Vanguard Existence

[DaComm]

I have recently found myself becoming fonder of the idea of a Vanguard. I find it to be a splendid idea for the bringing about of class consciousness. I recognize it's uses and goals; being (1.) dispel rumors of Communism and de-bunk Capitalist distortions of Communist ideology. (2.) Educate the proletarian in the ways of Marxist theory to prove to them the necessity of a worker-run society. (3.) Acting as military command (being seasoned revolutionary professionals) for the revolution. Assuming all of this is done, my understanding is that the Vanguard would dissolve, and simply let the worker-run government (and state), (the workers having a clear understanding of the necessity of bourgeois suppression) suppress the reactionaries. Would however, the Vanguard exist to act as a means of suppression (being the ones that came to revolutionary consensus/led the masses/commanded the revolution), also? I guess my ultimate question is, must the Vanguard necessarily remain to act as a system of suppression, or can it just dissolve and let the worker state do this? Must the Vanguard continue to exist after a revolution, if the workers are essentially all Communist?

[9]

In my view, "the vanguard" is simply the most class-conscious, militant, politically-advanced segment of the working class at any given time. It isn't some gang of middle class shepherds "bringing" communism to the 'ignorant' workers, as many people seem to think.

[DaComm]

I did not say it was. Nor do I believe or implicate this false belief.

[ArrowLance]

The state (and so the vanguard) will remain until it eventually can complete it's goal of eliminating the need for itself. Until external and internal threats are more or less neutralized it must act as a lever of the working class against those threats. In no way is that state the goal, or does the state have the goal of perpetuating itself.

[Glenn Beck]

I did not say it was. Nor do I believe or implicate this false belief.

It's mostly critics of so-called vanguardism that believe this.

[DaComm]

In no way is that state the goal, or does the state have the goal of perpetuating itself.

Thankyou, but this I know. all I want to know is if the state must consist of the Vanguard. By geometric logic, must the Vanguard be the State?

[Blake's Baby]

No. The vanguard is the most class-conscious section of the working class. The revolutionary process itself will politicise the working class to a degree unthinkable at the moment. The 'vanguard' will then be vast layers of the working class. As the working class as takes over the administration of society during the revolution, the necessity for a 'vanguard' will diminish.

A one-party state after the revolution where 'the Vanguard' rules 'the workers' is an epic failure of a revolution in my opinion.

[Luisrah]

A good vanguard, like doctors, should strive to stop being what they are.

If during, and after the revolution, the proletariat is really conscious, then it will be very hard for the vanguard to turn into a new ruling class or start opression the workers, become a bureaucracy, or whatever you call it, because conscious workers are harder to brainwash, for example, and aren't afraid of revolting again if things still don't go their way.

[Fietsketting]

A good vanguard, like doctors, should strive to stop being what they are.

If during, and after the revolution, the proletariat is really conscious, then it will be very hard for the vanguard to turn into a new ruling class or start opression the workers, become a bureaucracy, or whatever you call it, because conscious workers are harder to brainwash, for example, and aren't afraid of revolting again if things still don't go their way.

No its not. They shoot them. A vanguard in partyform has thusfar reacted in the exact same way, or even there own members for that matter.

[DaComm]

No. The vanguard is the most class-conscious section of the working class. The revolutionary process itself will politicise the working class to a degree unthinkable at the moment. The 'vanguard' will then be vast layers of the working class. As the working class as takes over the administration of society during the revolution, the necessity for a 'vanguard' will diminish.

A one-party state after the revolution where 'the Vanguard' rules 'the workers' is an epic failure of a revolution in my opinion.

The point of the state is not to rule the workers. What rules the workers during Socialism is their democratically-functioning government. The state's purpose is to violently supress reactionaries and Capitalists.

[Blake's Baby]

Agreed, the point of the surviving state institutions after the revolution isthe surpression of the capitalists; the vanguard of workers adminsters this progressively-smashed machine, until there is nothing left and 'the government of people is transformed into the administration of things'.

Not "the All-Powerful Vanguard Party Representing the Toiling Masses massacres the 'white counter-Revolutionaries (including the local Party organisation)' at Kronstadt".

For example.

[Luisrah]

No its not. They shoot them. A vanguard in partyform has thusfar reacted in the exact same way, or even there own members for that matter.

Then what you describe is not a vanguard, for the vanguard is made of workers, and workers have the same class interests.

[DaComm]

So, must the state, the means of opression of reactionary Glenn Beck's definately consist of the Vanguard...or does it even really matter?

[Blake's Baby]

The working class will adminsister the state. What do you think 'the vanguard' is in this case?