The vanguard party & the broad party

[Revy]

I contend that the socialist movement is the vanguard of the working class. The parties that make up the socialist movement are factions of the vanguard. Therefore I call for a new kind of vanguardism, which emphasises the movement, rather than party, as the definition of the vanguard, but one in which the party plays a prominent organizational role. this provides a bridge between the two dominating trends of anarchist movement building and Marxist party building. The point we should embrace is that you can have both! :)

Our various parties are organized for the liberation of the working class through socialist revolution. The question is not one of sole leadership, but of collective advancement. The socialist movement has been so divided because the parties disagree on what they see as fundamental issues (the application of what a lot of people would call "false democratic centralism"). Tony Cliff for example, was expelled from a party for advancing the idea that Russia was a bureaucratic state capitalist regime. So far in application the concept of the vanguard party has led to ego-boosting sectarian antics of parties which see themselves as upholding the correct "line". Such divisions act as an imitation of nationalism on a relatively tiny scale.

We should revise this idea of a vanguard party to the concept of a broad party. The broad party as a multi-tendency revolutionary democratic party would support revolution and help promote unity of the working class vanguard that is the socialist movement. The existence of a broad party does not necessarily preclude the existence of other broad parties, as the defining nature of a broad party is how it is organized, not its position within a movement. But I believe that the organizational model of the broad party is the best to help build a party that can fight for revolution.

Related article (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=5&issue=100)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I contend that the socialist movement is the vanguard of the working class. The parties that make up the socialist movement are factions of the vanguard. Therefore I call for a new kind of vanguardism, which emphasises the movement, rather than party, as the definition of the vanguard, but one in which the party plays a prominent organizational role. this provides a bridge between the two dominating trends of anarchist movement building and Marxist party building. The point we should embrace is that you can have both! :)

This "new" kind of vanguardism, comrade, is older than what passes today as "vanguardism." I agree with your emphasis on the "movement" as opposed to the "party" in relation to what Lars Lih dubbed the "Kautsky revival" on the left. However, there are issues with your semantics.

What about party-movements instead? The "party" should have the key elements that make it simultaneously the movement (i.e., not just newspaper antics or protest antics :rolleyes: ) since, in the older vanguardism, the party *is* the merger of revolutionary "socialism" and the worker-class movement.

On the other hand, today's "movements" tend to make fetishes of spontaneity and then organizational defeatism (stikhiinost), and also lack the various goodies that made up past movements (the "alternative culture" stuff). :(

[MilitantWorker]

Stancel:

I believe that the positions you have taken in the above post are somewhat a result of maybe some misconceptions that you are holding.

As much as language like this is meant to invigorate and hype me up, it really in the end just sort of bores me. What I see here is a bunch of hot air that's been published as if it is some sort of epiphany, when in reality its just another boring attempt to become free from past ideological mistakes/constraints. This type of stuff becomes so speculative and idealistic that, while I know many comrades involved hold genuine communist intentions, it really just bankrupts itself.

The type of Trotskyist organizations that put out this type of rhetoric always seemed to me to be a "fanclub of the workers". They talk about everything but what the workers are actually doing-- how they are actually reacting and internalizing ruling class attacks all over the world, especially in the last decade or so.


The political history of Cliff’s tendency is little different from the rest of British Trotskyism. Throughout the Vietnam war it supported North Vietnamese capitalism, backed by Russian imperialism. In contrast to other leftists the IS supported Labour when it sent troops to Northern Ireland in 1969. In Afghanistan it defended the US-backed guerrillas against the Russian-backed government. In the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, in which more than half a million people died, the SWP took the side of [the state and government] Iran*. However, they switched to defence of Iraqi capitalism during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Last year in ex-Yugoslavia they defended Serbian repression of Kosovo. Yet, in the recent election for London mayor they called for a vote for Ken Livingstone, the keenest supporter for NATO’s bombing of Serbia. The fact that the SWP appears to be inconsistent in bestowing its favours is not important. Its basic loyalty will always be to British capitalism, particularly as a left cover for the Labour Party.

*just wanted to clarify--I88

I'm not in complete agreement with everything said in this article. Keep in mind it was written by an individual. With that said, here's the link if you're interested: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_tcliff.htm

[red_che]

Stancel:


I contend that the socialist movement is the vanguard of the working class. The parties that make up the socialist movement are factions of the vanguard. Therefore I call for a new kind of vanguardism, which emphasises the movement, rather than party, as the definition of the vanguard, but one in which the party plays a prominent organizational role.

Sir, This is what I can only say, and I'll quote it from the Communist Manifesto:


The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

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 ad vantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


this provides a bridge between the two dominating trends of anarchist movement building and Marxist party building. The point we should embrace is that you can have both!

I'm afraid this is not possible. Anarchists are not Communists. And based from the passage from the Communist Manifesto above-quoted, it is only the Communists that are the vanguard of the proletariat. :)

The divisions within the the proletarian movement are due to many issues. And these issues are let's say complicated on the surface, but not really complicated if further analysis is done. The divisions are a result of the continually evolving struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Sadly, within the movement itself, there are those blinded by bourgeois ideas posing as "revolutionary" ideas. An example is the defeat of socialism in Russia (USSR), China and in many other countries. Revisionism is at the root of this division within the revolutionary parties.

The longstanding "conflict" between the Communists and the Anarchists is another manifestation of the continuing class struggle. I believe that there is really a fundamental difference between the Communists (Marxists) and the Anarchists. These conflicts are not only manifested only tin the disagreement as to how the revolution should be done. The disagreement is more on the analysis of the class itself and how can the proletariat achieve communism.