The Unity of Communist Forces on What Grounds?
Written by: comrade Poulad
Feb.
The reality of diversity and dispersion in the Iranian communist movement and the negative effects of the communist forces' disunity in the fight against the oppressive system of capitalism have, for years, put forth this problem and the ways of overcoming it as one of the crucial issues of the communist movement.
Based on such a reality, we have occasionally
witnessed some political forces which have suggested drafts and projects
to overcome this dispersion and unite the different political
groups in the communist movement by accepting a common platform, thus ending
the dispersion in the movement. Such attempts are, in fact, doomed to
fail primarily because they are not realistic, not to mention the fact that
often perjured motives behind these calls and meetings for unity reveals the
falsity of such plans and attempts. It must be added that since these meetings
and attempts at unity have never resolved any of
the movement's problems, and therefore, even in the best light, they should not
have been taken seriously. (
Lately, the question of "unity of the
Left" has, once again, been considered among some ex‑patriot groups.
They have held seminars, published bulletins and, while putting emphasis on
"the necessity for the unity of the Iranian Worker Left", have
claimed by issuing a statement to "...Finding a way to overcome the
dispersion and sectarism among the forces of the
workers' left" (
The statement of this League makes it clear
that the developing forces of the League have, as of yet, no joint platform and
that the platform of unity will seemingly be provided only later "through discussions and the specification of
real common grounds." (
At the present, therefore, the materials available for us to comprehend "The League of Appeal for the Unity of the Forces of the Worker Left" are but the bulletins of discussion among the constituent members of this League and their joint statement. A statement which although by no means mentions the objective of the unity, necessary conditions for its providing and ways of reaching it, already announces decisively, as of now, the title of the unity which will take shape in the future: The Unity of The Forces of The Workers' Left! This name has not been chosen by mistake and brings to a focus the reason for selecting such a name. This gives a clue to better understand the aim of the constituent members of the League for Unity.
Certainly, when speaking of overcoming the
dispersion of the communist movement, the term "Unity of the
Left" is understood, for communists, as the unity of Marxist
forces. But some of the constituent forces of the aforementioned League, while
considering themselves Marxists (
When dealing with the term "socialism" too, the League... has demonstrated its opportunism. Unlike communists who use the term socialism referring to the first phase of communist society, "socialism" has no solid and defined meaning for the so‑ called Marxist forces within the League. Thus, with no hesitation, they also apply the term in dealing with different political forces that do not belong to the working class. Thus, the socialism of the working class, as they promote it, has lost its real meaning and become such a banal manifestation within which any class and stratum can fold and decorate itself.
Despite being aware of all the differences and
disagreements in their own viewpoints and positions on various issues, the
League emphasise that "unification should not be
postponed until the resolution of the existing disagreements." (
In dealing with the unification of the leftist
forces in the present situation, another issue to which we must pay attention, is that the known organisations of the Iranian
communist movement, at present, exist out of the country, with no connections
to the conditions of struggle in
It will be attempted, in this article, to illustrate the real aim and motive of the designers of the "League" and, the true purpose of their appeal for the unity of worker left forces. It must already be mentioned that these appeals and the nature of the meetings they have held have never resulted in the unification of Marxists, nor can they be considered a step towards overcoming the existing dispersion within the ranks of communists. To prove this, the viewpoints and perspectives of the League in regards to the definition of the Left, the current status of Marxists and, the question of the working class party, will be investigated.
Prior to anything else, when studying the existing documents on the above proposal, what attracts the eye is the name that the League has chosen to define themselves as well as defining the forces of their unity.
In spite of considering themselves as Marxists and communists and claiming to try to overcome the existing dispersion in the communist movement and to even move on in the direction of building the working class party, the above groups call their unity "the unity of the Iranian worker Left" and insist on introducing themselves as the Left or, at most, the worker Left rather than Marxists or communists. This insistence, in itself, could not be subject to any criticism if these forces had presented a unified and specific understanding of "the Left" or that of " the worker Left" as another term for referring to Marxist and communist forces. But a look at the documents of discussions of these organisations and groups clearly shows that not only is there no unified understanding in this regard among them, but rather each has presented a different meaning to the definition of the Left and, among them, diverse class forces are referred to by the unified name "the Left". To understand the usage of the word "Left" among these groups it is necessary to refer to their own writings on the subject.
In the article "the unity of which Left
and in what way", published in the bulletin of the unity of the forces of
worker left #
The opposite side of these viewpoints seems to
appear in the phrase, "revolutionary left or better yet, worker and
communist movement", stated in another writing named as "the
conclusion of discussions at the meeting". Or in the article "the
question of unification of the left and proposal of pragmaticality",
where the group "Minority's Cell" writes: "there is still a vast
line of the radical left that, whether as political organisations or as
socialist activists separated from these organisations, consider themselves a
part of worker‑communist movement, fight in this direction and, are
engaged with the path‑finding of a communist critique on the existing
situation. The question, however, is the what &
wherefore of organising this left suitably according to the existing
situation."(
The above excerpts clearly show that the League has divergent conceptions on the meaning of Left, and that based upon their definitions, a force could be considered as part of the Left by one while the very same force is recognised as a part of the Right by another. Among them, some equate Left as Socialism, some others as radical forces, and even sometimes, as religious factions.
As we see, the variety of views and the diversity of conceptions of the forces of the League on the meaning of Left is to such a degree that while one refers to religious factions in society as Left, the other speaks of revolutionary Left and calls it an analogue for the worker and communist movement. In spite of all these differences and disagreements on the principles and essential issues, all the constituents of "the League of Appeal..." are unanimous in regards to a single important and basic matter (!!) And that is, that all are in agreement not to use the title Marxism and Communism when introducing themselves and that all have reached unity in declaring themselves under the heading of "Worker Left"!! Presenting different understandings of the "Leftist" or "Worker Leftist" forces and at the same time issuing a statement titled as "meeting for the unification of Iranian worker left", in a situation where every organisation, group and sect, has its own particular understanding of the term Left. As a matter of fact, in order to clarify their understandings, each trend is forced to use expressions such as "Revolutionary Left", "Radical Left", "Worker Left" etc. to elucidate the difference between its own Left and those of others__ and also in a situation when the aforementioned forces avoid applying the titles Marxism and Communism to their league. This signifies the necessity of both a careful look at the motives behind such an approach and of understanding it, thus raising the following questions: Does "worker left" mean the same as "revolutionary left" and "worker and communist movement"? Or is it the same as "radical left" which "considers itself as a part of worker and communist movement"? Or perhaps it refers to "radical‑democrat left" for which being religious or secular, Marxist, Leninist or Kautskist should makes "no difference"? Or maybe it refers to those "adherent forces of socialism and the working class" who hesitate to call themselves "socialist"?
By agreeing on the ambiguous title "The Unity of Worker Left", the issuers of the statement for the meeting have purposely left the above questions unanswered in order to make the framework of unity so wide open that they can bring into this unity any and every force merely for this; that their various positions are "Leftist" and or, in regards to so & so, they oppose the Right.
It is of no mystery to anyone that, from a theoretical point of view, the Left is a general concept that could be used in regards to any and every force with any and every class correspondence. For example; while no one has any doubt that "the Democratic Party of U.S." is certainly a right wing party, we could speak of its left faction, or speak of the left faction of the so‑called "combatant clergies" within the Islamic Republic regime. We could speak just as much of the left faction in the Gaullists' Party of France as that of in the Bath parties in the Middle East, or in Social Christian Party of Germany, and finally, that of the traitorous and criminal line of Aksariat in Iran which has its own left faction after all! Thus, why is it that the issuers of the Appeal for constituting "the Unity of Worker Left" have, despite all this, attempted neither to use the title Communism as referring to themselves nor to clearly elucidate their conception of the phrase "Worker Left". If these groups had issued their appeal to form a front consisting of the progressive and radical forces within the Islamic regime's opposition then it would have been possible to set a discussion in relation to the objective and subjective conditions necessary for establishing a front, the characters of its constituent forces, and the role of communists in such a front. But the constituent forces of "the Iranian Worker Left's Unity" have entered the battlefield here, under the label of exertion in fighting the existing separation and dispersion within the communist movement and under that of an appeal for unification. It must be brought to their attention; therefore, that any group which wants, through a rendition and an elucidation such as the one given by the issuers of the aforementioned pronouncement as to the meaning of Left, to reduce the unity of the communist movement to the level of a front unity. This League that intends to disguise the compromise and deviation from Marxist principles behind the excuse of overcoming the diversity and dispersion within the communists' lines.
What is clear here, is that the constituent forces of the "League of Appeal..." have no desire to clarify the actual motives, as a result of which they all agreed upon the usage of the title the Unity of Worker Left. And furthermore, that they are not willing to put it clearly as to why, instead if calling upon Marxist forces to unite in order to overcome the communist movement's disunity and, hence, to effect the unity of Marxists, they rather speak of the unity of Worker Left. However, despite the dubious phraseology of these groups, we can discern their real reasons from within their presented views on this matter, and number them as such:
It is, therefore, clear that although within
the ranks of communists the usage of the term "Left" is normal and
natural for addressing the forces of the communist movement, but where the aim
is to knowingly not use the terms "Marxism" and "Communism"
to refer to the forces of this movement. The terms "Left" or
"worker left" are not being used with an accurate and clear
definition as another phrase to address the communist forces, then the motives
behind such a ploy must be comprehended and the deep ignorance thus prevailing
must be unmasked. (
It may be argued that the meaning of
"unity of the worker left", as well as the aim of such a unity is the
unification of those forces that "strive for socialism" and have
"worker tendencies". But, even in this case, it is again necessary
that the forces of the League... clearly declare their actual understanding of
"socialism" and of "worker tendencies" beforehand. Only a
look at the history of political parties in
The fact is, that there have been parties in the history of the working-class movement which have, in different degrees, participated amongst the working class under the banner of socialism and utilized the power of this class in the direction of their own interest. Those parties have, by no means, had any affinity with those lines that indeed supported the immediate and long term interests of the working class. Throughout the history of the worker's movement from Marx's time up until this day, Communism has always been viewed as the ultimate goal of communists i.e., the most vanguard part of the working class, who have, for this reason, been the organizers of the most vibrant class struggles towards the fulfilment of this very goal. Of course, in their political-dialectical system, the communists, too, use the word socialism. Yet, since they recognize and introduce socialism as the first phase of communist society, then a clear line of distinction between their socialism and variously‑coloured socialism of all kinds, is subsequently being drawn. Basically, by socialism, communists refer to a society within which, upon the overthrow of the capitalist system, political power has been seized by the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the most vanguard class in bourgeois society. At which point, this class begins waging its fight forward towards reaching communism i.e., classless society, through the implementation of social ownership over the means of production. Under socialism, the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat provides the means to eradicate any sort of exploitation of one by another and directs society to a stage where it has been stamped upon its banner: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
Now, let us look at this issue from another
angle. The League of appealers is well aware that we live in a situation where
every day a new definition of the working class is being invented. Thus, while
having all sorts of definitions of the working class, merely announcing the
"worker tendency" of a current, does not solve any problems in this
discussion. For instance, by relying upon this definition that "all those
who receive wages and salaries" (
Therefore, it has to be stressed that although the expression "the Left" is a common form for defining communists, since any and everyone can, in a way, comment on and interpret it according to their interests and considerations, then in order to avoid any confusion one should refer to all phenomena by their own, real names. It is for this reason that when discussing the unity of the forces of the communist movement, such forces must be identified by known terms such as Communism and Marxists. And if the expressions "left" or "worker left" are being used, one must then clarify that the aim is to refer to communist forces, in order to prevent bourgeois and petit bourgeois "polity". Furthermore, by clarifying what the question is about, one should, hence, proceed by laying the problem out correctly and then presenting the methods for carrying out such a task, if the objective here is in fact to overcome the disunity and dispersion of the communist movement.
We have, so far, illustrated why the constituent forces of "the League" use the term
(Second "worker left" when referring to themselves, and why they are hesitant to mention Marxism and Communism as well as applying the term socialism rather than communism when speaking of their struggle's goal. Now, it is necessary to deal with the conditions in which the communist movement finds itself:
One of the significant issues in the study of
the documents of discussions of "the Iranian Worker Left Unity" is
the lack of attention of the majority of the forces of this unity to the
conditions within which this "Left" i.e., the forces that are
supposed to unite, are situated. It is obvious that when the issue is to overcome
the dispersion and separation within the communist movement of Iran, both the
conditions of activity and struggle of the communist forces within the country
and that of those abroad, must be taken into consideration. The fact is that
those communists, who are inside the country and present at the primordial
battlefield against the class enemy, have totally different conditions than
those who are out of
The difference between the conditions of work and struggle of these two parts of the communist movement naturally determines their different tasks. And, if one ignores these essential and significant differences, they undoubtedly won't even be able to lay out the actual problem correctly, not to mention taking a practical step towards resolving the dispersion within the communist movement.
In relation to the conditions of work and
struggle of the communists in Iran, there is, of course, no need for further
emphasis that due to the domination of dictatorship, not only is there no
possibility of free and overt activity for communists but, even worse, they are
under the most intense attacks of the enemy. Thus, it is for this reason that
communist activity is carried out through complete underground conditions. The
pressure and suppression ruling upon Iran has resulted in communists not yet
being able to organise themselves as relatively massive and recognised groups
and to guarantee the continuity of their activities, despite all their
activities and devotion (their courageous resistance under the barbaric torture
of the Islamic regime's executioners, and their constancy in defending the
proletariat's goals when facing death squads are but manifestations of such
devotion). The ruling vicious suppression and the domination of opportunism has
ensued in the fact that the tremendous steps that the communist movement had
taken forward towards building connections with the working class by the
establishment and growth of the Organisation of Iranian People's Fadaee Guerrillas in the late
We know, on the other hand, that as a result of
the systematic attacks of the ruling counter-revolution against the
revolutionary movement of the Iranian people, and the barbaric suppression of
the struggles of both the masses and political forces in this country, the
political organisations have suffered great blows as result of which, some have
been scattered and some others have gradually centred abroad. Upon such a
reality, we are now witnessing abroad the presence and activities of a number
of known "communist" organisations that lack any and every real and
effective connection with the revolutionary movement within
The communists situated abroad, therefore, have not only suffered from the lack of connection with the working class, but to this, what also has been added is the dilemma of their distance from Iran's society and the absence of a dynamic relationship to the struggles and existing issues within this society.
These are the realities to which any communist
force that lays out the question of unity among the Iranian communists must pay
attention. According to the above reality, it is clear that one cannot consider
the round-table talks held amongst a few organisations and groups abroad,
and/or their presumptive cooperation and unity of action, either as the
unity of the Iranian communists or as an ending point to the existing
dispersion within the lines of the communist movement, even if these
unifications are seen "at a level lower than party unity yet higher than
occasional unity of action"(
A look at the discussions organised on the question of "unity of the Iranian worker left", reveals that some of the participants in these discussions consider the aim of such a unity as building a unitary party of the working class.
Since the discussion on the working-class party
and the requirements for building such a party has been one of the primordial
and, at the same time, prominent polemics within the lines of the Iranian
communist movement, it would perhaps be much more appropriate to deal with it
separately. It is only necessary to point out here that although the
undertaking to form the working-class party is an inseparable part of the
tireless struggle of communists in the emancipation of the working class from
the yoke of capital; and that even though without its combatant organisation,
the working class would not be able to implement its hegemony through the
course of revolution; nevertheless, it must be understood that the
working-class party has (and is) built neither spontaneously nor by the command
of volition of some groups or circles that have no connection with the working
class. But rather, it is through the advancement of the worker movement and the
association of communist groups and forces with the struggles of the working
class that this party has (and is) formed. Therefore, one cannot regard the
closeness and unification amongst the existing organisations, groups and
circles abroad as the formation of the working-class party. Thus, placing the
establishment of the working-class party as the aim of the unification of such
forces only explains the improvidence and frivolousness of such moves. If one
is supposed to learn from the past, then we have to draw the attention of these
forces to the fate of those parties that have so far been formed under such a
title, so that they realise the end result of such parties has clearly shown
that without any connection to the working class, one cannot talk about
building the working class party. The valuable experiences of the communist
movement in this relation have revealed that any of the forces which has, up
until now, tried to present itself or its unification with another group as the
working-class party with no consideration to these existing realities, soon has
made a mockery of itself within the movement, and the course of life has but
explicitly unmasked the opportunistic methods of such forces. The ignominy and
travesty has now reached the point where a political current that, in fact,
already carries the title of the working-class party, is once again promoting
the slogan of building the party, and is participating in the process of
forming another one! (
There are those currents within our movement
that on paper and by issuing variously-coloured statements have established the
working-class party, and by the will of their so-called " theoretitions' " pen -for which apparently there is no
scarcity in our movement- make the entire working class into members of such a
party! But, it must be realised that despite all of these magic tricks, none of
these parties have been present in any of the hundreds of strikes organised by
the working class itself, nor have they even been aware of the occurrence of
such strikes. Yes indeed, our working class is still unorganised, it still
lacks its own organisation and, the question of building the party is still
facing the true communists as one of the questions of the communist movement.
Therefore, by simply making this party - and, of course, on paper - one cannot
disguise the inability in carrying out the excruciating and complex process of
building the communist party under the dictatorship ruling
Undoubtedly, the problem of disunity and dispersion within the communist movement, is a serious and crucial issue to which no communist individual or force can be indifferent. It is for this, indeed, that any communist individual or force would aspire to an end of disunity and division, and fight for unity of all communist lines. Thus, in generally posing the question, any attempt towards unity, and any step in this direction - no matter how small the step - would be valuable and revolutionary. But, as far as the initiators of "the League of Appeal for Unity of Worker Left" are concerned, not only have these forces, even generally speaking, not posed the question properly so that they could organise an action in this regard, but by deviating from the principles of Marxism, they are also adding more weight to the burden.
Communist approach in relation to the question of unity, is tied with a concrete analysis of a concrete situation. Only in this way can there be a possibility to pose the problem correctly and get close to its solution. Instead, what analysis does "the League" offer in relation to the overall present situation? This league does not even engage in posing the questions, which are but fundamental to answer when striving for unity. For instance, it is not clear to this league that, once accomplished, what this unity and unification of political forces must lead to. In other words, we unite to do what? In fact, the essential question is: a) what is that concrete problem of the movement for which the unity of forces is both necessary and required, and b) what are the combatant forms and paths in this respect?
Certainly, sharing a common goal, and having agreements on methods of struggle in order to accomplish this goal, is a necessity for unity. However, as it was previously pointed out, in the discussions for unity of these groups, on the one hand, the aim is distorted, and on the other, there is no discussion as to the methods of struggle by which such a distorted goal is to be accomplished. Consequently, the unity discussions are centred around broad issues that practically provide no solutions for real problems. Whereas, if we ascertain the goal of struggle and the ways of its achievement, then to whatever degree we step forward in this path, we will have, in as much, highlighted the necessity of closeness and unification, and will have, in as much, paved the road to unity.
If we accept that the communist movement is in crisis, then we must accept, as well, that without analysing this crisis, understanding its existential reasons, and subsequently finding resolutions to overcome this crisis, we cannot take any step toward the unity of communist movement. In fact, having not yet clarified as to why we have been facing such a crisis, what dimensions and outcomes this crisis has had, and what is the way out, how can one speak of overcoming dispersion amongst the communist lines!
Perhaps, those who simply portray the gathering of a few political forces and their joint statement of unification, as the way to overcome the existing dispersion within the ranks of communist movement, have mistaken the effect with the cause, and think that it is from the dispersion of forces that the movement is in crisis. Whereas, we know that, in reality, dispersion and disunity in themselves are the products and outcomes of crisis and not vice versa.
If the intention were real unity, rather than batching some groups together; if the purpose of unification were to struggle rather than to create entertainment and artificial amusement under the name of political-organisational work and activity, then it would be easily possible to see that considering the existence of crucial subjective differences, and the lack "equilibrium" on the essential viewpoints, one cannot speak of organisational unity, and even if such a unity takes place, this would mean nothing other than a preparation for the next separation and split.
The Iranian communist movement is a part of the
world communist movement. Therefore, this movement, in the overall picture, is
faced with unresolved issues that challenge all communists throughout the world
today. Without comprehending this reality, and thus undertaking to understand
the existing real problems, any debate on unity would be meaningless,
superfluous and have no impact other than misleading the forces and diverting
their views from the real issues - which only by resolving, could one take a
step toward paving the road to a principled unity of communist forces. (
In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasise that the presence of Marxist organisations and groups abroad, and the existence of Marxists elements and circles around the world, has provided for the Iranian communists potentially significant possibilities which, if treated correctly, could have positive outcomes in favour of the working class and the communist revolution. If these forces and circles in each country would collect and exchange the combatant experiences of the working class, and would try to channel the available energies into examining past mistakes and answering the unanswered questions that, following the world's current events, have occupied the minds of the proletariat intellectuals, it would be a great aid to those communists who, at the core of the battlefield in Iran, are taking steps toward the organisation of the working class and the eradication of the capitalist system.
When this article was in the
process of being printed, "the League" published a new resolution
dated Feb.
FOOTNOTES:
a) "The Unity Conference" that was held in the chaotic
situation after the Feb. uprising of
b) The defeat of the attempts made by the forces of the Minority, in the direction of reunification, which ultimately came to an end officially without having any impact.
c) The end result of the attempts of the three organisations: Rahe Kargar (so-called "The Worker's Path"), Shoraye Allee ("The High Council") and "Sazema-neh Fadaee ("Fadaee Org.") in relation to unity, was summed up with Rahe Kargar's separation from this process and the merger of the other two.
Or in the article "the unity of which left, and in what way", published in the first issue of the Unity Bulletin of the Worker Left Forces, where the author, while emphasising that "being leftist has to do with one's "practice" and standpoint in confronting the existing economic and social systems", rather than "the ideological and religious mentality of this individual or that current", concludes that "the lack of invitation to leftist religious currents such as "Ershaad" (The Guidance), "Movahedeeheh Enghelubee" (The Revolutionary Monotheists), and "Armaaneh Mostaz-afaan" (The Goal of the Impoverished) is "indefensible".
a) In the statement of "Collaborators of the Project for the Establishment of the Discussion Bulletin of Revolutionary Socialists", as one of the forces of "the League…" in reply to "the unity of the Iranian radical worker left", in the first issue of The Bulletin of Unity of the Worker-Left Forces, it has been stated: "We believe that the experience of the Iranian revolution showed that not only none of the existing organisations and currents are capable of reconstructing the Iranian revolutionary left, in fact, they themselves are part of the reason of this present crisis. In order to get out of this crisis, we must separate ourselves from these traditional currents and put our efforts into building new blocks of revolutionary socialists. We are, therefore, in agreement with the first article of the resolution, which pinpoints the necessity for such a unity. This, however, does not mean that we acknowledge the signatures of all those who have signed the resolution."
b) And or, on page
The criminals of the current known as the Majority, discredited individuals such as Negahdaar and Keshtegar whose betrayals to the Iranian people are well known, and Mohammad Omidvaar from the Tudeh Party whose one real party task up until yesterday--or perhaps even now-- was servitude to the USSR and also Babak Amir-Khosravy from the so-called liquidations of dependent forces (one always has to keep in mind the probability of the master's order for such liquidations) expressed their views on the future of the Left as the thinkers(!) of the Iranian Left movement, reveals the nature of the hosting association of such a conference. But does this fact not show that these organisations claiming themselves as communists, perhaps should not lean towards "the Right" when using the term "Left"? Or maybe some of our clever "Leftists" are aiming here to launch some fatal attacks on "the Right" by placing all these forces under the "all-embracing umbrellas" of the Left, and to thereby isolate "the Right"!