Vanguardism

[Comrade Kaile]

ok...
ive seen a few threads on here about vanguard party, i know essentially what it is, and in many respects i agree with it, however id like to know what it was that made the bolshevik vanguardism a failure in regards to spreading their message...
opinions?

[Q]

Could you be more specific? What exactly are you referring when you talk about the failure of the bolsheviks? Also, what do you understand as "vanguardism"? In what aspects do you agree with it and where do you disagree? Why?

Depending on this you can perhaps get a better answer.

[Comrade Kaile]

ok vanguard of the proletariat, communists informing the workers and whatnot of their place in the revolution etc. etc.

i agree in informing the proletariat of their situation and whatnot, but i disagree with the construction of a vanguard party. i believe itd lead to bureaucracy which i cant abide

as for the second i was hoping you could tell me
ive heard various people denounce vanguard as it was bolshevik, others believed it was a failure and didnt create a class consciousness

what i want to know is exactly what was the old vanguard, and the porblems issues etc. and what has become of it in modern society

[The Ungovernable Farce]

ok vanguard of the proletariat, communists informing the workers and whatnot of their place in the revolution etc. etc.

i agree in informing the proletariat of their situation and whatnot, but i disagree with the construction of a vanguard party. i believe itd lead to bureaucracy which i cant abide
You're spot on. There is a need for revolutionary organisations, but they don't have to take the need of a vanguard party. If we want to create an equal society, our organisations have to be free and equal in themselves, without internal rulers and ruled.

[Искра]

I can't give you right quote on English now, but this is translated from Croatian:

"The emancipation of the workers will be work of workers themselves or it will never happen"

This is what I have to say on this subject. There's no vanguard, there are no leaders. That's why this is harder to achieve, but it will be permanent.

[ComradeOm]

ive heard various people denounce vanguard as it was bolshevik, others believed it was a failure and didnt create a class consciousnessThe Bolshevik Party (the vanguard party) was comprised of precisely those who were, in Lenin's words, "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes". It was a remarkably effective organisation that succeeded in connecting with and mobilising vast segments of the Russian proletariat. To quote Sukhanov:

"The Bolsheviks were working stubbornly and without let-up. They were among the masses, at the factory-benches, every day without a pause. Tens of speakers, big and little, were speaking in Petersburg, at the factories and in the barracks, every blessed day. For the masses they had become their own people, because they were always there, taking the lead in details as well as in the most important affairs of the factory or barracks... The mass[es] lived and breathed together with the Bolsheviks."

The idea of the vanguard as something divorced from or alien to the proletariat is a complete falsification. See my sig for more details on what the vanguard party actually entailed in 1917

[el_chavista]

I think the Vanguard is essential for the seizure of political power, if we are to give credit to the fact that the working class alone can not develop its own ideology beyond labor unionism.
But the vanguard is mainly made out of petite bourgeois ("middle class") and they tend to bureaucratize any revolution (proletarian or not). Should the vanguard (the party) wither away along with the State?

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the Vanguard is essential for the seizure of political power,

The vanguard is not something which can be necessary or unnecessary, as it is simply an empirical fact - the recognition that the working class does not exhibit a uniform level of consciousness, and that there is currently a segment of the class that is already committed to the overthrow of capitalism, despite being subject to the ideas of the ruling class, with a sound understanding of why capitalism is a system based on injustice, unable to address the concerns of the vast majority of humanity, and what needs to be done to get rid of the system, and replace it with a more egalitarian alternative. At the most basic level, Lenin's conception of the revolutionary party is that this segment of the class ("the vanguard" if you like) should organize together, and, by taking up positions of leadership in popular struggles, (that is, by demonstrating to their fellow workers that they have the tactics that inflict defeats on capital) and arguing against the ideas that create divisions within the working class, win the rest of the class over to a revolutionary position, free from the ideological contamination of the bosses. It is not a party of intellectuals, nor is it a party that is dominated by an isolated Politburo - it is a party that is based on the working class, a party that seeks to base itself on Marx's observation that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself". This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did, which is why they succeeded in obtaining a majority in the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, on the basis of instant recall, with delegates being elected from the ranks of the working class.

PS - there is no such word as "vanguardism".

[Jimmie Higgins]

ComradeOm has it right.

In my understanding of a vanguard, there is a vanguard in the working class with or without a party, the vanguard party is based on the idea of organizing this "vanguard" (the activists and workers at the front of the struggle) into one party.

If you think about your workplace or school, you can identify the groups or individuals who are more constantly thinking about how to organize and win and have a conception of the class war - this is the vanguard. It doesn't mean that everyone else is shit or not smart, it just means they haven't radicalized yet. Before the vanguard party there was the broad class-based party which would include revolutionaries as well as reformists and even some reactionaries. The Bolsheviks thought this model lead to conservatism in the party and wanted a party of committed revolutionaries.

Vanguard parties have a bad rap because of Stalinism and groups who proclaim themselves "the vanguard of the working class" even though they are small and marginal and the working class has not faith in (or much knowledge of) them. A Vanguard party in the sense of a party that leads the working class can only be picked by the working class itself - not one will just take your word for it if you proclaim yourself the vanguard, you have to show that your ideas are the best to move the class struggle forward and win the confidence of workers.

[Pogue]

The vanguard is not something which can be necessary or unnecessary, as it is simply an empirical fact - the recognition that the working class does not exhibit a uniform level of consciousness, and that there is currently a segment of the class that is already committed to the overthrow of capitalism, despite being subject to the ideas of the ruling class, with a sound understanding of why capitalism is a system based on injustice, unable to address the concerns of the vast majority of humanity, and what needs to be done to get rid of the system, and replace it with a more egalitarian alternative. At the most basic level, Lenin's conception of the revolutionary party is that this segment of the class ("the vanguard" if you like) should organize together, and, by taking up positions of leadership in popular struggles, (that is, by demonstrating to their fellow workers that they have the tactics that inflict defeats on capital) and arguing against the ideas that create divisions within the working class, win the rest of the class over to a revolutionary position, free from the ideological contamination of the bosses. It is not a party of intellectuals, nor is it a party that is dominated by an isolated Politburo - it is a party that is based on the working class, a party that seeks to base itself on Marx's observation that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself". This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did, which is why they succeeded in obtaining a majority in the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, on the basis of instant recall, with delegates being elected from the ranks of the working class.

PS - there is no such word as "vanguardism".

The Bolshevik party was however dominated by intellectuals. Look at Lenin and Trotsky, for example. I think the party certainly had a proletarian nature intially but it soon betrayed this.

[KC]

The Bolshevik party was however dominated by intellectuals. Look at Lenin and Trotsky, for example. I think the party certainly had a proletarian nature intially but it soon betrayed this.

First, how was it dominated by intellectuals?

Second, when did it have this proletarian nature (for if it was dominated by intellectuals then your statements are either self-refuting or you are saying that a party of intellectuals can have a proletarian nature) and when did it "betray this"?

[ComradeOm]

The Bolshevik party was however dominated by intellectuals. Look at Lenin and Trotsky, for exampleWhat about Kamenev, son of a railway worker? What about Sverdlov, son of a printer? What about Nogin, son of a weaver? What about Zinoviev, Milyutin, Stalin, and Smilga - all children of peasants? And that is this is the highest level of the party in early 1917 alone. Go down a tier and you'll find the likes of Shliapnikov, Kirov, Kalinin, Antonov, Larin, Sokolnikov, etc, etc were all from proletarian or peasant backgrounds. And of course this applies even more to the Bolshevik rank and file which was overwhelmingly proletarian in character... and this was the same party body that elected "Lenin and Trotsky" to the CC

[redasheville]

The Bolshevik party was however dominated by intellectuals. Look at Lenin and Trotsky, for example. I think the party certainly had a proletarian nature intially but it soon betrayed this.

This is simply not true. In 1917, the Bolsheviks were a MASS party with tens of thousands of members organized in factories and in the military. As a matter of fact, it was the Bolsheviks under Lenin that were most optimistic and most confident on the ability for workers to be won over to socialism. That is what What Is To Be Done? was really about. Intellectuals have a role to play in revolutionary organizations because, duh, education is denied to so many workers under capitalism. It is actually elitist to argue that workers will always be dominated by the intellectuals because it paints a picture of the working class as blank slate automatons, easily dooped by sneaky jerks with PhDs, and incapable of becoming intellectuals (what Gramsci called "organic intellectuals" themselves or being able to maintain democratic control over their own organizations.

What exactly are we supposed to look for when we "look at Lenin and Trotsky"? Trotsky wasn't even a member of the Bolsheviks until 1917, and he was elected to positions of influence by the workers themselves in the Petrograd Soviet. I'm a little confused as to what exactly you are arguing.

[Outinleftfield]

The idea of the vanguard party was as another poster stated the idea of putting the vanguard, the radicals, the workers with class conscious together into one party.

The problem is that this lead to a rejection and criminalization of any independent organizing. When this happens the vanguard party can do what ever it wants. It can stop being the vanguard and just look out for itself while pretending to be leading the working class in class consciousness.

We must allow multiple vanguards. People might want to form a separately organized organizations because they believe the already existing ones are not completely following the same revolutionary principles or even because they believe different economic strategies and policies are necessary for society. These different organizations could criticize each other and in the case of one of these organizations engaging in violence even police each other in a system of polycentric socialist law.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think the Vanguard is essential for the seizure of political power, if we are to give credit to the fact that the working class alone can not develop its own ideology beyond labor unionism. But why should we give any credit to such a fucking disgusting patronising anti-socialist lie?


PS - there is no such word as "vanguardism".
Lol, wikipedia disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism).

[redasheville]

But why should we give any credit to such a fucking disgusting patronising anti-socialist lie?

Lol, wikipedia disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism).

LOL at using wikipedia in a ostensibly serious discussion.

Anyway, what Lenin meant in WitbD on the question of consciousness is that workers will never become revolutionary socialists through the trade union struggle ALONE. In other words, a worker involved in a union will not magically become a Marxist (or anarchist or whatever), workers have to be exposed to revolutionary agitation/propaganda. The trade union struggle in and of itself will only restrict workers to trade union consciousness. There is nothing elitist about that. If you disagree, what is the point of having revolutionary organizations?

It is also important to note that Lenin argued this in the context of a debate with revolutionaries who were arguing around just agitating on "bread and butter" union demands AND NOTHING ELSE.

[chegitz guevara]

It's also important to note that Lenin was speaking historically. Socialism did NOT arise from the worker class, but from the heads of people like Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, and Karl Marx, middle class or bourgeois, all of them. Lenin was pointing out, from his reading of Kautsky, that socialism actually did come to the worker class from outside, that social democracy (in the old usage) was the merger of the socialism and the workers movement.

Lenin was arguing against those who claimed the workers had no need for a revolutionary party, that all the workers needed were trade unions, that the workers should only concern themselves with bread and butter issues. In fact, Lenin was arguing the opposite of elitism, as his opponents claimed that the workers had no need of democracy or politics or the overthrow of the Tsar, that the socialists were trying to co-opt the workers for their own ends. Lenin argues that the workers needed democracy as much as they needed air and light. Lenin was the one excited about the workers self-movement. He was shouting at the economists, the workers are already moving in a revolutionary direction, how dare you try and hold them back! The real problem with social democracy isn't that we're trying to divert the workers for our own ends, but that we don't have enough capable worker-leaders to give the masses the leadership they are demanding.

What Lenin is NOT saying is that from now on, workers cannot come to socialist consciousness on their own. He does point out, however, that the bourgeoisie is constantly bombarding the workers with its own ideology (and this before radio, television, or internet), and without the intervention of the social democrats, the workers will "naturally" tend to follow this path. It is our job to make them stray from this path, towards revolutionary politics.

[redasheville]

Exactly.

Lenin had more confidence in the workers ability to become revolutionary than any other person on the Russian left at that time. What Is To Be Done was a call for building a party, modeled on German social democracy, in Russia conditions.

[chegitz guevara]

BTW, when the masses demand leadership, they do it literally. When I was at uni many years ago, after a betrayal by the student government during a protest they'd started, which exploded beyond their wants, people I didn't know came up to me and asked me what I was going to do about it, and to organize something. Comrades have had similar experiences at work, where after a long while of talking politics, people will tell them, such and such is going down, we want you to lead us. And, just as Lenin said, we were unprepared for the challenge.

[robbo203]

As I have argued in previous posts I think it is important to recognise that there are two quite different senses in which we can talk of "vanguardism".

The first is a decriptive or empirical sense of the term. This recognises the obvious and undeniable fact that withthe growth of communist (socialist) consciousness (upon which the establishment of a communist society is absolutely predicated), there are going to be some workers who will arrive at communist conclusions before others. They will, in this non-controversial sense, constitute a "vanguard", hopefully prefiguring the mass communist outlook of workers generally sometime in the future.

The second sense of the term is strategic or prescriptive. It argues that a communist (socialist) revolution cannot be carried out by a communist-minded majority but has to be orchestrated and implemented by a minority (the vanguard) and, moreover, this minority must assume control in the aftermath of such a revolution since the "unenlightened" majority cannot be trusted to exercise such control.

This second sense of the term is typically associated with Lenin and his theory of the vanguard party. It directly contradicts the kind of approach espoused for example by
Engels in his Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggles in France 1848-50:

The time is past for revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses. Where it is a question of the complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they must act. That much the history of the last fifty years has taught us. But so that the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is required… even in France the Socialists realize more and more that no durable success is possible unless they win over in advance the great mass of the people

Similarly Marx and Engels had argued in 1879:

"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois" (www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm)).

Curiously, Lenin was not entirely consistent in his views. Even in What is to be Done there are passages that seem to suggest an approach not dissimilar to Engels emphasis on educational work. Thus he argued that "Our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries". He also called for an "open" and transperent party (though this contradicts his call elsewhere for "a powerful and strictly secret organisation, which concentrates in its hands all the threads of secret activities, an organisation which of necessity must be a centralised organisation")

However, Lenin essentially took his cue from Kautsky who maintained that socialist ideas were not the result of class struggle but arose from representatives of the bourgious intelligentisa who alone were equipped with the neccessary scientific knowlege to grasp these ideas. Here are a few quote from Lenin (What is to be Done) that illustrate this point


"The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals" (Foreign Languages Publishing House edition, Moscow, pp. 50-51).

"Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside of the economic struggle, from outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers" ( p.133).

"The spontaneous working class movement by itself is able to create (and inevitably creates) only trade unionism, and working class trade unionist politics are precisely working class bourgeois politics" (pp. 159-60)

Lenin's position was thus an idealist one. Socialist ideas arose not from class struggle but from outside of the system of capitalist economic relations - from the well endowed minds of certain members of the bourgeois intelligentsia

Moreover, Lenin insisted that the communist (socialist) revolution should not be held back by the lack of communist consciousness among the majority. Thus, in a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 he maintained:
"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…" (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Reed’s emphasis and omissions, Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15).

Let us be clear that what Lenin was doing here was to reject the marxian principle that there can be no communism without mass communist consciousness. But if such a mass communist consciousness does not exist you cannot have communism - its as simpe as that - and therefore you are left only with the option of developing capitalism. This was the whole point of the Bolshevik agenda - to develop capitalism in Russia - and why the Bolshevik revolution was fundamentally a capitalist revolution not a socialist revolution notwithstanding its "socialistic" rhetoric. Not only did Russia not have the necessary mass consciousness to effect a genuine communist revolution; the economic backwardness of the country made it impossible to sustain a communist mode of production . THIS is why Lenin argued instead for state capitalism which he maintained would be a step forward to "socialism" (but then he also dishonestly equated "socialism" with state capitalism).

Lenin's vanguardist outlook fits in very well with developing state capitalist agenda of the Bolsheviks. Initially, of course, the Bolsheviks did not exercise the kind of centralised control they were later able to impose on the working class. As Murray Bookchin points out, the February revolution started with a spontaneous protests and strikes yet "the Petrograd organisation of the Bolsheviks opposed the calling of strikes precisely on the eve of the revolution which was destined to overthrow the Tsar. Fortunately, the workers ignored the Bolshevik 'directives' and went on strike anyway. In the events which followed, no one was more surprised by the revolution than the 'revolutionary' parties, including the Bolsheviks." Even Trostsky had to acknowlege that the situation "called for resolute confrontation of the sluggish Party machine with masses and ideas in motion" and that "the masses were incomparably more revolutionary than the Party, which in turn was more revolutionary than its committeemen" . Of course , the setting up of worker councils, factory committees and so on was not tantamount to a communist revolution - the wages system was certainly not done away! - and if anything there was some concern at the time that individual factories under the control of the workers would tend to become too narrowly focussed on the pursuit of their own profits and wellbeing without regard to the welfare of society in general. So we are still very much talking about a capitalist system here. However, it was certainly the case that the workers were able to exercise a much greater degree of control over production than before the revolution.

The role of the Bolshevik Party was, step by step, to take this control out of the hands of the workers and to place it in the hands of the (capitalist) state. In short, to reassert capitalist management and control. Even before the civil war broke out (which has been used as a pretext for justifying the undemocratic authoritarian measures introduced by the Bolsheviks) Lenin was already talking (in article in Isvestiya in April 1918) about the need to measure labour productivity and to organise the "study and teaching of the Talyor system". "Unquestioning submission to a single will", he maintained, "is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process" . This is hardly an example of "workers control" (which Lenin had earlier endorsed). In the same month, at the trade union congress Lenin talked about the "necessity of recognising the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the purpose of carrying out the soviet idea". Already by March 1918 workers control was abolished on the railways and a decree was issued emphaising the need "iron labour discipline" and individual management. All this fits neatly with the hierarchical political model of the vanguard party of the Bolsheviks. While the "practice" did not, to begin with, square with the model, over time it is absolutely indisputable that it began to confrom more and more to the model

The civil war simply speeded up the the latent state capitalist agenda of the Bolsheviks. The trade union movement become nothing more than a means of enforcing the will of an increasingly powerful and centralised capitalist state. By January 1920 , the power of workers’ councils in the factories was abolished. The remnants of the factory committees were instructed to "devote themselves to the questions of labour discipline, of propaganda and of education of the workers". Labour slackers were punished and labour deserters were rounded up and put into concentration camps. In the meanwhile a small minority of economic parasites in the form of the state bourgeoise were graduually enriching themselves at the expense of the vast majority. This was to evolve under Stalin into the one of the most unequal societies on the face of the earth

These vicious authoritarian state capitalist economic measures promoted by the Bolsheviks mirrored, in my view, the authoritarian political model of the vanguard party espoused by the Leninists. They hang together. completely. The civil war allowed the Bolsheviks not only to justify crushing all opposition but also the elimination of all dissent and factionalism within the Party itself. The Soviets became a mere rubberstamping facade - a farce - behind which a tiny powerful elite exercised a ruthless dictatorship over the proletariat

In short, the Soviet Union was based from start to finish on one big lie. It is unfortunate that so many millions of ordinary men and women fell for this lie down the decades. More than any other single factor, it has helped to hold back the growth of a genuine communist movement and divert it down what has clearly turned out to be a complete dead end. Who knows? But for that, we might have had the real thing by now

[chegitz guevara]

The previous post is the mainstream understanding of Lenin. It is entirely wrong, supported only by cherry picking quotes. Rediscovering Lenin (http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PP1&dq=lars+lih+rediscovering+lenin&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false) completely destroys that old, incorrect view of history.

[robbo203]

The previous post is the mainstream understanding of Lenin. It is entirely wrong, supported only by cherry picking quotes. Rediscovering Lenin (http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PP1&dq=lars+lih+rediscovering+lenin&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false) completely destroys that old, incorrect view of history.

Even if I was only "cherry picking quotes" as you say - that hardly makes my assessment "entirely wrong" . At the very most you can claim it is one-sided or partial but the quotes are quotes from Lenin and are not in that sense wrong. They do express what Lenin actually said.

I think the assessment I made of Lenin's theory of the vanguard party is a reasonable one and that that this theory is totally at odds with the view that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. That is why as a revolutionary I emphatically oppose leninism in all its guises

[KC]

The previous post is the mainstream understanding of Lenin. It is entirely wrong, supported only by cherry picking quotes. Rediscovering Lenin (http://www.anonym.to/?http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PP1&dq=lars+lih+rediscovering+lenin&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false) completely destroys that old, incorrect view of history.

The failure of robbo's explanation of Lenin's concept of the party is his failure to understand that Lenin's concept of an underground party was due entirely to historical circumstances, which Lenin explicitly stated in his works relating to his concept of the party around 1901-1903. His separation of legal tactics from illegal tactics and the distinction of the trade unions from the underground Social Democrat party was entirely due to the persecution faced by the Tsarist government and the only valid model for a Social Democratic party at the time.

Of course, we all know that robbo is an economist in the most traditional sense, so he sees this distinction between the trade unions and legal work and the revolutionary Social Democratic and illegal work as substitutionism and perhaps even Blanquism.

We see that Lenin, in the work which robbo and other economists (and anti-Leninists in general) attempt to condemn him on this issue, actually openly and blatantly disproves them:


In countries where political liberty exists the distinction between a trade union and a political organisation is clear enough, as is the distinction between trade unions and Social-Democracy. The relations between the latter and the former will naturally vary in each country according to historical, legal, and other conditions; they may be more or less close, complex, etc. (in our opinion they should be as close and as little complicated as possible ); but there can be no question in free countries of the organisation of trade unions coinciding with the organisation of the Social-Democratic Party. In Russia, however, the yoke of the autocracy appears at first glance to obliterate all distinctions between the Social-Democratic organisation and the workers’ associations, since all workers’ associations and all study circles are prohibited, and since the principal manifestation and weapon of the workers’ economic struggle — the strike — is regarded as a criminal (and sometimes even as a political!) offence. Conditions in our country, therefore, on the one hand, strongly “impel” the workers engaged in economic struggle to concern themselves with political questions, and, on the other, they “impel” Social-Democrats to confound trade-unionism with Social-Democracy (and our Krichevskys, Martynoys, and Co., while diligently discussing the first kind of “impulsion”, fail to notice the second). Indeed, picture to yourselves people who are immersed ninety-nine per cent in “the economic struggle against the employers and the government”. Some of them will never, during the entire course of their activity (from four to six months), be impelled to think of the need for a more complex organisation of revolutionaries. Others, perhaps, will come across the fairly widely distributed Bernsteinian literature, from which they will become convinced of the profound importance of the forward movement of “the drab everyday struggle”. Still others will be carried away, perhaps, by the seductive idea of showing the world a new example of “close and organic contact with the proletarian struggle” — contact between the trade union and the Social Democratic movements. Such people may argue that the later a country enters the arena of capitalism and, consequently, of the working-class movement, the more the socialists in that country may take part in, and support, the trade union movement, and the less the reason for the existence of non-Social-Democratic trade unions. So far the argument is fully correct; [B]unfortunately, however, some go beyond that and dream of a complete fusion of Social-Democracy with trade-unionism. We shall soon see, from the example of the Rules of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, what a harmful effect such dreams have upon our plans of organisation.

The workers’ organisations for the economic struggle should be trade union organisations. Every Social-Democratic worker should as far as possible assist and actively work in these organisations. But, while this is true, it is certainly not in our interest to demand that only Social-Democrats should be eligible for membership in the “trade” unions, since that would only narrow the scope of our influence upon the masses. Let every worker who understands the need to unite for the struggle against the employers and the government join the trade unions. The very aim of the trade unions would be impossible of achievement, if they did not unite all who have attained at least this elementary degree of understanding, if they were not very broad organisations. The broader these organisations, the broader will be our influence over them — an influence due, not only to the “spontaneous” development of the economic struggle, but to the direct and conscious effort of the socialist trade union members to influence their comrades. But a broad organisation cannot apply methods of strict secrecy (since this demands far greater training than is required for the economic struggle). How is the contradiction between the need for a large membership and the need for strictly secret methods to be reconciled? How are we to make the trade unions as public as possible? Generally speaking, there can be only two ways to this end: either the trade unions become legalised (in some countries this preceded the legalisation of the socialist and political unions), or the organisation is kept secret, but so “free” and amorphous, lose[5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm#fwV05P454F01) as the Germans say, that the need for secret methods becomes almost negligible as far as the bulk of the members is concerned.

etc...

V.I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done? Ch. 4 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm)

I would suggest anyone interested in this debate to read from these paragraphs on, as Lenin explicitly addresses and destroys the accusations robbo is hurling against him, which are the exact same accusations the economists at the time were putting forward (which, as I said before, is not surprising in the slightest, given the economist and ultimately liberal nature of robbo's politics).

[redasheville]

Even if I was only "cherry picking quotes" as you say - that hardly makes my assessment "entirely wrong" . At the very most you can claim it is one-sided or partial but the quotes are quotes from Lenin and are not in that sense wrong. They do express what Lenin actually said.

I think the assessment I made of Lenin's theory of the vanguard party is a reasonable one and that that this theory is totally at odds with the view that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. That is why as a revolutionary I emphatically oppose leninism in all its guises

See, you really need to read Lenin Rediscovered. It has a whole section on the "scandalous passages", which you cite above and why they have been entirely misunderstood (by both proponents and opponents of Leninism).

Lenin was trying to create a revolutionary socialist party, based on the model of the German SPD, in Russian conditions. He was arguing against those who thought it couldn't be done, and that the workers movement would not lead the struggle against the Tzar. It was Lenin who argued that the workers would lead the struggle against the Tzar, and hence it was Lenin who was most confident in the idea of the self emancipation of the working class.

[chegitz guevara]

Even if I was only "cherry picking quotes" as you say - that hardly makes my assessment "entirely wrong".

Actually it does. It means you are selectively quoting for purposes of promoting a false view of reality. As the Gospels claim, the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes. I could cherry pick quotes from Adolph Hitler to make him seem like a democrat. That would be promoting a false view.

If you take Lenin's quotes out of context, you cannot understand them.


I think the assessment I made of Lenin's theory of the vanguard party is a reasonable oneIt is reasonable, if you omit all the facts. It is reasonable because social democratic, anarchist, Stalinist, and even Trotskyist groups have helped promote it. It is, however, opposed by what really happened and what Lenin was really arguing about. Now, I outlined in previous posts, along side redashville, what Lenin actually wrote, and was actually trying to do.

[robbo203]

The failure of robbo's explanation of Lenin's concept of the party is his failure to understand that Lenin's concept of an underground party was due entirely to historical circumstances, which Lenin explicitly stated in his works relating to his concept of the party around 1901-1903. His separation of legal tactics from illegal tactics and the distinction of the trade unions from the underground Social Democrat party was entirely due to the persecution faced by the Tsarist government and the only valid model for a Social Democratic party at the time.).

This I am well aware of and, if you read what I wrote rather than allow your prejudices do get the better of you, you would have seen that I acknowleged that Lenin's view on the need for a secret centralised organisation contrasted with his views on the need for an open transperant party. Such discrepancies are explicable in terms of the differences in historical circumstance

However all of this special pleading by the leninist brigrade falls to the ground once we examine the situation post-revolution when the Bolsheviks came to power and brutally crushed all oppostion and all dissent within and outside its ranks. Here it was not a case of the Bolsheviks facing persecution from a Tsarist govenrment. Here it was case of the Bolsheviks being the goevernment and acting very much in line with Lenin's elitist and anti-communist theory of the the vanguard to impose a brutal state capitalist dictatorship over the proletariat. Like I said the authoritarian hierachical organisation of the Bolsheviks that increasingly manifested itself over time - it was not much in evidence in the ferment and chaos of 1917 - reflected the authoritarian hierarchical nature of the state capitalist dictatorship they sought to impose on Russian society. Hence penchant for one man-management , subordination to a singe will, taylorism, and the abolition of the power of workers councils in 1920 and so on and so forth




I would suggest anyone interested in this debate to read from these paragraphs on, as Lenin explicitly addresses and destroys the accusations robbo is hurling against him, which are the exact same accusations the economists at the time were putting forward (which, as I said before, is not surprising in the slightest, given the economist and ultimately liberal nature of robbo's politics).

Like I said before it always amuses me when trotskist supporters of left wing capitalism accuse revolutionaries of being "liberals". I invite him once again to tell us of any liberal who advocates the abolition of the wages system. The bankruptcy of his arguments is all too transperent

[KC]

However all of this special pleading by the leninist brigrade falls to the ground once we examine the situation post-revolution when the Bolsheviks came to power and brutally crushed all oppostion and all dissent within and outside its ranks. Here it was not a case of the Bolsheviks facing persecution from a Tsarist govenrment. Here it was case of the Bolsheviks being the goevernment and acting very much in line with Lenin's elitist and anti-communist theory of the the vanguard to impose a brutal state capitalist dictatorship over the proletariat.

How can you reconcile your conspiratorial belief that Lenin was an elitist vanguardist (i.e. Blanquist substitutionist) with the fact that at the time of the October revolution the Bolshevik party was an incredibly open and broad (i.e. mass) party?

Moreover, how do you reconcile your belief with the fact that Lenin explicitly attacked Blanquism and terrorism for about 10 years and was one of the first and leading proponents of working class self-emancipation?

Was he lying? Was he trying to trick everyone? Or perhaps after 1917 he simply changed his mind? If so, when do you think this happened and why?


Like I said the authoritarian hierachical organisation of the Bolsheviks that increasingly manifested itself over time - it was not much in evidence in the ferment and chaos of 1917 - reflected the authoritarian hierarchical nature of the state capitalist dictatorship they sought to impose on Russian society.

So by "sought" are you trying to imply that Lenin originally was interested in imposing an "authoritarian hierarchical organization...on Russian society"? Because this is how it reads. If so, then do you think that Lenin was originally lying when he wrote about the abilities of the Russian proletariat and the central role that they must play in the revolution? Do you also think that he was lying when he supported the Bolshevik party as a mass party? How do you reconcile these facts?


Like I said before it always amuses me when trotskist supporters of left wing capitalism accuse revolutionaries of being "liberals". I invite him once again to tell us of any liberal who advocates the abolition of the wages system. The bankruptcy of his arguments is all too transperent

Ah but you in all reality don't advocate the abolition of the wage system or any revolutionary transformation of society. Much like traditional economism, your position is one of worshipping the spontaneous movement and thus of promoting the backwardness and impotence of the movement. Thus you implicitly support the tying of the proletarian class struggle with petit-bourgeois and bourgeois struggles in general.

[bailey_187]

The Bolshevik party was however dominated by intellectuals. Look at Lenin and Trotsky, for example. I think the party certainly had a proletarian nature intially but it soon betrayed this.

Yeah when that bastard son of a cobbler Stalin came to power :thumbup:

[robbo203]

How can you reconcile your conspiratorial belief that Lenin was an elitist vanguardist (i.e. Blanquist substitutionist) with the fact that at the time of the October revolution the Bolshevik party was an incredibly open and broad (i.e. mass) party?.

Like I said the Bolsheviks at the time were not really in much of position to be otherwise. They were quite simply overtaken by events. The party itself experienced a rapid upsurge of new members many of whom were later to leave as the composition and nature of the party changed in subsequent years and it become much more centralised. The broadness and openness of the Bolshevik Party at the time of the revolution happened essentially in spite of the Leninist theory of the vanguard party.



Moreover, how do you reconcile your belief with the fact that Lenin explicitly attacked Blanquism and terrorism for about 10 years and was one of the first and leading proponents of working class self-emancipation?.

Blanquism does not exhaust the meaning of the term vanguardism. You can be a vanguardist without being a blanquist. Now a question for you - How can you be an advocate of working class self emancipation when you can say things like this. All from What is to be Done
"The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness,
,pp. 50-51).
"Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside of the economic struggle, from outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers" (Lenin’s emphasis, p.133).
"The spontaneous working class movement by itself is able to create (and inevitably creates) only trade unionism, and working class trade unionist politics are precisely working class bourgeois politics" (pp. 159-60) .


How does the working class possibly emancipate "itself" if is only capable of trade union consciousness according to Lenin

Please answer the question



So by "sought" are you trying to imply that Lenin originally was interested in imposing an "authoritarian hierarchical organization...on Russian society"? Because this is how it reads. If so, then do you think that Lenin was originally lying when he wrote about the abilities of the Russian proletariat and the central role that they must play in the revolution? Do you also think that he was lying when he supported the Bolshevik party as a mass party? How do you reconcile these facts??.

In my view he wanted to use the activism and political discontent of the working class as a battering ram to achieve his stated end. Statements that appear to endorse spontaneity and self activity on the part of the workers need to be seen in this light. Trotsky actually described the situation very well in his History of the Russian Revolution, (vol. 1, p. 17]
"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston. But nevertheless, what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."



Ah but you in all reality don't advocate the abolition of the wage system or any revolutionary transformation of society. Much like traditional economism, your position is one of worshipping the spontaneous movement and thus of promoting the backwardness and impotence of the movement. Thus you implicitly support the tying of the proletarian class struggle with petit-bourgeois and bourgeois struggles in general.

Oh come on - this is pathetic drivel; its scrapping the barrel. So when I say I support the revolutionary concept of the abolition of the wages this is not actually what I am advocating. What I am actually promoting according to you is the backwardness of the movement by worshipping its spontaneity. Even if the logic of your was correct, and it is ridiculously illogical, my position is not one of worshipping spontaneity for your information. There is a place for spontaneity but there is also a place for a party organisation. But not a party organised along leninist vanguardist lines.

It is precisely Leninist vanguardism that promotes the backwardness and impotence of the movement and we saw precisely how this happened in Russia not only under Stalin but under Lenin too. His capitalist regime crushed working class organisation and self activity, destroyed worker councils, and eliminated all opposition (both inside and outside the party)to ensure that the single centralised will of the Party dictatorship over the proletariat would previal. So please dont lecture me about how I am supposed to promoting the backwardness of the movement when the very outcome of the state capitalist project to which you subscribe did precisely that

[Leo]

Here's a link to a series about the birth of Bolshevism, what it expressed and the debates in the revolutionary movement of the time which might be interesting for the discussion: http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/109

[Jimmie Higgins]

How does the working class possibly emancipate "itself" if is only capable of trade union consciousness according to LeninGood question. First of all he never said that the working class was only capable of understanding trade-union (meaning reformist) consciousness - he thought that revolutionary consciousness could not develop spontaneously.

I think Lenin is correct in the big picture, but was also underplaying the role of spontaneity in this instance to make a political point. He does this all the time because he is verrrry polemical.

Essentially what Lenin was saying was left alone, consciousness tends to be limited to reformist ideas. As Marx said, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class - so that means any movement is going to have a lot of baggage in the form of ruling class ideas.

How do you change this? Lenin thought you had to build a party to intervene and make the radical case for revolution

So in the workers movement, we tend to see people accepting that there is no alternative to capitalism, so we should accommodate. In movements against oppression, people tend to begin by pleading with the ruling class or trying to win through the courts or "friendly" politicians. Is it elitist to have a revolutionary point of view and try and win people in this movement to your arguments?

Is it elitist to go to any movement and promote a radical view of how to move forward? We see this all the time - what are you doing right now on this website? Is it elitist that you are arguing your point of view here or explain the necessity for revolution rather than just social democracy to a co-worker?

So the Lenin quote is really about spontaneity vs. having a revolutionary party, not about weather workers are fit or capable of making and winning a revolution.

In fact, far from being opposed to working class self-emancipation, Lenin has a good and much shorter answer for how workers can win and run things in their own interests: "All power to the Soviets (worker councils)!"

[robbo203]

Good question. First of all he never said that the working class was only capable of understanding trade-union (meaning reformist) consciousness - he thought that revolutionary consciousness could not develop spontaneously.

I think Lenin is correct in the big picture, but was also underplaying the role of spontaneity in this instance to make a political point. He does this all the time because he is verrrry polemical.

Essentially what Lenin was saying was left alone, consciousness tends to be limited to reformist ideas. As Marx said, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class - so that means any movement is going to have a lot of baggage in the form of ruling class ideas.

How do you change this? Lenin thought you had to build a party to intervene and make the radical case for revolution

So in the workers movement, we tend to see people accepting that there is no alternative to capitalism, so we should accommodate. In movements against oppression, people tend to begin by pleading with the ruling class or trying to win through the courts or "friendly" politicians. Is it elitist to have a revolutionary point of view and try and win people in this movement to your arguments?

Is it elitist to go to any movement and promote a radical view of how to move forward? We see this all the time - what are you doing right now on this website? Is it elitist that you are arguing your point of view here or explain the necessity for revolution rather than just social democracy to a co-worker?

So the Lenin quote is really about spontaneity vs. having a revolutionary party, not about weather workers are fit or capable of making and winning a revolution.

In fact, far from being opposed to working class self-emancipation, Lenin has a good and much shorter answer for how workers can win and run things in their own interests: "All power to the Soviets (worker councils)!"


Sorry but I just dont buy this argument. Chegitz guevara earlier accused me of cherry picking quotes from Lenin but actually I think it is quite the reverse. It is the Leninist brigade who are desparately trying to salvage a discredited theory by backpeddling in wanting to paint a presentable image of Lenin or should I say, Leninism. The stinging criticisms down the ages from the likes of Luxembourg, Gorter , Pannekoek and numerous others have really hit home and made their mark. The leninists are on the retreat.

I think the evidence is pretty clear. When Lenin said this...
"The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals" (Foreign Languages Publishing House edition

...this does NOT mean, as you contend, that he merely thought that "revolutionary consciousness could not develop spontaneously" among the working class. He talked about the inability of the working class exclusively by its own efforts (which means much more that just spontaneity and could also perfectly well entail also the formation of a working class political party) to develop socialist consciousness. He was insistent that "Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside of the economic struggle, from outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers" (What is to be Done)

The argument that has been put here by some is that,well, actually Lenin was only being empirically "realistic", that in fact it was the bourgeois intelligentsia - like Marx - who were the real carriers of revolutionary ideas while the workers remained stuck in the rut of a refomist outlook (by the wa,y trade unionism is NOT the same as "reformism" as you claim). It needs to be stated loudly and clearly that this is a load of bollocks. It displays the same elitist "Great Man" theory of History that Carlyle wrote about. Just becuase certain famous individuals are associated with the communist movement and wrote books that were widely read, does not mean that communist ideas originated with, or are confined to, them. Marx, for one, candidly acknowleged the debt he owed to the Parisian workers

I come back to the point about what I find so utterly objectionable and elitist about leninism. On elitism, by the way, you have it totally wrong. No it is not elitist to "promote a radical view of how to move forward" Nor it is elitist to argue "your point of view here or explain the necessity for revolution rather than just social democracy to a co-worker?". This is not what elitism is about. Elitism is about exclusion, not inclusion. It is about maintaining a separation between the vanguard party of professional revolutionaries and the working class.

Im sorry but Lenin was an elitist authoritarian. Of course he talked about the self activity of the working class and so on. I havent denied that. But besically this, as I explained before in an earlier post, was explicable in terms of Trotsky's analogy of providing the steam to drive the engine. Without the vanguard party according to him this working class steam would simply dissipate. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks needed the steam or energy of the workers to get them where they wanted to be and that was very much in charge, and at the helm. They were power freaks. Hence Lenin's constant reference to the need for a single will to prevail.

The really telling point in all this - which the Lenin brigade have wilfully ignored - is what is the relationship to be between the Leninist Vanguard Party and the working class. Lenin makes this abundantly clear. Here is the quote that really says it all. In a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 Lenin said:
"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…" (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Reed’s emphasis and omissions, Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15).

Here is a proposal that is totally different to the idea of merely "promoting a radical view of how to move forward" and trying to get the workers to understand the case for socialism which, as Engels had argued, was absolutely essential. Putting forward revolutionary ideas to workers in a bid to persuade them to become revolutionaries as well is one thing; resolving not to be hampered at all by the lack of a revolutionary outlook among the workers but to press ahead regardless with a revolution that you pretend is to be in the interests of these same workers, is a totally different thing altogether! You are arrogantly presuming to act upon by behalf of the workers even while acknowleding that they are not informed about what socialism is really about. And since they are not yet thus informed and since you cannot have socialism without informed socialists, this can only mean one thing - you are left with running capiitalism. And it is the exigencies of running capitalism that lead you to turn against the very class you pompously claim to speak for by implementing the the kind of anti-working class measures that Bolsheviks implemented, to deceitfully redefine state capitalism as socialsim and all of the other nonsense peddled by the Bolsheviks

Oh yes and one final thing. You say

In fact, far from being opposed to working class self-emancipation, Lenin has a good and much shorter answer for how workers can win and run things in their own interests: "All power to the Soviets (worker councils)!"

To which I can only respond with a hoarse cackle. And what became of these "workers councils" under the Bolsheviks! What became of experiments in worker controlled factories when the policy of one man mangement was imposed on them? What became of the Russian trade union movement which was reduced to a mere puppet to do the bidding of the state capitalist dictatorship. What became of all Lenin's much touted support for freedom of expression when opponents to this regime , inside and outside of the party, were crushed, dispersed imprisoned and even executed. Actions count far more than words in my view

Lenin was the consummate bourgoeis politician and opportunist to boot. And you know what they say about politicians. You dont trust them anymore than you would trust a second hand car salesman.

[KC]

Like I said the Bolsheviks at the time were not really in much of position to be otherwise. They were quite simply overtaken by events. The party itself experienced a rapid upsurge of new members many of whom were later to leave as the composition and nature of the party changed in subsequent years and it become much more centralised. The broadness and openness of the Bolshevik Party at the time of the revolution happened essentially in spite of the Leninist theory of the vanguard party.

So you are arguing that Lenin was actually opposed to the broadness and openness of the Bolshevik party?


In my view he wanted to use the activism and political discontent of the working class as a battering ram to achieve his stated end.

Of course you have nothing to back this up, as there is absolutely no writings of Lenin's that state this, and more than enough that state the opposite (i.e. that you are wrong).


Oh come on - this is pathetic drivel; its scrapping the barrel. So when I say I support the revolutionary concept of the abolition of the wages this is not actually what I am advocating. What I am actually promoting according to you is the backwardness of the movement by worshipping its spontaneity.

I never stated that you are a liberal because you believe in the abolition of wages. That doesn't even make sense.

But you are beyond hope; you are an ideologue that will not change your mind even if the truth is right in front of your eyes. Everyone here knows that you're nothing but an opportunist and a liberal and not to take you seriously.

[ZeroNowhere]

While I don't take the view that Lenin was an opportunist (just boring), at least Robin knows what the derogatory words he uses mean. Robin's accusations may be somewhat baseless on the whole, but at least they're not derisory at the same time. Unless that was satirical, of course.

[Tzadikim]

The problems with a vanguard party comes largely from the temptation of its own members to set themselves up in hierarchical positions after the revolution, to establish themselves as the new bourgeoisie.

I believe that a vanguard organization is absolutely necessary, in the initial stages of fermenting class consciousness, to help the workers organize. In time, however, it ought to dissolve into the greater worker's mass movement, so that by the time of the revolution itself it is hardly distinguishable from it. It ought to be designed structurally to return to the class from which it sprang. Every vanguard party ought to be predicated upon this one axiom: that it will be there for the workers in the revolution, but voluntarily relinquish the crown afterwards for the betterment of the whole of the proletariat.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The problems with a vanguard party comes largely from the temptation of its own members to set themselves up in hierarchical positions after the revolution, to establish themselves as the new bourgeoisie.

I believe that a vanguard organization is absolutely necessary, in the initial stages of fermenting class consciousness, to help the workers organize. In time, however, it ought to dissolve into the greater worker's mass movement, so that by the time of the revolution itself it is hardly distinguishable from it. It ought to be designed structurally to return to the class from which it sprang. Every vanguard party ought to be predicated upon this one axiom: that it will be there for the workers in the revolution, but voluntarily relinquish the crown afterwards for the betterment of the whole of the proletariat.
See, this is where I have a problem with the whole vanguard thing: we're meant to believe in a ruling class that will voluntarily abolish itself out of the goodness of its heart? Seriously?

[Lymos]

The problems with a vanguard party comes largely from the temptation of its own members to set themselves up in hierarchical positions after the revolution, to establish themselves as the new bourgeoisie.

I believe that a vanguard organization is absolutely necessary, in the initial stages of fermenting class consciousness, to help the workers organize. In time, however, it ought to dissolve into the greater worker's mass movement, so that by the time of the revolution itself it is hardly distinguishable from it. It ought to be designed structurally to return to the class from which it sprang. Every vanguard party ought to be predicated upon this one axiom: that it will be there for the workers in the revolution, but voluntarily relinquish the crown afterwards for the betterment of the whole of the proletariat.

So how do you bypass this problem?


See, this is where I have a problem with the whole vanguard thing: we're meant to believe in a ruling class that will voluntarily abolish itself out of the goodness of its heart? Seriously?

My political beliefs aren't vanguardism although they are similar so what I was thinking was that this would first and foremost be emphasized as a "quest for education" kind of movement.

Basically intellectual worship all over again but hoping that in today's world, we can afford to give less pedestals to intellectuals and more to general opinion. (as the internet has changed the situation from too little information to too much noise, the intellectuals can easily be the moderators and the clarifiers instead of the teachers)

Following this path, we as a group support the products of this movement who end up achieving the highest place of ruling classes. (Kind of like a reverse Aryan race where instead of being superior and ridding the inferior ones, we educate the world - "let the meek inherit the earth" and let natural progress build us a great ideological political candidate who firmly believes in Anarchy but has no problem with playing the system to get to the top.)

Once this event occurs, the only other necessity is for that leader to immediately put through a mandate of relieving said country from governance and thus basically becoming a minarchist.

The only exception here is that the leader doesn't stop at minarchy and proceeds to anarchy. (Basically a transition as opposed to an abolishment)

Sure, this way would lead to alot of false positives, but my hope is that if the system of governance is based on education. That is, education as in learning stuff and becoming intellectuals and transforming people into progressive auto-didacts as opposed to mere diploma holders and mass education of the poor, the ruling class systems would then serve as the filter and test for making sure this person/political group will indeed follow through with his political anarchistic ideals.

Similarly, these people who fail would be no more detrimental to the movement than if these were people who simply did not want anarchy and just wanted to get into office to rule over the policies of the country.

The ultimate filter being whether the person voted into power (say a president) would immediately proceed to change the government or not into a smaller one.

The rest of my views don't really matched with vanguardism but that's my idea of bypassing this situation.

[el_chavista]

Jesus, Lymos, you are a good person and even help whoever ask you to, but your "ideology" is a mess. If you're trolling, consider posting in OI, sorry.

[Tzadikim]

So how do you bypass this problem?

Through a series of checks-and-balances. The vanguard party ought to be solely concerned with education and organization, and ought to be wholly divorced from the militant wing of the worker's movement. That militant wing ought to be ordered constitutionally, with one of its duties imparted to it by that document being to keep the vanguard under watch, and, if it or several of its members choose to assert themselves over the revolution, the militant wing should then have the authority to remove the vanguard from power.

[Lymos]

Well, you heard the previous poster before me. Said that this focus on education and organization is an ideological mess.

Aside from military might (a military might that isn't invulnerable to being seduced by Martial Law), could you delve into more specific details on how these checks and balance would work?

[ckaihatsu]

From all the discussions on vanguardism I've ever been around, including on this thread, it seems that there are really only a handful of issues involved.

My greatest concern is that we don't get *bogged down* by history. While I admire and champion all comrades who are adept at revolutionary historical matters -- certainly moreso than myself -- I've found that I've shied away from a more comprehensive, academic approach simply because the past is *not* directly transferable onto the future. There are many substantial, determining details of the historical situation back in 1917 that are *not* confining us today -- sheer material productive capacity would be one, not to mention communications capability, and so on.

This means that we *can't* look to the Bolshevik Revolution as the definitive, transferable model by which to form all revolutionary plans for the future. Yes, we should all be well aware of its intricacies and outcomes, but no, we should not be *beholden* to its *specific* storyline here in the 21st century.

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Better than all the rest in humility --

[Lymos]

Great post but still what would be the specific checks and balances need? There's still a large possibility of a power struggle and until that issue can be satisfied, it will hurt the idea.

[ckaihatsu]

Great post but still what would be the specific checks and balances need? There's still a large possibility of a power struggle and until that issue can be satisfied, it will hurt the idea.


I'm of the opinion that the *best* checks and balances would be 100% transparency, as we have here on RevLeft. I still maintain that this kind of net forum format would be *ideal* for most of the news distribution, discussion, and organizational call-ins on revolutionary issues.

*However*, there will be solid periods -- during global revolutionary ferment -- where this kind of transparency would be a strategic and tactical *liability*. This is where we would have an objective reliance on some kind of a vanguard, or steering, apparatus which would have to be more representative and discreet.

The best way I can think of offhand is to enable these representatives basically in the way that political representatives have *always* been enabled -- through some demonstrated track record on the issues in advance, and then trust once put into position. We can do better than the bourgeois system, of course, by instituting a close, issue-by-issue watch over the representatives, and by using immediate recallability to keep them as close to the ground as possible:





Q. What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.

2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.

3. No standing army but the armed people.

4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/elements_for_workers_democracy.asp

[Lymos]

The best way I can think of offhand is to enable these representatives basically in the way that political representatives have *always* been enabled -- through some demonstrated track record on the issues in advance, and then trust once put into position. We can do better than the bourgeois system, of course, by instituting a close, issue-by-issue watch over the representatives, and by using immediate recallability to keep them as close to the ground as possibleI know Ron Paul is Right but what's your opinion of the Liberty PAC?

http://www.libertypac.net/

Especially with regards to the Support these Candidates link.

[ckaihatsu]

I know Ron Paul is Right but what's your opinion of the Liberty PAC?

http://www.libertypac.net/

Especially with regards to the Support these Candidates link.


Marxists *do not* support *any* electoral candidates because a vote for *any* of them is implicitly expressing *confidence* in the electoral system. Rather we look to the self-activity of the rank-and-file working class, internationally, as the only force capable of overcoming bourgeois rule over the instruments of the nation-state.

[Lymos]

No, I meant as a model for discovering, maintaining and developing a vanguard.


The best way I can think of offhand is to enable these representatives basically in the way that political representatives have *always* been enabled -- through some demonstrated track record on the issues in advance, and then trust once put into position. We can do better than the bourgeois system, of course, by instituting a close, issue-by-issue watch over the representatives, and by using immediate recallability to keep them as close to the ground as possible

[ckaihatsu]

No, I meant as a model for discovering, maintaining and developing a vanguard.


*Any* group that has a lobby (PAC) and runs candidates is, by definition, *not* Marxist, so the formation of a vanguard wouldn't apply to them.

[Lymos]

I have to disagree there. I don't think Marxism has a monopoly on the word.

Vanguardism probably but vanguard no.

This works less like it's running candidates though. Although I'm not privy to the specifics and I'm not defending the movement, I just wonder if you just saw a quick skim on the words "support the candidates" and thought it worked like a generic political group endorsement.

I'm not sure how the community is now but earlier on these candidates were almost hand picked by a community of internet members. Not all of them but enough of them were researched and scrutinized by most people no more different than forum members here. (Although of course the more knowledgeable members had their say)

That said, I'm not so much trying to push this down your throat but you did allude to:


We can do better than the bourgeois system, of course, by instituting a close, issue-by-issue watch over the representatives...without the specifics. I wasn't sure if it was because that was the limit of your hypothesis or you just had a very specific model different from what I had in mind (which was close to the model above except it's not about political endorsements)

Your original post was very detailed so I was hoping for more but when you answer with generics like:


*Any* group that has a lobby (PAC) and runs candidatesIt makes it seem like you're countering your own words by pushing away a possible model to refer to which was originally established through "close issue by issue watch over the representatives" because it doesn't perfectly fit in with Marxism.

[ckaihatsu]

Your original post was very detailed so I was hoping for more but when you answer with generics like:





*Any* group that has a lobby (PAC) and runs candidates is, by definition, *not* Marxist, so the formation of a vanguard wouldn't apply to them.


It makes it seem like you're countering your own words by pushing away a possible model to refer to which was originally established through "close issue by issue watch over the representatives" because it doesn't perfectly fit in with Marxism.


The difference between a revolutionary leftist vanguard and any other kind is that a revolutionary leftist vanguard is organized to defeat the bourgeoisie in class warfare.

We, as Marxists, would *not welcome* any other vanguardist model because all others would, in one way or another, tie into the electoral system as it exists.





Marxists *do not* support *any* electoral candidates because a vote for *any* of them is implicitly expressing *confidence* in the electoral system. Rather we look to the self-activity of the rank-and-file working class, internationally, as the only force capable of overcoming bourgeois rule over the instruments of the nation-state.

[chegitz guevara]

Marxism doesn't oppose the use of the electoral system. We may understand that we cannot lay hold of the capitalists' state to create socialism, but the electoral process allows us to have much greater visibility. Generally during a presidential year, the SPUSA increases by about 50%, though last year, Obama sucked the wind out of everyone's sails.

[Lymos]

I'm not disputing that, that is why I mentioned:


No, I meant as a model for discovering, maintaining and developing a vanguard.

The model adapted in that link is only tied to an electoral system because well... it's not a Marxist goal.

Yet the system/idea was built on close scrutiny of politicians by passionate members and then further filtered by research from Ron Paul's group as a further way to filter those politicians.

It wasn't a pre-built base surrounded around a party. The people in there were hand picked to a point that it was community built (or community added) and rather than adapting the common model of endorsing before filtering their beliefs, it works (or used to) work around a community driven manner where even after a choice has been made, the candidates were still scrutinized by the forum members.

That's why it related to your words:


We can do better than the bourgeois system

I was assuming you meant improving upon a current bourgeois system and this fitted that definition.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, I knew I'd get called on this by *someone* -- I was keeping it simple for the sake of argument. Certainly we don't vote for *bourgeois* candidates -- which is basically the entire electoral system right there -- and *I* personally am not registered nor do I vote.

[Lymos]

Same here, not registered but I am confused why it's so difficult for you to just look at the model without the labels and the specifics. I'm also confused why you feel the need to point that out. Seems completely irrelevant and obvious since you support Marxism.

I'm not calling you out here. I'm just legitimately interested by your model.

It kind of seems silly to hold back on a learning forum especially if the simple model is already what Vanguardism is all about. In fact, what you addressed was partially a complex issue in that you were addressing the flaws.

That said, it is still sad when curiosity and passion to inquire is considered a bad thing even in a forum optimized for learning.

If I'm just coming off like a troll as the previous poster alluded to and you're just being polite in not accusing me directly then I won't push further. My apologies for even participating in this topic.

[Zolken]

Marxism doesn't oppose the use of the electoral system. We may understand that we cannot lay hold of the capitalists' state to create socialism, but the electoral process allows us to have much greater visibility. Generally during a presidential year, the SPUSA increases by about 50%, though last year, Obama sucked the wind out of everyone's sails.

It's not the system that is broken, rather it's the circumstances of having to rely upon faulty components within the system.

[robbo203]

So you are arguing that Lenin was actually opposed to the broadness and openness of the Bolshevik party?
.

Read what I said. The "broadness and openness" of the Bolshevik Party was not incompatible with the rigid hierarchical and essentially undemocratic nature of that organisation which became more and more evident as time went on



I never stated that you are a liberal because you believe in the abolition of wages. That doesn't even make sense.

But you are beyond hope; you are an ideologue that will not change your mind even if the truth is right in front of your eyes. Everyone here knows that you're nothing but an opportunist and a liberal and not to take you seriously.

More drivel. To call me a liberal is about as meaning and useful to this debate as me calling you a fascist. You dont even know what the meaning of the word is. As for the sanctimonious charge that I am ideologue who "will not change your mind even if the truth is right in front of your eyes", tell me one person here who does not believe that what they have to say is true - would they say it if they thought otherwise? Oh and as for being an opportunist , give me a break. At least I have principles and I stick by them - perhaps a bit to robustly and forthrightly for some. Well thats tough. You'll just have to live with it, sunshine. Cos I aint gonna let up on vigourously attacking what I sincerely is one of the most serious obstacles in the way of revolutionary socialism - leninism and all its offshoots

[ComradeOm]

My greatest concern is that we don't get *bogged down* by history. While I admire and champion all comrades who are adept at revolutionary historical matters -- certainly moreso than myself -- I've found that I've shied away from a more comprehensive, academic approach simply because the past is *not* directly transferable onto the future. There are many substantial, determining details of the historical situation back in 1917 that are *not* confining us today -- sheer material productive capacity would be one, not to mention communications capability, and so on.

This means that we *can't* look to the Bolshevik Revolution as the definitive, transferable model by which to form all revolutionary plans for the future. Yes, we should all be well aware of its intricacies and outcomes, but no, we should not be *beholden* to its *specific* storyline here in the 21st centuryThere's merit in this but personally I've always felt that the great benefit to a "comprehensive academic approach" is that it allows us to study what actually happened rather than what was supposed to have happened or what people said/think happened

This is particularly true with regards the Bolsheviks in 1917 where the actual structures and practices of the party (essentially, how the archetypical vanguard party functioned) has long being obscured by myths constructed by the partisans, both Soviet and Western. I know that I was very surprised when I first started researching the topic to find that the actual Bolshevik party barely resembled that of the popular imagination. I think its important that if anyone is to have a discussion on THE VANGUARD then they do so on the basis of what is actually was, or at least stripped of the most egregious myths

For example, the charge that the Bolshevik party of 1917 possessed a "rigid hierarchical and essentially undemocratic nature" is baseless. It simply does not accurately describe an organisation in which the Central Committee exercised very limited control over the other party bodies; every position of authority was arrived at via elections; and different party fractions were free to decide policy by democratic vote. Yet the charge that the Bolsheviks were "rigidly hierarchical and essentially undemocratic" persists. Discussion on the nature/role of revolutionary parties or the vanguard is not going to progress significantly until myths like these have been corrected

[chegitz guevara]

It's not the system that is broken, rather it's the circumstances of having to rely upon faulty components within the system.

The system works perfectly fine for the capitalists.