Since the content of this correspondence can serve to strengthen of the Internationalist positions, therefore, we need to clarify the following explanations:



We asked you. What are your criteria for a political debate with a circle, group or a political current? And you replied.

“For us, the basic criteria “for discussing with a circle, group or a political current” are pretty basic – support for the revolutionary overthrow of world capitalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat (understood in its full sense), the need for the party, general adherence to the main points of communist program, and a serious approach to elaboration and application.”

These criteria can be found in the radical phrase part of the left of capital (Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists etc) and a concrete can be Worker Communist Party of Iran. Even if you have improved these positions in the correspondence with the IWG, but the most important question is, how these positions are applied in reality? Which roles play the narrator of these positions? How applying of these positions contribute to clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu?

You have been in discussion with a long list of groups without saying anything about the “discussions”, or even worse you have no balance sheet of these “discussions”. Why you have not been able to establish a long term relationship with these groups? Such balance sheet would help others in the Political Milieu in their orienteering to avoid the same mistake and also would show a serious methodology of you.



You wrote:

“While we acknowledge the problem of the “weakening of proletarian values and principles” as of primary importance in the general sense, here, for example, we can cite the ICC’s sometimes opportunist adaptation to anarchist currents, contrasted with their lack of discussion and debate with other elements of the communist left – notably the ICT”

First and foremost, we must point out that the development of the working class is not linear; therefore working class gives to rise of different political revolutionary currents. Of course attempt must be progress towards convergence, but this attempt must be very natural.

Our confidence to the revolutionary organizations is not a religious confidence but a communist confidence. This means, we do not believe that what these organizations say is hundred percent correct, but what we stress is that these organizations have a proletarian nature and defense the proletarian positions.

Contrary to the impatient petty bourgeoisie attitude, we tried to learn from the historical experience of the proletariat. After the first congress of the communist party of Iran in early 1920, in a coup attempt by Bolsheviks, 12 of the 15 member of the central committee elected by the first congress of the party, including Avatis Soltanzadeh were dismissed from the leadership of the party. The reason for this was, none progressive evaluation of the national bourgeoisie in Iran by Avatis Soltanzadeh because he believed that directly communist struggle and attempts in line with the World Revolution should be order to the day [Soltanzadeh was a great internationalist, executed by communist killer, Stalin]. This opinion was not confirmed by the Political Bureau of the Caucasus and Azerbaijani Bolshevik; they had illusion about the progressive role of the national bourgeoisie. Soltanzadeh has never been questioned the proletarian nature of Bolsheviks, he never tried to establish a fraction but through the texts exposed the destructive consequences that this policy will be play in the Iranian Political milieu and the class movement of the proletariat.

We believe internationalists in general and especially the International Communist Current in the events of 2009 in Iran played a passive roles. The introduction of the ICC to our text published in their site with title “Class struggle is the only alternative for working class” was a mechanical analyze of events in Iran. Our text, “Two movements, two perspectives, intensifying of the class struggle is the only alternative” was a critique to the introduction of the ICC from an Internationalist perspective. More than two years of events in Iran proves the correctness of our analysis. We have also criticized the ICC in the class consciousness, role of revolutionary organizations, and lack of clarity about councilism and comrades promised to reply us.



First you describe a brief and correct history of the fraction that we are agreed, you wrote:

“However, the necessity of factions is born out by the history of the communist workers movement, where the necessary rise of factions played an enormous role in the clarifications and the final emergence of revolutionary organizations such as the Bolsheviks, Spartacus bund, the Italian Communist left, etc. Don’t forget that the banning of factions in the Bolshevik party at the end of the civil war was one of the final blows against the proletarian revolution in Russia, as well as a major political blow against the whole revolutionary wave of the twenties. As such, the right to form factions must be defended.”

And you continue:

“‘fractions’ develop to challenge an organization’s main trajectory or orientation, either away from established praxis or fighting for a return to a core position(s) previously discarded.”

From the above correct description, suddenly you pulls completely wrong conclusion and this is extremely dangerous act. You wrote as following:

“We’ve had extensive contact with FICL / IFFIC and…the FICL is indeed a genuine fraction”

Formation of a fraction means that the current (in this case, ICC) has completely gone to the bourgeoisies’ terrain. What do you have to prove your claim? Either you will prove that the ICC is a counter-revolutionary current then can be formed fraction or you must criticize your past well, otherwise your claim will not be serious. We also wrote before these fugitives from “Left Communism” never fought within the ICC.



“The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. ... hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.” [The German Ideology - Karl Marx]

For us Left Communism is not only some “Political Positions” but also the principles and values of the proletariat. We have stressed that influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies is the main enemy not only to the working class but also to its political currents. You do not mention to the influence of the dominant class, which has created enormous problems for the working class. Thanks to this influence working class provides concessions of its class identity and considers the "immigrant" worker, its class brothers and sisters, in Tehran, London and etc causes of its unemployment, misery, less salary and etc.

The majority of those who voted to the "Marine Le Pen" the leader of The French National Front in the recent presidential elections in France were from the working class of French. Why parts of working class choose the worst of the gangsters (the most anti foreign gangster)? In which city of the country you live; worker, who was born outside Canada's borders, was stabbed and his forehead has been paste "Go home!"



We stand on what we say, write or translate. We have translated the texts that we believe are important for the Iranian Political Milieu. If a critique from an internationalist perspective would be directed to what we have written, said or have translated, then we should take a stand. But first, what you have said on this point:

“For us, though, the ICC’s concept of parasitism has no roots within the Marxist corpus and has more in common with bourgeois notions of copyright and intellectual property, than with revolutionary critique…We sincerely hope that the ICC, as well as yourselves, will discard its use.”

We see only an allegation, not a serious political criticism. We have told before and we repeat again, we believe a serious criticism of the practice of the Klasbatalo, will not weaken the Klasbatalo, but also will strengthen the Klasbatalo and this in its turn will also contribute to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. For the last time we urge you to such criticism.


Internationalist Greetings
Internationalist Voice
29 April 2012