Mechanic Workers of Iran

The Board of Re-Opening of Syndicate of Painting and Decorating Workers of Iran

1 January 2014

written by admin

Mrz 04

If we review the history of the last half a century of the left movement in Iran in its general Lines of the 1960 decade, accompanied by consecutive failure and weakening of the Tudeh Party of Iran and the pessimism engendering toward the leadership of this Party in guiding the worker and mass struggles, and in struggle against capitulationism and revisionist line of the leadership of this party, with new organizations splitting from the Tudeh Party of Iran (namely, The Revolutionary Organization) and consistent with the international communist movement (especially the Communist Party of China), repudiate Khrushchev’s  modern revisionist line for the creation of the revolutionary communist party from the unity of the Iranian Marxists-Leninists toward leading the New Democratic Revolution, were created. Also, the guerrilla movement with rejecting the leadership view of the Tudeh Party regarding peaceful transition of the state power, adopted the line of “The Armed Struggle, Both Strategy and Tactics” (adopted) toward acquisition of the state power and also in the decade of 1970, new organizations such as Peykar basically, “rejecting armed struggle isolated from the masses” and the vision of the creation of the Communist Party entered into the arena of existence. Consequently, in those two decades, the ideological struggles were basically about the rejection of modern revisionism and how to organize the revolution on the basis of priority or coming next of the creation of the party from the unity of Marxists-Leninists and with linking the workers/peasants movement or, organizing the armed struggle and the creation of the party even after taking over the power.

This ideological struggle while achieving victories in exposing the nature of the Shah’s reforms, rejection of  modern revisionism, rejecting the revisionist views of the Tudeh Party’s leadership and the  drawing the left forces attention in learning the theoretical principles of the scientific communism, heroic resistance against the Butcher monarchy, because of severe police repression and lack of access to Marxist writings on the one hand and the base of petit-bourgeois and mainly the majority of the left intellectuals and therefore, the rule of one sidedness, limited, petty-bourgeois sectarian, the lack of a tight  connection with the working class and with the masses, and the lack of accurate conclusion of the policies and the  practices of leftist organizations, has not reached to a suitable results and the principle of the scientific communism and class struggle becomes governed by “anyone from his  own understanding”. The guerrilla armed struggle not only faces with defeat, but with the influence of the Tudeh Party revisionists within its ranks, after less than ten years of its inception, gradually a large part of its leftist guerrilla movement and the left intellectuals were taken over by revisionism. Struggle to establish unity among Marxist-Leninist parties, either due to ideological struggle that were being waged by guerrilla movement and the revisionists against it and other reasons such as “self-centeredness views” and other ideological differences, did not lead in to unity among the lefts and instead led in to the defeat of the guerrilla movement and engendering of discord at the international level in relation to the global strategy of the working class and the disturbance of the revisionist theory of “Three World” by the leadership of the Chinese Communist party after Mao’s death in 1976, the trend of split within the early left organizations  intensified. In this period none of the left forces were able to compose the revolutionary theory with revolutionary practice in Iran. Theoretical weakness, loss of  firm connection with the working class and consequently inability in creating a single ideological, political and organizational center with the authority, wise, firm and militant, with firm worker and mass base in the current of workers and masses movement against the Shah’s regime, revealed itself and deviations in the left movement  became more exposed.

The development of mass anti-government struggles, the influx of the working class more and more toward these struggles- however, without the existence of vanguard communist leadership – in the second half of 1970, did not unwind a promising future . Because, in this period, a dangerously distorted new political line was formed. Although, before the overthrow of the regime, the majority of the left forces demanded the political hegemony of the proletariat in the new democratic revolution in Iran, but the standpoint of “Shah must go”, simply took the place of violent mass revolution to crush the state apparatus of the regime. The struggle was reduced from the level of class battle to the level of removing an individual to the extent that after the overthrow of Shah’s regime and despite the decisions that were taken at Guadalupe by the imperialist powers and the religious alternative with the leadership of Khomeini were pushed forward, large sector of the middle bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie supported that alternative. Oil workers with their great strike which economically brought the regime down, only went as far as to demand of participation in revolutionary council made up by the religious forces, and also without any insistence in this precept. Thus, the left not only fell in the trap of one sidedness of “destruction without construction” in overthrowing the Shah’s regime, but an important part of them under the caption of  “the struggling against imperialism and social-imperialism and their agents in Iran being the  main aim”, defended the power grab of the bourgeois religious establishment. The Iranian revolution, despite the broad participation of the masses, fell out of breath half way, the state power changes hand from the big comprador bourgeoisie faction to the other bourgeoisie faction (the middle bourgeoisie and the petite-bourgeoisie) which with the usurpation of power, taking over the large state-owned enterprises and in this manner held the flag of counterrevolution. The bourgeois religious leader from the early stages of revolution executed an extensive plan to suppress the left forces. Although, during the first few years of the Islamic Republic Rule, the left forces were able to some extent achieve working class and mass base, but organizationally were not able to create solidity. Iranian working class was faced with a large number of newly growing left organizations which were strongly against each other to the extend that some conscious elements of the working class were saying, “First resolve your differences, then come in unity toward us”. These organizations were immediately attacked by the Hezbollah lumps and killing of the left forces began by the Khomeini’s regime. Once again the importance and the necessity of the existence of a single communist party aiming for concentration and consolidation of  the ideological-political-organizational-methodology and communist leadership unity became obvious and still under the influence of the petty-bourgeois sectarian and self-centered view, the creation of a party and struggle for its realization on the basis of the teaching of scientific communism “unity of the theoretical principles and the fundamental points of the program and tactics”, did not advance forward strongly and reached to no result.

Starting with the naked repression of the left forces and a few independent labor organizations, as well as the gradual collapse of the  ex-socialist countries, suitable groundwork for the imported quasi-Trotskyite became available in which by rejecting the Marxist views on socialist construction; fictional account of the national bourgeoisie in the dominated semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries, rejection of union with toiling masses under the title of being “populist”, this view, making work among workers unconditional and in this manner, rejecting the actual and potential allies of the working class; renouncing armed struggle as the need to work in cities and among the working class; rejection of communist movement and socialism after Lenin’s death in 1924 and including the denial of the great New Democratic Revolution in China and assigning it as a peasant/petty-bourgeois revolution and rejecting the leadership of the communist party of China the same way the Trotskyites from the beginning of the Chinese revolution in the second half of the decade of 1920 had done. Putting forward the idea that we don’t have “ big and small bourgeoisie”, to the extent of rejecting the nature of imperialist financial monopoly, thus rejecting  the strategy and tactics of “unity-struggle” with national bourgeoisie during the advancement of New Democratic Revolution under the leadership of the proletariat and the communist party in dependent semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries; thus negating the dialectical universality of “transformation of quantity into quality”, given the high concentration of capital, and the lack of distinction between the strategy and tactics of proletarian  regarding different factions of the bourgeoisie; in resumption of rejecting the nation on the pretext of the existing Marxist definition of nation is meaningless and in other words, they fake their left revisionist view as revolutionary Marxism – As under such situation where the regime advanced an extensive attack in order to eliminate the entire left forces and as a result, in this period left was faced with defeat and set back. A significant section of the left forces, especially in Kurdistan (Komala) resisted against the Islamic Republic by armed struggle and enjoyed a good reputation among people. But, since it suffered from theoretical weakness, were unconditionally pulled toward this left revisionist tendency. Quasi- Trotskyites united with Revolutionary Organization of Toilers of Kurdistan (Komala) and with proclamation of being communist party, ascribed the end of the trend of party building and declared that from that time on, any left force that does not join our party, by nature is bourgeois!

A little less than a decade, a faction of the leadership (who had the majority at the Political bureau)  split from this party and maintained that the Communist Party of Iran has not yet become proletarian and with their split, they formed Worker’s Communist Party under the leadership of Mansour Hekmat. Few years later, this same party was stricken with another big split and some of these separatists declared that after Marxism, it is Hekmatism that would carry the flag of revolutionary Marxism?  During the decade of 80s and 90s, the struggle against quasi-Trotskyite’s deviant views in Kurdistan and then in abroad by small leftist forces continued. The outbreak of repeated splits within the ranks of that newly established party and the creation of three different “communist parties”, with different names and in addition, other nonparty organizations (separated from that mother party -WCPI), was the kind of blows that was inflicted to this deviant course of action. But, this claim of calling themselves communist party has become fashioned in the left movement of Iran and also other parties that call themselves the communist parties and vanguard proletariat were created. In this manner, irresponsible style of “communist party building” and inflicting blow to the unity of the will and action of the working class vanguard became fashion. Instead of creating a single vanguard party of the working class, organizational pluralism of the “communists” took its place. However, a careful look at the views of the all so called “Communist Parties” and their influence among the working class, suggests that none of these parties in real sense, have the quality of proletarian party which their leadership claim to be, and it was a severe blow to the movement for creating a single communist party and inbreeded a proper ground for the continuation of discord, theoretical and organizational dispersion and thus created bewilderedness within the worker’s movement! This was the best gift to the petite-bourgeoisie which was more able to secure its own mode of thinking within the working class movement. Deviating from the teaching of scientific communism and falling for bogus pluralistic theories, came readily from imperialist think tanks, was a reality which was in-line and conformity with the mode of thinking of petty-bourgeois left forces leadership’s view!

In this manner, the leadership of numerous left forces in the decade of 2000, weary from the past ideological struggles and inconsequential to a high degree, typically reached an implicit ideological cease fire and some even reached to a point where an expression of a Marxist view point for promoting and reinforcing the scientific view in the articles becomes criticized in order to set their idle talks in place of scientific communism. However, in the first half of this decade (2000-2005), regarding the organizationally mobilizing the workers, especially the quasi Trotskyites with negating the trade unions, and with their left-wing vision, instead of defending multiple forms of worker’s organizations at different levels, defending the finest and the most conscious type of none worker party organization namely, to create worker’s council that can be proceeded only with the rise of the worker’s power movement which becomes possible to exist.  This left-wing slogan which means “big rock is the sign of not throwing”, was not welcomed by the workers and with the efforts of the workers in creating the independent trade unions under severe police repressions, gradually this debate lost its intensity and acuity.

Generally, while the whole activities of the left forces not only so far did not boost the proletarian united rank, but instead theoretical and organizational dispersion was provoked among them and the possibility of reaching to a unity at a higher level and communism were not materialized.  Instead, the petty-bourgeois style of work over the proletarian style of work at the leadership level of numerous left forces was so dominant and such extreme liberalism manifested In the arena of theory which in order to pull the left movement from this petty-bourgeois Augeas Stable, requires the direct intervention of the worker cadres, armed with scientific communism and accurate assessment of the necessities of worker’s revolution. Mostly criticisms and ideological struggles in the left movement are left unanswered or faced with indifferent theoretical struggle and transparency is not created. Here, as a “fistful, is the sample of a ton”, we criticize some of these one sided and non-dialectical point of views for the proof of the influence of petit-bourgeois mode of thinking in the left movement.

First of all, do you believe that scientific communism is a dynamic scientific theory and guides proletariat for organization, advancing the tactical struggles and reaching them to the strategic level, guides proletarian revolution to victory, transition to a long period of socialist construction at a level both national and global and then the creation of the global communism? If this is the case, then in analyzing the social phenomenon, we can not deviate from the teachings of this theory which is the result and product of summarizing of the proletarian thinkers and is based on bloody struggles of the workers and other toiling masses along with taking advantage of growth of science and technology, and with total apathy not to rely on them!

Isn’t it true that this theory is based on world outlook of dialectical materialist? So, in addressing any social phenomenon, the communists are bound with scientific consciousness and in an all-round manner to study this phenomenon and its given data (or information) and its process of evolution, to reach to a material knowledge and reach to an accurate conclusion from its evolutionary process.

Is it possible to liberally approach the teachings of this theory and the study of theoretical problems, especially in the political arena which instead of dialectical method, is based on pragmatic method, the struggle of the working class for acquisition of power can be organized accurately and successfully, lead the revolution and in continuation of revolution, prevent it from falling at the hands of non-proletarian classes?

Let’s start from the encountering of some of the left forces to the category of “working class”. There are some lefts which apparently do  agree that societies are class societies and even agree with historical materialism. In the current situation, they do accept the struggle and the class war between the workers and bourgeoisie both at the national and global level. They do agree that the worker does sell his labor force to the capitalist and the sale of surplus value produced by workers and its conversion to capital and therefore, increase of capital at one pole and poverty and distress at the other pole occurs. They do agree that the class struggle of the proletariat against bourgeoisie providing that the correct leadership of proletariat, would lead to worker’s revolution and instead of capitalist state which is the dictatorship of the capitalists against the workers, the state of proletariat that its aim is to destroy private property over means of production and exchange and to eliminate the system of wage labor as a class state. Many agree that just because being a worker and being exploited, do not cause the worker to join the revolution. But, some would consider the self-consciousness of the workers is the main issue and therefore instead of creating the proletarian vanguard political party; they put forward the worker’s council and in this manner say yes to anarchism in the name of council of workers. Some others, divide the workers in to different strata and interests and the intrigues of the proletarian class enemies among the workers which for various reasons and especially, the creation of distinguished aristocracy within this class or, because of unemployment and thus, the creation of rivalry among the workers for various reasons, such as national, sexual, religious, racial with the aim of keeping the workers dispersed, cause intrigue in their unity and they cite all this as a necessary proof for the existence of different worker political organizations. They do except that  in the complex process of production and evolution a part from  the working class and the capitalist class, there are other vast stratum such as peasants (poor and wager, middle and wealthy,  urban petite-bourgeoisie, are vacillating among these two classes and can be united with this or that class. All these syllogisms are only to justify their pluralism.

It is claimed that the workers are formed from different strata with specific interest. Thus, the working class is not one set and the different stratum of workers at a political level can create their own organizations and parties, without specifying that such and such left organization is the representative of this or that workers’ stratum! Or even it is claimed that Iran is under the condition of pre- bourgeois democratic stage and must fulfill the “bourgeois democratic” system (without consideration of the era of multi-national imperialism which is going through the transition to barbarism and has brought the world to devastation and bloodshed and so far two centuries have lapsed from bourgeois democratic system) and with these empty rationalizations shout their political-organizational pluralism. Including:

On the website of Gozareshgar (Reporter), in an article, “aberrant left regard to pluralism”, August 21, 2012, Behzad Changalli writes: “The key question is: Can the left and democratic forces alone be able to build a solid political structure? Certainly not! Is the objective and subjective conditions of the society has the susceptibility tolerance, understanding and the creation of independent class line up? I think no! and consequently, would the left in the wider context of it alone, be able to create the suitable workers and toilers system without social collisions and conflicts and under this condition, by the determination of the independent dispersed and unemployed workers to organize? Without any hesitation no! Is it possible and conceivable at the future political formation of our country without certified federalisms’ solution? In my understanding and others never!

In contrast to these buts and ifs and inept attestations, we can ask from this supporter of the impossibility of realization of the bourgeois-democratic system in the present stage of capitalist development: Are the working class of different Iranian nationalities enemies of each other, or they have common class interests? The answer for common interest is definitely yes and not for being each other’s enemy! Is it because of different languages and religions, that the workers and toilers of Iran have confronted one another and have killed each other? Obviously the answer is NO! The exploiting classes and especially the capitalists in the capitalist countries, have they implemented all the times “the right of nations to self determination up to separation and formation of their self government ” that the communists have carried out nearly 100 years ago? The answer without a doubt is NO!  If the governments are the puppet of the ruling class and exert the class dictatorship over other classes, the dictatorship of the worker state which provide the most widespread democracy for the great majority in the society and exert its dictatorship against the remnant exploiting and oppressive classes to the extent of preventing them from return to their cruel power, isn’t it the best democracy in the world? Surely the answer is YES! Isn’t it true that the peasants and the urban petite-bourgeoisie which are under the oppression of the ruling bourgeoisie have common interests with the working class? The answer is YES! Then, what is your problem about this claim that: “pluralism can educate and guide the determination, thoughts and collective action” (right there). It is on the basis of what class practice? This mere claim without backing and without practical cover is in the societies that existed until now in them according to the scientific communist stipulation, the class dictatorship of the minority over majority have always called the shut! So, this reflection of yours is like Khomeini’s hypocritical lip about “let’s all be together” that has not brought any result, but dictatorship, since the conflicting class interest in the society, are in severe battle against one another. Therefore, your utterance is an expression of petty-bourgeois’ desire in disguise of “the workers divide in different strata and different interests” which is the expression of a hardliner petite-bourgeoisie which is tied to its stratum that claims to be communist!

Another example of petty-bourgeois mentality transfused in the left movement can be found in the manifesto of the session of 25 “communist and left  Parties, Organizations and Institutions” in Colón, Germany in which in that manifesto, the participants in that session called them communist and not only smallest reference was not given to the need for the organizational unity of the communists in a vanguard party of the working class, but there is more effort in bringing more organizations to be attracted to this gathering so, in this manner pluralism becomes more complete and the struggle for a bogus “socialist alternative” , but not like a single, integrated, but in one indeterminate pole in which everyone has his/her own understanding from socialist alternative and contrary to the teaching of scientific communism and under the leadership of a single working class party, have gathered only in the extent of a political front. This superficial and one sided view is arising from not seeing or not understanding the importance of a single commanding headquarter of the working class in a complex and complicated class war.

Kaveh Dadgari, in the publication # 239, pg. 15 of “Jahane Emrooz”,( first half of August, 2012, Communist Party of Iran’s publication) justifies as such: “What does currently the precept of Iranian proletariat need against bourgeoisie that is in preferment and advancement? The answer is very clear, immediate and almost continuously: To make aware, to organize and mobilization of the working class, trying for coordination and cooperation among different sectors of the labor movement activists and leaders, wherever and whenever and to any degree that it is possible, making worker’s movement widespread and unified in the version of active interference in current struggles of the working class….how is this precept being done and what process, program and plan as the program of guideline plan should be followed? The answer to this question….no need for complex thought, idealization , and astonishing and ingenuity plans… the radical activists of the worker’s movement of Iran must pursue with all their efforts and energy and as the first and fundamental duty the “unity in action” from the bottom and at the top up, level and depth among leaders, activists,  partisans and in every where,  continuously….the ploy of “unity of action”, is our ploy of today, tomorrow and everyday and is concerned with the entirety of our activities and struggles, before and after the overthrow of the bourgeois Islamic Republic ….therefore, the communists and worker’s movement  activists and vanguards, are to advance all their energy and resources coordinated in daily struggle against bourgeoisie’s stronghold areas of economy, politics, culture and society and clearly set before the one’s eyes the “unity of action” as the organizational program and organizational structure of struggle… This orientation in policy, correctly has proclaimed by the “Communist Party of Iran” in the arena of effort to create ” left political pole” and also specified practice in this direction has been achieved “(End of quotation, all of emphasis on words and sentences are ours) and then, Nosrat Taimourzadeh for more emphasis on this policy in an article titled “joint session of the communist and left forces, response to which question”? (”Jahane Emrooz”, issue # 297, pg. 6, August 27, 2012), writes:

“Contrary to bourgeois forces which mislead  the people and instead inject their own class interests to theme as national interest of all sectors of society, the communists loudly proclaim that society has been divided into classes. Each class of society through their representatives, or their parties, offering variety of policies and sets its programs for public spectrum to see. Therefore, the working class, parties and organizations which identify and define themselves as part of this class, it is essential  to call upon society toward the revolutionary working class alternative…Do communism and left as a powerful pole of the community are able to change  the fate of  the community or bearing on the struggles   for social changes in Iran too be affected with  the fate of the revolutionary struggles of the region and as a result, have been stalled half way or reactionary and imperialist alternatives to be replaced with Islamic system”.

This view of Communist Party of Iran and all other pluralists is a new “discovery”  in an infantile manner which summarizes battle between life and death and complex class struggle of communists with local and global bourgeoisie to the extent of “unity of action” of the” parties, organizations, left and communist institutions”, without noticing that “practice” is not a single subject or event and continuously outbreaks in different forms and unity over that, given the multiplicity of the left organizations, are impossible or if we are optimistic, it is going to take long time which fades away the opportunity for immediate action in the daily class struggle.  If the purpose of the “unity of actions” is all the acts of the communist struggle, like the way some invoke that with formulation of “lasting unity of action”, suppose such unity becomes possible, such motive that praises this unity between the communists, but when it comes to its realization, is not willing to unite. Now, what other thing beside petty-bourgeois factionalism and sectarianism is inconsistent with the teaching of scientific communism? Is the organizational unity of the communists is essentially part of the advancement of the revolutionary practice? Therefore, if comrade Kaveh Dadgary, and Nosrat Taimourzadeh do speak frankly, they must have had stated that we are the Communist Party of Iran and we are willing to unite with all of you lefts and naturally, such frankly speaking is in violation of the session of Colon, Germany which has been issued a statement as the communists and not by the Communist Party and other none communist organizations!

Another examples of transfusion of the petty-bourgeois view within the proletarian view, is how to approach with the decision in a communist organization. An observer comrade as a representative of a participant organization at the session in Colon, Germany proudly states that their organization has the following interpretation of Democratic-Centralism in their organization and their congress has approved it: “the decisions are taken on the basis of majority vote, but the minority is not bound to follow” (quotation to mean).

In scientific communism, the emphasis on the execution of Democratic-Centralism to mean “minority has to follow majority” in practice and by maintaining one’s own view and continue the struggle within the party to defend the legitimacy of this minority view. Since the communists here do not only want to interpret the world but their aim is to change it (Marx), the majority view would be implemented by the entire party member as a relative truth or agreement in practice until the correctness and incorrectness of majority view to be determined. But, the petty-bourgeois interpretation of Democratic-Centralism by   the observant comrade and his organization, the majority decision will not be implemented in practice with certainty, since in practice the same minority would obstruct these views so it won’t be implemented in practice and this circumstance also create the semen of  splitting. The ideological origin of this deviationist view is individualism which denies any collective work under the pretext of the petit-bourgeois’  “majority dictatorship” and in fact is the propagandist of anarchism in which its flag holder is the minority and individualism!! Naturally, the debate is about the decisions that do not contradict the basic party or organizational principles, practically and theoretically. Otherwise, after severe ideological struggle within the party, split becomes necessary and not denying the proletarian democratic-centralism.

Given the above issues and the last three points of deviance, the necessity of the ideological struggle for surmounting the prevalent  petty-bourgeois mode of thinking spread in the worker’s and communist movement in Iran which has been penetrated in them a lot more than these examples, is important in advancing the conscious worker’s movement and the creation of the wise and militant leadership of this class. For this reason, we invite all communists that are faced with such problem within their organizations to advance a genuine, rational and steady ideological struggle against this harmful phenomenon in the communist and left movement in order to help seriously advance  the class struggle of the workers and toilers in Iran via uniting the communists in a single communist party.

K. Ebrahim, August 31, 2012

written by admin

Sep 15

With the development of technology and the gradual automation of work through mechanical devices – especially the second half of the 20th Century – the intellectual circles of the bourgeoisie, with the assistance of a handful of revisionists and those university professors of the type who are servile to capitalist interests, actively sought to create disarray among the defenders of the working class by denying the relevancy of Marxism. They started preaching about the gradual elimination of the working class and the replacement of human labor by machines.

The working class is the most dangerous enemy of capitalism and of course of imperialism as well. Therefore, the producers of surplus value are under relentless criticism.  Intellectually bankrupt imperialist think-tanks seek to undermine their constructive role in the production of material as well as intellectual goods of human society. In Iran too, although with a few decades delay with respect to their Western counterparts, a handful of these capitalist servants have tried desperately to refute the Marxist theory of the role of the working class. And this despite role of the Iranian working class of Iran and its vanguards – with determination, vision and sustained endurance – in the relentless and merciless criticism of the unjust capitalist system in Iran.  On a daily basis, despite heavy casualties, the working class resolutely pursues its historic role, persevering through the whiplashes of oppression, repression, imprisonment, torture and executions in order to finally eliminate this cancerous tumor from Iran and the world.

On this basis, and in defense of their revolutionary role and in defense of the increasing role of the working class in the world, Communists must unanimously condemn this deviationist trend of criticizing Marxism. They must not allow these rapacious weeds, disguised as Marxism and scientific communism, to strangle the blossoming working class revolution.  Here we shall concentrate on an overview of the issues regarding production in the world, the role of individuals in production from the point of view of scientific communism and the ever increasing importance of the working class.

The definition of working class, and in general of classes, gets its real meaning directly in relation to necessary material and intellectual production – and how they develop and share their social status. Therefore, in order to establish such definitions, it is best to spend some time on the role of production.

1 – The Role of Production in the Socialization of Humanity:

Human beings, throughout our existence, even during the epochs when only small bands of humans existed, were forced for the sake of survival to work collectively to provide the basic necessities of life and to maintain the kind of life they knew. During the epoch of primitive communism everyone, without exception, participated in the gathering of edible fruits and roots and everyone had a share of what was gathered. Without such a collective effort, given the existing dangers and threats to life, humans would not otherwise have been able to sustain life.

With the mastering of fire came greater facility to consume hunted meat and fish.  With this higher quality food, they became more willing and able to produce collectively – ultimately domesticating animals, developing production tools, domesticating plants [the beginning of agriculture], developing methods for the safe storage of food and generally improving their means of subsistence. With the progressive increase in production and improvement of fabrication methods, the division of labor came to existence.  All these collective activities served inevitably to dramatically improve the living conditions of humanity.  Only when this division of labor reached a level that enabled the formation of patriarchal relations and private property rights over the means of production, was the initial equality which existed between humans during primitive communism replaced by inequalities which led gradually to class rule.

But throughout the history of all modes of production, and the several thousand years of class societies, the role of a minority of the people became reduced to that of parasites:  those who did not participate in collective work, as the owners of the means of production.  Instead they seized the fruits of the labor of others.  The vast majority of people continue, up to this day, to directly or indirectly participate in the production of goods and the perpetuation of human life.

The necessity of collective, social production is not only limited to humans.  Honey bees, ants and termites are also creatures which produce in a collective manner and benefit collectively. There are also some other animals at different levels of complexity which hunt collectively for food.

The role of production in the socialization of humanity and by the same token the role of human socialization in the development to production is a dialectical relationship between humans and nature.  Those relationships which arose on the basis of the ownership of the means of production and exchange by a handful of people who had parasitic characteristics were transformative:  they generated a high degree of “self-alienation” and the destruction of nature. It is thus that the surgical removal of the cancerous tumor of capitalism, for the recovery of human health and of nature, has become urgent. Only by that surgery will humanity achieve reconciliation with itself and with nature.  To be healthy, both physically and psychologically, humans must be productive; their position in society must be more than that of leeches and parasites. Social production has consistently required socialized people.

2 – Production and its Perpetuation Are Not Possible Without a Steady Supply of Labor :

It is a well-known fact that from the very beginning that production inevitably requires people to provide the labor power. First of all, human society without human production is not viable. In this manner, the production of labor power on the one hand and the labor of the producer of essential consumer goods on the other hand are the two basic factors among other necessary requirements for sustaining and improving human life.

The role of women as producers of labor power, to this day, has not been recognized and appreciated by the ruling classes.   Bees and ants pay special attention to the protection of their queen, in order to sustain their small communities.   However, in human societies it was only during the epoch of primitive communism that women had the primary role in directing affairs.  In class societies, most women became slaves of the patriarchal class systems, and were severely suppressed and exploited. Therefore, today’s vanguard needs to relentlessly struggle for women’s reproductive rights and for gender equality in human society. This must be pursued without qualification.

It is true that from a natural standpoint, women, for a substantial period of their lives, have the ability to produce children.   But the “production” of children in preparation for them to join the work force also includes the duty of nourishing, protecting and educating.   And in any case, even if more than 90% of their basic duty were to supply labor, given all of that is required of them to work at home, women are clearly very productive and their work is very valuable.  Therefore, as the owners of “half the sky”, the role of women in production, in any society, must consistently be taken in to account.  Human production is the most valuable production in human society, and the role of women in society is primordial.

Production without Services is not viable:

To be productive, people need nourishment, education, health, rest, exercise, recreation, transportation and so on. Lack of attention to each of these categories can harm the health of productive people or diminish the level of production to the point of jeopardizing their survival as well as the continuation of the production of any given commodity – which all together, would be a serious risk.

Therefore, all those people who perceive labor power only in people directly engaged in production, have a mechanical perception of productive activity, and are not able to correctly evaluate the various factors that are needed for production. They ignore the social character of production. As the Persian proverb says: “Only when the clouds, the moon, the sun and the heavens are put to work, will you be able to earn your daily bread without neglect!” With this account, to reduce production in human society [is a social imperative] to the province of a single set of individuals or groups, results in dubious claims e.g.  “The number of workers is decreasing every day, and automation has taken over”.   Such claims rely upon one sided counting of the number of industrial workers in advanced countries only; it ignores the rest of  the world and the ever increasing numbers of the working class there.  Such claims segregate the service and intellectual sectors from among the ranks of the labor force and in this manner, sacrifice the growth of the global working class to a trend of a few advanced industrial countries.  Automation in those advanced countries serves to make the working class dependent on automation and to create an unemployed reserve army of labor to be exploited. And at the same time, lots of manufacturing activities that are labor intensive are taken to the peripheral (Third World) countries to take advantage of abundant and cheap labor in those countries, with low wages paid to the workers in those countries, to achieve substantial surplus value of labor.

Given these considerations, we proceed to define the working class:

4 -The Definition of the Working Class

Considering the above points and noting that for women during pregnancy and nursing, the care and upbringing of children must be considered as part of the productive forces, we can define the working class as follows.

In Terms of Economic Infrastructure and Productivity:

All social groups that lack ownership of the means of production and exchange,  and generally capital; who are wage or salary earners (whether by physical or mental labor), or who are unpaid [even the producers and  breeders of the work force during the early years of  newly born children (i.e. women)] but who are the creators of  surplus labor and value, are considered to be productive working class.

In the present context, they are directly or indirectly being exploited by the global capitalist system. Of course, that segment of the physical or intellectual workforce who meanwhile sell their labor force or receive salaries, but whose work does not directly generate capital for the capitalists, would be considered an unproductive sector of the working class.  They mainly are working in the service sector and often are  employed in the public sector.

Also, the boundary line between the working class and the petite-bourgeoisie is not always very clear and migration from one class or strata to another class exists, including those who are half workers and half petite-bourgeoisie. But their number is not a determining factor in the composition of the entire working class.

In terms of superstructure and politics:

A segment of white collar workers or intellectual workers earn (due to the nature of their work) a larger share of social wealth; some of them join the ranks of the capitalists.  There are also women who are capitalists or who serve the bourgeoisie and ruling classes (either in terms of their politics or because of the capital they control).  They do not assist the working class in its struggle against the exploitation of the capitalist system. They are in the camp of the ruling class. At the same time, there are segments of the ruling classes who are pro-working class, in that politically they are friends of the working class.

Thus, the economic identity of different segments of the working class must then be separated from their political identity.  We must also acknowledge that a small portion of the working class in capitalist societies  lose their economic identity, and will join the ranks of the exploiting classes.

Based on the above definition, the situation of the working class in Iran can be determined as follows:

According to semi-reliable 2006 statistics, the entire working age population in Iran was 20.5 million people. About one million people enter the job market every year, and presently there are 25 million people in Iran who are eligible for employment (whether currently employed or not). According to the 2006 statistics  presented by Fariborz Raisdana (an Iranian economist), “the entire 2006 working population (in millions) consisted of :  skilled workers, 4; agricultural workers, 0.5; technicians, 1.1; laborers, 2.6; self- employed, 4.56; for a total of 12.76 million.  If we include intellectual workers, the total would reach 15 million.  And assuming that each household has at least two children  [and deducting the number of employed women (2.75 million) which has been published in Raisdana’s statistics], the number of working class people as part of the total population would be at least 40 million. The population of Iran in 2006 was 70 million.  This would indicate that working class people account for about 60% of the total population. Note that pregnant women and those that are raising children are not part of Raisdana’s statistics.

Based on this brief assessment, the class makeup of Iranian society is as follows: The working class and the toiling masses, with their families that make up the majority of the population of Iran, have an antagonistic contradiction with the ruling bourgeoisie in Iran. Workers struggle for bread, for housing, and for the abolition of private property; they struggle for the establishment of collective, and ultimately social, ownership. Their battle is against the ruling capitalist system.

Other contradictions, such as the contradiction between the various factions of the bourgeoisie, relate to the division of created wealth in the society; these contradictions play out under the false banners of “defense of democracy”, of secularism, of anti-imperialism, anti-discrimination, national sovereignty, etc. These demands may in some cases be serious and principled. But what the bourgeoisie wants is that which as a class it is capable of achieving.   The Iranian bourgeoisie, in all its factions, with its nationalistic tendencies, even if it were to seize power, is incapable of satisfying these demands in the era of “socialism or barbarism”.  This task has fallen squarely on the shoulders of the working class.

Therefore, the solution to society’s problems, both in terms of infrastructure and superstructure, can only be implemented by the workers and laborers through the overthrow of the capitalist system.  The other classes and strata such as the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie cannot take on this mission.

Thus, those who blow the tarnished trumpet of decadent capitalism, declaring the disappearance of the working class and denying the revolutionary theory of the working class and scientific communism, including those in Iran, should not influence any serious person who is aware of the objective conditions of Iranian society, and of those of the world over.  Rather, they expose themselves as barren of accomplishment; they merely parrot the viewpoints of imperialist circles.

K. Ebrahim, January 30, 2012

(1) – I intend to quote part of the teachings of scientific communism in relation to production and the definition of  class for our readers to ponder.

Fredrick Engels, in his book, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, describes the constitution of creation and the loss of existence in regard to the history of human evolution, from the beginning stages of life, as follows:

“According to the materialistic conception, the determining factor in history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of the immediate essentials of life. This, again, is of a twofold character. On the one side, the production of the means of existence, of articles of food and clothing, dwellings, and of the tools necessary for that production; on the other side, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species. The social organization under which the people of a particular historical epoch and a particular country live is determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labor on the one hand and of the family on the other.” (Preface to the First Edition, 1884).

Other notable writings:

…they (Marx and Engels) introduced an “amendment” to the formula of the materialist conception of history indicating that, in addition to the production of material values, a determining factor is the production of man himself, i.e., procreation, which played a primary role in the primitive era, when the productivity of labor was still very undeveloped.” (Lenin- What the “Friends of the People” Are and how they fight the Social Democrats?, A Reply to Articles in Russkoye Bogatstvo Opposing the Marxists, Part I, Pg. 15).

“A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labor become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things.” (Karl Marx, Capital Vol. I)

“Production to consumption, whether it is for productive or none productive, however, it is productive capital only if it is good investment…as far as it relates to the worker. (In exact meaning of the word), the wealth that he creates is a form of wealth which is directly associated with the work that is the capital. Then, the productive work is the one that directly adds to capital.” (Marx, Grundriesse, Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I, pg. 271, Internet Archives)

“Exchange of money in the form of income or, the means of simple circulation for the purchase of wage labor for personal consumption, never converts money in to capital, and the kind of labor that has been purchased from such exchange is never a wage labor with respect to the economic meaning of the word.” (Ibid, Internet Archives).

“In bourgeois society itself, all exchange of personal services for revenue — including labor for personal consumption, cooking, sewing etc., garden work etc., up to and including all of the unproductive classes, civil servants, physicians, lawyers, scholars etc. — belongs under this rubric, within this category. All menial servants etc. By means of their services — often coerced — all these workers, from the least to the highest, obtain for themselves a share of the surplus product, of the capitalist’s revenue.
But it does not occur to anyone to think that by means of the exchange of his revenue for such services, i.e. through private consumption, the capitalist posits himself as capitalist. Rather, he thereby spends the fruits of his capital. It does not change the nature of the relation that the proportions in which revenue is exchanged for this kind of living labor are themselves determined by the general laws of production.” (Marx, The Grundreisse, 1857, Internet Archives)

“About the town’s handicrafts, although they are necessarily relying on exchange and the creation of the exchange values but, the direct and main target of this production is to provide subsistence for the craftsman and apprentice craftsmen, and as a result, it is the creation of the consumption value, wealth, not as an exchange value exchanges value. Therefore, always the production of these manufacturing industries from fixed consumption, and supply follows demand and its expansion is very slow.” (Grundreisse, 1857, Internet Archives)

“Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.

Clearly, in order to abolish classes completely, it is not enough to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, not enough to abolish their rights of ownership; it is necessary also to abolish all private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to abolish the distinction between town and country, as well as the distinction between manual workers and brain workers. This requires a very long period of time. In order to achieve this an enormous step forward must be taken in developing the productive forces; it is necessary to overcome the resistance (frequently passive, which is particularly stubborn and particularly difficult to overcome) of the numerous survivals of small-scale production; it is necessary to overcome the enormous force of habit and conservatism which are connected with these survivals.” . (V. I. Lenin-A Great Beginning, Lenin’s Internet Archives, June 28 1919)

written by admin

Feb 09

The 94th anniversary of the October Revolution will be arrived soon, and in commemorations of this occasion, the supporter organizations of working class and the workers revolution all over the world celebrate the memory of this great historical event. This of course is a positive way to respect the historical achievements of “the wretched of the earth” who in a period of time went from” being nothing to being all”. But the achievements of the internationalist proletariat in Russia cannot be summed up simply in the victory of the October Revolution; that would ignore its legacy and its underlying reasons:

1 – The conscious proletariat of Russia had a dialectical sharp sightedness to hold resolutely to revolutionary Marxism as the scientific theory of proletarian liberation and to resist the social democratic, petite-bourgeois and anarchistic interpretations of Marxism. These revolutionaries decisively defended this theory, and in their revolutionary practice they further developed revolutionary Marxism. This was evident in their full understanding of the nature of class and of its functions, of class struggle (which is a matter of life and death), and of class rule (which is the dictatorship of one class over the other – either for safeguarding the old system or for the consolidation of new class relations in place of the decadent and retrograde class relations); they benefited from a guiding science (revolutionary Marxism) which they applied in a responsible manner.

2 – The conscious proletariat of Russia in its revolutionary practice focused on the essential revolutionary points which opened the door toward revolution and the seizing of political power; and it focused on its essence which was expressed in revolutionary Marxism. Their practice erected great shining along the path of the proletarian program and its tactics in advancing the class struggle and the strategy for seizing political power.

3 – In addition, after the seizing of power, the conscious proletariat of Russia was confronted with complex contradictions in socialist construction which were not only related to the internal problems of the workers movement but also to international problems, to the international workers and communist movements, and to the movement of oppressed nations against the exploitation and plunder of these nations by imperialism.  By confronting these contradictions, and offering solutions, the Russian proletariat displayed the international character of the October Revolution, and they left behind many enlightening lessons.

A more detailed explanation of these three contributions is beyond the scope of this article. But we would like to point out some important issues within the Iranian Left movement which exist at the present time. Many comrades unconsciously, and often thoughtlessly, ignore the critical importance of decisively defending scientific proletarian theory and of teaching its scientific achievements; quite a few of their organizations within the movement no longer include these activities in their adopted programs (1). [notes are found at the end of this article]

a – On “Going back to Marx”:

With the collapse of the socialist camp due to the emergence of revisionism (which basically has its roots in the objective reality of the development and backwardness of these societies), some have drawn the conclusion that they should start over from the beginning – and in this manner they look directly to Marx for solutions. This line of thought ignores the October Revolution:  whether from the Right social democratic view that the time for socialist revolution in Russia had not yet arrived in 1917 or from the Left view that the leadership of the October Revolution balked at the immediate establishment of communist relations of production and the abolition of wage labor.
So long as this “return to Marx” is related to scientific communism as expressed by its founding fathers, then  it is a rational precept. But more often, this “return” is conceived in such way that the evolution of scientific communism after Marx and Engels, as advanced specifically by Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung, must be rejected or set aside, since these historical achievements do not, in their view,  properly reflect proletarian revolutionary practice. There is no serious reasoning behind the statement of such a claim so the misconceptions about the shortcomings of today’s scientific revolutionary theory (if they exist) have no possibility of “clarification”.  Science cannot be negated simply by vilification of “scientists”, since doing so simply betrays the magnitude of the individual’s or organization’s irresponsibility in making such claims.

These line of thoughts hold either that the principles of scientific communism do not have a dialectical developmental aspect, or are like religious dogmas “revealed truth”: that is, once such principles have been discovered and have been presented, they remain in human society exactly as their original discoverers presented them.  If they perceive the principles of scientific communism otherwise, then they must explain what their Marxism is today, and of what consequence is their Marxism to revolutionary practice, and why is it correct?

The concept of “going back to Marx”, in the absence of an underlying justification, is nothing more than a metaphysical viewpoint which has no scientific value for the advancement of the liberation of the working class and the oppressed masses.

b – In what way is it possible for scientific communism to be taught to the working class?

The one-dimensional aspect of the left-wing sectarian viewpoint within the Iranian Left movement, which creates so much disruption within the working class movement, has been labeled “ proletarian pretension”; it believes that the working class in its struggles against the capitalist system is capable on its own of mastering the science of self liberation from within.  For them, “bringing scientific communism from outside to the working class” is meaningless. This view is definitely an obstacle in the path of the conscious working class movement, and it sharply limits its potential to learn the science of its liberation. Why?

Classes in human society necessarily do not have any concrete thick walls to prevent the entry or exit of any individuals from one class to another one.  Often people, who for different reasons belong to non-proletarian classes, join the ranks of proletarians; and on the other hand, there are workers who are promoted to the petite-bourgeois, or the bourgeoisie, or who become the owners of productive forces. In the meantime, intellectuals who come to serve the working class in its struggles undertake an important responsibility in bringing consciousness to this class.  Due to their social position, they have more scientific and cultural knowledge compared to workers. As a matter of fact, the world outlook and the analysis of the historical development of human societies, as well as the basic principles of scientific communism, were formulated by intellectuals who emerged from the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Those intellectuals summarized the practice of the working class struggle – and this fact is quite clear and understandable to any ordinary worker. But the sectarians wish to erect a “Great Wall of China” to separate the working class from other non-proletarian classes- creating obstacles to the growth of the proletarian revolutionary ranks and isolating the working class.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that the numerous intellectuals who enter the ranks of  the proletariat necessarily have not all completely given up their past world outlooks, and there are those who bring with them many corrupting elements such as dogmatism, sectarianism, opportunism, revisionism …etc. to the workers movement. Whether consciously or unconsciously, they hinder this movement and can inflict heavy damage.  However, provided that the working class movement enjoys the benefit of having conscious and revolutionary leaders joining it, and that it implements proletarian work methods, it becomes capable of distinguishing revolutionaries from non-revolutionaries among the intellectuals, and of taking action to cleanse the revolutionary proletarian ranks of non-proletarian ideologies.

In the ranks of communists, class origin does not have an immediate determinative role in being a revolutionary and a communist.  It is defense of  the revolutionary proletarian line at all times, adherence to revolutionary proletarian policy, participation in vanguard proletarian organizations, and devotion to revolutionary practice that determine who becomes a revolutionary communist.

Although advances of science and technology and the increase of educated workers, the importance of the role of the worker leadership among the ranks of the communist parties grows every day. Nevertheless the material conditions of production, with its days and nights of cumbersome work and the lack of leisure and material amenities, create much more obstacles to enhancing the working class level of education in their class struggle. To overcome these obstacles, it is necessary to rely upon communist intellectuals to raise the level of working class consciousness, and the workers clearly perceive this complexity of their movement. So, the objection to raising the consciousness of the working class itself indicates the presence of non-proletarian ideological disruption within the working class movement.

c – The Role of the Communist Party

The history of the worker’s movement in the recent 160 years and generally, the history of the class struggles during the past thousand years, show that each class, to advance toward its goals, needs vanguards in order to guide these struggles step by step. The Communist Manifesto was drafted by Marx and Engels at the request of the “Communist League” which was the first international vanguard workers party. The theory of the new vanguard proletarian party was developed by Lenin and then by Mao-Tse-Tung and through its victories were achieved in the October Revolution of Russia in1917 and in the October Revolution of China in 1949 under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party of Russia and the Communist Party of China, respectively.

The party is analogous to the central command of the proletarian military army in the class struggle. The concept of a unified war effort in the absence of such a central command, without concentration of forces, is unimaginable; victory in such warfare would be impossible. That is not complex and incomprehensible. Right now, the bourgeoisie in all of the industrialized countries rely upon multiple parties to advance its policies. The existence of different bourgeois parties, with their more or less similar programs, which have no other goal than to serve the ruling elites, is nothing more than an artful. The bourgeoisie spreads divisions among the people by encouraging allegiance to different parties, thereby preventing the people from earlier seeing the exploitative and oppressive nature of the capitalist system, and from rising up against it. In other words, “divide and conquer!” is the main capitalist strategy to safeguard their hold on power. Of course, the reality in the majority of capitalist countries is such that generally one or two bourgeois parties enjoy the most influence, and in parliamentary elections power merely shifts from from one to the other, and the result is “business as usual”.

This manipulation by the bourgeoisie of the petite-bourgeoisie (which is basically formed from different strata of people) is accepted specially, because in that small-property ownership and the competition that small holdings breeds is the basis for safeguarding their social conditions.

Communists, who are the defenders of the specific and general interests of the working class, have the strategy of socialist revolution and, at its later historical stage, the transition to communism, in mind.  In opposition to the bourgeoisie, not only communists seek to unite the working class to bring down the capitalist power;  but  in order to achieve victory in this struggle to free the toiling masses from the yoke of repression and oppression imposed by the capitalist system, they must strive to be organized within the communist party of their country, and to create the broadest united front against this system. The slogans of “Workers of all Countries Unite!” and “Workers of all Countries and Oppressed Nations Unite!” are expression of the historical point of view of communists who seek to abolish “the self alienation” which arises from the existence of the exploitative and oppressive classes in all countries.  They seek to create a global society free of all forms of exploitation, oppression, and discrimination.

Therefore, in the interest of ensuring the unity of the vanguards of the working class, communists must unite in a single party in every country. Just as at the level of class society, the working class is the most vanguard of all, at the level of organized political forces in any given country, the communist party is the most conscious and disciplined force, and consequently it is the most revolutionary party which comprises the most vanguard and conscious proletarian elements. We must strive to build such a party.

But this model, which has been validated by practice and confirmed by scientific communism, is denied and ignored by some Iranian Left groups:

-     Some of them under the illusion that the workers must organize themselves in workers councils and advance their own precepts; they are totally opposed to, and antagonistic to, building a communist party. One would say that the communist party is not having a class basis but rather it falls from the sky fully formed!

-    Some others, operating under the perception that the working class is formed from different strata of people, believe that in order to defend the interests of those different strata, separate parties are required.  They then advocate organizational pluralism among the ranks of the communists and oppose the creation of a single party.

-    Some others consider themselves to be the only vanguard working class party and practically they  tolerate organizational pluralism – but this without having proven that they are the sole defenders of the specific and general interests of the working class movement, or that they are guiding this movement;

-    And finally, there are others who, although they accept the single unified party concept, also feel the need to tolerate factional-organizational viewpoints; their tolerance extends to allowing factions to refuse to follow leadership directives and thereby shattering the unity of view and action of the party. This view disrupts and subverts party building; it is the mother of the three prevailing corrosive deviations described above, and it stems from the petite-bourgeois ideology which intrudes itself among the ranks of the proletariat.

The consequence of these incorrect views so far has been that communists, especially after the emergence of modern revisionism in scientific communism, have been deprived of the weapon of the single unified political party.  Instead, they give a movement character to all their actions and the sharp and dynamic dialectic of concentration of forces is sacrificed to a pluralistic movement with full of riot and chaos, which gives way to anarchism and spontaneity in the organizational arena. And in this manner, the proletariat is deprived of a singular commanding leadership in the class struggle.
As long as classes and class struggle exist, dissonance arises from this situation within the classes  and divides them into the strata of vanguard/advanced, intermediate, and backward in the class struggle. The vanguard sector of each class would also be mobilized to take up its leadership/command role. This situation for the working class, which intends to overthrow the class system, is more straightforward than for any other class.

d – The Anarchistic View vis-a-vis the Concept of Democracy

In the final analysis, class struggle is the life and death battle between the exploiters and the exploited. Class rule has been accomplished by force and not by leaning to peace between the exploiters/oppressors rulers and the exploited/oppressed who are condemned to subjugation. This axiom is the ABC of class rule which has been clearly identified by scientific communism. The historic experience of the ruling council which were established in Russia soon after the Revolution shows that after the establishment of this government, the resistance and sabotage of the capitalists, feudal elements, and the powerful church and even of a sector of the petite-bourgeoisie against socialism, whom were initially defeated in the class conflict, flares up in a thousand ways to resist the transition to socialist relations. They do their all to subvert the advancement of the proletarian advanced system. These counterrevolutionaries also enjoyed the unconditional support of the world capitalist system, which intensified the “fist against fist” combat that intensified. It is useful to point out Lenin’s summing up of the period which immediately followed the victory of the October Revolution:
“The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by their overthrow (even if only in a single country), and whose power lies, not only in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international connections, but also in the force of habit, and in the strength of small-scale production. It is this small-scale production that continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously and on a mass scale engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie. All these reasons make the dictatorship of the proletariat necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and life-and-death struggle which calls for tenacity, discipline, perseverance, firmness and a single determination is impossible”.
But among the Left forces, on the question of the interpretation of democracy, it seems as if competition has occurred, and those who defend “ unconditional freedom” for the entire society wish to be recognized as the “champions” of the defense of freedom and democracy!

In a workers council democracy, unconditional freedom exists for the workers and laborers who are the defenders of the socialist system, but not for the enemies of the socialist system who are constantly conspiring against the system to overthrow it.  Granting organizational freedom to them means allowing them to wage war to overthrow workers power.

As long as classes and class struggle exist in socialist society, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be established  with the goal of the abolition of classes and the class struggle. Otherwise both dictatorship and democracy will be eroded since there would be no ruling authority in society; and as a result, authority over people would be reduced to authority over objects – meaning nothing more than affaires management – and the freedom of the individual is a pre-condition for the freedom of all.

Advocating “unconditional freedom” in council democracy amounts to backtracking from proletarian democracy to social-democratic and bourgeois democracy – which is a total imposture; it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  In fact it has been proven to be completely and totally impractical; even in the best light, it is an ultra-class interpretation of democracy in a class society!

This petite-bourgeois interpretation of “unconditional freedom” at the level of society would become reflected within the party and would undermine proletarian democratic-centralism. This would, in turn, generate theoretical dispersion to such an extent that  the people who oppose the party’s political line, outside the party, would be entitled not only to criticize, but also to refuse to carry out party directives!

e – On Proletarian Internationalism

Since the working class is an international class that demands the removal of all obstacles in its path to liberation, including national boundaries that were forged by the ruling classes, specifically by the bourgeoisie, in the recent historical era, its struggle must be unified and integrated. The international working class must create its central command of leadership and clarify its fundamental strategy and tactics in its struggle to overthrow the capitalist system,as it does at national level. Therefore, if sympathy, unconditional support and protection for the struggle of the working class and the toiling masses is the necessary condition for the proclamation of international class solidarity for every communist party, then the struggle for the creation of a single global working class center is also a sufficient condition for the realization of the global unity of the world working class.

But, the Iranian Left movement about this subject, as it vacillates, caught up in diversity, and abstention to create a single communist party, also do not have the necessary readiness to attempt to achieve such unity at the international level. Those parts of the Left forces who to some extent are active in international relations, instead of finding a way to eliminate division and dispersion of the organized international communist movements, choose rather to proceed along the path of sectarianism at the international level. As a result they continue to be involved in the perpetuation of dispersion and division of comunists internationally.

In this manner, Left Iranian left internationalism has not gone beyond mere words; it has not reached the level of action. This is further indication that many Iranian communists – organized or  unfortunately  unorganized – refuse to accept the teachings of scientific communism!

f – Struggle and Unity within the Party

According to the teachings of scientific communism, class struggles outside of the party become reflected within the party; and the viewpoint struggles continue continually. The correct handling and guidance of these theoretical struggles promotes the party’s knowledge and its ability to scrutinize policies and work methods. The formula of “unity – criticism – unity” (Mao) determines the correct limitations of these ideological struggles within the party. In other words, starting from the position of unity in the party regarding problems which arise, a view may be criticized, and finally, after discussion and dialogue, we strive to reach unity at a higher level. Obviously, it is possible that some do not agree with the majority’s view and retain their view. According to the platform of the party, these comrades have the right to continue to struggle within the party and they can even call for more discussion regarding their views. But, outside of the party, they must apply the majority’s view. This proletarian style of work ensures that the party acts with unity and power in its class struggle, while at the same time the minority’s view does not disappear. Failure to follow this proletarian method of struggle within the party will cause the party to divide and to split, draining its strength and stunting its growth.

It is only when principled differences which have to do with the nature of the party’s positions and policies that a split is justifiable and correct. This would include when a proletarian party proceeds with a bourgeois policy, and if the struggle against these positions and policies does not rectify the problem, then it is justifiable to split. Otherwise, the resort to splits is a sign of the non-proletarian nature of the splitters and their decision to split. Naturally, these policies must be related to the proletarian or non-proletarian nature of the party, and not any day-to-day policy.
This style of ideological struggle within the party must be implemented in every Left organization, and even though at this stage many organizations still do not have the qualities of a vanguard working class party, they must try to do away with splits and dispersion as much as possible.

In Iran’s Left movement, lack of attention to the importance of organization and its role in service to the growth of the class struggle of the working class has reached horrific levels. Without any regard to principled differences, as soon as a dispute breaks out within their party or organization, these individuals leave their organization. In this manner, ideological struggle within the party does not help to strengthen the party but rather to weaken and divide it. The most recent example of these types of splits can be observed in the “Communist Party of Iran” during the past two decades, in which, despite the claims of the splitters, these splits did not result in more advanced organizations. To the contrary, being at the service of sectarianism, these divisions never produced any positive result for the class struggle of the working class.

The root of these splits lies within petite-bourgeois ideology which stems from the dispersed social existence of the petite-bourgeoisie in relation to production and exchange (2). Also this non-proletarian style of resolving political, organizational and internal party problems presently prevails at the level of the workers and mass movement. This results in Left forces not only not contributing to the unity of the worker’s movement but actually slumping further toward the divisiveness that is so highly praised by the local bourgeoisie and world imperialism.

Perhaps it is not out of context to point out that the ideological struggles within the party or within the communist movement must be rational and ideological – political, but not in the non-proletarian style of accusation and defamation which results in a pessimistic and distrustful atmosphere where nothing can be learned. In the conscious proletarian movement, there is no place for such lumpism.

Unfortunately, the current ideological context is one of conflict of which the revisionists of the “Tudeh Party” were the mother, and of which the forces supporting Mansour Hekmat during the 1980’s became the chief propagators of these methods.  Presently, the ideological struggles within the Iranian communist movement which result from this non-proletarian style of work have diminished and silenced. And under the reign of these destructive ideas, the views which are being put forward by the presently weak communist forces (weak from an organizational point of view) need no reply; that they can be somehow disregarded.  The tactic of strangling these points of view is being advanced, which has nothing to do with the communist style of work!
This incorrect theory and practice, as partly mentioned above, can be propounded; this fact in itself that shows why the Left forces in Iran have not been able to unite for the creation of a single communist party, and sectarianism occupies the primary place. The struggle against these incorrect, non-proletarian views and practices strives for a principled leap forward in world outlook, policy, organizing, work methods and communist leadership.  During the participation of communists in the workers and  mass movements; and all genuine communists, both the organized and unorganized, must together proceed to clear away these harmful non-proletarian weeds from the fertile garden of the conscious proletarian movement. To shrink from this revolutionary proletarian task, or to adopt a passive attitude to this intolerable and dissonant situation, provides the opportunity for all manner of revisionists, opportunists and anarchists to further lead the workers and  mass movements astray and to spoil the fruits of at least 30 years of struggle against the capitalist system which came at the cost of tens of thousands of communist lives, including those of  worker activists who were sacrificed at the altar of sectarianism, for tendencies that soon evaporated.

K. Ebrahim – October 2, 2011

1 – To fully document this article with quotations from Iranian Left activists – including both the organized and unorganized – would require many pages; certainly, those communists who assign great importance to the ideological struggle within the ranks of Left forces are not unaware of this.

2 – Should we not learn from the Iranian workers, who despite suffering under a police state characterized by torture, imprisonment, arbitrary and punitive terminations from employment and pauperization, bravely and unquestioningly supported the petrochemical workers’ strike at the Port of Imam?  They showed that they share each other’s pain and they strive to have an independent organization of their own. But the communist movement in Iran, which should be the role model for the working class in organizational activity, is plagued by sectarianism at the nucleus of the movement!

written by admin