I once had a discussion about this with Leo. What do you people think about the WCP? They certainly took an internationalist stance on the resistance, and Hekmat wrote once a very interesting essay on the national bourgeosie. What do you people think about them?
The ICC think that they are a radical Stalinist party: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/293_wpiran.html Devrim
That last one was a quick post before work. I will add my comments now. I don't know much about the Iraqi party at all. I have come across the Iranian group in my time though. Before they became the WCPI when they were SUCM back in late 70s/early 80s, they were quite close to the communist left, and we even organised joint conferences together. I agree that their basic perspective on the war is internationalist. They are not so clear on national liberation struggles, and have roots in Komala, a Kurdish nationalist organisation. Apart from the stance on the war, they have positions that are well defined from those of the communist left. There is also another thread on RevLeft at the moment from somebody accusing them of having very little presence in Iraq on the ground. I have a feeling that they are mainly an exile organisation, which is something we of course reject. Also, I would be very wary of their frontism. There are obviously not workers' councils in Iraq. These groups claiming to be workers councils come across to me as mere front groups. One interesting thing is that there does seem to be quite a lot of Iranian 'left communists' about. These two groups are interesting. The first is a split from the Worker communists. I am not sure about the second. http://againstwage.com/ http://www.internationalistworkers.org/ Devrim
Yeah I read that ICC article a while ago. Its a very weak argument to accuse an organization of stalinism because of its "origins" though. What matters is their positions today, not where did they came from. By "well defined from the communist left" you mean they differ or are similar to? I remember Leo criticizing them for their position in Unions. To be honest, i dont think a position on unions is as important as internationalism. The former ones dont condone the slaughtering of workers. I dont think they are an exile organization. Its just that iranian communists helped to built an iraqi one based on a hekmatist platform.
I dont think they are an exile organization. Its just that iranian communists helped to built an iraqi one based on a hekmatist platform. I don't know so much about the Iraqi version, but the Iranian one is, I think mostly an exile organisation. It is run from London, and I think has a much bigger presence there than in Tehran. By "well defined from the communist left" you mean they differ or are similar to? Different, especially on unions and bourgeois rights. I remember Leo criticizing them for their position in Unions. To be honest, i dont think a position on unions is as important as internationalism. The former ones dont condone the slaughtering of workers. I agree. Its a very weak argument to accuse an organization of stalinism because of its "origins" though. They also have a pretty 'Stalinesque' personality cult around Hekmet. Devrim
Yeah, they do have a scary cult thing going for Hekmat. Its bizarre because Hekmat didnt bring anything new to the table. Anyway, I sometimes don't trust the ICC too much. I really disliked their rejection of the class struggle that was going in Oaxaca a while ago (There where careerists and natonalists inside it, but the whole affair was fueled by class sentiments). The IBRP wrote a better article of Oaxaca. I also think their polemics inside their website are pretty ridicolous.-
To be honest, i dont think a position on unions is as important as internationalism. To be honest, I am reluctant to call them internationalists. It is very well true that they oppose both the American invasion and the Islamic resistance in Iraq. However what is the alternative they are calling for? Fraternization across all workers and world revolution or "a Democratic, Secular and Progressive Alternative to both the US Occupation and Political Islam in Iraq" (http://ifcongress.com/English/). Also, in regards to Kurdistan, for example, they have sent the US senate a letter, asking for a referendum to be held there for it's separation from Iraq on the basis of nations right to self determination. And in regards to Iran, I've read that in a possible attack on Iran, they declared they would be on the side of the resistance, while continuing their 'merciless struggle with the Islamic state'. Also, people involved with them ended up in the same demos as very right-wing and racist elements in Britain as far as I know. I really disliked their rejection of the class struggle that was going in Oaxaca a while ago (There where careerists and natonalists inside it, but the whole affair was fueled by class sentiments). As far as I know the ICC didn't reject the class struggle in Oaxaca. Their position was that the careerists, nationalists and trade unions were derailing putting under and suffocating the class struggle there. They said: "The discontent in Oaxaca is real. The teachers are in misery like millions of their class brothers in the rest of the country and the world, but this discontent has been turned aside and put under, for that reason the APPO does not show what should be done, but rather what should not be imitated. The autonomy of the proletariat continues to be a problem in search of a solution."
Agree with Leo on both counts. The WCP has bourgeois positions today and, as our article argued, puts itself forward as a kind of alternative democratic state apparatus. But origins are important: organisations that have been directly involved in imperialist wars (as part of leftwing Kurdish nationalism, ie Komala) don't suddenly become internationalist unless there is a real rejection of their bourgeois past. On Oaxaca, he has also stated things clearly. Furthermore we were not alone in refusing to get pulled into the "APPO= soviet power" line of the leftists.
