Simaiesocialism, Iranian Group?

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nader
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Mar 23 2007 19:23

Davrim,
We all have learned of our experiences that what is said, may be, and in many cases is, quite different than what is done!

To see the "sign", is not really difficult: One can just look at their practice, their literature, web site, and what they are occupied with. One can ask this pressing question: How is that a so called internationalist exile group, is basically occupied with the class struggle in one country, and that is their 'own', where they are not even present there! In what degree/extend have they ever engaged in the class struggle of their own exile country? How come they always are occupied with gaining support of the "workers of the world" for their own country's workers struggle? And, have they ever done anything to encourage workers of their own land to support the class war of other countries? Aside from this, and even more important, in what degree (if any at all) are they engaged in the class struggle in their exile countries?

Whatever one may say, one can not deny the fact that the real class struggle exists everywhere, and one can be (and more than often, despite her/his will is) a part of it; however, one can not be a part of real class struggle, where one is not even present -unless (s)he is at least a dreamer. Here, however we don’t have dreamers, but just another branch of partyist / vanguardist in sole just like any other Leninist with a bunch of mambo jumbo taken from here and there, with no reference, and without any cohesion.

Nader

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
May 2 2016 10:37
Quote:
We all have learned of our experiences that what is said, may be, and in many cases is, quite different than what is done!

To see the "sign", is not really difficult: One can just look at their practice, their literature, web site, and what they are occupied with. One can ask this pressing question: How is that a so called internationalist exile group, is basically occupied with the class struggle in one country, and that is their 'own', where they are not even present there! In what degree/extend have they ever engaged in the class struggle of their own exile country? How come they always are occupied with gaining support of the "workers of the world" for their own country's workers struggle? And, have they ever done anything to encourage workers of their own land to support the class war of other countries? Aside from this, and even more important, in what degree (if any at all) are they engaged in the class struggle in their exile countries?

I know that they are engaged in struggles in Canada, they are organizing in Toronto and they are always trying to have meetings with militant workers who are struggling outside the union. I don't know if they exist in other parts of Canada, but if they do, I would assume that they do the same thing. I would assume that they would do the same thing in Norway also. In the first page of their website, there are news about struggles and events in the USA, in Canada, in Belgium, in Norway, in Australia, in Israel and also something about an immigrant worker from Mexico... They asked for several times to send them news about struggles in Turkey in order to publish it in their papers, which they publish in three languages. I think they also have non-Iranian members in their groups outside Iran.

Now, exile mentality is something to watch for yet I don't see that mentality in this group. Their website seems quite detailed in both three languages and they publish papers in three languages; this is indeed something a group with an actual exile mentality would never do.

It seems to me that the accusation of nationalism doesn't really have any touch with the reality.

Nader
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Mar 23 2007 21:55
Quote:
It seems to me that the accusation of nationalism doesn't really have any touch with the reality.

If what you have mentioned of their 'activity' is seen as "engaging" in class struggle, and hence not to be nationalist, then yes you may be right. But we were not born yesterday, and are familiar with all other Leninist branches (starting from Bolsheviks, ending with Trots and Maoists) -either in exile or at 'home'.

This activity however is a tradesman activity: on one hand, we support you in words only to gain your support for action of our landsman, without really being engaged in your struggle. If we support you, we always want you to support us! if you dont, then you will be stamped by this or that stamp which we have planty of (reformist, anarchist, unionist, uncouncious, backward worker, etc). On the other hand, we can use this type of activity ('solidarity') as a weapon in completion with other sects.
See, this seems to be a win-win game for them -only if the real struggling workers cared at all. It is the same for the leftist parties activity of the 'solidarity' with struggles of women, workers, gays, etc. in any Capitalist country.

So who cares, one sect in completion to others pretending to be the so called internationalist, to survive and sell their commodity.

Internationalism in its root, has the abolition of all these sects, either with "exile mentality", or without it, either pretending to have the best sole of revolution or the best sole of reform. The real engage in class struggle, is preciously to be in the heart of it -not gathering second and third hand reports, like any journalist and just to be happy for 'we are doing something'! This means first and foremost, engaging in class struggle of where we are (living, working, studying), is to fight back the bourgeoisie right here.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 24 2007 07:07

Eh, no offense, but as I said I don't see any argument in your post. Do you have something personal against them?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 24 2007 09:23
Nader wrote:
We all have learned of our experiences that what is said, may be, and in many cases is, quite different than what is done!

To see the "sign", is not really difficult: One can just look at their practice, their literature, web site, and what they are occupied with. One can ask this pressing question: How is that a so called internationalist exile group, is basically occupied with the class struggle in one country, and that is their 'own', where they are not even present there! In what degree/extend have they ever engaged in the class struggle of their own exile country? How come they always are occupied with gaining support of the "workers of the world" for their own country's workers struggle? And, have they ever done anything to encourage workers of their own land to support the class war of other countries? Aside from this, and even more important, in what degree (if any at all) are they engaged in the class struggle in their exile countries?

Yes, there is a problem with exile groups, and a lot of Iranian groups have this problem. Leo doesn't sem to think they have this exile mentality. It seems to me that your argument is running 'they are Leninists so they must be nationalists'.

Devrim

Nader
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Mar 24 2007 19:53
Quote:
Leo wrote:
Eh, no offense, but as I said I don't see any argument in your post. Do you have something personal against them?

Quote:
Devrim wrote: Leo doesn't sem to think they have this exile mentality. It seems to me that your argument is running 'they are Leninists so they must be nationalists'.

hehe,
Nice try Leo! When you can’t see my argument, you think that it must be some kind of personal 'conflict'. Isn’t this a familiar way of thinking in organizations?

OK, let it be. When you can’t see it, so you can’t see, we can be disagree with each other on evaluation of sects and groups (which may steam from our more basic way of thinking), then why should we think of that as an issue of personal 'conflict'?

Davrim, what do you by your own think? Is it enough for you that your comrade think for you? And, apart the fact that all Leninist organizations are also in this or that way nationalist in root, as Leninism/Bolshevism itself is, I tried to outline why I mean what I mean in my evaluation. Reading again what I wrote maybe can clear this.

Dear friens, this sect as any other one, has shown its tendencies to at least radical-revolutionary Farsi-speaking people. They have some ongoing conflict with some Traditional-Leninist organizations of Iran (all in exile). Their conflict and dispute, have the same basic ground, which is avant-gardism and all have the same common ground of nationalism (only focusing on Iran) and businessman mentality. Their conflict however, is the leadership, what the parties role suppose to be, and why the existing parties are (or are not) 'good'. this sect as all other think of itself as if they are the only 'most correct understanding of Marxism & Socialism' (as their leaders talk about themselves) and how a so called 'revolutionary party should be built up! As if there has never existed such 'most correct understanding'.
Their occupation, in exile (except few 'activity' concerning report of workers conflict), is basically their own country, its problems and conflicts. After being in exile for about 25 years, still exist in exile group form. Some native radical groups who had some contact with them have already abandoned them, how long it would take other radical groups (and not another Leninist sects like them) to do so, is an open question.

Anyhow, It is really no use to talk and spend time on such sect(s). I just felt here that some few things should be clear -maybe helping to avoid illusions...

Nader

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 24 2007 20:45
Nader wrote:
Davrim, what do you by your own think? Is it enough for you that your comrade think for you?

I think that I don't have the time to read every article on every website by every group. Leo deals with correspondence with Iranian groups.
Devrim

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 25 2007 10:45
Quote:
Nice try Leo! When you can’t see my argument, you think that it must be some kind of personal 'conflict'.

It's more like when I can't see any argument and all I see instead is putting blame on some group on the basis that they are Leninist and nationalist (because they are Iranian?), however you have not attempted to prove this with quotes and you have not addressed any of the points I raised.

I'll try to be more direct. If they are only focusing on Iran, why do they have detailed web-sites in English and Norwegian? Why do they publish news about workers struggles in the world? Why do they engage into class struggle in Canada? Why do they have members who aren't Iranian? Heck, why is the editor of their paper in Canada a Canadian?

Quote:
and how a so called 'revolutionary party should be built up!

Well, we are talking about how a revolutionary party should be built up too so that doesn't bother us.

Nader
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Mar 25 2007 15:25
Quote:
Devrim Wrote:
I think that I don't have the time to read every article on every website by every group. Leo deals with correspondence with Iranian groups.

Sorry, I wasn’t aware of (although I could guess) that you guys seemingly work together as comrades who belong to a group which I don’t know which one yet. It is very usual there that a division of work is formed; people's judgments are based upon each other’s thoughts. Yet this fact in those groups doesn’t hinder them to defend others evaluation.

Quote:
Leo Wrote:
Well, we are talking about how a revolutionary party should be built up too so that doesn't bother us.

With this, we arrive exactly at the heart of the question: The so called "Revolutionary party"! Here you have something basic in common with them, and hence that discussion interests you. Here lies perhaps one of our basic differences, where you guys think of it as something to be build, and I think of it as something contradictory in essence which belongs to bourgeoisie era, and which always end up non- (if not contra) revolutionary the other alternative is ending up as a small ideological sect with whatever 'good words' about revolution. Apart from this, because of its basic vanguard-ist beliefs, such organization will always tend to dominate the so called 'non-conscious' masses (just as other bourgeoisie/social democrat groups do).

Quote:
If they are only focusing on Iran, why do they have detailed web-sites in English and Norwegian? Why do they publish news about workers struggles in the world? Why do they engage into class struggle in Canada? Why do they have members who aren't Iranian? Heck, why is the editor of their paper in Canada a Canadian?

I believe that I have already answered these question of yours in general form. Here I want to raise some other parallel questions which may help reaching the answer:
If the Maoist Groups of Nepal, Pakistan, Iran, Norway (the largest in EU), etc, are nationalist, so why do they have detailed web-sites in English and other languages? Why do they publish news about workers struggles in the world? Why do they engage into class struggle in Canada? Why do they have members who aren't from their own homeland? Heck, why is the editor of their paper in Canada a Canadian? (this was a really BIG question!) -unless you mean that Maoists aren’t (or Maoism as an ideology isnt) nationalist. The same is of course true for Bolshevism. Their 'internationalism' has MUCH more in common with bourgeoisie 'internationalism' than the proletarian one. So I ask you on what base Maoism is a nationalist ideology (if you believe at all that Maoism is also another branch of nationalism).

The same question can be arised for other parties, and even non-party groups like unions.

It is obvious that such activity, by themselves is absolutely no reliable sign/source for internationalism and not being nationalist. There are other more important factors than such activities which determine where one stands (some few are already mentioned VERY briefly in my previous notes).

Nader

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 25 2007 15:58
Quote:
Sorry, I wasn’t aware of (although I could guess) that you guys seemingly work together as comrades who belong to a group which I don’t know which one yet.

We are militants of a group called Internationalist Communist Left which is mainly active in Turkey and at the moment Czech Republic.

Quote:
With this, we arrive exactly at the heart of the question: The so called "Revolutionary party"! Here you have something basic in common with them, and hence that discussion interests you.

Well, actually they are not clearly for the formation of a revolutionary party in the future, that's what we are discussing.

Quote:
Here lies perhaps one of our basic differences, where you guys think of it as something to be build, and I think of it as something contradictory in essence which belongs to bourgeoisie era, and which always end up non- (if not contra) revolutionary the other alternative is ending up as a small ideological sect with whatever 'good words' about revolution.

Well, here lies the difference alright, but it is between doing political work and just waiting for the revolution and not doing any other political work or intervention.

Quote:
Here I want to raise some other parallel questions which may help reaching the answer:
If the Maoist Groups of Nepal, Pakistan, Iran, Norway (the largest in EU), etc, are nationalist, so why do they have detailed web-sites in English and other languages? Why do they publish news about workers struggles in the world? Why do they engage into class struggle in Canada? Why do they have members who aren't from their own homeland? Heck, why is the editor of their paper in Canada a Canadian? (this was a really BIG question!) -unless you mean that Maoists aren’t (or Maoism as an ideology isnt) nationalist. The same is of course true for Bolshevism. Their 'internationalism' has MUCH more in common with bourgeoisie 'internationalism' than the proletarian one. So I ask you on what base Maoism is a nationalist ideology (if you believe at all that Maoism is also another branch of nationalism).

Nice try, except you are only assuming that they are nationalist and you have not shown any kind of proof or evidence yet. We said that they agreed with us on nationalism and national liberation, that they opposed it, and you said that what they said was different from what they did, they they only cared about Iran. We said that they engaged in class struggle, had detailed web-sites and papers in other countries which they exist, and you said that this doesn't clear them from nationalism (!) In your previous post, the only reason you can show to make us believe that they were nationalist was their practice, that they were only oriented towards Iran and didn't do any work regarding the places their exiled members lives; when we said that their practice wasn't nationalist, that they are as active in Canada and Norway as they are in Iran (perhaps more) you compared them with Maoists. Maoists have a nationalist and bourgeois ideology, the group we are talking about doesn't have one, on the other hand. And this group is obviously not Leninist; the thing is I don't see any argument other than "they don't equate Lenin with Satan, then they must be nationalists "(!)

Nader
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Mar 25 2007 16:53

My friend, it seems to me that you have a long way to go... I don’t really have time to show you in DETAIL that this so called 'internationalist activity' which you refer to, has nothing to do with internationalism. I don’t really have time to go through their mambo jumbo literature AGAIN to show you that they are in fact Leninists, and also never rejected the so called 'revolutionary party'. I don’t really have time to show in details that the ideologies can never hinder the real practice. Ideologies are sometimes on the same pase as the practice, sometimes not, but the determining force of action and direction is practice, not ideology! You must remember that NO ideology per se can and have ever stopped the otherwise practice which steams of class base and relations. Your 'best ideology' will crash by confronting the reality. I dont really have time to go through the obvious facts to show that reporting the class conflicts by a group, is NOT that groups 'engagement in class struggle' -specially when concerning the goal of this 'engagement'. Any school kid can pick up an ideology, hang it on his hat, and read papers and make some sort of reports, and call it internationalist activity. This however doesnt make him, his ideology nor his activity an internationalist one.

At last, Im sorry if I made your hopes somehow disturbed. I understand now that you have a hope and project which shouldn’t be disturbed! But ... hold on... Im not really sorry, because such impacts and disturbances MAY make way for better understandings...

Nader

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 25 2007 17:22

No, you didn't make any of my hopes disturbed because you have not presented any logical argument nor have you shown any proof, even a hint of their nationalism in their texts. Nor have you proved that their practice was nationalist in any logical way, your argument revolved around "they are because I say so". It seems to me that the only problem here is you disliking them personally for some reason, perhaps for not being anti-Leninist enough. Don't worry, you didn't disturb anything.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 25 2007 17:22

Double post...

Farhad
Offline
Joined: 5-07-08
Jul 7 2008 19:36

Nader,

Who are you and why you are spreading lies about us?!

You are calling us a little SECT. according to what?! How many times have you been in contact with us finding out how sectarist we are?!

“As a native Farsi language reader” would you tell me please how many of our articles have you read ?! It doesn’t seem like you read our stuffs as you know almost nothing about us. Maybe all your information is about someone else has been telling you what they know about us?!

You say we are Leninists, Vanguardists, nationalists, Burdigist-Leninist, national-Bolshevist and much more. According to what?! I personally think it might be three possible situations. Either you don’t know anything about us or about Leninism or whatever it should be, or both of them (most possible). Can you please put your finger on one of our articles or discussions and give us a good reason to calling us for everything jumping out of you mouth?! Of course not, because you like many of our critical not reading our stuff before you trying to attack us. It’s ok, because we will survive this too.

About difference between syndicalism and Unionism… it seems you could possibly right, but you are not… I’m not going to discuss this here, because of my bad English and it could be misunderstood. Even this discussion is not about it… but for everybody who is interested in this issue, and what our policies is about it, can take contact to me for Norwegian, Farsi or Kurdish explanation, and other languages contact by our websites. Ask for your language, we have very limited language facilities, but we try as well as we can.

So there’s a question still reminds. So tell us why you hate us without knowing us?! I don’t believe we have any personal conflict, because we don’t know you and you don’t know us personally. But I believe you are running with your eyes closed. I think you are a little afraid to know truth, and a little shy to say you don’t know anything about us, aren’t you?

And if you are internationalist, Nader, so would you please tell us what you mean with exile country?! We are not believed in exile country, and we believe there’s only one international working class, and it supposed to be organized as an organized working class against capitalism and wage-labour. The form of their organizing soppused to be anti-capitalist counsils. We do not believe that the working class must be organized by us as “Vanguardists”, we as workers fighting to get organized in our worker councils. Much clearer, isn’t it?

So stop spreading lies in a forum which I know people here and met them personally and knowing us much better than you do. We also have had meeting with Leo and his comrades and if we talking positive about us, that’s because he has had contact with us, had meeting together and knowing us. What about you?! Isn’t it a little wise think before shit-casting, and research before calling people so confidently whatever you want?

You asked: “Has anyone ever seen them engaging in ANY class conflict anywhere in the world except Iran, and even that by word and from exile?” and the answer is: Yes, we do and have done it. And you we will continue as well as we can… We look at ourselves as a member of the international working class… First and foremost we are starting from where we are working so on. My activities in Norway for me is as important as my international straggle and the opposite. There is practically no difference between class struggles locally and internationally. We believe the working class must fight capitalism internationally, because the capital is global. Our vision is a united international working class against wage-labour and in one word whole capitalism. This is what we are looking forward as anti-wage-labour workers. So if this is bothering you, so you are not alone, all Iranian leftists hating us for this. It’s ok… it must be like this… because they belong to capitalism, not to us, workers.

More info: we are not split of any Iranian political party. We are a group of workers who have different background, we are not saying we are finished with making up with our past, but we are trying as well as we can. I don’t think we have long way to go in this matter. We are autonomic and independent individuals who working together voluntary because we have all the same burning desire. For more info about us, look at: http://www.againstwage.com/content/?page=9

I wish the best for all of you in this forum!

admin: made link active

mobarez's picture
mobarez
Offline
Joined: 31-10-07
Jul 7 2008 21:02

I don't know any of the members of Kometeye-Hamahangi or Simaye Socialism personally, but I am a Farsi (Persian) speaker as well and have been involved with iran solidarity for some time now. I would just like to say that from all the research I have done there is nothing to suggest that they are leninist, or nationalist, or bordigist or any of the other ists that they have been accused of being. That doesn't mean there aren't contradictions or room for critique, it just means they are not what they have been accused of. As far as idologically it is my understanding that Mohsen Hakimi was influenced by Anton Pannekoek and Paul Mattick and had translated their works into Farsi. Another member of the organization is mahmoud Salehi who has been a longtime organizer and was just recently freed from prison after a long international campaign. Those that have been paying attention to events in Iran and have read his statement from prison are aware of his internationalism and sacrifice.

I suggest that instead of throwing accusations and attacks at other groups we engage in constructive critique and dialogue, especially with groups that generally share the same vision as us. The Iranian working class movement has just recently risen again after so many defeats and obstacles. We should not be so quick to slag off every group with ready prepared accusations and in doing so reproduce the same divisions that have so long plagued the left in Iran, leninist or not.

Farhad
Offline
Joined: 5-07-08
Jul 8 2008 22:48

Thank you mobarez smile

Your are honest, and I believe you have done a research before you express your opinion about anti-wage-labour-activists. I’m personally open for dialogue and critique of any kind as well as other anti-wage-labour-activists are. We don’t have time to discuss everything, because we want to use our limited resources to practice, but we want to discuss important issues as the theory guides to practice. Every dialogue about anti-capitalist worker struggles is always welcome.

Personally I don’t believe Mohsen Hakimi is influenced by Pannekoek and Mattick as he is an independent thinker. But I don’t discuss for him, because he can do it himself.

Again, thank you to help the opinion in this forum get not to digress about us.

Farhad

Nader
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Aug 2 2008 06:23

Farhad, and mobarez,

I stand -of course- for whatever I wrote here on Simayesocialism, and the so called 'anti-wage labour group'! Since you guys asked, so I have to answer to refresh your memories -which, however, may not be so fruitless for others:

I start with your so called 'Internationalist' work: It is not difficult to figure out how internationalist you are, when one just looks at your literature, and their subjects. Its not long ago when there was a worker/conflict in Iran and you called workers of the world to strike in support of your countrymen workers, while thousands strikers in Europe, didn’t even catch your eye -for instance last years German auto-workers wildcat strikes. And never –as far as I remember- called your countrymen workers to support any other strike in abroad!

Concerning your work in exile counties, one typical and classical example of what vanguardism is, was demonstrated by you guys in your exile country Norway -which of course received nothing but laugh of whoever who has an elementary understanding of such organizations and their history! I am talking about your so called ' Grünerløkka Worker council' made by some few vanguardists, including you yourself perhaps? This action of yours -apart from being a vanguardist act- shows clearly the scope of your understanding of workers councils!

The 'group' has of course recently (in the last few years) come with some few critique of Lenin. However the Leninist root persists strongly in their understanding of the movement. One clear example of this is as Farhad puts it 'the theory guides to practice', whilst one of his leaders, Hakimi, has already understood what nonsense and non-materialistic such phrase/understanding is in his recent critique of Lenin –although he himself still is not able to take the consequence of such critique. This conception of the relation between theory and practice –as Farhad present it- has its roots in bourgeoisie understanding of the movement and has been the hardcore root of the vanguardist party concept of Lenin. And this very concept is one of the main the reasons to declaration the 'Basic demands of the workers' FOR the workers published by the Hakimi group in Iran.

If 'the theory guides to practice' then those who know the 'theory' are to be the workers 'leaders' to lead them to the 'correct', 'radical', 'anti-capitalist', etc practice and action. And of course, as long as this relation exists, as long as the workers need such 'leaders', they can never even emancipate themselves! For if they don’t need vanguards/theorists as their leaders, i.e. when they take their action and its direction into their own hand, when they themselves through their actions gain the revolutionary consciousness, the role of the vanguards vanishes and the leaders/vangurds become nothing but useless -if not reactionary!

This understanding is of course alien to the 'anti-wage labor group', for they see themselves as the true vanguards and leaders of the workers –although the latter don’t know and care about them at all! In this manner they share the destiny of all other Social democratic parties (which Leninism is only a branch of it) since they share the same notions.

One important aspect of this vanguardist-elitist concept is that as if when the socialist vanguard workers take the control and power, then almost any bourgeois act turns to be the socialist one! There is an ongoing small discussion on the domestic-labor in Farsi literature. This discussion is as follows: to abolish this type of labor whether if the socialists fight for and demand the wage for the domestic labor or fight for socialization of it with taking control of this process. One of this anti-wage group leaders, Paydar, whos 'clean' literature is well known, implies that the bourgeois act or constitutions such as building kindergartens become non-bourgeois one if the socialist workers take control of them -just as Lenin thought that when the socialist workers (Bolshevik party) be in charge, the capitalist acts and institutions become socialist one! No wonder why Paydar refers to Lenin as the 'great revolutionary communist with some mistakes'! And, of course he defends the expansion of the wage-labor to the domestic labor, why? Because he wants to abolish the wage labor -just like the classical social democrats (including Lenin) who defended parliamentary and unionist activities and institutions to abolish them all together!

Unlike what Farhad claims, none of the so called 'theorist' of this 'group' including Hakimi, has understood (or has anything in common with such great councilists like Pannekoek and Mattick). In fact they run opposite to the councilist conceptions, and –as far as I know- Hakimi has never translated anything of them or even referred to them!

At last, of course, the socialists have to have a dialogue, try to understand, analyze and highly engage in the class struggle. But talking about dialogue between the so called 'Socialist tendencies' is meaningless when the goal of them is different. For example when one stands for the 'emancipation of the workers is workers own work', and the other stand for 'emancipation of the workers is the workers vanguards work'; when one understands the theory as a consequence of action and struggle, the other see it the opposite around; when one stands for the workers self-organization with whatever form it may take, and the other try to impose a specific type of organization to the workers; when one understands the workers councils as mass organizations of the workers which are the direct consequence of the class war, and which appear in high level of that war, and the other believe it can be built whenever with whatever number of activists, and then ask the workers to join or copy it! In short one denounces leadership, the other seeks it!

Nader

Behruz
Offline
Joined: 27-06-09
Jun 27 2009 08:46

This topic just caught my eyes, and don't know if my comments will be read by anyone now ...

I'm fairly familiar with communist left tradition (and support it), have to say that having "Simaye Socialism" under Left Communist is a mistake as this group has nothing in commune with this tradition.

I have to agree with Nader on some parts, as the leader of this group been working with Neo-Stalinist "Communist Party of Iran" and then "Workers Communist Party of Iran".

He can easily be influenced by almost any theoretical writing that is new to Iranian activists and will change his positions from his last article to the next one without any explanation.

The other worker group that is mentioned above several times, indeed is created outside of Iran, has no connection with Working class fight inside and out of 16 founders, I believe only Mohsen Hakimi is living in Iran.

Again, despite the disagreements with Nader's general position, I have to agree with him that almost majority of Iranian groups are non-related to actual working class in Iran, can be created because of personal issues or just being in competition with another person or group and so on.

This Against Wage also created in a race with Yadullah Khosroshahi (living in London, England) as he was heading another "workerist" group ...

I really don't want to go in to the details here, as it would be just wasting time for all of us.

The only group that is working on Left Communist tradition and has been boycotted by mainstream groups such as ICC and IBRP because of its criticism, is called "Internationalist Workers Organization" that is based on their magazine "Peyke Anternasionlisti".

Unfortunately, their website is very messy and can't find any texts in non-Farsi except some English & Swedish.

I know I have not provided any proof on what I claimed, but again, IWO has several lengthy writings on the above mentioned groups and there has been no response from them so far.

Revolutionary Greetings,
Behruz

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Sep 8 2009 18:02

Hello Behruz,

Sorry I just saw your post - would have replied earlier otherwise.

Does the Internationalist Workers Organization have any activity in Iran? I was under the impression that it was a group that was based in Sweden.

With regards to its positions, of course, the IWO is very different from other groups mentioned, and does claim the heritage of the communist left, which none of the other Iranian groups don't apparently. Some of the things you said about the other groups is concerning but I do not want to comment on them more since I don't have that much information on them and would not want to condemn peoples intentions without anything as such, but am interested in what they would say about the question of cooperation with bourgeois leftist organizations.

I don't know what the relation between these organizations themselves and the Komitteye Hamahangi organization is, but our organization actually has an article which attempts at developing a criticism of that organization (while also dealing with other issues): http://en.internationalism.org/wr/290_correspondence_iran.html

Haven't seen the IWO's lengthy articles on the ICC or the IBRP, although when I wrote to the comrades a few years ago in the name of the now dissolved EKS organization in Turkey, asking to develop a discussion and connections, they responded saying that they rejected the ICC and the IBRP for being eurocentric without really elaborating it and asked us to join their organization. We wrote in our response that we disagree with their characterization of the ICC and the IBRP as eurocentric, and did not consider joining their organization - or another organization at the time. We got no response afterwards. In other words the brief correspondence we had with them was unfortunately not productive.

Behruz
Offline
Joined: 27-06-09
Nov 16 2009 01:24

Hi Leo,

* No, IWO has no activity in Iran. Indeed, they don't consider themselves as an organization yet, but more a theoretical trend which tries to overcome the issues that left communist tradition has been dealing with.

* It's main elements are in Sweden but also they have members from the other locations like England, Holland, Canada, Germany and ...
I think the policy has been to work on preparing the base cadres, then attempting to start an official political activity and accepting members and so on.

* On the question of cooperation with bourgeois leftist organizations: if you are asking me what's the IWO's position on the above mentioned, I can simply say they don't believe in such a big error.

* I will read the link provided on Komitteye Hamahangi organization later on, but again, IWO considers them all part of the bourgeois leftist organizations.

* IWO's lengthy articles on the ICC or the IBRP are unfortunately in Farsi and translating them into other languages need skills and professionalism in that language that they don't have.
This is also probably one of the reasons of the shortness of their correspondence with you at that time.

* IWO's request from you to join their organization is probably another shortcoming in the communication, as I'm pretty sure this is not still their agenda, even on individual basis, let alone an active political group in different language.

* I think there has been many events to prove the ICC's Euro-centric nature, and I also believe in this, but ICC has been trying to deal with this in it's "own way" when encountered with some internal protests that questioned this method. ICC is trying to show that they have connection with the non-European elements and circles on different countries and welcome this as their routine work, while this was not true until few years ago that IWO and some other smaller Iranian groups contacted ICC.
But, anyways, it's working and ICC has a better approach now.

* On IBRP, issue was a little bit different. From the joint meetings and correspondences between IWO and IBRP, I got to the point that IBRP is just trying to keep the "status", nothing more and nothing less.
This goes back to the what we generally know as Left Communist or Internationalists, that if you put aside the heroic activity of the groups at that time in defending the communist positions, the recent active groups -mainly after 1960 to now- are not doing well in both theoretical and practical area, and always try to cover up their failures with excuses such as that a revolutionary group will be in minority.
While this is true, but it won't explain the advancement of the LC in, let's say, 1930-1950, with the freezing in nowadays.

* All this said, I should also mention that this was IWO that for the first time started translation, publishing and introducing both IBRP and ICC to the Iranian militants, and I know many who tried contacting both organizations later on to get involved more.

I'm not claiming to know everything but will try to explain what I know, even if it's really difficult to write it down in English.

Cheers,
B.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Nov 16 2009 09:07

The google translation (it now offers Persian) is terrible, but they list many movements under their 'bourgeois socialism' section, which is at least promising.

This is promising too, they appear to bash the nation-state as a false bourgeois construct: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.simaiesocialism.com%2F&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=.

Unfortunately, many of their very interesting articles are in PDF form which google translate hates (yep I tried putting in google's own HTMLised cached versions of the PDF files in too, didn't work).

Their page on Kurdistan looks like they are saying that nationalism is not good there too, what a shame that the translation isn't just a little better eh, it all looks extremely interesting. Perhaps if we know some Farsi speakers here they can translate it for us?

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Nov 16 2009 12:13

Their English language site www.againstwage.com is now back up again, and includes pdf versions of their newsletter Against The Wage. It's mostly news about various workers struggles, but you'll find some more theoretical articles there too.

I also think Nader's criticism of them is quite unfair. I think some of their ideas are a bit confused, but they are neither nationalists nor Leninists.

Behruz
Offline
Joined: 27-06-09
Nov 22 2009 23:19

Hey guys,

Here is some info, hoping this helps to get an idea on SimaieSocialism on October revolution.
I have to admit it's really difficult to find a worthy short text from this guy to translate to show what they say and want as he tents to write a 100 page on a simple subject and still you don't get what he is trying to tell you at the end!
It's just my two cents.

Extracts from “Workers Movement and Absence of Socialist Outlook” (in Farsi: جنبش کارگری و فقدان افق سوسیالیستی ) pages 10-11

"... Western European worker stepped in the path of reformism and submission to capitalism’s existence in the absence of not having a clear recognition of an prospect of a real social and class struggle.
... Russian working class disobeyed this a little bit. Bolshevism as a current against the strong wave tried to work for preparing a worker revolution. Lenin’s articles ... and above all its excellent leadership of working class after 1902, kept the revolution flag waving on top of the working class fight at this part of the world. But, the problem was that Bolshevism –with all attractiveness- came out of the social-democratic and its critic on it from the start till the end lacked a clear communist and was already mixed with the social- bourgeoisie delusion. Also, expectations and expectancy of Russian bourgeoisie was on top of everything.
Russian proletariat broke the capitalist state machine at its specific phase of class struggle development. For a short time saved itself from a state on top of its head. Wanted to create its own new social labour organisation and socialist economy, but its hands were empty. Working class has never thought of the new society with its own independent class analysis and never learnt how to build such a society.
Working class in Russia knew about and been involved in many things: a victorious democratic revolution, defeating the liberal bourgeoisie, criticizing the Mensheviks, dangers of trade unionism, tactical unity with peasants, not to let liberals show up in its party, and even about social-nationalism and social-chauvinism.
Despite this, it didn’t know that much on building a new society.
Russian proletariat did pay this lack of knowledge with very expensive price. Bourgeoisie put the working class out of its soviets and stripped it from whatever gained during the revolution, when found out that working class doesn’t know how to govern a socialist society, how to make the soviets to control the society, how to program and control the exchange, market and money and how to disappear the capitalist relation and property.
Working class got to the point to believe that state capitalist is the same as socialism when it originally failed to accomplish this in practice.
..."