Re: AUT: socialist dreams and the Iraqi Left

[cerclesocial@xxxxxxxxxx]

More on the split between worker-communists parties. There are many inner
causes, as normal in such case, but the following are the major public
debates. I use 'left' and 'right' termes for a more simple description, ina
pure amrxist sens (left being principles, right being pragmatism), without
any negative meaning for one or another. Note that I use mainly
english-translated texts, as the biggest part of the debate is still in
farsi, and partly in kurdish and arabic.

The split began in the Worker-communist party of Iran, with a disagreement
on the strategy to follow in case of downfall of the islamic regime. Hamid
Taqvaee (the 'left') considers that left and socialists are widespread in
iranese society in Iran, and the worker-communist party is very popular. He
emphases, amon others, on the fact that, in the last student revolt, the
slogan 'freedom - equality' and even referebnces to shuras, were widespread,
and on the wide reputation of Ali Jawadi, the farsi TV speaker of the WPI.
So, he considers that in case of downfall of the regime, first task will be
to launch workers councils and arm them for workers power, for an immediate
socialization.

On the other side, Koroosh Modaresi (the 'right') considers that, if the
regime is disqualified and widely rejected by Irani society, the majority
wants a liberal democracy, not socialism. Worker-communism is not well known
and in concurence with many other tendancies (mainly, the monarchists, which
in Iran are liberals). And he aslo put in question the risk of a 'dark
scenario'  close from Iraqi one : invasion by USA. islamic and nationalist
terrorism,... From this, he argues that the party should ensure by any means
the possibilty to grow up in society, and considers every scenario,
including participation to a transitionnal governement if it could help to
go to a socialist republic.

Both part reclaims themselves from the ideas of Mansoor Hekmat. In some way,
this is true for both, as Hekmat himself was taking very serioulsy the
question of worker power in society ('hegemnoy', as he use frequently some
gramscian conepts) and the seizure of political power (the key of its
symapthy towards Lenin, even if he considers that the bolcheviks bever had a
communist agenda). But he explained clearly that the tasks of
worker-communist movement was to build workers power trough the shuras
(workers councils), and that the immediate socialization (not statization)
of means of production, and abolition of wage slavery were the only real
criterias of socialism (what was it's critics of USSR and all state
capitalists countries).

Why does the Iraqi WCPI chose the 'right' side of Korush Modaresi ? This is
not a very clear issue -- even if the presence of KM itself in the central
comitee of the irqi party could have taken some part (as antinationalists,
there is WPIran CC members in WPIraq CC and vice-versa). The 'hekmatist'
side of KM is said to be less sectarian, more open to dfferences of views
inside the parties, and more practical -- and worker-communists recognize
themselves as practical people, unlike the ideological 'traditionnal left'.
Some other reasons have been avanced in inner debates, but none very clera
at this time.

Issam Shukri, an Iraqi member of both CC (and negociator with the US army
during the 45 days sit-in of th euNion of unemployed in front of Paul Bremer
office in Bagdad for a welfare benefit, in july 2003), lauched a pro-WPI
(left) fraction in the Iraqi party, wich was quickly expelled and created
the LWPI. Untill now, LWPI communiqués are on the same line than WCPI.

to be continued....

Nico
www.solidariteirak.org













     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---