hashem
9th February 2012, 05:54
The tenth round of presidential elections in Iran provided an opportunity for millions of people to take to the streets and protest against the Islamic Republic regime, focusing their anger against the dictatorship, and shouting for freedom from the yoke of religious autarchy. Their heroism has shaken the foundation of the Islamic Republic, including that of the Supreme Judicial Council (Velayat-e-Faghih). In a short time, millions of people became seriously involved in politics and brought political consciousness to the backward stratum of the people.
Mass movements of this magnitude are like lightning which flashes across the sky of social class struggles – shining for a moment, briefly burning the ruling reactionaries, and then subsiding until another occasion or incident causes it to flare up again. Even as these types of movements become more frequent, and may even grow in size, they inevitably burn out. Why? Because in their essence, these movements lack the necessary unity and strength to be able to effectively advance the demands of the participants in the movement.
Although typically these “broad-based” and multi-colored mass movements arise in response to specific problems, they are by their nature spontaneous and thus do not have their own program or plan to achieve specific goals for which they were created. For that reason their battlefield is populated with individuals who joined the battle each for their own particular motives.
Even if it is not stated explicitly, it is apparent that human societies in which a particular social class reigns – especially, the exploiter and the oppressor- are organized and for the sake of safeguarding their interest within the system, they develop instruments for this purpose: the state apparatus and specifically, repressive forces, arresting, torturing, executions, and imprisonments with the aim of crushing any opposition to the ruling class; a subservient judicial apparatus; ideological and propaganda campaigns; and more importantly, control over the means of production and appropriation of the products of the people’s labor. In this manner, the ruling reactionaries prepare themselves for confrontation with any enemy – including spontaneous mass movements. Consequently, mass movements, even in the form of uprisings, cannot suffice to end the abominable regime. To sum up, from the point of view of changing the existing situation, despite their magnitude, these movements are necessary but not sufficient for revolutionary change!
It is precisely for this reason that we realize the importance of organizing and working hard in the long struggle for mobilization against the ruling class enemy. This is the indispensable, sufficient condition to prepare these mass movements for victory. Lenin says: “Heroism in long term organizing work is one thousand times more significant than the heroism of an uprising” or “a stable revolutionary organization, without any question and for this very reason, is indispensable so it can give a permanent nature to the movement and protect it from possible unanticipated attacks.” (What Is To Be Done?).
To be victorious in this struggle, many factors are necessary : the existence of organizations to lead social movements against the regime; the existence of a correct program for the advancement of the movement; the recognition of a number of points, such as the assessment of the balance of power between revolution and counter-revolution, of the mental condition of the enemy, of the degree of readiness of the revolutionary forces, and of the viability of open combat and offensive or defensive action; the on-going analysis of weaknesses and mistakes for new attacks; and briefly building readiness while developing the proper conditions for the timing of attacks. Even if a mass movement lacks a revolutionary leadership when it spontaneously arises, if there is a vanguard political organization of the working class (which because of its active participation in the current class struggles is basically able to predict the outbreak of any such movement), that organization with all of its power can enter the arena and endeavor to guide the movement in the correct revolutionary line – and either lead it to victory or at the very least avoid defeat.
Even if a mass movement is quickly able to demonstrate revolutionary creativity, in the long run, in the absence of organizational leadership, it will be defeated. The recent movement against the regime in Iran is the best living proof for this claim. This movement started energetically, but since it did not have an organized vanguard combative force as its leadership, not only did it not reach to its goals; much worse, it inflicted harm to the participating masses and even to the reformist factions within the regime which wanted to appropriate this movement for their own gain. Even they were not safe from the attacks of their rivals and are being persecuted.
In analyzing the recent ant-Islamic regime movement, once again we observe, on the one hand, Left opportunists gathered under the banner of “This movement is not ours!”, and refused to participate or to support its democratic and revolutionary slogans; and on the other hand, Right opportunists in the arena of organizational work- like the opportunists of the Russian worker’s movement at the beginning of the 20th Century- under the mask of having a “tendency toward the masses” and on the pretext that the masses must themselves decide about their destiny - joined the movement and pretended that the absence of a coherent leading political line is good for its advancement.
Regarding this latter point of view, Taghi Roozbeh (from “Worker Path” organization), in the article “Movement with Which Speech”, writes:
“Whenever the power is separated from the grip of the masses, person by person inexorably, this appears inevitably, as subduing force and dominant to them and no arrangement or skill can change the nature of this force.
However the view of the movement as a phenomenon that has the potential and the capacity for self deliverance and self rule, and the view that the movement intrinsically lacks intelligence and needs guidance, arise from two different bases.
Forum- type organizing has both form and content…which has its roots in the living practice of the masses and reflects the dynamism of their transcendental slogan and like a huge tree that nurtured by its roots… Traditional methods of pyramidal organizing which start on the basis of a single platform, under the control of a single guiding center are qualitatively different…but given the nature of modern movements and self government, it is just as alienating as for a single voice movements, multilateral and multiplicity of platforms …”
Roozbeh creates a Holy City for himself wherein everyone, as part of the masses, shares the power and must not release this power from his grip. He forgets that as long as power is necessary- which apparently he agrees is a necessity – there is no possibility that one by one, each of the masses may hold power, and if they are in power as the society’s leadership then, the masses in their millions and tens of millions and even billions (!), all should be seated in government. That is what he and his comrades would call “self government”, which in the rational mind of any human being, is useless nonsense claim. Thus, the masses necessarily must proceed with their choices, and based on their judgment, elect their best representatives- whom at any time can be removed from office- for guiding policy. Such individuals are not necessarily so brainless as to conceive the masses as “without intelligence”!!
Roozbeh does not even understand the practice of the governments in the capitalist countries where he has been living for years. Although parliamentary type elections are not fair, because they resort the masses, in order to be able to replace one faction of bourgeoisie with another. In this manner the masses shift the “subduing power” from the hand of one faction and give it to another. Then, from a reformist perspective, the masses are able to control the governments, without being able to change the nature of that government. But, in worker council type elections, the masses gain many more possibilities for participation in the implementation of power. Further discussion of that subject [workers councils] is not necessary here.
Finally, given that opportunism is like a snake sliding from one tree branch to another, inevitably opportunists backtrack from their original position and advocate forum-type organizing. But they forget that as soon as different organizations with different views participate in the movement, each one promotes its own program and political line; and therefore, any agreement between them for advancing the movement is an agreement between elites too and not an agreement among the masses! This forum-type movement has been existed around for more than ten years, with no historical achievements to claim. And yet today Mr. Roozbeh, in relying on this approach, wants to propose it as a program and political line for the advancement of the movements?
The reality is something else. The more that the class struggle advances, and the more that masses enter the arena of this battle, the more that the absence of a wise, clear-sighted, militant and powerful leading organization, closely tied with the masses, becomes evident. And the more the pluralist line of the opportunist petty-bourgeoisie withers and wanes.
The struggle of the masses for freedom from the claws of the capitalist system of exploitation requires two incisive weapons: First, to be armed with advanced revolutionary theory which is the result of the practice of class struggle carried out in a scientific manner (scientific communism); and second, organizing the vanguards of the working class into a single communist party which serves as an experienced helmsman in the stormy seas of the class struggles, able to guide the ship of revolution efficiently. No people or nation in the world, over the several thousand years of the history of class societies, has been exempt from this rule. As long as societies are based on the existence of classes and inequality – the exploited and the exploiters, the oppressors and the oppressed – there is no other way for the masses to seize power. This remains true despite all of the post modernist, petty-bourgeois vain attempts to promote nonsensical theories for the masses and mass movements.
Not even a single example can be found in history wherein the masses spontaneously formed a movement, and lacking centralized leadership, seized power and were able to keep it. To say that the defenders of the necessity of organizing the working class into a single vanguard political party view the masses as “stupid”, is a criticism that does not stand up to scrutiny, and it is misplaced. That criticism does not negate the requirement of revolutionary leaders nor does it prevent the masses from having such vanguard leadership. The masses are the principal makers of history. This is what scientific communism recognizes. Those who actually consider the masses “stupid” are the kinds of elites who work in the service of the survival of the exploiting systems, and who try to seduce workers into political/organizational diffuseness. They have nothing in common with communists who know that “learning from the masses and teaching to the masses” is an essential component of their ideology.
K. Ebrahim, September 11, 2009
Mass movements of this magnitude are like lightning which flashes across the sky of social class struggles – shining for a moment, briefly burning the ruling reactionaries, and then subsiding until another occasion or incident causes it to flare up again. Even as these types of movements become more frequent, and may even grow in size, they inevitably burn out. Why? Because in their essence, these movements lack the necessary unity and strength to be able to effectively advance the demands of the participants in the movement.
Although typically these “broad-based” and multi-colored mass movements arise in response to specific problems, they are by their nature spontaneous and thus do not have their own program or plan to achieve specific goals for which they were created. For that reason their battlefield is populated with individuals who joined the battle each for their own particular motives.
Even if it is not stated explicitly, it is apparent that human societies in which a particular social class reigns – especially, the exploiter and the oppressor- are organized and for the sake of safeguarding their interest within the system, they develop instruments for this purpose: the state apparatus and specifically, repressive forces, arresting, torturing, executions, and imprisonments with the aim of crushing any opposition to the ruling class; a subservient judicial apparatus; ideological and propaganda campaigns; and more importantly, control over the means of production and appropriation of the products of the people’s labor. In this manner, the ruling reactionaries prepare themselves for confrontation with any enemy – including spontaneous mass movements. Consequently, mass movements, even in the form of uprisings, cannot suffice to end the abominable regime. To sum up, from the point of view of changing the existing situation, despite their magnitude, these movements are necessary but not sufficient for revolutionary change!
It is precisely for this reason that we realize the importance of organizing and working hard in the long struggle for mobilization against the ruling class enemy. This is the indispensable, sufficient condition to prepare these mass movements for victory. Lenin says: “Heroism in long term organizing work is one thousand times more significant than the heroism of an uprising” or “a stable revolutionary organization, without any question and for this very reason, is indispensable so it can give a permanent nature to the movement and protect it from possible unanticipated attacks.” (What Is To Be Done?).
To be victorious in this struggle, many factors are necessary : the existence of organizations to lead social movements against the regime; the existence of a correct program for the advancement of the movement; the recognition of a number of points, such as the assessment of the balance of power between revolution and counter-revolution, of the mental condition of the enemy, of the degree of readiness of the revolutionary forces, and of the viability of open combat and offensive or defensive action; the on-going analysis of weaknesses and mistakes for new attacks; and briefly building readiness while developing the proper conditions for the timing of attacks. Even if a mass movement lacks a revolutionary leadership when it spontaneously arises, if there is a vanguard political organization of the working class (which because of its active participation in the current class struggles is basically able to predict the outbreak of any such movement), that organization with all of its power can enter the arena and endeavor to guide the movement in the correct revolutionary line – and either lead it to victory or at the very least avoid defeat.
Even if a mass movement is quickly able to demonstrate revolutionary creativity, in the long run, in the absence of organizational leadership, it will be defeated. The recent movement against the regime in Iran is the best living proof for this claim. This movement started energetically, but since it did not have an organized vanguard combative force as its leadership, not only did it not reach to its goals; much worse, it inflicted harm to the participating masses and even to the reformist factions within the regime which wanted to appropriate this movement for their own gain. Even they were not safe from the attacks of their rivals and are being persecuted.
In analyzing the recent ant-Islamic regime movement, once again we observe, on the one hand, Left opportunists gathered under the banner of “This movement is not ours!”, and refused to participate or to support its democratic and revolutionary slogans; and on the other hand, Right opportunists in the arena of organizational work- like the opportunists of the Russian worker’s movement at the beginning of the 20th Century- under the mask of having a “tendency toward the masses” and on the pretext that the masses must themselves decide about their destiny - joined the movement and pretended that the absence of a coherent leading political line is good for its advancement.
Regarding this latter point of view, Taghi Roozbeh (from “Worker Path” organization), in the article “Movement with Which Speech”, writes:
“Whenever the power is separated from the grip of the masses, person by person inexorably, this appears inevitably, as subduing force and dominant to them and no arrangement or skill can change the nature of this force.
However the view of the movement as a phenomenon that has the potential and the capacity for self deliverance and self rule, and the view that the movement intrinsically lacks intelligence and needs guidance, arise from two different bases.
Forum- type organizing has both form and content…which has its roots in the living practice of the masses and reflects the dynamism of their transcendental slogan and like a huge tree that nurtured by its roots… Traditional methods of pyramidal organizing which start on the basis of a single platform, under the control of a single guiding center are qualitatively different…but given the nature of modern movements and self government, it is just as alienating as for a single voice movements, multilateral and multiplicity of platforms …”
Roozbeh creates a Holy City for himself wherein everyone, as part of the masses, shares the power and must not release this power from his grip. He forgets that as long as power is necessary- which apparently he agrees is a necessity – there is no possibility that one by one, each of the masses may hold power, and if they are in power as the society’s leadership then, the masses in their millions and tens of millions and even billions (!), all should be seated in government. That is what he and his comrades would call “self government”, which in the rational mind of any human being, is useless nonsense claim. Thus, the masses necessarily must proceed with their choices, and based on their judgment, elect their best representatives- whom at any time can be removed from office- for guiding policy. Such individuals are not necessarily so brainless as to conceive the masses as “without intelligence”!!
Roozbeh does not even understand the practice of the governments in the capitalist countries where he has been living for years. Although parliamentary type elections are not fair, because they resort the masses, in order to be able to replace one faction of bourgeoisie with another. In this manner the masses shift the “subduing power” from the hand of one faction and give it to another. Then, from a reformist perspective, the masses are able to control the governments, without being able to change the nature of that government. But, in worker council type elections, the masses gain many more possibilities for participation in the implementation of power. Further discussion of that subject [workers councils] is not necessary here.
Finally, given that opportunism is like a snake sliding from one tree branch to another, inevitably opportunists backtrack from their original position and advocate forum-type organizing. But they forget that as soon as different organizations with different views participate in the movement, each one promotes its own program and political line; and therefore, any agreement between them for advancing the movement is an agreement between elites too and not an agreement among the masses! This forum-type movement has been existed around for more than ten years, with no historical achievements to claim. And yet today Mr. Roozbeh, in relying on this approach, wants to propose it as a program and political line for the advancement of the movements?
The reality is something else. The more that the class struggle advances, and the more that masses enter the arena of this battle, the more that the absence of a wise, clear-sighted, militant and powerful leading organization, closely tied with the masses, becomes evident. And the more the pluralist line of the opportunist petty-bourgeoisie withers and wanes.
The struggle of the masses for freedom from the claws of the capitalist system of exploitation requires two incisive weapons: First, to be armed with advanced revolutionary theory which is the result of the practice of class struggle carried out in a scientific manner (scientific communism); and second, organizing the vanguards of the working class into a single communist party which serves as an experienced helmsman in the stormy seas of the class struggles, able to guide the ship of revolution efficiently. No people or nation in the world, over the several thousand years of the history of class societies, has been exempt from this rule. As long as societies are based on the existence of classes and inequality – the exploited and the exploiters, the oppressors and the oppressed – there is no other way for the masses to seize power. This remains true despite all of the post modernist, petty-bourgeois vain attempts to promote nonsensical theories for the masses and mass movements.
Not even a single example can be found in history wherein the masses spontaneously formed a movement, and lacking centralized leadership, seized power and were able to keep it. To say that the defenders of the necessity of organizing the working class into a single vanguard political party view the masses as “stupid”, is a criticism that does not stand up to scrutiny, and it is misplaced. That criticism does not negate the requirement of revolutionary leaders nor does it prevent the masses from having such vanguard leadership. The masses are the principal makers of history. This is what scientific communism recognizes. Those who actually consider the masses “stupid” are the kinds of elites who work in the service of the survival of the exploiting systems, and who try to seduce workers into political/organizational diffuseness. They have nothing in common with communists who know that “learning from the masses and teaching to the masses” is an essential component of their ideology.
K. Ebrahim, September 11, 2009