We publish below a correspondence with Internationalist Voice. (The English part of the text of Internationalist Voice is their translation from Persian)
Like I said in a previous email, I'm back to engage in a discussion with you. I'm really enthusiastic to discuss with your group since we share about the same political positions. Now, I am a member of a Communist Left group named Klasbatalo which is based in Montreal, Canada.
We ... and recently we were in discussion with the IFCL (ex-Internal Fraction of the ICC), the group Controversies (which you probably know is a scission of the ICC), the Istituto Onorato Damen (which is a scission of the ICT) ; and on a new political level for us, we informally met the canadian IWG a few weeks ago.
So to start with a good method, I send you with this email our basic political position for you to examine it.
As you will see, we share the same legacy : the Communist Left one.
Would you give me a few feedbacks about them for us to begin a fraternal discussion?
Right now, we try our best to get engage the different groups - sharing the same programmatic Communist Left legacy - in a fraternal discussion to see them meet points: to help them to our best to get them converge and overcome the state of sectarianism which seems to become some kind of tendency since about the last decade.
So, I hope I'll have a few news from you so we can bring a discussion together,
Alex for Klasbatalo
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
“Proletarian revolutions, ... constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever...”
Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Thanks for your E-mail. We believe debate is vital, necessary and crucial to the internationalists. The revolutionary movement cannot take the effective steps unless the internationalists play a dynamic rule to development this movement. This is only possible through the discussion and confrontation of different view point within the Proletarian Political Milieu.
The aim of debate should be, contributing to clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, which in turn contributes to the preparation for the formation of the historic Internationalist Communist Party, the indispensable weapon for the victory of the Communist Revolution.
You wrote a list of groups that you have been in discussion without saying anything about the “discussions”. For us, your aim, in discussion with us is not clear. Do you want this list should be longer? What is your criterion for discussing with a circle, group or a political current?
For us your practice and actions have not been in the direction of contributing to the clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, but to more confusion. You have contributed to uncertainty about the most important currents within the PPM. But first let’s explain something.
When we talking about Rosa Luxemburg as a source of inspiration for the proletariat, this doesn’t mean that we disregard her lack of clarity in the mass party question and the process of developing of class-consciousness. Or when we talking about Lenin the greatest Marxist within the history of proletariat, once again, this doesn’t mean that we disregard his lack of clarity about the question of national or his 1902 apprehension about the process of developing of class consciousness.
And again when we talking about International Communist Current and Internationalist Communist Tendency the most important organizations that the proletariat has created after degenerating of the Communist International, this doesn’t mean that we disregard their possible lack of clarity in some questions. These currents are the most important currents that historically and organically rooted in the current that has defended of the communist positions during the blackest period of contra-revolution. These currents are still the most important avant-garde of the proletariat.
We urge all, the political criticism of these currents but a Chinese wall separates criticism from discrediting. We have declared that any attack to these groups, is an attack to the Internationalist Voice and their achievements are not only for them, but also for the working class, the Left Communist and all internationalists.
We choose the first from your list “IFCL (ex-Internal Fraction of the ICC)” that you have been in discussion. We don’t recognize neither external nor internal fraction of the ICC. Formation of a fraction means that the current (in this case, ICC) has completely gone to the bourgeoisies’ terrain. The actions of these people (“IFCL”) have been discrediting of the International Communist Current and they coded the name of their polluting companies creating of “fraction” and saving of the ICC. If the currents like “worker communism of Iran” pollute terms like Worker, Communism and etc these people pollute “Left Communism”, “Internationalism”, “Bilan” and etc.
These fugitives from “Left Communism” never fought within the ICC, because the precondition for such struggle was not, otherwise the story of their battle from Paris to the Marseille and from Marseille to the Mexico City should be a source of inspiration for a new generation of Internationalists.
For us Left Communism is not only some “Political Positions” but also the principles and values of the proletariat. To eliminate the influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies, tireless duties of internationalists should be to strive to strengthen the proletarian values and principles which are a reflection of proletarian class consciousness.
The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We urge you.
15th October 2011
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear comrades of Internationalist Voice
Thanks again for taking time to reply to us. First, I want to let you know that I‘m contacting you not just on my own behalf but also on behalf of Klasbatalo, the organization to which I belong and that claims the same political legacy as Internationalist Voice.
Second, we want to apologize for the delay in our response. Actually, certain difficulties have hindered our work among the proletariat as well as our exchanges with other groups from the same political current as yours.
Okay, so let’s get to the heart of the matter. We share your understanding of how crucial it is to maintain dialogue amongst internationalists so as to learn from the hard lessons of the past, allowing for the enrichment of the proletarian political agenda. And in fact we believe that the different political views of the groups from what you call the proletarian political milieu – a term from the legacy of Marc Chirik – must be confronted through fraternal discussion in order to proceed toward the development and maintenance of a class party with programmatic homogeneity despite any divergences and fractions that will inevitably arise, but which might also serve to keep the dialectical process alive so that the party does not suffer the sclerotic diminution of its own program.
Also, you seem surprised that we’ve contacted you. However, we see it as our responsibility. To initiate discussion, it is necessary to make contact with an introduction, and a presentation. And in so doing, we open the door to dialogue. Of course, this is not discussion for discussions sake. One of the main tasks we set for ourselves in Klasbatalo is to provoke discussion within the groups from the PPM, so as to avoid sowing confusion or to squander the historic program of our class. Currently, it seems that this is not so easy, especially with the troika of ICC - Controversies - IFCL. For several years, the trend within our current has been that of sectarianism and denunciations of all kinds. Far from clarifying and enriching the program, this situation is paralyzing if not outright destroying us. It seems that the main political organizations of the communist left (primarily the ICC, the ICP and ICT) have suffered several setbacks and difficulties in recent years - even decades - that have caused them to turn inward: the ICC with its many spin-offs, departures, resignations, and fractions, the ICP with its rout in the 1980s has virtually disappeared, the ICT (formerly IBRP) with its difficulties dealing with LAWV, the Ukrainian fraud, the lack of dynamism in the French section, as well as the sudden disappearance of its section in Argentina. Are these the only causes of rampant sectarianism? Of course they play a major role, but these are not the only ones. As well, it is necessary to note the difficulty these organizations face in absorbing the PPM groups that revolve around them.
In this regard, we’d like to know why you haven’t joined any of these organizations (here we’re thinking of the ICT and ICC), as you seem to share most of their positions. In our case, we’re not too keen to join the ICC with its opportunistic new approach towards the anarchists, even if we agree with its platform and with most of its original positions. As for the ICT, we would join the Canadian section but it seems that for the moment this is not possible. For Klasbatalo, this is on a political level but, unfortunately, for the IWG (the canadian section of the ICT) we can’t join them for personal reasons.
Its with this in mind that we’ve made contact with you. In order to help break through the sectarian atmosphere, to break down the isolation that consumes us, to provoke discussion, leading to a policy of consolidation.
Now, you already seem to have an opinion about us. You write:
“For us your practice and actions have not been in the direction of contributing to the clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, but to more confusion…[that]KB You have contributed to about the most important currents within the PPM.”
We would like to know how our practice and our actions have caused confusion in the PPM simply by virtue of the fact that we have links with the IFCL. This is an extremely Manichean affirmation: that if one group from the CL heritage communicates with another group of the same legacy (which has had difficulties and even made serious mistakes), that the first can be accused of sowing confusion within the class simply by association? Isn’t this, comrades, one of the prevailing premises of sectarianism? For us, no group is infallible and no group is forever a prisoner of opportunistic positions it might take so long as it hasn’t fundamentally betrayed the class. Mind you, with no offense to the ICC, the IFCL is part of the same programmatic legacy as you, and ourselves, and enjoys relatively good contact with the ICT. By the same criteria, would you dare, accuse the ICT of sowing confusion within the class as well?
The whistle-blower policy that’s currently plaguing our current does not interest us. This is one reason why we distanced ourselves from the IFCL recently. This arose from its denunciation of the ICC’s supposed secret resolution, which as we now know was based on gossip and quotations taken out of context. We disagree completely with this "campaign of denunciations" and while we denounce the actions of IFCL this doesn’t mean that we condemn the IFCL to the bourgeois camp forever. For an organization to be considered bourgeois, it has to have fallen into the bourgeois camp, it has to have betrayed the working class. It has to have left the class terrain. The IFCL has not betrayed, and its positions aren’t foreign to our current; it continues to defend the interests of the proletariat. Of course, this latest outburst against the ICC is problematic, but an error does not place it in the bourgeois camp. Instead, our duty amongst other things is to respond to mistakes and common errors of the groups within our current, keeping them in the Marxist orbit or to indicate the programmatic direction of our class. Also, we mustn’t denounce the organizations in our current, but rather their mistakes or positions.We expect the same to be applied to Klasbattalo, as well. For Klasbatalo, the policies of exclusion play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. It’s really the politics of denunciation that lead to accusations of sectarianism, that maintains confusion within the class. Who is wrong and who is right, Lenin or Rosa? Here it’s not the individuals, groups, or organizations that are right or wrong ... but the positions they defend historically and conjuncturally.
So far as we’re concerned, the ICT-IOD belong to the same programmatic heritage, even though they’ve recently split. For us the IOD hasn’t slipped into middle class politics simply because it split with the ICT. It’s as a result of the same atmosphere of sectarianism out of which the split occurred. In not seeking political confrontation, the IOD instead resigned in order to produce their own texts. Sectarianism is our main enemy and the politics of denunciation only exacerbate the problem.
It’s worth noting that in Klasbatalo we recently clarified our policy for intervention in the PPM. Like you, we believe that an attack against the ICC and the ICT is an attack against the whole proletarian political milieu. These two organizations are the main inheritors and guarantors of the revolutionary program. So we want to defend these organizations while reminding them of their responsibility to the class, that is to say with fraternal debate, harsh if necessary, with the groups that gravitate around them, as well as between themselves. (even if it seems impossible for the moment). As well, we wish to initiate discussion in the PPM, within the class, while acting in a prudent manner in order to clarify our program – that of historic left communism, that of Marxism, and therefore that of the proletariat. And now, within these lines, Internationalist Voice and Klasbatalo are engaged in discussion. You’ve explained your policies concerning intervention in the PPM, we’re explaining ours. While there appears to be disagreement regarding the nature of certain groups, we have the same tasks and the same mandate.
We also disagree with you on the historic utility of fractions. For us, the presence of a fraction within an organization doesn’t mean that the organization has slipped or is slipping into the bourgeois camp. Rather, fractions are not only inevitable (since no organization will ever be perfectly homogenous), but can also prove to be beneficial. Fractions can help keep the proletariat’s political program intact, as in the case of the Italian fraction abroad, by maintaining a policy of debate in order to produce an important synthesis within the larger organization.
Finally, we would like to open discussions with you, possibly leading to a political rapprochement, but not at any price.
When you write:
“The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We urge you.”
We must object for the reasons mentioned above. Our critique of the IFCL’s false public denunciation of the ICC's ‘secret resolution’ will be published shortly. However, what you’ll find throughout this critique is not a denunciation of the FGCI, but rather its method and the very policy of denunciation.
We await your reply.
Our fraternal greetings,
Klasbatalo November 2011
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear comrades of Klasbatalo
Thanks for your letter. Your enthusiasm for discussion appreciated despite its serious flaws. You have not attempted to explain the important questions or points that we had put to you. We asked you to explain, “What is your criterion for discussing with a circle, group or a political current?”
We described in our last letter to you, for us, your aim, in discussion with us was not clear. Therefore we put conditions. Our demands remain the same, and we repeat again:
“The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles.”
Until then, we give the following explanation:
We are not surprised that you have contacted us; you are not the first who contact us and will not be the last. You are Confusing of political tendency with political fraction. We don’t have monolithic conception of the organization.
We never asked you to “denounce” the “IFCL”. What we asked you, was, publicly rejection of the actions of groups like “IFCL”. Because these actions are common to all non-proletarian circles.
It looks like all practice of Klasbatalo has been only to have links with the “IFCL”! You wrote:
“We would like to know how our practice and our actions have caused confusion in the PPM simply by virtue of the fact that we have links with the IFCL.”
Once again because it looks like all practice of Klasbatalo has been only to have links with the “IFCL”, sectarianism became its main enemy! You wrote:”Sectarianism is our main enemy”. Sectarianism is the event not the cause; it is one of the problems of the Proletarian Political Milieu but not the main nemy of the Proletarian Political Milieu. Of course, your view of sectarianism has its roots.
We believe that influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies is the main enemy not only to the working class but also to its political currents. We believe, tireless duties of internationalists should be to strive to strengthen the proletarian values and principles.
You never touching about these problems because it looks like you are not trying to strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We believe a serious criticism of the practice of the Klasbatalo, will not weaken the Klasbatalo, but also will strengthen the Klasbatalo, will also contribute to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We comradely urge you to such criticism.
4th December 2011
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IV response clarifying parasitism 19 01 2012
Thank you for your reply
Here we hope to answer some of your questions and criticisms, so we can have a better understanding of each others’ perspectives and see where we can go from here.
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. On the other hand, we see a concerted effort by some to exacerbate differences and political behavior, to the detriment of moving toward a common orientation in response to the present attacks faced by the proletariat. -Note: the forum debate on “Our differences with the ICC” on Leftcom-. Under such circumstances, the “weakening of proletarian values and principles” is one very unfortunate result.
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 their elaboration and application.
On the question of FICL, parasitism and factionalism: We don’t confuse political tendency with political fraction. We understand that factions (or fractions) are different from political tendencies.
Where ‘tendencies’ form over particular points of difference, comrades don’t see themselves as contesting the fundamental positions and orientations of an organization. Whereas ‘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. They’re defined often by the fact that they present a challenge for the leadership and direction of an organization.
From everything we’ve seen, this is the position that the FICL and originally IFFIC found themselves in. We’ve had extensive contact with FICL / IFFIC and nowhere did we find any evidence of “parasitism” as described by the ICC (the FICL is indeed a genuine fraction). 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. (-more on this below-) To wit, in the course of many hours of discussion and debate not once did the FICL comrades raise their divergences and disagreements with the ICC, much less use the opportunity of our meetings to denigrate and demonize the ICC. The main aspect of our exchanges has been on how to favourably advance the class struggle in the proletariats’ favour. To the extent that questions and criticisms of ICC and its politics came up, it was chiefly as a result of our inquiries. This accounted for but a minute part of our discussions. What we found was that whether we agreed on each and every point or not, FICL’s commitment regarding its relation to the ICC was that it saw as its mission to preserve what they understood to be its (ICC’s) defining positions and practice before the year 2000 (the period before the split). For us, these are hardly the actions or behavior of a group which - ‘may well repeat the same positions as the ICC, just as a showcase for their real purpose: to destroy the revolutionary organization to which they feel the deepest hatred.’
Submitted by Tibo on July 24, 2010 - 20:01.
From what we can gather, in examining the use of the accusation of “parasitism”, we see that it only clouds the real nature of divergences, by seemingly characterizing every organizational split as an expression of vindictive, bruised egos. Though we can see this as possible in some cases, it seems that the use of the term ‘parasitism’ has become an all too convenient catchall. We sincerely hope that the ICC, as well as yourselves, will discard its use. For us, the parasitism concept is more like a veiled threat against fractions.
On the question of factions as such, we can only say that, as is frequently the case, a major rift or crises is often at the root of the formation of a faction within a communist organization.
It can be devastating under certain circumstances, leading to mistrust, false divisions (on top of preexisting ones), an atmosphere of recrimination, momentary or chronic fragmentation, and confusion amongst the comrades and contacts of the party or group. 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 blow against the whole revolutionary wave of the twenties. As such, the right to form factions must be defended.
For ourselves, FICL is not the only organization we’ve had contact with – just the first we’ve had extensive contact with.
Finally, we in Klasbatalo maintain a rigorous practice of debate, critique, and analyses perhaps not necessarily with all the conclusions which you, the comrades of Internationalist Voice, would make. This is where we can be of assistance to each other, as well as other elements of the communist left.
None of us on the Communist left, not one group or organization, can develop a solid grasp of the necessary steps forward by ourselves alone, given our various levels of political cohesion, experience, history and practice, given the global enormity of the battles ahead for the working class in the present period. Coming from this general perspective, our purpose in contacting you is to develop the necessary debate and discussion that hopefully will eventually lead to a common revolutionary practice.
Thanks for your letter. Your letter is not in line with a critical review that we hopped but so
far has been in order to justify the practice and acts of the «Klasbatalo», unfortunately, this
indicates that «Klasbatalo» because of its limitations is not capable to do a such critique. The
critique that could be in line with to progress of Internationalist positions not only in the
North America but also lead to strengthen of Internationalist positions in the other part of the
world. From our perspective the practice and acts of the «Klasbatalo» has not been in the
direction of contributing to the clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, but to more
confusion. Therefore we put conditions to begin discussion with you and we are also seriously
in our demands, and we repeat again:
“The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice
on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and
contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles.”
Since the content of this correspondence can serve to strengthen of the Internationalist
positions, therefore, we need to clarify the following explanations:
Criteria for a political debate
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 their 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 example 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
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.
Religious or Communist confidence
“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
Formation of Fraction
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 influences from the dominant class
“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 -
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
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
29 April 2012