Organisational Alternatives to the Vanguard

[Lyev]

So, obviously, before Marx there was no such theory as the vanguard. In fact before Marx, every type of socialism was 'social-from-above', Marx and Engels were the guys to really turn this around with the now famous quote: "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself." Although I'm not sure if anything like Luxemburg's 'spontaneity' is entirely feasible. After all, how many decent revolution have been achieved without a vanguard? Although one that I can think of without a vanguard: the EZLN, however Chiapas is tiny compared to somewhere like Russia or China. By the way, apologies if this post is really rambly.

However, with countries the size of Russia it was definately necessary to have some sort of organisation- hence why Lenin needed the vanguard theory. However, even with a vanguard it was one year until some people in the remoter parts of Russia heard about the revolution, would you believe it. In places like Russia and China, I think largely because of the vanguard, they degenerated into a bureaucracy that never really truly represented the workers. They tried to solve such a problem with the 'Lenin Levy' of 1924. In a period of a few months some 240,000 workers were admitted to the Russian CP. Although, in my opinion, it should be the party that is assimilated into the proletariat- not the proletariat into the party, you know? There's also the problem that Lenin was at times quite authoritarian within the party- for example when Trotsky was kicked out for simply disagreeing with something Lenin said; I can't find a decent quote for this, it would be nice if someone could find something for this. I think one of the main problems with past attempts at socialism is the lack of true workers control. Sure, there was democracy in the work place, but no matter how much you'll say otherwise; representing the workers is not the same as the workers organising themselves. (Edit: apperently this didn't happen, I'm really sure what quite did happen here with Trotsky getting kicked. It'd be nice if someone could nudge me in the right direction here. :))

I believe that it's no coincidence that most attempts at socialism had a vanguard and also failed at achieving 100% workers control. So basically, I was wondering if anyone knows of any organisational alternatives to vanguardism? Is there any well-known theorists or books or anything?

Thanks in advance comrades.

[Kléber]

A revolution is a war and war requires leadership. The capitalists have armies and general staffs with specialists, researchers, analysts, functionaries and commanders. The working class needs such an apparatus to win a military struggle. A "vanguard" is just revolutionary leadership, plain and simple. Anarchist groups are vanguards too, even if they refuse to admit it. Democratic centralism means accepting leadership as necessary, and figuring out how to keep that leadership democratic and accountable.

What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm)

[syndicat]

"Vanguard" has been used to mean different things. Both anarchists and Leninists would agree that within the mass of the population, the working class & oppressed, there is uneven consciousness, and that consciousness develops through struggle. At any given time there are people who are more active, who have developed skills relevant to organizing, who organize others, come up with ideas in discussions with others in situations of collective action, publicize radical ideas, and so on. This is the "vanguard" in the sense they are, as Emma Goldman put it, "in the avant guarde of social change." In the USA much of the grassroots vanguard isn't even anti-capitalist. Much disagreement on the radical left has to do with the relationship of the vanguard to the mass or class as a whole, should the vanguard be organized into a separate united political organization? should it seek hegemony in social movements or merely seek to educate and influence? should social movements be self-managing and in control of the process of social change or should they be subordinated to a "vanguard party"? These are some of the questions that will divide Leninists and libertarian socialists.

[redasheville]

"Vanguard" has been used to mean different things. Both anarchists and Leninists would agree that within the mass of the population, the working class & oppressed, there is uneven consciousness, and that consciousness develops through struggle. At any given time there are people who are more active, who have developed skills relevant to organizing, who organize others, come up with ideas in discussions with others in situations of collective action, publicize radical ideas, and so on. This is the "vanguard" in the sense they are, as Emma Goldman put it, "in the avant guarde of social change." In the USA much of the grassroots vanguard isn't even anti-capitalist. Much disagreement on the radical left has to do with the relationship of the vanguard to the mass or class as a whole, should the vanguard be organized into a separate united political organization? should it seek hegemony in social movements or merely seek to educate and influence? should social movements be self-managing and in control of the process of social change or should they be subordinated to a "vanguard party"? These are some of the questions that will divide Leninists and libertarian socialists.

Overall, this is a good post. But I feel one point toward the end is kind of a strawman. When you write "should social movements be self-managing and in control of the process of social change or should they be subordinated to a "vanguard party"?" I am a little confused. Perhaps some dogmatic sects argue that social movements should be "subordinated" to a vanguard party, but this is a confusion of what the role of the party vis a vis the class really is. The party is merely the organization expression of the most militant and politically "advanced" sections of the working class. That is all. It is not a group of isolated militants trying to impose their leadership on social movements.

The revolutionary party seeks to democratically gain the leadership of the social movements. I'd say that any radical intervening in social movements is trying to do this, so your point IMHO, about the difference between winning hegemony, and merely educating and influencing social movements is a false dicotomy. If you're educating and influecing, how are you not leading? And if you're trying not to lead, whats the point of having radical politics?

[syndicat]

I don't disagree with the idea of an organization of revolutionaries who try to have influence within mass social movements/organizations. but why do you assume that the "leadership" cannot come from those movements themselves? I have a problem when a political organization attemps to concentrate formal control over an organization, through things like getting decision-making concentrated in an executive or steering committee, and then gettings its people onto that committee. if the working class & the mass of the oppressed are to liberate themselves, it must be through their own self-directed mass movements/organizations. revolutionary political organizations may have influence within these movements of course. but as a liberrtarian socialist, I am interested in seeing as widespread a development of leadership ability -- to come up with ideas, theorize one's experience, understand society, have confidence to speak up, etc. -- within the rank and file as possible. It's counter-productive to try to concentrate the knowledge and leadership capacity and organizational control in the hands of a few. and in practice this is what Leninist organizations always try to do, in my observation. when the Communist International was formed and then it tried to draw to it the radical labor organizations of the world in the Red Labor Union International in 1921, the parrty leadership, such as Trotsky, insisted that the mass organizations not be autonomous of the parties but take direction from the parties. This is a formal, hierarchical relationship of subordination.

[redasheville]

I don't disagree with the idea of an organization of revolutionaries who try to have influence within mass social movements/organizations. but why do you assume that the "leadership" cannot come from those movements themselves? I have a problem when a political organization attemps to concentrate formal control over an organization, through things like getting decision-making concentrated in an executive or steering committee, and then gettings its people onto that committee. if the working class & the mass of the oppressed are to liberate themselves, it must be through their own self-directed mass movements/organizations. revolutionary political organizations may have influence within these movements of course. but as a liberrtarian socialist, I am interested in seeing as widespread a development of leadership ability -- to come up with ideas, theorize one's experience, understand society, have confidence to speak up, etc. -- within the rank and file as possible. It's counter-productive to try to concentrate the knowledge and leadership capacity and organizational control in the hands of a few. and in practice this is what Leninist organizations always try to do, in my observation. when the Communist International was formed and then it tried to draw to it the radical labor organizations of the world in the Red Labor Union International in 1921, the parrty leadership, such as Trotsky, insisted that the mass organizations not be autonomous of the parties but take direction from the parties. This is a formal, hierarchical relationship of subordination.

This is all highly abstract, but I'll do my best.

First, I never said anything about leadership not able to come from social movements. Leadership SHOULD come from the movement itself. When revolutionary socialists intervene in a movement, they are a part of the movement as genuinely as anyone else. For instance, I am a revolutionary socialist. I am also a worker. I am in a union. I am part of the union's rank and file, and I am directly effected by my union's decisions and actions. I am every bit a part of the labor movement as any other worker and when I make political arguments to my co-workers, it is not as some sort of outside ideologue. Similiarly, my comrades involved in budget cuts work on campuses in CA are students who are affected just as much as anyone else by the cuts. They are part of the movement. They are not "from the outside". I think what is implicit in your argument is that radicals ARE somehow outside of movements, and only intervene to "educate and influence", which is not the case. You have a rigid and mechanical understanding of the relationship between movements and radical organization (or party and class), which actually has elitist implications.

The difference is that the people WON OVER to revolutionary politics should form a united organization to be able to democratically decide on matters of tactics and strategy, and attempt to win over the movement at large to those ideas. You know, because if radicals don't have their positions taken up by movements, less radical (sometimes even conservative) ideas will carry the day instead. That is democracy.

You say "It's counter-productive to try to concentrate the knowledge and leadership capacity and organizational control in the hands of a few. and in practice this is what Leninist organizations always try to do, in my observation.".

Again, this is a strawman. Yea I also don't think "knowledge and leadership capacity and organizational control in the hands of a few", this is based on anarchist myths about Leninism. Sure, there are many people who describe themselves as Leninists that might pull all kinds of sectarian nonsense. However, these folks actually accept the same mischaracterization of Leninism that you do, the difference is that they agree with it.

On the question of formal leadership bodies: formal leadership bodies are actually necessary for maintaining democratic control over movements, IMHO. Without formal leadership, only the most dedicated and outspoken people will shape the direction of a movement. In other words, the "tyranny of structurelessness". The question, therefore, is making people on a leadership body accountable. When leadership is informal, there is no way of maintaining accountability (and all movements have a leadership). Revolutionaries that take their politics seriously wish to be a part of a movement's leadership, otherwise why bother?

[syndicat]

I didn't say revolutionary organization's memberships are outside of mass movements. It's about the role of revolutionaries in those movements, and the relationship of revolutionaries and their organizations to mass organizations/movements. You talk about "leadership bodies." You see, right there you're assuming that the decisions are to be made by some separate body. So in a union decisions are to be concentrated in the executive committee? We let the elected BA deal with the employers? Why do you think American unions tend to be staff-driven organizations controlled by a paid hierarchy? Why are they organizations incapable, for the most part, of developing an effective fight against the employers and managers? You have elected representatives. They conduct negotiations. They control the budges. They schmooze with politicians and develop the links with other organizations. They develop an understanding of the ins and outs of contracts. This is how they make themselves indispensable. This is how they make the rank and file dependent on them, as the "experts", professionals of representation. If you think elections are sufficient to ensure the kind of "accountability" we need, you're crazy.

What we need is for the rank and file to be able to effectively control their own organizations. This doesn't mean they never have representatives. But it does mean that the center of gravity of the activity and decision-making needs to be with them, and with their activity, such as in the workplace. I helped to organize one of the first TA organizations in the UC system in the '70s. It was a grassroots organization, no paid officers or staff. We had departmental assemblies where a lot of the discussion took place and each such assembly elected a shop steward. The executive committee of the union was the shop stewards plus the president and sec-tres. When we had a strike, we had mass meetings of the members to decide when to start and stop. We built the union through mass speakouts on campus and a constant stream of newsletters to the members. This is not a bureaucratic type of union. What we need to have an effective mass self-managed movements is to involve and train more of the rank and file, not be obsessed about our "leadership" being recognized by getting ourselves elected to leadership "bodies." An organization that has a bylaws, that has regular assemblies, such as the departmental assemblies i referred to, this is not a tyranny of structurelessness. that is a strawman fallacy.

[redasheville]

I didn't say revolutionary organization's memberships are outside of mass movements.

No, but you implied it by counter posing revolutionaries and social movements in a mechanical way.


You talk about "leadership bodies." You see, right there you're assuming that the decisions are to be made by some separate body. So in a union decisions are to be concentrated in the executive committee? We let the elected BA deal with the employers? Why do you think American unions tend to be staff-driven organizations controlled by a paid hierarchy? Why are they organizations incapable, for the most part, of developing an effective fight against the employers and managers? You have elected representatives. They conduct negotiations. They control the budges. They schmooze with politicians and develop the links with other organizations. They develop an understanding of the ins and outs of contracts. This is how they make themselves indispensable. This is how they make the rank and file dependent on them, as the "experts", professionals of representation. If you think elections are sufficient to ensure the kind of "accountability" we need, you're crazy.See you're confusing all leadership with bureaucratized leadership structures, in a completely abstract way. Leadership is inevitable. If you're not going to have an elected (or otherwise democratically chosen) leadership (I never said elections alone ensure accountability, elections in a workers council is obviously a much different thing that a presidential election...elections and voting exist in specific circumstances..again you argue in abstractions) then there IS NO WAY TO MAKE LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE. They can do whatever they want! The person who is dedicated enough to spend their free time arguing into the wee hours of the night, the person who has read enough books, will be the one who leads. Democracy flies out the window. Arguing against elected leadership** is actually profoundly elitist, because at the core is a pessimism about the ability of workers and the oppressed to maintain demcoratic control over their own organizations. All it takes is an elected leadership and SHAZAM instant bureaucracy. I am confident that workers and the oppressed have the ability to form and maintain democratic organizations


Second, why are unions staff heavy? Your knee-jerk explanation does not fit the facts (and again, is abstract). While American unions have (with exceptions of course) always had a bureacracy, and American unions are not exactly known for their democratic functioning, the formation of a HUGE staff of full time paid organizers, researchers etc is actually a bureaucratic response to the decline of the labor movement in the US in the last 30 years. "Organize or Die" is the mantra of the labor bureaucracy in the US, and their strategy to organize is not suprisingly bureaucratic. There is a real specific historical reason for this, and it is not enough to regurgitate dogma about "leadership = bureaucracy". You should read "Solidarity Divided" by Bill Fletcher and "US Labor In Trouble And Transition" by Kim Moody.



What we need is for the rank and file to be able to effectively control their own organizations. This doesn't mean they never have representatives. But it does mean that the center of gravity of the activity and decision-making needs to be with them, and with their activity, such as in the workplace. I helped to organize one of the first TA organizations in the UC system in the '70s. It was a grassroots organization, no paid officers or staff. We had departmental assemblies where a lot of the discussion took place and each such assembly elected a shop steward. The executive committee of the union was the shop stewards plus the president and sec-tres. When we had a strike, we had mass meetings of the members to decide when to start and stop. We built the union through mass speakouts on campus and a constant stream of newsletters to the members. This is not a bureaucratic type of union. What we need to have an effective mass self-managed movements is to involve and train more of the rank and file, not be obsessed about our "leadership" being recognized by getting ourselves elected to leadership "bodies." An organization that has a bylaws, that has regular assemblies, such as the departmental assemblies i referred to, this is not a tyranny of structurelessness. that is a strawman fallacy.I agree with all of this, basically. Assemblies, bylaws, shopstewards etc is not the "tyranny of structurelessness" I was refering to.* You said it yourself: "It doesn't mean they never have representatives". You talk about ELECTING shop stewards that form an executive committee. You then say that this was not a bureaucratic type of union. OK. Yea that's what I've been talking about the whole time. People elected from the rank and file to represent and/or otherwise carry out organization tasks that the larger body sees fit. Now, the question is, do you think radicals should try to be elected into such positions? I do, and that is what I mean by "getting elected to leadership bodies".

Anyway, sounds like an inspiring struggle to have participated in! I myself am part of a rank and file cacaus in my union. What do anarcho-syndicalists think about forming rank and file caucuses in existing unions?

*perhaps it was a strawman...many anarchists these days argue for NO formal structure. I should not have assumed you argued for similar things, I apologize.

**EDIT: I should clarify: arguing against elected leadership AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, is profoundly elitist.

[syndicat]

"Leadership" is a more slippery word than you seem to realize. It isn't any one thing. So let me distinguish three senses of "leadership":

1. A formal position of representation. In this sense you could regard the shop steward as the "leader of the shop." A person is elected president of a union is a "leader" of that union in this formal sense. A person is delegated authority to make certain decisions.

2. Leader as caudillo, like Fidel in Cuba or some strongman like Qadafi. Hoffa is the "leader" of the Teamsters union in this sense. This is more than just a shop steward who is under the eye of, and coordinates activity of, her workmates.

3. An informal relationship of influence. Anyone who comes up with ideas that are adopted, gets people to agree with their proposals, shows initiative, speaks up in meetings, has confidence, has knowledge that bears on what is going on. Things like knowledge, character, confidence, maintaining personable relations with others can effect how much influence someone has on the other workers around her.

You talk about leadership having to be accountable. That only applies for leadership in sense 1. It makes no sense whatsoever in sense 3. Accountability IS essential for leadership in sense 1 because that person has been delegated tasks or authority to do things for us, and it is up to us to evaluate and control what goes on the organization where that person is elected. Leadership in sense 2 is something to be avoided, it bespeaks an authoritarian or bureaucratic domination of some sort.

I didn't argue against elected leadership in sense 1 of leadership. That is a strawman argument. Note that the only relevant sense of leadership of a revolutionary organization consistent with self-managed mass movements is leadership 3, leadership as informal influence. If you argue that it is essential that the revolutionary organization have leadership authority in sense 1, that is what I am arguing against because that is inconsistent with rank and file self-management of movements.

Moreover, what I would argue is that to maximize rank and file leadership in sense 3 means to maximize the distribution of leadership skills among the rank and file...knowledge, training of how to do the various tasks (e.g. in a union, about labor law, how to negotiate), how to speak publically, how to organize, how to theorize one's experience. This won't happen spontaneously but needs to be systematically developed through things such as some kind of working people's school and other popular education efforts, as well as things like rotation (term limits) in union offices so more people have the opportunity to do the various tasks.

[Lyev]

A revolution is a war and war requires leadership. The capitalists have armies and general staffs with specialists, researchers, analysts, functionaries and commanders. The working class needs such an apparatus to win a military struggle. A "vanguard" is just revolutionary leadership, plain and simple. Anarchist groups are vanguards too, even if they refuse to admit it. Democratic centralism means accepting leadership as necessary, and figuring out how to keep that leadership democratic and accountable.

What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm)

I think you missed my point, or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. What I was mulling over is that maybe there is an alternative to the vanguard. I know a war requires leadership hence why the topic was "organisational alternatives" so perhaps some other way to organise than a vanguard. I think perhaps it's no coincidence that most major 21st c. revolution have had a vanguard and then consequently degenerated into bureaucracy. By the way sorry if this ^ post seems a tad abrasive it wasn't meant to be :).

And thanks for everyones replies, I'm glad it has sparked debate. Basically, my worry is that the vanguard becomes seperated from the workers movement and developed into something higher than the workers.


I don't disagree with the idea of an organization of revolutionaries who try to have influence within mass social movements/organizations. but why do you assume that the "leadership" cannot come from those movements themselves? I have a problem when a political organization attemps to concentrate formal control over an organization, through things like getting decision-making concentrated in an executive or steering committee, and then gettings its people onto that committee. if the working class & the mass of the oppressed are to liberate themselves, it must be through their own self-directed mass movements/organizations. revolutionary political organizations may have influence within these movements of course. but as a liberrtarian socialist, I am interested in seeing as widespread a development of leadership ability -- to come up with ideas, theorize one's experience, understand society, have confidence to speak up, etc. -- within the rank and file as possible. It's counter-productive to try to concentrate the knowledge and leadership capacity and organizational control in the hands of a few. and in practice this is what Leninist organizations always try to do, in my observation. when the Communist International was formed and then it tried to draw to it the radical labor organizations of the world in the Red Labor Union International in 1921, the parrty leadership, such as Trotsky, insisted that the mass organizations not be autonomous of the parties but take direction from the parties. This is a formal, hierarchical relationship of subordination.

This is my point. I agree with you, especially the part I put in bold. This is my exact point However I definately think there needs to be some sort of organisation. It ultimately comes down to this Kautsky quote for me: "the merger of [Marxism] and the worker movement". Although, on the other hand, I think some people are bound to rise up as the most charismatic and intelligent members of their class. How do we organise without created two different, class-like factions- the vanguard and the masses. But I guess this all provokes the question; why can't the workers totally organise themselves, or perhaps what's stopping them, if anything?

[Kléber]

You missed my point. You can't fight a modern war without some kind of command structure, unless you think we should carry flowers instead of guns, sing Kumbaya instead of the Internationale, and reduce our revolutionary program to begging the capitalists not to shoot us.

[syndicat]

This question of how to fight a revolutionary war was something the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish revolution had to deal with. Over time they changed their view partly. Initially they formed a revolutionary labor army with a committee chosen by their union federation to run the overall direction. The various divisions...called columns...were run by an elected chief delegate and each major component of the division elected a delegate to a war committee. This committee was the "command structure" of the division but was responsible to assemblies of the rank and file members of the division.

Later objections began to surface to possible obstruction of quick decision making due to holding assemblies. Usually these were held only in a sensible time and place but sometimes this may have not been the case. There was also the problem of lack of coordination among the various party and union militias. So they then developed a proposal for a unified people's army where the officers would not be elected. Instead, a joint committee would appoint the officers and have control over the units. The joint committee would include delegates from the ranks and representatives of the union federations. Their concern was that the army be under the control of the organized working class.

The Communists, on the other hand, wanted a conventional hierarchical army and police controlled by their party...a party army. They proposed to do this by rebuilding the conventional Republican state but gaining control of the officer positions in the police and army. This would have left the working class without direct control over the army. In this debate the Communists eventually won...and the armed bodies of the police and army were eventually used against the working class...seizing control of worker run industries and agricultural operations.

So, it is possible to have a disciplined people's revolutionary army controlled by, answerable to, the mass organizations of the working class, not controlled by a conventional hierarchical state. Moreover, the problem created by the Communist Party wanting to gain top down control...by their "vanguard party"...over the army...and thus ultimately over the state...illustrates very well the problem of vanguardist domination. by 1938 the Communists had made it clear their aim was to take control over production away from the workers who had seized it in favor a top down, centralized state run economic system. This was clear in the 1938 program of the UGT union federation, developed after the Communists had gained control of that union.

[cenv]

I believe that it's no coincidence that most attempts at socialism had a vanguard and also failed at achieving 100% workers control. So basically, I was wondering if anyone knows of any organisational alternatives to vanguardism? Is there any well-known theorists or books or anything?

Thanks in advance comrades.
Here are a few works you could read if you haven't already...

- Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft) (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000) - the foundation of platformism, which aims to combine anarchist values with tight organization. Platformists take heat from all sides, since Leninists see them as "infantile" anarchists and fellow anarchists see them as "Bolsheviks in black."

- Anything by Anton Pannekoek (http://marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm), a council-communist. I'd recommend Workers Councils (http://marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/councils.htm) and Party and Working Class (http://marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-working-class.htm), but all his stuff is good.

- For the insurrectionist perspective, you could try Alfredo Bonanno's Worker's Autonomy (http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/workers-autonomy).

- Luxemburg's The Mass Strike (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm) might be interesting too.

You could also try researching struggles like Spain '36, May '68, and recent ones like the factory occupations and popular assemblies in Argentina. Happy reading! :P

[Pogue]

Yeh it sounds like you may be interested in the Platformist organisational model mate.

[Lyev]

You missed my point. You can't fight a modern war without some kind of command structure, unless you think we should carry flowers instead of guns, sing Kumbaya instead of the Internationale, and reduce our revolutionary program to begging the capitalists not to shoot us.

The thread was not, in fact, titled "Maybe we should try hymns and flowers instead of guns and slogans", if you hadn't noticed. I acknowledge, absolutely 110% the necessity for organisation. However, deduced from what the vanguard has led to I wondered if anyone knew of any other "organisational alternative", as quoted from the title, to the vanguard. 'Some kind of command structure" doesn't immediately have to a vanguard. I don't believe it is proper organisation when it just represents the workers, and furthermore, is a minority trying to represent the majority. At least, that's how I see a vanguard.

Oh and thanks very much cenv.

[redasheville]

The thread was not, in fact, titled "Maybe we should try hymns and flowers instead of guns and slogans", if you hadn't noticed. I acknowledge, absolutely 110% the necessity for organisation. However, deduced from what the vanguard has led to I wondered if anyone knew of any other "organisational alternative", as quoted from the title, to the vanguard. 'Some kind of command structure" doesn't immediately have to a vanguard. I don't believe it is proper organisation when it just represents the workers, and furthermore, is a minority trying to represent the majority. At least, that's how I see a vanguard.

Oh and thanks very much cenv.

http://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1983/vanguard_parties.htm

[syndicat]

As I said, the way I understand the "vanguard" is all the activists and organizers and publicists among the working class and oppressed communities. I suppose you might say this is the "organic" vanguard, but this is the only sense in which it is a concept worth taking seriously.

but some people mean an organization of the vanguard where they take this to be a political minority organization. as such libertarian socialist organizations like Workers Solidarity Alliance are as much part of the "vanguard" as ISO. but when you ask about an "alternative," that's what throws me. It sounds as tho you're asking, Alternative to the Leninist conception of the vanguard party?

[Kléber]

Sorry I was in a hurry last post.


The Communists, on the other hand, wanted a conventional hierarchical army and police controlled by their party...a party army.The PCE policy, forced on the party by the Comintern, really meant subordinating all political armies to the liberal government. At this period in time the Stalinist clique in the USSR was trying tirelessly (and hopelessly) to forge an alliance with the "democracies" of Western Europe against fascism and at one point they even ordered a Communist minister to quit the government to make it seem more liberal. That policy, which prostituted Communism before the likes of Prieto, and turned the PCE into hired assassins against the anarchists, thus ensuring their own ruin at the hands of Casado, was an example of political suicide theory, not vanguard theory.


I think perhaps it's no coincidence that most major 21st c. revolution have had a vanguard and then consequently degenerated into bureaucracy.Well, there was only one proletarian state that degenerated into a bureaucratic regime, the USSR. In that case it was due to the isolation of the revolution and the prematurity of revolutionary conditions in Russia, not the subjective weaknesses of Lenin's idea of the revolutionary vanguard. There are over 20 quotes by Lenin where he insists that the Russian revolution will fail without revolutions in the industrial countries

The main problem faced by the proletariat in that era was that industry, and therefore the working class, was concentrated in the imperialist countries, where the influx of superprofits nurtured a middle class, and made reforms possible to curb class antagonisms. Likewise, the colonial countries, where the people were most miserable and most likely to revolt, were the least industrialized and had the smallest working classes. Thus, a working class revolution was most likely to occur not in the countries where the working class was most developed, but in a semi-colonial country where oppressive conditions combined with an immature proletariat. This happened in Russia where the working class, less than 20% of the population, took power in the wost possible situation. Today that problem is gone, the industry is massed in the "third world" oppressed countries where class antagonisms are greatest. Advances in information technology have also simplified the role of bureaucracy in production and given the powers of documentation and protest to individual workers.

The Russian Communist Party would not have degenerated so, let alone been forced to institute a party dictatorship were it not for the extraordinary conditions resulting from the isolation of the Revolution. The intervention and blockade, as well as the massive influx of arms and cash from Western governments to the White forces, led to the destruction of what remained of the post-WWI economy, the death of great numbers of advanced, class-conscious workers on the front lines, and of course, the militarization of the Soviet economy and society, which strangled democracy. But it would be wrong to associate the military vanguard of the Revolution and Civil War with the Stalinist purges and degeneration. The leading generals of that conflict, like Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, were hostile to the conservative revisionism of the Stalin clique, and were murdered by it when they got in the way of its ambitions. The bureaucracy that strangled working-class power in the USSR came from behind the backs of the vanguard, by taking advantage of the terribly low cultural level, and small numbers, of the proletariat.

The bourgeois revolutions had vanguards too. Some of them degenerated, like in France, while in the US the vanguard peacefully disassembled itself and the revolutionary bourgeoisie maintained political plurality. The reason is not that the French Revolution had a vanguard and the American Revolution did not; both had vanguards. The French Republic however was invaded by 10 armies and the monarchical powers financed reactionary movements throughout the country. The United States on the other hand only had to deal with one or two invaders at a time. Since there is only one example of a nationwide proletarian revolution, and its degeneration sounds a lot like the French revolution, I think it's still way too early in the history of the proletarian revolution to completely disown the idea of a revolutionary vanguard.

The anarchists agree that a class war is a war and in one you need to coordinate your activities to be successful. Obviously we should keep it as democratic as possible, and learn from mistakes that people of all ideologies have made. The FAI was the political vanguard of anarchism just as the high command of the CNT/FAI militias was its military vanguard.

[syndicat]

no, it wasn't just due to "isolation" that the Russian proletariat was defeated. they were defeated by the Bolsheviks themselves. when the Bolshevik party took state power, they immediately set up a statist central planning body (Vesenkha), a party-controlle political police to harass other left tendencies in the working class (cheka), and in 1918 they built a conventional hierarchical army controlled by ex-czarist officers. Lenin and Trotsky started beating the drum for one-man management. As Sam Farber says in "Before Stalinism" the Menshevik and Bolshevik parties had no concept of mass participatory democracy, of involving the masses in the decisions. this was of no interest to them. all they were concerned about was gaining control of the central state.

their policies in practice created a new administrative layer of engineers, managers, political bureaucrats and army officers who became the new ruling class.

in regard to a class war, as in Spain, the anarcho-syndicalists came to the position it was necesary to construct a unified revolutionary people's army with a unified command by end of August 1936 . but they insisted that it had to be controlled by the organized working class. this is why they proposed in Sept 1936 that the army be controlled by a revolutionary council of the two union federations, a proletarian government in fact.

but the Communists opposed this because it would mean they would not be able to consolidate their one-party dictatorship and a nationalized economy controlled by bureaucrats.

[Kléber]

but the Communists opposed this because it would mean they would not be able to consolidate their one-party dictatorship and a nationalized economy controlled by bureaucrats.There was no one-party dictatorship. The central (liberal-run) government deliberately used PCE officers to crush workers' power in Barcelona, in an effort by right-wing Republicans to set their rivals, the Communists and Anarchists, against one another. The PCE reluctantly went along with this because during the "Popular Front" years (1934-1939), the Communist Parties were actively against revolution, they were just in favor of left-liberal alliances against fascism. The PCE's cowardly betrayal of the Spanish workers had nothing in common with Leninism; rather, it was symptomatic of the Comintern's doomed attempt to flatter Anglo-French imperialism by keeping the appearance of liberalism in Spain, even if that meant screwing the revolution - and Communist Party - there.


a party-controlle political police to harass other left tendencies in the working class (cheka)Actually, the Cheka was not set up to "harass other left tendencies," it was formed to counter espionage, sabotage and corruption. There were Left SR Chekists up until the failed Left SR coup.


and in 1918 they built a conventional hierarchical army controlled by ex-czarist officersTheir loyalty was ensured by political commissars. The army needed military specialists.


As Sam Farber says in "Before Stalinism" the Menshevik and Bolshevik parties had no concept of mass participatory democracy, of involving the masses in the decisions. this was of no interest to them. all they were concerned about was gaining control of the central state.They didn't take over a bourgeois state, they set up one based on bodies of proletarian representation.


Lenin and Trotsky started beating the drum for one-man management.This was necessary due to the famine and shortages caused by the imperialist blockade and occupation.


their policies in practice created a new administrative layer of engineers, managers, political bureaucrats and army officers who became the new ruling class.Bureaucrats are not a class, they are a highly-paid caste of employees, an aristocracy within the working class. They were only able to assume the power they did because the rest of the working class was physically and culturally decimated by the war. Lenin and Trotsky feared this might happen and consequently pinned their hopes on a success of the revolution in Western Europe. It is easy to denounce them in retrospect, but all the horrible actions they were forced to take came from the fulfillment of their revolutionary demand for "All power to the soviets" in 1917. If a different party had led the soviets to a conquest of state power, it would have faced the same problems, and had to have made the same decisions as the Bolsheviks did to prevent itself from being wiped out. The Bolsheviks' mistake was not that they made a revolution and had the organization to carry it out, it was that they assumed revolutions to be just around the corner in the imperialist countries. The Russian Revolution was not goverened by incorrect ideology, it simply happened ahead of its time.

[syndicat]

sorry, but your view expressed here is bullshit. The Communist International had a stagist conception of the revolution in Spain. There are various documents from the soviet archives that show this, reproduced in "Spain Betrayed." Their aim was to first rebuild a conventional hierarchical army and police, thru rebuilding the Republican state, and then worm their way into control of it...a permeationist strategy. This was successful. They did gain control of the army and police. Negrin, the prime minister, was basically a lackey of the CPE. It was the social democrats being used by the Stalinists, not the other way around.

In 1938, after the PCE had used police force to gain control over the UGT union, it imposed on the UGT a program for nationalization of the economy. This fit in with the PCE's organizing of the middle strata because their strategy would lead to consolidation of a new techno-managerial class regime, as existed in the USSR.

In Russia, there was in fact a new dominating class. If workers are excluded from control over production...and I don't give a shit what bullshit excuses you come up for it...it means a dominating and exploiting class is consolidating its position. And this came about thru things like the Supreme Council for National Economy created in 1917, one-man management and so on. A new techno-managerial class was being consolidated. The position of this class is based on a relative monopolization of decision-making authority and expertise related to management. The workers were not being trained to be the rulers of production but were being subordinated.

If workers don't have the skills and power to directly manage production, they are subordinate to some other class. Leninism inevitably leads to a new system of class domination and exploitation.

[Kléber]

The Communist International had a stagist conception of the revolution in Spain.Like I said, nothing in common with Leninism. Lenin would not have approved of the PCE prostituting its political independence.


Negrin, the prime minister, was basically a lackey of the CPEThe same Negrín who left his fortune to Franco? He only really warmed up to the Communists at the very end, when it was apparent the liberal Republican army commanders were about to stage a military uprising of their own.


This was successful. They did gain control of the army and police.lol? They certainly weren't in control when the army deposed them in Madrid.


this came about thru things like the Supreme Council for National Economy created in 1917, one-man management and so onUnfortunately, the questions of food and war materiel needed resolution. Moving toward local self-management and greater workplace democracy was a secondary goal when people were starving to death and imperialist and foreign-backed armies were attacking from all directions.


Leninism inevitably leads to a new system of class domination and exploitation.You are confusing Leninist organizational tactics with policies that the Bolsheviks were forced to take up in order to survive. In practice, anarchists would have been forced to do the same thing. Makhno's followers eagerly shot their enemies and exploited the peasantry in the areas they controlled. Also, you still didn't answer my point about the French and American revolutions: do you ascribe the failure of the French revolution to the objective conditions in which it developed, or the ideology of the revolutionaries?

[syndicat]

The same Negrín who left his fortune to Franco? He only really warmed up to the Communists at the very end, when it was apparent the liberal Republican army commanders were about to stage a military uprising of their own.

bullshit. he gave the PCE carte blanche to kill revolutionaries thru the SIM. he was responsible for sending 70 % of Spain's gold reserves to Moscow.

[/QUOTE]


You are confusing Leninist organizational tactics with policies that the Bolsheviks were forced to take up in order to survive. In practice, anarchists would have been forced to do the same thing. Makhno's followers eagerly shot their enemies and exploited the peasantry in the areas they controlled. Also, you still didn't answer my point about the French and American revolutions: do you ascribe the failure of the French revolution to the objective conditions in which it developed, or the ideology of the revolutionaries?

this talk about "objective conditions" is the usual Leninist bullshit. There were alternatives such as the proposal of the St Petersburg area factory committee soviet for a national workers congress to plan the whole economy. You don't explain why top down one-man management is supposedly better than workers managent.

Many studies of workers management have shown it is more efficient and productive. So you can't justify the destruction of workers management in the Russsian reovlution on grounds of efficiency. This is just the usual apologetics for the new bureaucratic exploiting class.

[Kléber]

he gave the PCE carte blanche to kill revolutionaries thru the SIM.
My point exactly, the liberals used the PCE to do their dirty work against the proletarian revolutionists. Then they crushed the PCE with the help of pissed-off anarchists in Madrid. Obviously both the liberal and PCE strategies were epic failures. Neither of them had anything in common with Leninism.


he was responsible for sending 70 % of Spain's gold reserves to Moscow.
Because Britain and France gave Republican Spain belligerent rights, so there were other places to spend that gold, right?


this talk about "objective conditions" is the usual Leninist bullshit.
Politics don't exist outside of reality. You can say what you want on a message board but when a tiny working class has entrusted you to make a socialist revolution in a pre-capitalist country your choices are more limited. Obviously some of the dictatorial policies the Bolsheviks were forced to take to save their own lives, actually contributed to the undoing of their party from within. But to assume that the Bolsheviks wanted to go down that road, that they were free to act however they wished in Russia, would be a historiographic mistake as great as the Bolsheviks' actual political mistakes!


Many studies of workers management have shown it is more efficient and productive.
"Many studies" are great but in practice, centralized management was more efficient for meeting the pressing needs of an embattled and blockaded revolution.



You don't explain why top down one-man management is supposedly better than workers managent.
I don't need to. It's common sense. If you think that by being more democratic, a factory becomes more productive, that's naive. The opposite is true.

"One-man management" as advocated by Lenin was a broad term that included several forms, and all of them had some means of checking the power of the bureaucrats and specialists.

1) the enterprise is headed by an executive from among the workers, who has a specialist engineer for an assistant; = 2) the enterprise is headed by a specialist engineer, who is the actual manager of the enterprise, and he has a worker commissar with broad powers and the duty to deal with every aspect of the business; = 3) the enterprise is headed by a specialist director, with one or two Communist assistants with powers and the duty to look into every branch of management but without the right to rescind the director’s instructions; and = 4) the enterprise is headed by a small well-knit group whose chairman is responsible for the work of the group as a whole. This form of organisation in industry was adopted by the Ninth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/15b.htm

[ls]

My point exactly, the liberals used the PCE to do their dirty work against the proletarian revolutionists. Then they crushed the PCE with the help of pissed-off anarchists in Madrid. Obviously both the liberal and PCE strategies were epic failures. Neither of them had anything in common with Leninism.

Yes, clearly the anarchists were on the liberals' side and had no independent revolutionary line.


Because Britain and France gave Republican Spain belligerent rights, so there were other places to spend that gold, right?

Pulling out of Spain after reinforcing a faction to carry out the counter-revolution - taking as many resources as possible was clearly something that should be supported by all revolutionaries, please now.


"Many studies" are great but in practice, centralized management was more efficient for meeting the pressing needs of an embattled and blockaded revolution.

Do you have any proof for this beyond what Lenin said and..


I don't need to. It's common sense.


If you think that by being more democratic, a factory becomes more productive, that's naive. The opposite is true.

Some elements of Capitalism are very efficient too, overall though Capitalism isn't efficient largely because it isn't Democratic, Democracy directly affects efficiency in the big picture.


"One-man management" as advocated by Lenin was a broad term that included several forms, and all of them had some means of checking the power of the bureaucrats and specialists.

Of course. He even criticised Stalin for having too much power before he died, that doesn't mean he got everything he said correct though - as you would attest to with him having said that about Stalin I would imagine.

[syndicat]

My point exactly, the liberals used the PCE to do their dirty work against the proletarian revolutionists. Then they crushed the PCE with the help of pissed-off anarchists in Madrid. Obviously both the liberal and PCE strategies were epic failures. Neither of them had anything in common with Leninism.



Wrong. The PCE demanded this sort of control, their ability, with the GPU, to smash the revolutionaries. The Communist International had said early in the civil war they would smash the anarchists and Trots as they had done in Russia. Moreover, the PCE were able to get many worker-managed industries nationalized, taken over by the state. This was part of their program to create a bureaucratic class regime in Spain, as in Russia. In 1938, after they had gained control of the UGT, they imposed this program of nationalized industry on it.

In regard to sending the gold to Russia, you respond with the inane comment that they were not likely to buy weapons from the Western powers. You fail to consider the drastic damage done by the transfer of the gold reserves: the value of Spain's currency was cut in half. Thus their ability to buy food, machinery etc on the world market was trashed...and all so that Stalin could gain the loot. Moreover, once they sent the gold, they no longer had any bargainiing leverage with the USSR. If they'd kept the gold in Madrid, they could still have bought weapons from Russia...on a pay as you go basis...an alternative you fail to consider in your eagerness to justify Stalin's looting of Spain. Also, they could have used the gold to buy equipment and supplies to develop more of a native arms industry. They also were in fact able to buy some weapons from some other countries (such as Poland) but in virtually every case they were cheated and sold old junk...both Poland and USSR did this. The soviet Chatto biplanes and tanks were useful but the Soviet tank crews didn't know how to properly use the tanks. They had no mobile phones and tended to lose touch with their infantry and artillery support...and then they became sitting ducks for fascist anti tank cannons.


If you think that by being more democratic, a factory becomes more productive, that's naive. The opposite is true.

This is just an excuse for the bureaucrati c dominating class...this is what Leninism leads to. In fact, as I pointed out, all studies have shown that when there is a greater degree of worker control and initiative, there is greater productivity. A bucreaucratic control layer is inherently inefficient because workers are in fact capable of doing the work of planning and coordination. Creating an internal class division leads to workers withdrawing cooperation and other aspects of class conflict, which leads to inefficiency.

The reason that Taylorism and hierarchical management are used in capitalism is that it enables costs to be shifted on to workers. When workers are under tight control and monitoring and have no control, this is a cause of stress, which causes health problems like cardio vascular disease. This is a human cost to the workers. But in capitalism the capitalist firm doesn't have to pay for these costs to workers. That's why it seems "efficient" in capitalist terms...they can squeeze out more product without compensating workers for harm done to them. But this is obviously incompatible with a proletarian concept of efficiency. Again, this is another way in which Leninism is anti-proletarian.

in general your statements are just assertions, not backed up by actual arguments. In other words, your position is dogmatic.

[MarxSchmarx]

All in all this has been an interesting thread, but once again it is yet another thread that has degenerated into a historiographical debate about what did and did not transpire before many of our parents and grandparents were born.

There are plenty of valuable insights to be gained from the Spanish and Russian revolutions, but their link to broader theoretical principles is too tenuous to merit much consideration. Each historical moment had so many variables, so many complications that their general lessons are too ambiguous. For example, there really is no modern equivalent to the comintern, so any facet of the Spanish revolution that requires understanding the role of Moscow has very little modern day relevance, as it is at best counter-factual history.

There are plenty of good arguments on both sides that don't require invoking historically contingent analyses. Syndicat and Kleber's attempts to analyze the military organization of the anarcho-syndicalists is, for instance, a valid exercise. By contrast, the politics of the CPE are so specific to their time and place that I do not seriously believe that they have any real modern relevance except being historical curiosities.

[Kléber]

Yes, clearly the anarchists were on the liberals' side and had no independent revolutionary line.Yet again, that isn't what I said. In fact I specified that the Madrid CNT/FAI and Cipriano Mera acted independently of the national Anarchist organization, whose center in Barcelona had been conquered. Anarchism was not particularly strong in Madrid and I don't think the actions of some Anarchists there were at all representative of Anarchism as a whole. In fact, if anything, the CNT/FAI collaborated to a surprising degree with the government.


The PCE demanded this sort of control, their ability, with the GPU, to smash the revolutionaries. The Communist International had said early in the civil war they would smash the anarchists and Trots as they had done in Russia.Like I said earlier, liberal and Comintern policies combined to make a disaster.


Moreover, the PCE were able to get many worker-managed industries nationalized, taken over by the state.Actually the Republic tried without much luck to convince émigré capitalists to come back to Spain. Nationalization might not have sounded good to British and French diplomats but it was much more acceptable than anarcho-syndicalism. The liberals were literally "ashamed" of the worker-run factories and they wanted to get rid of them - better yet, take them over. They didn't need La Pasionaria around to suggest that one. Nationalization has nothing to do with socialism, some of the most reactionary capitalist governments in the world have nationalized industries.


Moreover, once they sent the gold, they no longer had any bargainiing leverage with the USSR. If they'd kept the gold in Madrid, they could still have bought weapons from Russia...on a pay as you go basis...an alternative you fail to consider in your eagerness to justify Stalin's looting of Spain.When the hell did I say the Republic got a fair deal? I was using sarcasm (unsuccessfully) to point out that the Republic had no other way to secure modern arms. Stalin did not offer a "pay-as-you-go basis," he was not a particularly nice fucking guy. The USSR was violating the Non-Intervention Agreement and demanded the money up front. They also wanted to ship the gold quickly because they rightly feared a blockade and massive German, Italian, and Nationalist piracy against Republican shipping and trade.


Also, they could have used the gold to buy equipment and supplies to develop more of a native arms industry.Enormous amounts of money were invested for this Herculean purpose, it was an utter failure. Many of the such-constructed Republican arms factories were actually captured by the Nationalists and the production lines used to arm the latter. A quick and massive infusion of foreign arms could easily have won the war for the Republic or the Nationalists at certain key points, but their Soviet and German-Italian backers each sent the aid in small doses to limit the diplomatic effect, and out of fear that a victory for either side would risk a general European war for which no interfering power was prepared.


They also were in fact able to buy some weapons from some other countries (such as Poland) but in virtually every case they were cheated and sold old junkI fail to see how this contradicts what I've been saying.


The soviet Chatto biplanes and tanks were useful but the Soviet tank crews didn't know how to properly use the tanks. They had no mobile phones and tended to lose touch with their infantry and artillery support...and then they became sitting ducks for fascist anti tank cannons.Well, I agreed with you about Stalin's ulterior motives, but now you're just insulting the anti-fascist fighters for having inferior technology. Furthermore, the Soviet equipment was vastly superior to all the other crap the Republic could buy. The I-15's actually gave the Republicans temporary air supremacy, and the I-16's were the only state of the art inteceptors that the Republic had to defend itself against the similarly advanced German planes. The T-26 wasn't just "useful," it was the best tank of the war, it dominated the Nationalist L-3's and Panzer 1's, and the Nationalists put an immense effort into capturing the superior Soviet tanks so that they could also have some decent armor. One big mistake the Republican commanders made was clinging to ancient French WWI tank doctrines and spreading out their armor across the front, but this was against the wishes the Soviet advisors and Communist officers who wanted to test the novel theory of independent tank formations.


In fact, as I pointed out, all studies have shown that when there is a greater degree of worker control and initiative, there is greater productivity.We have gone from many studies to all studies! Are me and Lenin the only people on this earth ever to believe that some form of central management is necessary to organize industrial activities involving thousands of workers laboring interconnectedly?


The reason that Taylorism and hierarchical management are used in capitalism is that it enables costs to be shifted on to workers. When workers are under tight control and monitoring and have no control, this is a cause of stress, which causes health problems like cardio vascular disease. This is a human cost to the workers. But in capitalism the capitalist firm doesn't have to pay for these costs to workers.Which is why Lenin criticized Taylorism for its bourgeois aspects, because the Taylorist model is, as you say, very undemocratic; it justifies the destruction of "human machines" to increase profit rates. But the essence of Taylorism, saving labor through rational management, is useful to the working class and should not be thrown out together with the bourgeois prejudices of its inventor.


All in all this has been an interesting thread, but once again it is yet another thread that has degenerated into a historiographical debate about what did and did not transpire before many of our parents and grandparents were born.Better to study real examples of revolutionary theory being put into practice, than just fantasize about what may happen in our online echo chamber, or argue about the present moment in isolation from all that has gone before.



the politics of the CPE are so specific to their time and place that I do not seriously believe that they have any real modern relevance except being historical curiosities.History took the Spanish proletariat by surprise and there's no reason it won't shock us too. Revolutions tend to happen in the worst possible situations, and being able to analyze past ones is a luxury. History has objective laws and cyclical patterns which create the appearance of things repeating themselves. At the same time, history also has a subjective factor, the protagonists can influence events and they don't always do everything right. We have to figure out what they did and why to avoid making the same mistakes, and thereby letting their sacrifices go to waste.

[syndicat]

As MarxSchmarx points out, the thread has been derailed...and this is because of your intervention Kleber. I've already refuted what you claim about the Spanish revolution and now you're repeating your unsubstantiated assertions.

You may say that nationalization has nothing to do with socialism and I would agree, but it was the aim of the Communist International and PCE in Spain. They had a two-stage conception of how to create their particular brand of revolution. The first stage was recruiting from the middle classes under the rubric of "defending the Republic", getting a conventional hierarchical army and police rebuilt, and then worming their way into control of the officer corps of this top down army and police. They in fact did do this. but that was just the first stage. they saw that as just a step towards then consolidating their hold on the state, using their control of the army and police, and then nationalizing the economy so as to create an economy centrally managed by their cadre. Recruiting from the middle classes makes sense if you want managerialist cadre to control workers. Consolidating a totally state-ized economy under party control was the second stage of their revolution, as they conceived of it.

Their brand of revolution means consolidating a techno-managerial ruling class. The way the Bolsheviks did this in Russia and the way the PCE was trying to do this in Spain was through nationalizing the entire economy. This is what the PCE's 1938 program called for. This is rather different than nationalization of this or that industry under capitalism. The state is a hierarchical institution in which the techno-managerial class presides over public sector workers. The managerial hierarchy, and the concentration of expertise into the hands of a minority such as engineers and the like, is part of what makes the state an institution that can be used to secure a techno-managerial mode of production. The fact that you advocate for Taylorism and centralizing management in the hands of a few shows that in fact your ideology is techno-managerialist also.

You're mistaken about Germany and Italy not sending large amounts of arms. They sent vast amounts. Germany sent hundreds of planes, the equivalent of a whole airforce. The T-26 and BT tanks and Chatto biplanes were, yes, superior to equipment on the other side...but too few were sent and the tanks were not used effectively. One of the things the Germans learned from the Spanish civil war was the importance of providing mobile phones to tank crews otherwise they are likely to get lost or out of touch with their supporting infantry and artillery, and then they become sitting ducks for enemy gunners. That's how the Soviet tank crews got blown away in Spain. I already mentioned the other completely dumb policies imposed on the war effort by the Soviet advisors and PCE leaders, which are documented in detail in "The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor.

So much for the alleged benefits of a top-down military. Also, you say that Stalin would not have been willing to sell arms to Spain on a "pay as you go" basis. But you give no evidence for this. I think that is highly unlikely. Stalin was concerned about the political image wordlwide of the Communist International. he couldn't be seen as unwilling to sell arms to the Spanish anti-fascist fight. You also make it sound like the "liberals" wanted to get the money out of the country. What you ignore is that the "liberals" were not in control of the government when this happened. It was the PSOE. Negrin in particular was the finance minister. He was a social democrat with close ties to the Communists. Moreover, you ignore the strong pressure being brought to bear against the PSOE by the soviet ambassador and the Communist party to send the gold to Moscow. In fact this was what Stalin wanted and that's why it occurred. Don't try to pass this off as the fault of someone else. The Spanish PSOE leaders made mistakes and were at times naive about the Communists, and this is one of those cases.

Now the only way this bears on the top of a "vanguard party" is that Leninists often argue that control by such a party is needed because it is alledgedly necessary to have some tightly centralized military system to counter reaction. But the anarcho-syndicalists responded to this concern in Spain with their proposal for a unified militia with a unified command, under the control of a national defense council elected by the unions. The key issue, for them, is the desire to keep the armed forces under the control of the organized working class. Creating a hierarchical army and police accountable only to party-state leaders robs the working class of that control...and is thereby amenable to the armed forces being used to attack the working class and defend bureaucratic class inteerests...and this is exactly what happened in Spain beginning with the May events in 1937.