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

Jan 08

Comrades and friends

The new E-Mail of Party is : ranjbaran.info@yahoo.com. Please don’t use the old one: ranjbaran@hotmail.com. It is not valid any more.

Thanks a lot. Ranjbaran Party of Iran -8 jan.2012

written by admin

Okt 28

The workers movement consists of three segments: the vanguard, the middle strata and backward elements. Studying the workers movement and proposing a political line without due consideration to the close interrelationships between these three segments, and without understanding the importance of each one of them at each stage of struggle, would be pointless.
Regardless of the importance of the workers movement at its base in mobilizing and organizing the working class, without the intervention of the conscious element, the worker vanguard, the worker movement will remain limited to reformism.  At the same time, the importance of the worker vanguard in the education of conscious worker cadres persists; in the absence of a focus by the conscious element on organizing the masses of workers, the workers movement will not have a mass line character and will remain isolated.
In practice, and in taking into account 125 years of workers movement history in Iran, the role of the conscious element in structuring the workers movement at the base, from the very beginning, has been outstanding.  Anyone who intends to study, and to promote a political line in, the workers movement cannot afford to disregard the glorious past of this movement or to fail to consider the history of the international workers movement, and still expect to proceed on to resolve the problems and difficulties of the workers movement in Iran.
The organization and structure of the working class in European countries has developed over the course of the past 200 years via the creation of associations and trade unions through the efforts of activist, conscious workers.   But the role of the vanguard, and even of utopian communists, alongside this conscious worker element cannot be ignored; it must be accepted that these elements and tendencies have played an important role in organizing and directing the workers movement.
Since the original formulation of proletarian revolutionary theory by Marx and Engels, and the first publication of The Communist Party Manifesto, 163 years ago, the struggle between the communist line and reformist lines, and the struggle against anarchist, opportunist and Right and Left revisionist lines has been continuous to this day. The bankruptcy of reformism on the world scale finally reached to a point that the trade unions which have taken the class collaborationist line with the bourgeoisie have more and more distanced itself from the worker’s movement and their reformist line did not get the majority of the worker’s approval. In the same manner, the anarcho-syndicalists, the Left and Right political lines of the various labor parties have not gained broad support among the working class, and they have been unable to propel this class to victory in its overthrow of the capitalist and pre-capitalist systems.
Scientific communism, from the very beginning, was aware that the mobilization of the working class within its own trade unions, labor organizations and worker assemblies could serve as the “primary school” for lessons in collective action, for the creation of class solidarity, and finally for the development of the political struggle of the working class to destroy the systems which rely upon private property and upon private ownership of the means of production and exchange, to establish collective and social ownership, and to eliminate wage labor: in other words, to build socialism and communism.
From the beginning, scientific communism recognized the necessity of the working class becoming politically conscious, the need to establish communist parties in each country, and for local communist parties to create an international proletarian party- a communist international.  It also emphasized that without the existence of such parties at the head of the working class movement, this movement would not advance beyond reformism nor break out of the framework of bourgeois relations: it would not be able to eradicate the capitalist system.
The ups-and-downs in the history of the international workers movement demonstrate the validity of this scientific and historical analysis.  In the absence of a revolutionary communist party which is capable of providing strategic and tactical guidance both in the short and long term in a correct manner, the seizure of power by the working class and the consolidation of socialism and communism is simply not possible.
All this historical analysis and its conclusions have been tested in Iran; for more than 100 years, Iranian communists have  continuously struggled within the ranks of the working class, aiding in its mobilization, implementing over time both correct and incorrect policies and tactics, sharing in both victories and defeats of the working class.
Then, in consideration of this experience, what is to be done?
Genuine communists believe in the revolutionary theory of the working class, and strive to implement it in the concrete and specific conditions of Iran. They have continuously emphasized the importance of the creation of a single revolutionary communist party and consider its creation a primary obligation of communists and the vanguard of the working class. Why?   Because in the same manner that among complex life forms the brain plays a determinant role in survival and guidance of behavior, the communist party leads the working class and its political life.  And it is clear that uniting conscious workers is much simpler than uniting the unconscious working masses.
More than 91 years ago, Iranian communists, under the guidance of Lenin’s teachings and within the general lines of scientific communism, created the Iranian Communist Party on June 22, 1920 – the first important step for the Iranian workers movement. This Party, along with its non-proletarian allies succeeded in the creation of independent Socialist Republics in Gilan Province.  It also was successful in organizing workers, women, teachers, and fishermen….etc.  But ultimately its activities and organization foundered – on the one hand due to the emergence of  Right and Left tendencies within the Party, and on the other hand due to the consolidation of  power by the central government’s tyrannical dictatorship in collaboration with imperialism.  The unequal balance of military forces, and the inability to carry out an orderly and prudent retreat to protect their defense forces, resulted in the crushing of the party’s organizations inside of Iran. Consequently the Party organizations were destroyed. However, this defeat by no means represents an example of the incorrectness of the Communist Party’s role in organizing and mobilizing the workers movement.
After the downfall of Reza Shah’s monarchy, and with the Anglo-Soviet occupation of Iran, some democratic opportunities surfaced for a few years. Due to the central government’s weakness during this period, even the reformist and opportunist Tudeh Party of Iran, with the support of many activist workers, was able to successfully mobilize a considerable segment of the working class through the United Workers Council of Iran.
With the intensification of repression of this party, especially after the imperialist coup of August 19, 1953, new democratic opportunities were nevertheless created; however, due to the absence of a genuine communist party and to the outbreak of divisions within the Iranian communist movement, the mobilization of the workers also ground to a halt, and all the labor organizations which were created could not go beyond reformism.
This valuable experience showed that (1) in order to clear the way for the advancement of the workers movement, a vanguard proletarian party is a necessity; and (2) the savage repression of the workers movement indicates the perceived threat that this movement poses to the capitalist system and shows that the possibility of the full organization of the working class, solely via trade unions, does not exist in any country of the world. As a result, the organization of the working class must obligatory be carried out at different levels.
In addition, today, as a result of both Right and Left revisionism, sectarianism is widespread in the Iranian communist movement; the working class movement also suffers from this sectarianism; and we can say for certain that reformists in Iran have the upper hand compared to the Left organizations in this movement at this time.
A further historic tragedy has occurred that several of the Left organizations call themselves “the communist party” and claim to be capable of leading the workers movement; they have even caused divisions among a segment of the workers movement which leans toward the Left.  As a result, bourgeois, petite-bourgeois and imperialist elements have been given the opportunity to attract these workers to their political lines!! These sectarianism factions, whether willingly or not, have joined the side of global imperialism or of the local bourgeoisie, and therefore today a very dangerous situation exists for Iranian as well as international workers and the communist movement.
In addition to these Left organizations, there are also other groups among the Iranian Left which have not correctly grasped the primordial importance of a single communist party for the mobilization of the working class; instead, they assign top priority to the mobilization of the working class via trade unions. For instance, in reviewing the article “The Problems and Difficulties of Workers” – in The Workers Research Group, August 2011- we read: “What the workers have witnessed during all of these years is that the regime, with all of its might and for different reasons, has repressed the workers movement.”  And further, that “The creation of independent workers institutions . . . always has been a red flag to the repressive system”.
Some other organizations in the left movement of Iran also have not understood the primordial importance of the existence of a unique communist Party for(organization of the working class and give the precedence to the organization of trade unions. Namely, the analysis of the “Problems and difficulties of workers”- Analysis worker group, August 2011- they wrote:
“All these years, the workers have witnessed that the regime with all his government’s apparatus, with different reasons oppressed the worker’s movement”,” Creation of any democratic and independent structure… was always the red line of system”.
Despite this reality, the author continues to emphasize open, overt activity; he writes: “The rational solution to this, and it is worthwhile to say that this is the creation of independent trade unions, which is the most difficult task of all, and these days this demand is more vital for workers than their daily bread; activists must pay more attention to this demand.”  “If the Left activists and also Left political groups redouble their efforts,  trade unions could be established in the various factories at a rapid pace … this effort is the most pressing task facing the people and Left political groups who  believe in the workers movement”.
And then finally, “Also, provided that the Left political groups can reach such an understanding, they must focus most of their activities on this task until they are able to see for themselves the on-going development of a working class Party; otherwise, they will always be laboring under the illusion that they are creating a ‘real party’”.
The first part of these expressed views, if we look at the real meaning of the words and we acknowledge “the red line of the repressive system” about the organizing of the workers, that should lead us to realize that organizational activities must take place at different levels, both covert and overt, in the spheres of politics, trade unions, art, sports…etc.  And despite the fact that the creation of (a broad-based) an all overt and independent workers organization is among the important priority objectives of Left forces, but its achievement first of all requires the active participation of the workers.  Considering the Islamic regime’s repression, achievement of this objective is only possible in the long run. In addition, even if this broad-based workers organization is created, given the likely efforts of Left sectarians, and given the existence of divisions among the political forces of the various existing, diverse existing labor organizations, each one of the various labor organizations presumably will align itself with one or other of the Left factions. This tendency not only weakens without any coordination the everyday struggles of the workers organizations; it benefits the employers and the ruling class on one hand, and the reformists on the other hand.  And finally, regarding this mobilization of workers into independent trade union organizations, with the full hearted aid of Left political groups, even if it succeeds:  What does this have to do with the formation of a working class Party? And why, without this condition precedent, would “Left political groups” be “laboring under the illusion that they are creating a ‘real party’”, as you pretend?
The organizing issu of workers, whether from a tactical or a strategic point of view, is a basic principle and on-going responsibility of communists. Even more important, and pivotal, is the existence of political party that can guide the struggles of the working class toward the overthrow of the capitalist system.  The lack of persistent effort to meet the urgent need for the creation of a single working class party, and the misplaced emphasis on the organization of workers via trade union organizations, does nothing more than promote reformist policies within the workers movement at the expense of revolutionary policy of Party building. That is the capsized dialectics regarding party building, from what the comrades of The Workers Research Group should have in mind.
In the advanced industrialized countries, reformism has been a tool which social democracies, in particular, have promoted within the workers movement.  In countries like Iran, where there is outright dictatorship and despotism, any type of protest movement for workers’ rights and well-being is met with violent police repression, and therefore takes on a political form.  As a result, the ground for politicizing the workers movement is much more fertile than in the advanced capitalist countries. Therefore, if a political line, especially a communist line, is to be put forward for the workers movement, communists must immediately take up the task of cleaning up their Augean stables which have been fouled for decades by the outbreak of modern revisionism, and recognize the highest priority, which is the creation of a single unified communist party.
Contrary to that proposition, The Workers Research Group, in regard to the creation of legal trade unions “The Internationalist Workers Organizations”, presents the following suggestion:
““Legalization of trade unions” has never become a primary demand in workers’ protests.  Workers’ protests, as in the past, have essentially taken the form of mass meetings with elections of boards of representatives to press their main demands, which have been for resistance against further erosion of workers’ rights, for timely payment of wages, for regulation to limit (“emergency” terminations / lay-offs expulsion of recruited workers under the pretext of crisis, and for the defense of workers facing trumped-up charges from the Islamic regime and their employers, which intensify competition among workers”.
“The present methods of the workers struggle, with reliance on unofficial (underground) forces and cells, are the only possible methods to ensure the steady mobilization of the workers’ protests….Abandoning underground organizing…. is suicidal”.
These comrades must be asked if the actual issue at hand is indeed the method of  organizing workers’ protests, given their admission that so far the elections of boards of representatives have been “the main form of workers’ protests”; and that “reliance on underground forces and cells” as you pretend; First of all, what has been achieved on the part of the working class, and what difficulties have been resolved? Secondly, how is it that such a large segment of the Iranian working class has not chosen this method which from your point of view is the only appropriate one, and thus no unity in working class practice has been created? Thirdly, why has the method of electing boards of representative not been repressed by the Islamic regime, but instead so much pressure has been put on the trade unions and their leaders?  Fourthly, since the workers’ trade unions have been so severely targeted by the Islamic regime, isn’t that proof enough to believe that these trade unions are a danger to the regime?
To limit ourselves to one method in the current working class movement and in the complex class struggle in Iran, is to fall victim to oversimplification of these struggles, to become incapable of  seeing the twists and turns by adopting a one-dimensional method in advancing these struggles.  Without a doubt, the working class must steadily learn to apply covert methods of organizing, given the repressive power of dictatorships such as in Iran. As a matter of fact, “Internationalist Workers Organizations” admit that perhaps up until now the workers have done so. But insisting upon that means alone amounts to not seeing the forest for the trees.  From the point of view of scientific communism, the combination of overt and covert work methods should be resolutely utilized in practice. But when the supporters of these organizations make such statements as: “The workers have no other alternative except continuation of the struggle with the present method, and to strive for the creation of an organization and a political party of their own”,  they show that they do not have a clear vision of the priorities of the workers movement – that the vanguard political party of the working class is the leadership of the working class, and without it, the workers movement, whether overt or covert, whether organizing through trade unions or through elections of boards of representatives along the lines of reformism or anarchism, goes nowhere.
The suggestion of these so called left of these comrades, has Right wing consequences and would not be accepted by rank and file workers.
Below is an example of the Left wing approach of other organizations. As background, five Iranian Left political organizations [“The Unified Communist Fedayeen”, “Fedayeen Minority”, “ Ranjbaran Party of Iran”, “The Revolutionary Workers Organization (Rahe Kargar)” and “The Minority Nucleus”] put out the following joint statement in defense of  workers’ rights:
“On June 9, 2011, in protest against the lack of rights for Iranian workers, and in defense of imprisoned Iranian workers, four French trade unions have organized a protest activity in front of the International Labor Organization (ILO) headquarters in Geneva. With no illusions regarding the bourgeois nature of the ILO, we support this just, responsible action which can exert pressure on the Islamic capitalist regime in Iran; we invite everyone to participate in this protest activity so that we can expose to the world the Islamic regime’s brutality toward workers.
The Left wingers write: “Isn’t the goal of these groups, to be achieved through a joint gathering with several trade unions at the ILO headquarters, to “expose brutality” a matter of surprise? . . . To present their grievance, of the petty thieves and criminals, have they sought refuge in the headquarters of the strong criminals… this state of affairs, more than anything else,  stems from their ideological loyalty to Maoism, to Stalinism and all manner of confusion that such loyalty engenders.”
Irresponsible and bombastic Left-style rhetoric permeates this pretentious claim. If they understood the techniques of class struggle from a communist and scientific viewpoint, they wouldn’t have written such criticism. First of all, participation in a protest organized by four French labor unions, in defense of imprisoned Iranian workers, is a sign of sympathy and solidarity among workers in their international struggle; you, comrades, who make a claim of internationalism without knowing much about it, are resentful of this solidarity! Secondly, if “exposing brutality” is an incorrect action, then perhaps starting tomorrow we should not print and distribute any statement against any criminal governments, since the workers movement cannot be promoted by distributing such statements!! In the meantime, the participation of these five Iranian Left political organizations in the French friends’ action will be publicized in the French press, and may even be publicized in the mainstream global media, which helps to further isolate the Islamic regime in the eyes of the people of the world.  Thirdly, this protest in front of an international institution is not a “grievance of petty thieves” presented to “legally sanctioned criminals” but rather it is also a protest against an international institution which seats the regime’s representatives.  Fourthly, you who are so dishonest and disingenuous in your interpretation of such a simple act, how can you permit yourself to attack “Maoism” and “Stalinism”, and align yourselves with the imperialist and reactionary propaganda which is being broadcast in their global media?
Now, in order to expose your limited understanding of scientific communism, we refer directly to this theory. Lenin, in his well known book, Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, writes:
“One will readily agree that any army which does not train to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of war. In politics it is even harder to know in advance which methods of struggle will be applicable and to our advantage in certain future conditions. Unless we learn to apply all the methods of struggle, we may suffer grave and sometimes even decisive defeat, if changes beyond our control in the position of the other classes bring to the forefront a form of activity in which we are especially weak. If, however, we learn to use all the methods of struggle, victory will be certain, because we represent the interests of the really foremost and really revolutionary class, even if circumstances do not permit us to make use of weapons that are most dangerous to the enemy, weapons that deal the swiftest mortal blows. Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal methods of struggle are opportunist because, in this field, the bourgeoisie has most frequently deceived and duped the workers (particularly in “peaceful” and non-revolutionary times), while illegal methods of struggle are revolutionary. That, however, is wrong. The truth is that those parties and leaders are opportunists and traitors to the working class that are unable or unwilling (do not say, “I can’t”; say, “I shan’t”) to use illegal methods of struggle in conditions such as those which prevailed, for example, during the imperialist war of 1914-18, when the bourgeoisie of the freest democratic countries most brazenly and brutally deceived the workers, and smothered the truth about the predatory character of the war. But revolutionaries who are incapable of combining illegal forms of struggle with every form of legal struggle are poor revolutionaries indeed.” (Selected Works in one volume in Farsi, p. 764)
“The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone.” ((Collected Works,)Ibid p. 762)
This is the problem of the workers’ vanguard (in the workers movement is truly defined as such).  To refuse this insight, and to instead proceed to seek to resolve the problems of the workers movement (which are far more complex, and which require an accurate knowledge of the tactics and strategies of the working class in advancing the proletarian revolution), is to take on an impossible burden.  Its only possible consequence is to move in the wrong direction.  If the adversaries of the correct line of the essential role of the vanguard in the workers movement are unable to unite with each other, how will they ever be able to unite the masses of workers along their current prevailing political line? The propagation of sectarianism within the movement is the sole result of their efforts.
K. Ebrahim, September, 2011
The workers movement consists of three segments: the vanguard, the middle strata and backward elements. Studying the workers movement and proposing a political line without due consideration to the close interrelationships between these three segments, and without understanding the importance of each one of them at each stage of struggle, would be pointless.
Regardless of the importance of the workers movement at its base in mobilizing and organizing the working class, without the intervention of the conscious element, the worker vanguard, the worker movement will remain limited to reformism.  At the same time, the importance of the worker vanguard in the education of conscious worker cadres persists; in the absence of a focus by the conscious element on organizing the masses of workers, the workers movement will not have a mass line character and will remain isolated.
In practice, and in taking into account 125 years of workers movement history in Iran, the role of the conscious element in structuring the workers movement at the base, from the very beginning, has been outstanding.  Anyone who intends to study, and to promote a political line in, the workers movement cannot afford to disregard the glorious past of this movement or to fail to consider the history of the international workers movement, and still expect to proceed on to resolve the problems and difficulties of the workers movement in Iran.
The organization and structure of the working class in European countries has developed over the course of the past 200 years via the creation of associations and trade unions through the efforts of activist, conscious workers.   But the role of the vanguard, and even of utopian communists, alongside this conscious worker element cannot be ignored; it must be accepted that these elements and tendencies have played an important role in organizing and directing the workers movement.
Since the original formulation of proletarian revolutionary theory by Marx and Engels, and the first publication of The Communist Party Manifesto, 163 years ago, the struggle between the communist line and reformist lines, and the struggle against anarchist, opportunist and Right and Left revisionist lines has been continuous to this day. The bankruptcy of reformism on the world scale finally reached to a point that the trade unions which have taken the class collaborationist line with the bourgeoisie have more and more distanced itself from the worker’s movement and their reformist line did not get the majority of the worker’s approval. In the same manner, the anarcho-syndicalists, the Left and Right political lines of the various labor parties have not gained broad support among the working class, and they have been unable to propel this class to victory in its overthrow of the capitalist and pre-capitalist systems.
Scientific communism, from the very beginning, was aware that the mobilization of the working class within its own trade unions, labor organizations and worker assemblies could serve as the “primary school” for lessons in collective action, for the creation of class solidarity, and finally for the development of the political struggle of the working class to destroy the systems which rely upon private property and upon private ownership of the means of production and exchange, to establish collective and social ownership, and to eliminate wage labor: in other words, to build socialism and communism.
From the beginning, scientific communism recognized the necessity of the working class becoming politically conscious, the need to establish communist parties in each country, and for local communist parties to create an international proletarian party- a communist international.  It also emphasized that without the existence of such parties at the head of the working class movement, this movement would not advance beyond reformism nor break out of the framework of bourgeois relations: it would not be able to eradicate the capitalist system.
The ups-and-downs in the history of the international workers movement demonstrate the validity of this scientific and historical analysis.  In the absence of a revolutionary communist party which is capable of providing strategic and tactical guidance both in the short and long term in a correct manner, the seizure of power by the working class and the consolidation of socialism and communism is simply not possible.
All this historical analysis and its conclusions have been tested in Iran; for more than 100 years, Iranian communists have  continuously struggled within the ranks of the working class, aiding in its mobilization, implementing over time both correct and incorrect policies and tactics, sharing in both victories and defeats of the working class.
Then, in consideration of this experience, what is to be done?
Genuine communists believe in the revolutionary theory of the working class, and strive to implement it in the concrete and specific conditions of Iran. They have continuously emphasized the importance of the creation of a single revolutionary communist party and consider its creation a primary obligation of communists and the vanguard of the working class. Why?   Because in the same manner that among complex life forms the brain plays a determinant role in survival and guidance of behavior, the communist party leads the working class and its political life.  And it is clear that uniting conscious workers is much simpler than uniting the unconscious working masses.
More than 91 years ago, Iranian communists, under the guidance of Lenin’s teachings and within the general lines of scientific communism, created the Iranian Communist Party on June 22, 1920 – the first important step for the Iranian workers movement. This Party, along with its non-proletarian allies succeeded in the creation of independent Socialist Republics in Gilan Province.  It also was successful in organizing workers, women, teachers, and fishermen….etc.  But ultimately its activities and organization foundered – on the one hand due to the emergence of  Right and Left tendencies within the Party, and on the other hand due to the consolidation of  power by the central government’s tyrannical dictatorship in collaboration with imperialism.  The unequal balance of military forces, and the inability to carry out an orderly and prudent retreat to protect their defense forces, resulted in the crushing of the party’s organizations inside of Iran. Consequently the Party organizations were destroyed. However, this defeat by no means represents an example of the incorrectness of the Communist Party’s role in organizing and mobilizing the workers movement.
After the downfall of Reza Shah’s monarchy, and with the Anglo-Soviet occupation of Iran, some democratic opportunities surfaced for a few years. Due to the central government’s weakness during this period, even the reformist and opportunist Tudeh Party of Iran, with the support of many activist workers, was able to successfully mobilize a considerable segment of the working class through the United Workers Council of Iran.
With the intensification of repression of this party, especially after the imperialist coup of August 19, 1953, new democratic opportunities were nevertheless created; however, due to the absence of a genuine communist party and to the outbreak of divisions within the Iranian communist movement, the mobilization of the workers also ground to a halt, and all the labor organizations which were created could not go beyond reformism.
This valuable experience showed that (1) in order to clear the way for the advancement of the workers movement, a vanguard proletarian party is a necessity; and (2) the savage repression of the workers movement indicates the perceived threat that this movement poses to the capitalist system and shows that the possibility of the full organization of the working class, solely via trade unions, does not exist in any country of the world. As a result, the organization of the working class must obligatory be carried out at different levels.
In addition, today, as a result of both Right and Left revisionism, sectarianism is widespread in the Iranian communist movement; the working class movement also suffers from this sectarianism; and we can say for certain that reformists in Iran have the upper hand compared to the Left organizations in this movement at this time.
A further historic tragedy has occurred that several of the Left organizations call themselves “the communist party” and claim to be capable of leading the workers movement; they have even caused divisions among a segment of the workers movement which leans toward the Left.  As a result, bourgeois, petite-bourgeois and imperialist elements have been given the opportunity to attract these workers to their political lines!! These sectarianism factions, whether willingly or not, have joined the side of global imperialism or of the local bourgeoisie, and therefore today a very dangerous situation exists for Iranian as well as international workers and the communist movement.
In addition to these Left organizations, there are also other groups among the Iranian Left which have not correctly grasped the primordial importance of a single communist party for the mobilization of the working class; instead, they assign top priority to the mobilization of the working class via trade unions. For instance, in reviewing the article “The Problems and Difficulties of Workers” – in The Workers Research Group, August 2011- we read: “What the workers have witnessed during all of these years is that the regime, with all of its might and for different reasons, has repressed the workers movement.”  And further, that “The creation of independent workers institutions . . . always has been a red flag to the repressive system”.
Some other organizations in the left movement of Iran also have not understood the primordial importance of the existence of a unique communist Party for(organization of the working class and give the precedence to the organization of trade unions. Namely, the analysis of the “Problems and difficulties of workers”- Analysis worker group, August 2011- they wrote:
“All these years, the workers have witnessed that the regime with all his government’s apparatus, with different reasons oppressed the worker’s movement”,” Creation of any democratic and independent structure… was always the red line of system”.
Despite this reality, the author continues to emphasize open, overt activity; he writes: “The rational solution to this, and it is worthwhile to say that this is the creation of independent trade unions, which is the most difficult task of all, and these days this demand is more vital for workers than their daily bread; activists must pay more attention to this demand.”  “If the Left activists and also Left political groups redouble their efforts,  trade unions could be established in the various factories at a rapid pace … this effort is the most pressing task facing the people and Left political groups who  believe in the workers movement”.
And then finally, “Also, provided that the Left political groups can reach such an understanding, they must focus most of their activities on this task until they are able to see for themselves the on-going development of a working class Party; otherwise, they will always be laboring under the illusion that they are creating a ‘real party’”.
The first part of these expressed views, if we look at the real meaning of the words and we acknowledge “the red line of the repressive system” about the organizing of the workers, that should lead us to realize that organizational activities must take place at different levels, both covert and overt, in the spheres of politics, trade unions, art, sports…etc.  And despite the fact that the creation of (a broad-based) an all overt and independent workers organization is among the important priority objectives of Left forces, but its achievement first of all requires the active participation of the workers.  Considering the Islamic regime’s repression, achievement of this objective is only possible in the long run. In addition, even if this broad-based workers organization is created, given the likely efforts of Left sectarians, and given the existence of divisions among the political forces of the various existing, diverse existing labor organizations, each one of the various labor organizations presumably will align itself with one or other of the Left factions. This tendency not only weakens without any coordination the everyday struggles of the workers organizations; it benefits the employers and the ruling class on one hand, and the reformists on the other hand.  And finally, regarding this mobilization of workers into independent trade union organizations, with the full hearted aid of Left political groups, even if it succeeds:  What does this have to do with the formation of a working class Party? And why, without this condition precedent, would “Left political groups” be “laboring under the illusion that they are creating a ‘real party’”, as you pretend?
The organizing issu of workers, whether from a tactical or a strategic point of view, is a basic principle and on-going responsibility of communists. Even more important, and pivotal, is the existence of political party that can guide the struggles of the working class toward the overthrow of the capitalist system.  The lack of persistent effort to meet the urgent need for the creation of a single working class party, and the misplaced emphasis on the organization of workers via trade union organizations, does nothing more than promote reformist policies within the workers movement at the expense of revolutionary policy of Party building. That is the capsized dialectics regarding party building, from what the comrades of The Workers Research Group should have in mind.
In the advanced industrialized countries, reformism has been a tool which social democracies, in particular, have promoted within the workers movement.  In countries like Iran, where there is outright dictatorship and despotism, any type of protest movement for workers’ rights and well-being is met with violent police repression, and therefore takes on a political form.  As a result, the ground for politicizing the workers movement is much more fertile than in the advanced capitalist countries. Therefore, if a political line, especially a communist line, is to be put forward for the workers movement, communists must immediately take up the task of cleaning up their Augean stables which have been fouled for decades by the outbreak of modern revisionism, and recognize the highest priority, which is the creation of a single unified communist party.
Contrary to that proposition, The Workers Research Group, in regard to the creation of legal trade unions “The Internationalist Workers Organizations”, presents the following suggestion:
““Legalization of trade unions” has never become a primary demand in workers’ protests.  Workers’ protests, as in the past, have essentially taken the form of mass meetings with elections of boards of representatives to press their main demands, which have been for resistance against further erosion of workers’ rights, for timely payment of wages, for regulation to limit (“emergency” terminations / lay-offs expulsion of recruited workers under the pretext of crisis, and for the defense of workers facing trumped-up charges from the Islamic regime and their employers, which intensify competition among workers”.
“The present methods of the workers struggle, with reliance on unofficial (underground) forces and cells, are the only possible methods to ensure the steady mobilization of the workers’ protests….Abandoning underground organizing…. is suicidal”.
These comrades must be asked if the actual issue at hand is indeed the method of  organizing workers’ protests, given their admission that so far the elections of boards of representatives have been “the main form of workers’ protests”; and that “reliance on underground forces and cells” as you pretend; First of all, what has been achieved on the part of the working class, and what difficulties have been resolved? Secondly, how is it that such a large segment of the Iranian working class has not chosen this method which from your point of view is the only appropriate one, and thus no unity in working class practice has been created? Thirdly, why has the method of electing boards of representative not been repressed by the Islamic regime, but instead so much pressure has been put on the trade unions and their leaders?  Fourthly, since the workers’ trade unions have been so severely targeted by the Islamic regime, isn’t that proof enough to believe that these trade unions are a danger to the regime?
To limit ourselves to one method in the current working class movement and in the complex class struggle in Iran, is to fall victim to oversimplification of these struggles, to become incapable of  seeing the twists and turns by adopting a one-dimensional method in advancing these struggles.  Without a doubt, the working class must steadily learn to apply covert methods of organizing, given the repressive power of dictatorships such as in Iran. As a matter of fact, “Internationalist Workers Organizations” admit that perhaps up until now the workers have done so. But insisting upon that means alone amounts to not seeing the forest for the trees.  From the point of view of scientific communism, the combination of overt and covert work methods should be resolutely utilized in practice. But when the supporters of these organizations make such statements as: “The workers have no other alternative except continuation of the struggle with the present method, and to strive for the creation of an organization and a political party of their own”,  they show that they do not have a clear vision of the priorities of the workers movement – that the vanguard political party of the working class is the leadership of the working class, and without it, the workers movement, whether overt or covert, whether organizing through trade unions or through elections of boards of representatives along the lines of reformism or anarchism, goes nowhere.
The suggestion of these so called left of these comrades, has Right wing consequences and would not be accepted by rank and file workers.
Below is an example of the Left wing approach of other organizations. As background, five Iranian Left political organizations [“The Unified Communist Fedayeen”, “Fedayeen Minority”, “ Ranjbaran Party of Iran”, “The Revolutionary Workers Organization (Rahe Kargar)” and “The Minority Nucleus”] put out the following joint statement in defense of  workers’ rights:
“On June 9, 2011, in protest against the lack of rights for Iranian workers, and in defense of imprisoned Iranian workers, four French trade unions have organized a protest activity in front of the International Labor Organization (ILO) headquarters in Geneva. With no illusions regarding the bourgeois nature of the ILO, we support this just, responsible action which can exert pressure on the Islamic capitalist regime in Iran; we invite everyone to participate in this protest activity so that we can expose to the world the Islamic regime’s brutality toward workers.
The Left wingers write: “Isn’t the goal of these groups, to be achieved through a joint gathering with several trade unions at the ILO headquarters, to “expose brutality” a matter of surprise? . . . To present their grievance, of the petty thieves and criminals, have they sought refuge in the headquarters of the strong criminals… this state of affairs, more than anything else,  stems from their ideological loyalty to Maoism, to Stalinism and all manner of confusion that such loyalty engenders.”
Irresponsible and bombastic Left-style rhetoric permeates this pretentious claim. If they understood the techniques of class struggle from a communist and scientific viewpoint, they wouldn’t have written such criticism. First of all, participation in a protest organized by four French labor unions, in defense of imprisoned Iranian workers, is a sign of sympathy and solidarity among workers in their international struggle; you, comrades, who make a claim of internationalism without knowing much about it, are resentful of this solidarity! Secondly, if “exposing brutality” is an incorrect action, then perhaps starting tomorrow we should not print and distribute any statement against any criminal governments, since the workers movement cannot be promoted by distributing such statements!! In the meantime, the participation of these five Iranian Left political organizations in the French friends’ action will be publicized in the French press, and may even be publicized in the mainstream global media, which helps to further isolate the Islamic regime in the eyes of the people of the world.  Thirdly, this protest in front of an international institution is not a “grievance of petty thieves” presented to “legally sanctioned criminals” but rather it is also a protest against an international institution which seats the regime’s representatives.  Fourthly, you who are so dishonest and disingenuous in your interpretation of such a simple act, how can you permit yourself to attack “Maoism” and “Stalinism”, and align yourselves with the imperialist and reactionary propaganda which is being broadcast in their global media?
Now, in order to expose your limited understanding of scientific communism, we refer directly to this theory. Lenin, in his well known book, Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, writes:
“One will readily agree that any army which does not train to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of war. In politics it is even harder to know in advance which methods of struggle will be applicable and to our advantage in certain future conditions. Unless we learn to apply all the methods of struggle, we may suffer grave and sometimes even decisive defeat, if changes beyond our control in the position of the other classes bring to the forefront a form of activity in which we are especially weak. If, however, we learn to use all the methods of struggle, victory will be certain, because we represent the interests of the really foremost and really revolutionary class, even if circumstances do not permit us to make use of weapons that are most dangerous to the enemy, weapons that deal the swiftest mortal blows. Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal methods of struggle are opportunist because, in this field, the bourgeoisie has most frequently deceived and duped the workers (particularly in “peaceful” and non-revolutionary times), while illegal methods of struggle are revolutionary. That, however, is wrong. The truth is that those parties and leaders are opportunists and traitors to the working class that are unable or unwilling (do not say, “I can’t”; say, “I shan’t”) to use illegal methods of struggle in conditions such as those which prevailed, for example, during the imperialist war of 1914-18, when the bourgeoisie of the freest democratic countries most brazenly and brutally deceived the workers, and smothered the truth about the predatory character of the war. But revolutionaries who are incapable of combining illegal forms of struggle with every form of legal struggle are poor revolutionaries indeed.” (Selected Works in one volume in Farsi, p. 764)
“The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone.” ((Collected Works,)Ibid p. 762)
This is the problem of the workers’ vanguard (in the workers movement is truly defined as such).  To refuse this insight, and to instead proceed to seek to resolve the problems of the workers movement (which are far more complex, and which require an accurate knowledge of the tactics and strategies of the working class in advancing the proletarian revolution), is to take on an impossible burden.  Its only possible consequence is to move in the wrong direction.  If the adversaries of the correct line of the essential role of the vanguard in the workers movement are unable to unite with each other, how will they ever be able to unite the masses of workers along their current prevailing political line? The propagation of sectarianism within the movement is the sole result of their efforts.
K. Ebrahim, September, 2011

written by admin

Sep 08
LET’S SET ASIDE THE NONESENSE THOUGHTS AND PREPARE OURSELVES FOR A LONG STRUGGLE – MAO
The wave of protests, movements and finally the recent mass uprisings in the majority of the Arabic countries located in northern Africa and the Middle East have been widespread which has shaken the dictator regimes of these countries and their imperialist supporters. Ben Ali, the president of Tunisia which for the past 23 years of his presidency robbed his people in billions of Dollars, on January 14, 2011, in fear of his life was forced to escape the country. Whiles, his Egyptian counterpart, Hosni Mubarak, under the pretext of if he steps down, Egypt goes into chaos, after 18 days of resistance against the roar of the millions of rebellious people on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Port Saeed, Ismailia and other cities where people screamed: “Mubarak Al Rahall”, preferentially, for the first time in 30 years being in power chose a substitute for himself and said until September 2011, he would not step down. Finally, with the continuation of demonstrations, on February 11, 2011, he stepped down and transferred his power to the high council of the armed forces which seems to be an internal coup and with the agreement of the US and Israel, the military secretly put him aside.! However, many thanks to the workers and toilers of Tunisia and Egypt for these first two victories!
In these heroic struggles in both Tunisia and Egypt so far about 600 people have been killed and thousands have been injured and arrested and the protests in both countries still continues and sometimes it is coupled with bloodsheds. Presently, the slogans of the protesters are to overthrow the system without any preparation for having the necessary tools! The strikes of the workers for the increase of wages in different branches: The banks, the tourism, oil and gas, weaving, bus drivers, steel, post, ministry of health and others is a sign of a new round of struggle for liberation.
These movements were like the hidden wrath and fire under the ash which were set on fire by the winds of the global crisis of capitalism. Poverty and joblessness, high cost of the most necessities of people’s lives, libertine ruling dictatorship, hopeless future for the youth which comprise of big portion of the population of these countries, has been the main determining factor in these uprisings. Meanwhile, with the outbreak of these uprisings, the imperialist countries are becoming more worried and aroused from inflaming of the radical revolutions which in a short time can wipe out their influence in this important strategic region of the world. With changing their aggressive and dictator supporting mask, in a naïve manner and in a hurry, that called for “democracy” for these countries and meanwhile became active in bringing the new provisional government as an obstacle against the deepening of revolution in those regions.
Contrary to the conception of those who want to attribute it to “the velvet revolutions”, are diminishing the importance of the uprising of the poverty stricken, oppressed, exploited, humiliated and tortured people. The comparison of these uprisings with “the velvet revolutions” in the Eastern European countries shows the tremendous difference of the propped up reactionary movements in those countries with the efforts and the heroism of the millions of the Arab people which are seeking a way out to reach to bread, work, shelter, freedom and better days in their lives.
It may not be necessary to remind that in “the velvet revolutions” in the Eastern Europe, the opposition against the rulers were along with the clear cut effort for the tendency toward the west. The US imperialism through the institutions that the American billionaire, George Soros (14th richest man in America) were created was financially supported and with the dispatch of considerable numbers of its agents and spies to those countries and the persuasion of people for coming to the square with tent and special colors in every country, created the ground for mandatory uprising. Whereas, in countries like Tunisia and Egypt, the lackeys of the imperialists were in power for several decades and until their last moment in power, they were unconditionally supported by the entire camp of the imperialist countries. Ben Ali, the Tunisian president who escaped his country was an example as a follower of the neo-liberal policies and until its last days, he was being supported by the hateful government of Sarkozy. Also Egypt, during its past 30 years received more than 60 billion dollars of economic and military aid from the US and as a servant to the Americans and Israelis is well known in the international communities. During the time that Hosni Mubarak was not willing to immediately resign, regularly the official US authorities on the one hand were emphasizing that his unwillingness to rapidly resign will cause the US aid to Egypt to be discontinued! And on the other hand, they were preparing the ground to justify a replacement for Mubarak that will be dependent to imperialism and Zionism. Against the insistence of Hosni Mubarak, not resigning, they kept quite and instead tried to prepare the ground for a possible military coup. Also, the support of Netanyahu, the prime minister of the Israeli Zionist from the president of Egypt at the beginning of the demonstrations by the Egyptian people is another reason for the degree of dependency of Egypt’s regime to imperialism and Zionism.
Therefore, advancing a correct view of the trend of the development of the situations within the protesting millions in Tunisia and Egypt requires an accurate analysis of the alignment of the revolutionary, centrists and counterrevolutionary forces involved in the all of these uprisings:
1 – The participant revolutionary forces in these uprisings are basically the workers, youth especially, the students and the progressive left organizations. Their demands are bread, shelter, welfare and freedom. Whether in Tunisia or in Egypt, the workers are to some extend organized in their unions and these unions especially, in Egypt have long time experience and in recent years have organized outstanding strikes in the regions of “Mahalleh”, Cairo and Port Saeed in which more than 30,000 workers work in weaving section of Mahalleh alone. But, due to the penetration of the reformists at the leadership of trade unions in Tunisia and their cooperation with Ben Ali, except in case of demanding for workers wage increase, these unions in the past did not really oppose Ben Ali’s regime.
The existence of widespread unemployment in the ranks of the youth especially, among the stratum of graduated students which in Tunisia with respect to its population are more compared to other Arabic countries. Also, the absence of freedom, repressing measures for any type of protest, and the suicide of an educated youth, Bou Azizy caused this protesting force to come out against the corrupt and reactionary regime of Tunisia. Also, under the influence of the opposition movement against the regime in Egypt and the influence of the left forces within the workers and student movement and with the everyday poverty that the youth are faced with, as reported more than %30 of the youth are unemployed, attracted a great and powerful force of the youth for widespread protests. Contrary to some claims and rumors, the religious forces especially, in Egypt which are enjoying a considerable influence first of all they joint the protesters late and secondly, they did not enter the scene of struggle with full force.
But, the common case in both countries and in other Arab countries is that an organized communist leading force, that is being militant and with correct revolutionary outlook which enjoys a considerable influence among the workers and toilers and is willing to  proceed with the correct and principled leadership of the present protest movements, does not exist. The communist forces are weak and in addition to that they are divided. Consequently, a bright future of victory cannot be pictured for the uprising masses. Although, these uprisings did woke up the asleep masses and the chaffy but, the blood thirsty rulers were so exposed that the local bourgeoisie and imperialism even by creating an ocean of bloodshed cannot continue the dictatorial rule in these countries.
The type of slogans which were used in both countries or in the demonstrations of the people in Yemen and recently in Algeria and were used more than any other slogans was, only limited to getting rid of the presidents, Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Ali Abdullah Saleh and Abdul-Aziz Boutefligha. Overemphasizing of this slogan alone, has no more value than “the Shah must go” which was used during the Iran’s revolution of 1979. These slogans are necessary but, not enough! Each demolition  must be accompanied by the new construction! Otherwise, the sdemolition without construction in its best case cannot receive any medal more than anarchism. Though, there are slogans which are presently being introduced among the demonstrators that points to getting rid of the entire regime like “Al shaab yorid esghat al nezam”(people want demolition of system). But, unfortunately, the history is being repeated again. Even in the best optimistic view in which a part of the protesting forces are calling for the resignation of government and the execution of the “free” election especially, in a such situation where the revolutionary forces have been repressed, are lacking the ability to link with the broad masses of workers and toilers and do not have the financial ability for publicity in their favor, whereas, the bourgeois forces in this regard are financially very capable especially, they can easily collaborate covertly and overtly with the imperialists and the local capitalists, the military and other repressive institutions.  In addition, parliamentarianism is the symbol of the ruling bourgeoisie and has never in its history ever allowed the workers and toilers come to power. From the parliamentarian “free” elections the assembly and the government that is supportive of the workers and toilers would not take place.
In such situations, the best possible way to serve the revolutionary movement of the people in these countries, on the one hand consists of endeavoring to create the council of workers and toilers in the work place, in their neighborhoods and their establishment until, the organs of the masses from the bottom has been created, matured and  where they can play active rolls in creating changes for the benefit of the majority and in the mean time, to create the ground for growing their influence to create a government that is genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of the people; and on the other hand, to scramble for the formation and strengthening of the revolutionary leadership force namely  a single communist party in these countries. In addition, the responsibility of the conscious communist forces is to struggle against the unsubstantial notions among the people that if by changing few bad nuts within the reactionary government or, the complete resignation of the government, people can reach to freedom and prosperity. Instead, they must advance the slogan of “power to the people”. Fortunately, the negative experience of the 1979 revolution in Iran is right in front of all of the Arab revolutionaries. In this regard, the struggle against the realization of any form of theocratic government is significantly important. As these days, Rashed Ghenouchi, the Tunisian leader of the “movement” with Islamic tendency and Mohammad Badee, the present leader of “Akhavanol Moulmein”(Moslem Brothers) in Egypt who says the Sunni religion is not like Shiite religion and their party is like the party of “justice and development” in Turkey which presently is in power, is trying to spread illusion for the future of these countries. Exactly like Khomeini who after the overthrow of the Shah’s regime, only wanted “to be a clergy in Ghom”. But, when the Islamic forces could consolidate themselves to some extend in power; he sat over the thrown of the kingdom of the Velayate Faghih and built the reign of terror and blood. We cannot absolutely say that these theocratic forces especially in Egypt which are among the most powerful forces are not dreaming to usurp to power.
Consequently, “the separation of religion from the state and the educational affairs” and respect for freedom and equality of women with men in all aspects of the society is, the immediate and undisputable responsibilities of the communists and other progressive people which from the very beginning must emphasize on it. Especially, the negative example of the theocratic regime in Iran that is right in front of their eyes. And finally, the emphasis that must be put on the “freedom of expression, forming union, assemblies and strikes” which must be imposed on the future of these regimes as the achievements of the uprisings of these countries.
In the frame of these revolutionary strategic points, there are other ample tactical points in which in continuation of our discussion we will pay attention on them.
2 – Locally, the counterrevolutionary forces consist of the entire exploiting institutions– dependent comprador s capitalist- and the repressive forces of Arab regimes which are active in managing the country’s affairs economically, politically, militarily, judicially and etc. Their track records among the people are extremely negative and hateful. Without the collapse of the previous ruling power and the consolidation of the revolutionary people’s government, the revolution in these countries will be incomplete. In the arena of economics and politics, multinational corporations play a key role in intervening in the economic and political affairs of these countries. Until their interference from the internal affairs of these countries is not stopped, their dependency to imperialism, the continuation of poverty and distress won’t let go of the 200 million Arabs and along with that plunder of their natural resources, the exploitation of cheap labor and the will continue being dragged under the global imperialist programs.
Within the apparatus of government, the military armed forces, police, intelligent organizations, inspired courts, prisons and torture chambers play number one role in preserving the regime and the repression of the workers and toilers. Without the breakup of these forces and their corrupt institutions and instead being hopeful in participating I this or that government cabinet and the expectation of being able to bring essential changes by parliamentary elections in an oppressive class system of exploitation rule is an unrealistic illusion. In this regard, there is a good example existing right in front of us: In Nepal, The Communist Part of Nepal (Maoist), after ten years of people’s war and changing to the strongest opposition force play number one role in getting rid of Monarchy and in an agreement with the other bourgeois and left parties obtained the highest number of votes in the parliamentarian elections and also the party leader was elected as the prime minister of Nepal by the parliament. But, the prime minister’s suggestion for the removal of a corrupt and assassin of the monarchy’s regime general, was rejected by the Nepal’s president who is subordinate to the congress party which is a bourgeois party and lenient toward India. Because of his failure, he resigned from his prim primer ship. Whiles, during the time that the people’s war against the monarchy’s regime was in the process, a main part of Nepal was liberated by the communist party and the people had achieved the right for self determination and in this trend, the people’s army played a significant role.
The 1979 revolution n Iran was a great experience for the imperialist powers. As far as they were able to, they tried to keep the framework of the militaries in passivity so they can advance their agenda. Presently, in Tunisia and Egypt, the militaries under the guise of “being along side of the people” are not under the stroke of the people’s protests. The imperialist powers are keeping these armies under camouflage until the necessary time to utilize them in maintaining the status quo. For instance, let’s take a look at the example below which is just one from the many: Admiral Mike Moulin, the US chief of staff contacted his Egyptian counterpart and said: “have confidence in the ability of the Egyptian military in safeguarding the security both internally and in the region of Suez Canal”. This is a clear proof of the commitment of the Egyptian military heads.
Alongside of the local counterrevolutionary forces, there exist the multi-national corporations and the imperialist governments in which overnight suddenly they all changed their positions from diehard supporters of the Arab’s despotic governments to their “soft critics” in those countries involved in outburst. Such change in policy, without having a plan for the future aiming to preserve the imperialist rule and influence in these countries has no other meanings. Let’s pay attention:
- Miss. Ashtoon, the responsible agent of the foreign policy of EU says: “We have become the supporters of the Egyptian protesters so the people won’t be harmed and violence does not intensify”!
- The US senate approved a resolution on Feb. 3, 2011, which was prepared by two Republican and Democrat representatives (Mc Cain and Kerry). In that resolution, Hosni Mubarak was asked to immediately to abandon the power to a transitory government.
- Joe Biden in his talk with Omar Suleiman, a newly chosen substitute to Hosni Mubarak – who was previously in charge of Egyptian Intelligent Agency and thousands of Egyptian and none Egyptian were tortured under his authority – said that he persuaded him to negotiate with the opposition and the process of the transition of power to start as soon as possible.”
- More notable than all the talks, is the statement given by the US State Department’s spokesman on last Thursday that our urge on hasting to step down Mubarak is because, the more time passes by without any actions, “the danger of conflict and violence become more”. What really he means is that it is possible that the control of the situations get out of their hands!
- The leaders of Germany, England, France, Sweden and others, all have demanded Hosni Mubarak to step down.
- More notable than all was the kind of pressure that the US government had in mind for Hosni Mubarak which was constantly mentioned by Obama and Hilary Clinton in a vague manner.
Philip Vies wrote in Washington Post: “the Neo-cons. let go of Mubarak. Regarding Iran, they made a mistake that they do not want to repeat again. Contrary to Israeli leaders, they think that the best defense from Israel is to create change in Egypt.”
Do these statements show us that with the start and the continuation of the uprisings of the distressed people against the imperialist lackeys, imperialist governments unanimously have reached conclusion that as soon as possible with the apparent support of the protest movements to create the grounds for installing unpopular and less hateful elements in power so that they hold on to their control over the situations?
On Feb. 3, 2011, weekly issue of Die Zeit, describes the imperialist shenanigan regarding these uprisings in the Arab countries as such: “the West happiness from this event is linked together with shamefulness. Not only due to the dangers that a revolution brings along with it but, because, these events were also unexpected and were the cause of our disgrace too…perhaps West feels that in the process of disguised colonization and its implementation of racism, became exposed”.
3 – The centrist forces which are mainly utilized by the reactionary classes and imperialist powers as a mediator in order to continue the reactionary systems in all of Arabic countries, especially in Egypt and Tunisia have become active:
Rashed Ghenouchi, the exiled leader of the Islamic “movement” party, after 20 years of residence in London and after the overthrow of Ben Ali, entered Tunisia. For spreading illusion, he said: “he is neither Khomeini, nor Bin laden”. They think like the party of “development and justice” in Turkey. Mohammad Al Baradei in a hurry came to Cairo so to “join the protesters”. According to Agence France Presse, Al bradei  said: “the hypothesis of the democratic Egypt  will be anti-American/Israeli is no more than an illusion”. Mohammad Badee, the head of Akhvanol Moslemin proclaimed that the opposition groups are in agreement that  Al Baradei enters negotiation with the government.
Brooke Bine, Jan. 30, 2011, by expressing the list of participants in the Tunisian government which are socialists, proceeded to introduce them and wrote: “from 17 Tunisian parliament members, six persons are suppose to be the socialists: Mustafa Ben Jaafar from forum party of democratic work and freedom – this party is advisory member of the international socialist and a member of coalition with the workers communist party of Tunisia; Ahmad Ebrahim from Etat Jadid movement – a socialist party known as Tunisian Communist Party; Ahmad Shabbei from the democratic/progressive party – the party which was previously called Progressive Socialist Alliance; and three members of the General Union of Tunisian Workers – this group is part of the created Global Socialist Organization by the communists, the World Confederation of the Free Unions.”
Considering the fact that the number of these cabinet members is third of the total cabinet members, it is possible that their destiny won’t be any better than the destiny of the three members of the Central Committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran in Ghavamol Saltane’s cabinet in 1946 which did not last more than few months! The purpose of Ghavam was to make Tudeh Party passive. Since by participating in the government became treacherous both to the oil workers strike in the south and to the nationalist movement in Azerbaijan and Kurdistan!
Also in Egypt, a committee consisting of 25 members was formed. Youth also participated in its formation and among them three names were named on Feb. 4, 2011, by ziadol alimi, a close ally to Albradei  as the future president of Egypt: Amr Moosa, General Secretary of the Arab League, Al Baradei and  Ahmad Zoueil, professor of chemistry/physics, Cal Tec University, California who is the a candidate for Nobel Prize and Obama’s advisor and finally, the names of five young people has also been considered. Now, we must see what action the Egyptian military would take in this regard. There is also no report from the activities of this committee yet.
Therefore, in the situations where there is an absence of a revolutionary leadership in these movements, not one revolution, but at its best condition, a change in government from the hands of an absolute bourgeois force to the hands of a reformist catalyst – namely that it is possible that it may not last for a long period – would take place. With the support of the imperialists from such trend, they hope to be able to continue to maintain and insure their influence in the Arab countries for the years to come.
4 – While, from within these movements of the millions of participants, a conscious, skilful, militant and influential political force to will be created and grown from among the workers and toilers, then we can say that these uprisings will become a starting point of a social revolution and it is with this achieved credit that the masses will create the path for a genuine revolution which would be respectable and can be learned from.
In addition, in these uprisings, the power of the masses as the main makers of history and the corrupt and decadent nature of the capitalist (including local and global ) forces became exposed. In this process, the Arab world took a step forward toward the direction of the establishment of democracy and socialism. We must be hopeful that the opinionated defenders of the capitalist and pre-capitalist systems are no longer able to repeat the history again – especially with the reliance to religion – and in this manner after a lapse of 200 years of the experience of the rejection of the interference of religion in the state affairs in the western countries, the Middle Eastern countries must also implement this revolutionary slogan.
Hope that the uprisings and heroism of the workers and toilers of the Arab countries which their outcries from Algeria and Marco to Jordan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf’s Emirates and Sudan , shock the palace of tyranny and the basis for the deepening of the class struggle in order to overthrow  the reactionary regimes in the Arab countries that are a secure base for the imperialists and to be prepared to drive out the global plunderers from this region.
k. Abraham, February 21, 2011
The wave of protests, movements and finally the recent mass uprisings in the majority of the Arabic countries located in northern Africa and the Middle East have been widespread which has shaken the dictator regimes of these countries and their imperialist supporters. Ben Ali, the president of Tunisia which for the past 23 years of his presidency robbed his people in billions of Dollars, on January 14, 2011, in fear of his life was forced to escape the country. Whiles, his Egyptian counterpart, Hosni Mubarak, under the pretext of if he steps down, Egypt goes into chaos, after 18 days of resistance against the roar of the millions of rebellious people on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Port Saeed, Ismailia and other cities where people screamed: “Mubarak Al Rahall”, preferentially, for the first time in 30 years being in power chose a substitute for himself and said until September 2011, he would not step down. Finally, with the continuation of demonstrations, on February 11, 2011, he stepped down and transferred his power to the high council of the armed forces which seems to be an internal coup and with the agreement of the US and Israel, the military secretly put him aside.! However, many thanks to the workers and toilers of Tunisia and Egypt for these first two victories! Continue reading »

written by admin