Discussion on Vanguardism

[Bilan]

These are not necessarily articles I agree, or disagree with, but I am curious to what other comrades think of the accuracy of these.


Review of Anarchism in Australia Today: A Survey of Current Debates in the Australian Anarchist Movement; revised and edited by Leigh Kendall; published by Scam Publications, Melbourne, March 1997; 31 p.; first published by Melbourne anarcho-syndicalists in April 1986 as Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in Australia Today.
From Rebel Worker Vol.19 No.4 (166) Aug.-Sept. 2000


This pamphlet does not contain, as asserted in the title, "a survey of current debates in the Australian anarchist movement" - no actual debates between actual groups or individuals are anywhere cited. Nor is it even a survey of the ideas that are current in the anarchist milieu in Australia - no specific sets of ideas are attributed to any specific groups or individuals. This pamphlet is merely a grab- bag of abstract, anarchist-related opinion that Leigh Kendall, the reviser and editor, apparently concurs with at this particular point in time, interspersed with a few basic facts of political economy, and presented in the style of a party manifesto. It contains little analysis, much assertion, and not a lot to think about. Its primary purpose is probably to attract new members to the sectlet that published it. Leigh's method is largely abstract and utopian, presenting in blueprint-style fashion descriptions of what the ideal anarchist society might look like rather than initiating discussion as to how it might be possible to begin organising for it in the first place. He informs us that decision- making in the future anarchist world will have "information and decisions pass both ways between the different constituents of the federation from local assemblies, through regional meetings of delegates to continental and international congresses, and back" (p. 30). But without having first discussed in some detail the rudiments of creating an anarcho-syndicalist tendency within the workers' movement in Australia, such florid ruminations upon pan-continental cooperation are somewhat premature, to say the least. It seems evident that the job of facilitating some intelligent discussion on the project of organising for workers' control is too ;great a task for Leigh, so he doesn't attempt it. Incredibly, he proposes that the actions of "support groups" of anarchists assisting workers in regular trade union struggles constitute anarcho-syndicalist practice! Funny, latter seems to me more like good old-fashioned "tail-ending", the main purpose of which is the attempt on the part of the tail-enders to acquire members from amongst striking workers, a phenomenon much engaged in by various Trotskyist sects, with usually dismally unsuccessful results.

But Leigh now informs us that this is "a good example of anarcho-syndicalist 'practice" (p. 26). Such an assertion can only be expected, though, given that the demonstrated raison detre of the milieu that issues this pamphlet is the sect-like recruitment of members, not the stimulation of an anarcho-syndicalist attitude amongst workers.

Elsewhere, Leigh claims that "Anarchists in Australia are avoiding the questions of how we stop capitalism (and state capitalism) and how we will organise the meeting of needs into the period of revolutionary change" and that in order to bring about progress towards anarchism "Anarchosyndicalists believe that [it] is important that we are involved in the labour force" (p. 20-21, my italics). There is a clear implication in the foregoing two quotations that "we" the "anarchists" and "anarcho-syndicalists" - and here Leigh is referring to all those "anarchists" and "anarcho-syndicalists" currently "organised" in small and obscure sectlets, and primarily his own - are somehow going to be instrumental in bringing about anarchist society, that is, that these sects are going to be the main agents of historical change, and not the working class.

Note, yet again, the assertion that it "is important
that we are involved in the labour force" (my italics), not, for instance, that it is important that workers are assisted to discover anarcho-syndicalist methods of self-managed organisation. Implicit in Leigh's view is an elitist and vanguardist perspective that has potentially dangerous ramifications for the workers' movement if permitted the chance to take •hold. Leigh sums up his perspective in the following paragraph: "What anarcho-syndicalists are seeking is a basis for taking action with other anarchists to bring about what we want - an anarchist society" (p. 31). It seems that what the workers might want is of little concern to Leigh. If put into practice, such a vanguardist and ultra- leftist perspective could only result in anarchist sectarianism and dictatorship, the like of which was responsible for the degeneration and defeat of the CNT in Spain during the 1930s. Anarcho-syndicalists in Australia have a responsibility to propagate anarcho-syndicalist methods amongst the working class, for it will be the proletariat organised along anarcho-syndicalist lines that will bring about anarchist society, not some self-declared minority elite.

Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain a copy of the first edition of this pamphlet for comparison, but I would guess that it would have contained fewer abstractions than this revision, on account of the fact that the milieu that issued it was engaged in some practical workplace activity at the time. Whether this comparison between editions of the pamphlet would hold true or not - and I'm prepared to bet that it -would - it certainly is the case that the ASG-M has moved from some level of practical engagement in anarcho-syndicalist activity in the 1980s to total disengagement by the late 1990s.

The sum total of their activity today would seem to be playing at constructing their own little anarchist mini-Bureaucracy within the more macro-sized bureaucracy of the IWA. This second edition of the pamphlet, as even the name change suggests, marks a reorienting of the outlook of the ASG-M (or whatever it calls itself now) from anarcho-syndicalism (at which it had no success whatsoever) to a more inward-looking anarchist affinity, group type of perspective. The ASG-M is not an anarcho-syndicalist organisation: they don't organise amongst workers and no self-respecting worker goes anywhere near them.
The ASN milieu, on the other hand, has for many years engaged in consistent and persistent propaganda work amongst Sydney transport workers (railways, buses and taxis) through the publication and distribution of the rank-and-file magazine Sparks. These efforts having succeeded in linking together a number of militants from across the transport industry. The success of the Sparks project is such that at the end of August a combined transport workers' meeting is scheduled at which it is expected that an anarcho-syndicalist oriented industrial union will be inaugurated and matters of concern to the assembled workers discussed with a view to resolving them by means of direct action, thereby totally by-passing the treacherous official unions. This organisation has the potential to effect a historic turnaround towards a workers' control perspective amongst a sizable section of this country's workers and the ASN and the magazine Sparks played a significant role in establishing links between militants of the various transport sectors. This, I can confidently assert, is what genuine anarcho-syndicalism is all about.

ASN praxis does not advocate setting up a union of anarchists; rather, it supports an anarchistic approach to unionism. There is an enormous difference between these conceptions; the former leads to vanguardism and dictatorship if successful, and sectarian confusion if unsuccessful, while the latter, if successful, leads to democratic workers' control and libertarian socialism, and if unsuccessful, it at least leaves a principled legacy of true proletarian democracy that future generations' revolutionaries will take up. Peter Siegl.


Thoughts?

[davidasearles]

I didn't read the article, I'm looking more at the title of the thread.

The word vanguard has some sense in battle field military formations. I understand that. But then it gets carried as a metaphor into politics and it breaks down very quickly. It seems to be a romantic view that a vanguard has some magical function- that it leads as opposed to merely being in front of being the rest of the army or opposed to being pushed instead of leading. Isn't this a metaphor of questionable value in describing political movement to assert the idea of collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution?

Vangaurd is bad enough - but vangaurdism? What in the world does that mean? Are these words just for the sake of sounding cool?

[robbo203]

The word vanguard has some sense in battle field military formations. I understand that. But then it gets carried as a metaphor into politics and it breaks down very quickly. It seems to be a romantic view that a vanguard has some magical function- that it leads as opposed to merely being in front of being the rest of the army or opposed to being pushed instead of leading. Isn't this a metaphor of questionable value in describing political movement to assert the idea of collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution?


I agree. Vanguardism - the belief in the necessity of a revolutionary elite to "lead" the workers - is a pernicious and reactionary idea that has no place in movement based on the self emancipation of the working.class. It is fundamentally anti-democratic and authoritarian in its orientation - like the military itself.

It is theory that is held by Leninists and others some of whom claim to pay lip service to the Marxian principle of working class self emancipation. Im curious about this claim. In what sense could the vanguard "lead" the workers in a way that does not conflict with the idea of working class self emancipation? Granted , there is a special sense in which the idea of a vanguard could seem legitimate - that some workers are socialist and others are not and therefore the former constitute the "vanguard" of the future if we assume the future to be one based on socialism. But this is not how the Leninists interpret the use of the word vanguardism or "leading the workers". They mean leadership in the sense of deciding for, and imposing upon, the workers (in relation to which they constitute a vanguard)

This is what needs to be completely opposed

[mikelepore]

It's still ambiguous. Some people use the term "vanguard" to mean that the first few people who acquire understanding of certain concepts and principles should teach many other people about it. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, it's essential. Some other people use the term "vanguard" to mean that self-appointed full-time leaders in a new society will rule "in the name of the people." There's plenty wrong with that.

The left has numerous words that have different meanings to various people (centralization, hierarchical, state, anarchy, etc.) and this is one more such word. The more often people use such words, the less the amount of communication that gets accomplished.

[benhur]

Not all workers are on the same level of class consciousness. In fact, most of them are unique, in the sense that they have different perspectives, desires, hopes etc. The gradations of knowledge cannot be ignored, either. Which is why, it's important for those who have more knowledge, skills, opportunities and capacities, to guide those who lack all these things.

So vanguardism in this context is NOT some kind of dictatorship of one class of workers over another. On the contrary, it's more like management, wherein class-conscious workers guide and protect the less qualified ones. In short, cooperation rather than dictatorship is the central principle of vanguardism.

[Bilan]

On the word 'vanguardism', it was simply because of where I got this from, nor a word of my choice.

[Bitter Ashes]

The way I see it, a vanguard party is there to educate workers. Other than that, they should be performing the same task that any worker should be in a revolution.
The revolution is something for all workers to take part in and they all deserve equal credit for whatever part they play. Whether that is them continuing to work in a publicly-owned workplace, or to protect those workplaces from reactionary recapture, neither can operate without the other.
A vanguardist's job should be to teach workers how they can occupy thier workplaces, or how they can protect thier fellow workers from these reactionary forces. This is also an important role, but it does not nessicarily mean that it's a leadership role and I heavily debate whether any central leadership is actualy required at all.

[brigadista]

you will have to be working in the job to carry out your proposals

[BobKKKindle$]

In what sense could the vanguard "lead" the workers in a way that does not conflict with the idea of working class self emancipation?

It's a complete mistake to assume that the self-emancipation of the working class is incompatible with the presence of leadership, and that the existence of leaders will inevitably lead to the emergence of a new ruling elite. There are always going to be some workers who have a more advanced understanding of what is required to liberate workers from capitalism and other forms of oppression, and who push for more militant forms of action, relative to the rest of the working class, and it these workers who form what Lenin described as the vanguard. The function of this vanguard - organized as a political party - is to engage with the rest of the working class not only by arguing against the various forms of prejudice and discrimination that turn workers against each other but also by displaying leadership in struggles for better conditions - in other words, by showing that industrial militancy and confrontation with the bourgeoisie is the most effective way to extract concessions from capitalism as a precursor to the attainment of a socialist society.

[Rawthentic]

A communist vanguard exists for one purpose only: to lead the people in making revolution. We dont exist to tail workers or become union hacks. We should be, as lenin said, "tribunes of the people", those radical elements that expose the system for what it is and put revolution out there as the only solution to oppression.

so,while I disagree with those that say the vanguard provides leadership by fighting for tangible reforms (even though all communists fight for reforms, we need to focus on fault line, broad social struggles), i agree with the method bobkindles outlines.

[spritely]

Maoists disappeared the proletariat in the revolution like pictures of Trotsky disappeared in the USSR. Asking them about vanguards is like asking Elvis what Chuck Berry was all about.

Lenin coined the term in our usage. So we should go by what he said and meant. He meant that some workers become conscious before others and that we should group them together in one organization. That's all folks.

[Rawthentic]

wow, way to present such a mechanical, narrow view of the meaning of the vanguard party, and maoism in particular. btw, mao's conception was fundamentally NOT different from marx or lenin's.

"maoists disappeared the proletariat"? so, you think a vanguard party is communist when it is working class in an empiricist and sociological sense? what about politico-ideological line? what about the historic interests of the world proletariat?

did you know that in 1949, about 80% of chinese lived in the countryside? what proletariat did the maoists actually "disappear."

provide an ACTUAL argument.

[Matina]

did you know that in 1949, about 80% of chinese lived in the countryside? what proletariat did the maoists actually "disappear."

The workers that the Maoists crushed when they entered the cities. They greeted the Maoists as liberators and they were occupying the factories, waving red-flags etc. Most of them got executed or imprisoned for that.

[cb9's_unity]

I don't reject leadership, however I don't support giving leaders an excess of power and deliberately separating them from the working class. The Vanguard is not simply class-conscious workers protecting those who are not class conscious. It is an elite group of class-conscious intellectuals (i'm not trying to insult Lenin, but he was never a worker in any sense of the word) who lead the revolution.

IMO the working class needs to lead itself from day one. Workers should not simply learn to take orders from the top and just follow them. I'm not an expert on the USSR but Russia had a "Vanguard" that lead the soviets. The vanguard lead the revolution and once the Bolsheviks had power, well we all know what happened to any power the soviets ever had...

[LOLseph Stalin]

Workers should not simply learn to take orders from the top and just follow them.

It's not supposed to be about the workers "following" orders. That's just like Capitalism all over again where the workers are expected to follow the orders of the Bourgeoisie. The vanguard is simply a group of intellectuals and workers who class consiousness is more developed. They're not trying to give orders, they're just trying to lead the working class in the right direction. They're not just going to get up and decide Capitalism is evil themselves. The Bourgeoisie design things so that doesn't happen. Also, If you're a member of any revolutionary organizations it's possible you're part of a "vanguard". You would be an educated invididual who is fighting for equality through revolutionary means and obviously these parties would be the first to do so. Hopefully by following this example, non-organized workers would follow. After the revolution the vanguard is no longer needed so would be disbanded. Worker's Democracy would be created in its place.

[robbo203]

It's a complete mistake to assume that the self-emancipation of the working class is incompatible with the presence of leadership, and that the existence of leaders will inevitably lead to the emergence of a new ruling elite. There are always going to be some workers who have a more advanced understanding of what is required to liberate workers from capitalism and other forms of oppression, and who push for more militant forms of action, relative to the rest of the working class, and it these workers who form what Lenin described as the vanguard. .


This is nonsense. The fact that some workers are more "advanced" in their thinking does not equate with a leadership role. Leaders implies followers and therefore an assymetrical power relationship between the two. The self emancipation of the working class is clearly at odds with the idea of leadership and indeed makes the whole idea of leadership redundant. Who exactly is going to "lead" whom when the working class emancipates itself i.e. has acquired the mass communist consciousness that is indispensable for a communist revolution. And you cannot "lead" workers to communism in the absence of this mass consciousness. You can only impose some form of capitalism - state capitalism - on them as the history of the USSR and elsewhere amply demonstrates

[ComradeOm]

I don't reject leadership, however I don't support giving leaders an excess of power and deliberately separating them from the working class. The Vanguard is not simply class-conscious workers protecting those who are not class conscious. It is an elite group of class-conscious intellectuals (i'm not trying to insult Lenin, but he was never a worker in any sense of the word) who lead the revolutionSee here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html) for a quick overview of the Bolshevik party in 1917. It was most certainly not a party of intellectuals or mindless sheep. Rather it was a democratically run organisation with extremely close links to the Russian working class communities. Pay particular attention to the role played by regional bureaus and other grassroots organisations (particularly the powerful Petersburg Committee) in influencing the party's direction

[PRC-UTE]

wow, way to present such a mechanical, narrow view of the meaning of the vanguard party, and maoism in particular. btw, mao's conception was fundamentally NOT different from marx or lenin's.

"maoists disappeared the proletariat"? so, you think a vanguard party is communist when it is working class in an empiricist and sociological sense? what about politico-ideological line? what about the historic interests of the world proletariat?

yet as your second paragraph hints at, Mao's conception of the party differed from Marx and Lenin's in that it was not based in the urban working class but in the rural peasantry. the early chinese CP attempted to organise among workers but ultimately quit to build a social base with the peasants

[cb9's_unity]

Responding to ComradeOm

I apologize but i'm a little short for time so I'll have to read and digest the article you wrote some other time.

But i'm somewhat skeptical about just how involved the soviets and working class communities really were in decision making and leading considering that the Russian revolution followed Lenin's plan completely (well up until his strokes). Despite the fact that by no means did the Bolsheviks have a majority in socialist communities, somehow it just didn't matter. Lenin and his vanguard continuously got just what they wanted, and the end result is undeniable. The Bolshevik intellectuals ended up with all the powers and during and after the civil war the Soviets lost their power.

Again I apologize for not being able to read your full explanation at this time but if you could simply just point out or even give sources that says my infomation or opinions are wrong (which they very well may be) I would appreciate it greatly.

[mikelepore]

Several writers here are still being ambiguous with "leadership." Where leadership would be inappropriate is in the administration of the new society. We don't want self-appointed decision-makers, blind obedience, etc., in the new society. But a form of leadership is necessary during the revolutionary process. This is so because several of the important principles that the working class needs to learn are conceptual, in the same sense that math and science are conceptual. The concepts cannot become apparent and clear without some one-sided lecturing by some people who have carefully planned and delivered the teachings.

[robbo203]

Several writers here are still being ambiguous with "leadership." Where leadership would be inappropriate is in the administration of the new society. We don't want self-appointed decision-makers, blind obedience, etc., in the new society. But a form of leadership is necessary during the revolutionary process. This is so because several of the important principles that the working class needs to learn are conceptual, in the same sense that math and science are conceptual. The concepts cannot become apparent and clear without some one-sided lecturing by some people who have carefully planned and delivered the teachings.

Yes but is it helpful to call this "leadership"? I think most people when they hear the word "leader" think of "followers" and this implies a kind of assymetrical power relationship: the leader makes the decision and the followers follow. We move in the direction that leader leads us.

I prefer to use the term educator or facilitator. But like Charlie said, the educators must themselves be educated. It is not a case of one sided lecturing as you suggest. We all have something to learn from each other

[ComradeOm]

Responding to ComradeOm

I apologize but i'm a little short for time so I'll have to read and digest the article you wrote some other time.

But i'm somewhat skeptical about just how involved the soviets and working class communities really were in decision making and leading considering that the Russian revolution followed Lenin's plan completely (well up until his strokes). Despite the fact that by no means did the Bolsheviks have a majority in socialist communities, somehow it just didn't matter. Lenin and his vanguard continuously got just what they wanted, and the end result is undeniable. The Bolshevik intellectuals ended up with all the powers and during and after the civil war the Soviets lost their power.

Again I apologize for not being able to read your full explanation at this time but if you could simply just point out or even give sources that says my infomation or opinions are wrong (which they very well may be) I would appreciate it greatly.Have a look at the point-by-point conclusions and short bibliography as there's really a lot in your post ("the Revolution followed Lenin's plan completely", no "majority in socialist communities" :confused: ) that just isn't true. The image of small band of professional revolutionaries, or intellectuals, imposing a revolution from above, or stealing one from below, has been well and truly exploded in the past few decades. Any decent modern history of the Revolution should show this. Below are a few quotes that illustrate the true nature of the Bolshevik party in 1917

"Events often moved so rapidly that the Bolshevik Central Committee had to develop policies without consulting Lenin. Beyond this, circumstances were frequently such that structurally subordinate party bodies were forced to develop responses to evolving realities without guidance or contrary to directives from above. Also, 1917 the doors to membership were opened wide and the Bolshevik organisation became a mass party. Bolshevik programmes and policies in 1917 tended to be developed with strong, timely inputs from rank-and-file members and therefore reflected popular aspirations" Rabinowitch, A., (2007), The Bolsheviks in Power

"By the middle of 1917 [the Bolsheviks] had become an open mass party, bearing little resemblance to the disciplined elite organisation of full time revolutionaries described in What is to be done? In the second place, neither the party as a whole or its leadership were united on the most basic policy questions" Fitzpatrick. S., (2001), The Russian Revolution

And for good measure, here's an admission from the Menshevik Sukhanov around the time of the Kornilov Affair. I do like this one as it encapsulates the degree to which by September 1917 the Bolsheviks were the unquestioned party of the proletariat

"The [Committee for Struggle Against the Counter-Revolution] had to mobilise the worker-soldier masses. But the masses, insofar as they were organised, were organised by the Bolsheviks and followed them. At that time, theirs was the only organisation that was large, welded together by an elementary discipline, and linked with the democratic lowest levels of the capital. Without it the committee was impotent. Without the Bolsheviks it could only have passed the time with appeals and idle speeches by orators who had lost their authority. With the Bolsheviks the committee had at its disposal the full power of the organised workers and soldiers"


Yes but is it helpful to call this "leadership"? I think most people when they hear the word "leader" think of "followers" and this implies a kind of assymetrical power relationship: the leader makes the decision and the followers follow. We move in the direction that leader leads us.I think this is a case of people hearing what they want to hear. Some people are too willing to confuse 'leader' with 'boss'. No one has suggested that the 'masses' unconditionally follow a select group of 'leaders' in some cult-like arrangement or that these 'leaders', and they alone, will decide policy

For some reason the idea of leadership - the perfectly natural process whereby some people, through talent or simple circumstances, have come to the fore of every mass movement in history - has gotten a bad name on the Left. I hear statements like "We don't need leaders" and the mind boggles at just how removed these people are from reality. There will always be someone who has to chair meetings, always be someone nominated as spokesman for the group, always be someone to coordinate. That's an unavoidable aspect of organisation. When masses of people come together you will get leaders

[LOLseph Stalin]

For some reason the idea of leadership - the perfectly natural process whereby some people, through talent or simple circumstances, have come to the fore of every mass movement in history - has gotten a bad name on the Left. I hear statements like "We don't need leaders" and the mind boggles at just how removed these people are from reality. There will always be someone who has to chair meetings, always be someone nominated as spokesman for the group, always be someone to coordinate. That's an unavoidable aspect of organisation. When masses of people come together you will get leaders

There's always going to be "leaders" to some extent. There may not be a state as the leadership, but there will still be Soviets which will have representatives voted in to represent the workers and help them make decisions. Also, even in industries there will be certain people who seem to be in charge because of expertise. They will be guiding those who maybe don't know as much about the particular industry. For example a life long miner would definitely be better suited to run the industry than a newbie miner. These experienced life long miners would be teaching others about the job thus taking on a leadership role. Oh course these roles would be alternating as others begin to gain more experience.

[robbo203]

For some reason the idea of leadership - the perfectly natural process whereby some people, through talent or simple circumstances, have come to the fore of every mass movement in history - has gotten a bad name on the Left. I hear statements like "We don't need leaders" and the mind boggles at just how removed these people are from reality. There will always be someone who has to chair meetings, always be someone nominated as spokesman for the group, always be someone to coordinate. That's an unavoidable aspect of organisation. When masses of people come together you will get leaders

No, this is not what the criticism of the notion of "leadership" is about and you know it. You are misrepresenting that criticism and in fact merely parroting the kind of knee jerk objections that are commonly argued among the more conservative minded opponents of communism.

When we take exception to the idea of leadership we are talking specifically about leadership as an expression of assymmetrical political power relationships. Leaders in this sense imply followers or "order takers" (to use the more precise expression). Leadership in this sense is antithetical to any kind of genuinely democratic process.

Of course individuals vary enormously in talent and ability and no one has suggested anything to the contrary. Who exactly has said anything to the contrary to warrant your scathing comment about how far "removed these people are from reality". Which people? Seems you are just bringing up a red herring here or should that be an aunt sally

I am quite happy to defer to someone who is more adept at public speaking to make public speeches on behalf of the organisation I might belong to. Or to write articles on some arcane aspect of economic theory I am not familiar with. Or coordinate and arrange the staging of some conference which in my bumbling fashion I could not efficiently undertake. What I am not prepared to do, however, is allow someone in the organisation to which I might belong to decide policy on my behalf.

Indeed this is what the capitalist governments do all the time. Unfortunately , many on the state capitalist Left likewise take for granted this political dichotomy between a pro-active leadership and a passive following drawn unknowingly along a historical path charted out by the Enlightened Vanguard. That is what I find thoroughly obnoxious and that is what I will always vigorously oppose

[Blackscare]

Every revolutionary group is a vanguard, all a vanguard is is something that is at the forfront of a movement or action. Vanguard parties are what are wrong and fucked up. A vanguard should work towards creating a directly democratic framework of worker's control, but not work to then control things in said framework by creating a party.

[Blackscare]

That said, I support a popular, anarchist vanguard with a large number of active members, one that is inclusive and based on trade unions. I don't want some elite group of career revolutionaries though :(

[robbo203]

Every revolutionary group is a vanguard, all a vanguard is is something that is at the forfront of a movement or action. Vanguard parties are what are wrong and fucked up. A vanguard should work towards creating a directly democratic framework of worker's control, but not work to then control things in said framework by creating a party.


Vanguard in the techical sense of being at the forefront of a movement is fine by me. I dont have a problem with that. Vanguard in the sense of a political leadership that is supposedly going to deliver the future to the masses on whose behalf it allegedly acts, I have a BIG BIG big problem with. I am totally in accord with you here. I am not too sure though that the notion of a party in itself denotes vanguardism in the second sense. Its a question of how that party is internally organised surely - and of course how it sees itself in relation to the working class. Not all political parties are vanguardists in this sense

[Die Neue Zeit]

Several writers here are still being ambiguous with "leadership." Where leadership would be inappropriate is in the administration of the new society. We don't want self-appointed decision-makers, blind obedience, etc., in the new society. But a form of leadership is necessary during the revolutionary process. This is so because several of the important principles that the working class needs to learn are conceptual, in the same sense that math and science are conceptual. The concepts cannot become apparent and clear without some one-sided lecturing by some people who have carefully planned and delivered the teachings.


Yes but is it helpful to call this "leadership"? I think most people when they hear the word "leader" think of "followers" and this implies a kind of assymetrical power relationship: the leader makes the decision and the followers follow. We move in the direction that leader leads us.

I prefer to use the term educator or facilitator. But like Charlie said, the educators must themselves be educated. It is not a case of one sided lecturing as you suggest. We all have something to learn from each other

The last part of Mike's post aptly demonstrates the problem with ultra-activism today. Many "educator"-activists - like the very praktiki whom Lenin criticized in his day - aren't well-educated on Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, etc. and their common emphasis on the "materialism -> theory -> program -> movement" process.

On the other hand, the WSM's overemphasis on lecturing (because of the distinct lack of a minimum program) is detrimental, too.

[robbo203]

The last part of Mike's post aptly demonstrates the problem with ultra-activism today. Many "educator"-activists - like the very praktiki whom Lenin criticized in his day - aren't well-educated on Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, etc. and their common emphasis on the "materialism -> theory -> program -> movement" process.

On the other hand, the WSM's overemphasis on lecturing (because of the distinct lack of a minimum program) is detrimental, too.

Well yes and no. THe WSM's overemphasis on what I would call "abstract propagandism" is detrimental in the sense that it encourages the idea that the socialist movement will grow by a process of incrementally converting workers into socialists and by advocating socialism and nothing less. The failure of a genuine socialist movement of which the WSM is a prime example) to make any significant headway after more a century is then understandably interpreted as meaning that if our immediate interests might have to be forsaken for the sake of what might well be a very long term goal, then one might as well forget about that goal

On the other hand, offering something in the meantime does not have to be a minimum program. What this program amounts to is a set of refroms that may or may not temporally be of benefit to the workers but which will in the end condemn any organisation advocating such reforms to the dead end of the reformist treadmill. This means trying to humanise and reform capitalism when capitalism cannot really be made to behave in way that fundamentally conflicts with its predatory and exploitative nature. We all know what that in turn means. Every so called socialist organisation that ever advocated a minimum programme alongside the maximum programme of revolutionary socialism, invariably abandoned the latter programe and became a straightforward capitalist party - like the labour party today of the German SPD. Once you attemp to reform capitalism you end up being reformed by capitalism into a compliant and willing stooge of the capitalist class itself

To its credit the WSM has never fallen for the reformist trap. Unlike the assorted gabble of trots and other lefties who busy themselves tirelessly in promoting all sorts of reforms from the nationalisation of banks to the provision of free bus passes , the WSM has remained a resolututely socialist organisation with a clear and unrivalled understanding of socialism. No one can take that away from them. Most of the Left on the other hand has effectively abandoned socialism or has simpy redefined it to equate with state capitalism - their real aim

The abstract propagandism of the WSM is absolutely essential but is insufficient on its own and this is where the WSM falls down I am afraid. What is needed is not a reformist programme to bridge the gap between the present and the future but something else in my view - a material substrate or praxis in which socialist consciousness can receive nourishment and vitality from the lived expereience of forms of non market acttivities that make up what today is called the social economy. That at any rate is my opinion

[couch13]

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


This is from the Communist Manifesto. This describes what the Vanguard is, without using the word Vanguard. It seems to me that people get hung up on the word, even though it means exactly what Marx had been saying.

Sorry, I just wanted to put that out there.

[Red_Storm]

one very short question:
How do u avoid the occurance of the ,, red burgoasie,, phenomen if there is a vangardism?

[couch13]

one very short question:
How do u avoid the occurance of the ,, red burgoasie,, phenomen if there is a vangardism?

Well, the only time that happened was the Russian Revolution (China, Vietnam, etc, where built with that intent, Russia wasn't) and to be honest I've been working through that question myself recently. Alot of it seemed to come from objective circumstances (lack of farming technology which allowed for starvation). At the moment I'm not too sure what I believe about it.

[Red_Storm]

Well, the only time that happened was the Russian Revolution (China, Vietnam, etc, where built with that intent, Russia wasn't) and to be honest I've been working through that question myself recently. Alot of it seemed to come from objective circumstances (lack of farming technology which allowed for starvation). At the moment I'm not too sure what I believe about it.
The thing is, that it is in the human nature to be hungry for power ( tipycal example, Stalin), so they perverted the ideology to their needs. I am from former yugoslavia Region, and in Yugoslavia the marxsist idea was perverted to that degree that the party byrocrats were glorified as the torch of the ,, Brother and unity. Belive me mate, i thought and tought about the ,,red burgoasie,, and my head started to ache. IT CANT BE AVOIDED! It is a malfunction due to the subjective perception of marxist doctrine.

[couch13]

The thing is, that it is in the human nature to be hungry for power ( tipycal example, Stalin), so they perverted the ideology to their needs. I am from former yugoslavia Region, and in Yugoslavia the marxsist idea was perverted to that degree that the party byrocrats were glorified as the torch of the ,, Brother and unity. Belive me mate, i thought and tought about the ,,red burgoasie,, and my head started to ache. IT CANT BE AVOIDED! It is a malfunction due to the subjective perception of marxist doctrine.

My reason for still turning this over in my head is that i don't believe people are geared towards power, but rather survival. When you look at it from that perspetive, then what the Bolsheviks did in Russia makes alot of sense. They were trying to survive.

On the Stalin question, I don't think was born some power hungary dictorial man. If you read about his life before 1917, you'll see what I mean. He had such a shit life, I don't blame him for going insane and dictorial on everyone (not that I condone what he did, I condem it actually)

[Old Man Diogenes]

Not all workers are on the same level of class consciousness. In fact, most of them are unique, in the sense that they have different perspectives, desires, hopes etc. The gradations of knowledge cannot be ignored, either. Which is why, it's important for those who have more knowledge, skills, opportunities and capacities, to guide those who lack all these things.

So vanguardism in this context is NOT some kind of dictatorship of one class of workers over another. On the contrary, it's more like management, wherein class-conscious workers guide and protect the less qualified ones. In short, cooperation rather than dictatorship is the central principle of vanguardism.

It may not mean to be dictatorial but thats how it turned out in Russia and thats how, in my opinion it would turn out nine times out of ten.
Plus the idea of emancipation, is for the workers to free themselves not to be guided by some kind of elite organisation.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What we have seen in the past has led us to doubt Vanguardism, that is a Vanguard Party. I believe this is a good thing because in my opinion a Vanguard Party will always mutate into some sort of authoritarian bourgeois organisation. I do not quite understand how a Vanguard Party could lead to the emancipation of the working class, then again it may just be my ignorance: My understanding of it being the most 'advanced' members of the proletariat, leading a revolution and subsequently ruling over the 'less advanced' members of the proletariat. This does not seem like emancipation, but the reformation of a social elite.

[robbo203]

What we have seen in the past has led us to doubt Vanguardism, that is a Vanguard Party. I believe this is a good thing because in my opinion a Vanguard Party will always mutate into some sort of authoritarian bourgeois organisation. I do not quite understand how a Vanguard Party could lead to the emancipation of the working class, then again it may just be my ignorance: My understanding of it being the most 'advanced' members of the proletariat, leading a revolution and subsequently ruling over the 'less advanced' members of the proletariat. This does not seem like emancipation, but the reformation of a social elite.


This is absolutely correct. It is legitimate to speak of a "vanguard" in the sense of a section of the working class who are more advanced in their thinking than the rest. But that does not mean anything in itself. This vanguard cannot do anything in the sense that it cannot create a socialist society unless and until the rest of the working class have caught up so to speak in which case the notion of a vanguard dissolves automatically. This follows from the marxian principle that the emancipation of the proletariat must be carried out by the proletariat itself.

To ascribe an active role to the vanguard of the proletariat in the sense that it "leads" the rest of the working class into socialism will inevitably mean not the establishment of socialism but capitalism. The history of the Russian Revolution demonstrates this completely. It was a bourgeois revolution albeit carried out largely by workers. What made it a bourgeois revolution was its outcome , not the agents who carried it out. The vast majority in Russia at the time had no conception of socialism but were attracted by the Bolshevik slogan of land peace and bread. The Bolshevik revolution (or more acurately coup), was the Russian equivalent of the French Revolution and I think it was Engels who said something to the effect that Russia was approaching its "1789". Quite a prescient thought

[ZeroNowhere]

The Bolshevik revolution (or more acurately coup), was the Russian equivalent of the French Revolution and I think it was Engels who said something to the effect that Russia was approaching its "1789". Quite a prescient thought
Yeah, that was Freddie.
"What I know or believe about the situation in Russia impels me to the opinion that the Russians are approaching their 1789. The revolution must break out there in a given time; it may break out there any day. In these circumstances the country is like a charged mine which only needs a fuse to be laid to it. Especially since March 13. This is one of the exceptional cases where it is possible for a handful of people to make a revolution, i.e., with one small push to cause a whole system, which (to use a metaphor of Plekhanov's) is in more than labile equilibrium, to come crashing down, and thus by one action, in itself insignificaat, to release uncontrollable explosive forces. Well now, if ever Blanquism--the phantasy of overturning an entire society through the action of a small conspiracy--had a certain justification for its existence, that is certainly in Petersburg. Once the spark has been put to the powder, once the forces have been released and national energy has been transformed from potential into kinetic energy (another favourite image of Plekhanov's and a very good one)--the people who laid the spark to the mine will be swept away by the explosion, which will be a thousand times as strong as themselves and which will seek its vent where it can, according as the economic forces and resistances determine."


This vanguard cannot do anything in the sense that it cannot create a socialist society unless and until the rest of the working class have caught up so to speak in which case the notion of a vanguard dissolves automatically.
Well, technically, in that case the majority of the working class would be a part of the 'vanguard' (horrible metaphor here).

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs: All movements give birth organically to vanguards. Even anarchist movements. The difference is when an organization is truly a vanguard party or 5 ideologues and their dog getting together and proclaiming themselves a vanguard. It does not work like that. The vanguard party emerges from massive struggles - right now there just exists currents and fractions.

[LeninBalls]

What we have seen in the past has led us to doubt Vanguardism, that is a Vanguard Party. I believe this is a good thing because in my opinion a Vanguard Party will always mutate into some sort of authoritarian bourgeois organisation. I do not quite understand how a Vanguard Party could lead to the emancipation of the working class, then again it may just be my ignorance: My understanding of it being the most 'advanced' members of the proletariat, leading a revolution and subsequently ruling over the 'less advanced' members of the proletariat. This does not seem like emancipation, but the reformation of a social elite.

That is not a vanguard.

[Revy]

There is some merits to the idea of the vanguard party, just not how it is has been carried out.
Focusing too much on the idea of being "the vanguard party" (or similar prophetic language) leads to cultish/sectarian behavior.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is some merits to the idea of the vanguard party, just not how it is has been carried out.
Focusing too much on the idea of being "the vanguard party" (or similar prophetic language) leads to cultish/sectarian behavior.

"We are the chosen!" "We are the elect (few)!" :D

[Dave B]

I think Lenin put the ‘Vanguardist’ position most succinctly in quoting Kautsky in WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

So he says;




……….. we shall quote the following profoundly just and important utterances by Karl Kautsky on the new draft program of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party



But Socialism and the classs struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge.

Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process.

The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia (K. K.'s italics): it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern Socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done.

Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without (von Aussen Hineingetragenes) and not something that arose within it spontaneously (urwüchsig). Accordingly, the old Hainfeld program quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task There would be no need for this if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle



With a footnote from Lenin



This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. But they take part not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and advance that knowledge.

And in order that workingmen may be able to do this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers generally; the workers must not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of "literature for workers" but should learn to master general literature to an increasing degree.

It would be even more true to say "are not confined," instead of "must not confine themselves," because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia and it is only a few (bad) intellectuals who believe that it is sufficient "for the workers" to be told a few things about factory conditions, and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known.



http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/WD02i.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/WD02i.html)


Well aside from the fact that this was bollocks when it was written and that communism’ did arise from the working class and the 'bourgeois intelligentsia' just picked up on it. Eg Weitling and the League of the Just etc.

Working class communism also pre dated that and was as old as capitalism itself with Gerard Winstanley, who had quite an adequate understanding of the higher phase of communism and even an almost materialist concept of history.

If there ever was a condescending and patronising grain of truth in Lenin’s view 100 years ago there is that much less of it now.

Bad intellectuals are however certainly ‘still a problem’ as for instance those ‘who believe it is sufficient for the workers to be told’ that Bolshevik Russia was not state capitalism.

But I suppose we can’t directly blame Lenin for that one.

However there is I believe a line of continuity between WHAT IS TO BE DONE? and the following, for everybody apart from the bourgeois intelligentsia itself probably.

V. I. Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's Mistakes




But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship.

It can be exercised only by a vanguard …………


http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

So the dictatorship of the Vanguard (party).

Engels himself had a somewhat different attitude;

1890, Engels to Otto Von Boenigk, In Breslau;



The patronizing and errant lecturing of our so-called intellectuals seems to me a far greater impediment.

You speak of an absence of uniform insight. This exists — but on the part of the intellectuals to stem from the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie and who do not suspect how much they still have to learn from the workers...



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm)


Bad vanguardism begins at home of course with the organisation of the vanguard party and the deferential attitude to the patronizing and errant lecturing of the intellectual leaders.

And Garbage in Garbage out, or as Engels put it in;

1874, The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune




that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class (or from Lenin- the whole of that class), the proletariat, but of the small minority ( the vanguard party) that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That is not a vanguard.

Yes I was describing a vanguard party.

[LeninBalls]

Yes I was describing a vanguard party.

Which is a vanguard, which isn't what you described.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Which is a vanguard, which isn't what you described.

Ok I was describing the model used in the Soviet Union.