Can a leaderless revolution ever succeed?

[punisa]

What do you think? Egyptian revolution clearly has none, is that a liability?

[Rakhmetov]

A cautionary tale

In July of 1975 I went to Portugal because in April of the previous year a bloodless military coup had brought down the US-supported 48-year fascist regime of Portugal, the world's only remaining colonial power. This was followed by a program centered on nationalization of major industries, workers control, a minimum wage, land reform, and other progressive measures. Military officers in a Western nation who spoke like socialists was science fiction to my American mind, but it had become a reality in Portugal. The center of Lisbon was crowded from morning till evening with people discussing the changes and putting up flyers on bulletin boards. The visual symbol of the Portuguese "revolution" had become the picture of a child sticking a rose into the muzzle of a rifle held by a friendly soldier, and I got caught up in demonstrations and parades featuring people, including myself, standing on tanks and throwing roses, with the crowds cheering the soldiers. It was pretty heady stuff, and I dearly wanted to believe, but I and most people I spoke to there had little doubt that the United States could not let such a breath of fresh air last very long. The overthrow of the Chilean government less than two years earlier had raised the world's collective political consciousness, as well as the level of skepticism and paranoia on the left.


Washington and multinational corporate officials who were on the board of directors of the planet were indeed concerned. Besides anything else, Portugal was a member of NATO. Destabilization became the order of the day: covert actions; attacks in the US press; subverting trade unions; subsidizing opposition media; economic sabotage through international credit and commerce; heavy financing of selected candidates in elections; a US cut-off of Portugal from certain military and nuclear information commonly available to NATO members; NATO naval and air exercises off the Portuguese coast, with 19 NATO warships moored in Lisbon's harbor, regarded by most Portuguese as an attempt to intimidate the provisional government. In 1976 the "Socialist" Party (scarcely further left and no less anti-communist than the US Democratic Party) came to power, heavily financed by the CIA, the Agency also arranging for Western European social-democratic parties to help foot the bill. The Portuguese revolution was dead, stillborn. 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#note-1)
The events in Egypt cannot help but remind me of Portugal. Here, there, and everywhere, now and before, the United States of America, as always, is petrified of anything genuinely progressive or socialist, or even too democratic, for that carries the danger of allowing god-knows what kind of non-America-believer taking office. Honduras 2009, Haiti 2004, Venezuela 2002, Ecuador 2000, Bulgaria 1990, Nicaragua 1990 ... dozens more ... anything, anyone, if there's a choice, even a dictator, a torturer, is better.


http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer90.html

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Leaders of some sort will always emerge, whether for a few minutes in the heat of battle or at the head of elected councils and committees, or at the top, trying to direct things permanently. The question is whether or not formal organizational leadership is required to overthrow capitalism and usher in a classless society.

No outside organization created the Paris Commune. No outside organization created the Soviets. No organization lead the Hungarian Revolution, which was only defeated by a forceful invasion from outside. The proletariat can and will create its own organs when required. But without pursuing its overall, international, long term interests, things can dissipate (eg. France 1968).

Of course in France, it was the "vanguard parties" that were derailing the struggle all along, calling for the workers to turn their struggle back into a "regular strike." Despite the claims to the contrary by those who seek to lead well in advance of any outbreak of struggle, history seems to show that formal, permanent leftist organizations are more dangerous than beneficial.

[Proukunin]

do you think if military rule comes out of this, a revolutionary leftist group may rise? i mean if mubarak's regime does command the army to some type of marshall law I think the protesters may turn to more militant forms of revolt and more liberating ideas.

[Psy]

Leaders of some sort will always emerge, whether for a few minutes in the heat of battle or at the head of elected councils and committees, or at the top, trying to direct things permanently. The question is whether or not formal organizational leadership is required to overthrow capitalism and usher in a classless society.

No outside organization created the Paris Commune. No outside organization created the Soviets. No organization lead the Hungarian Revolution, which was only defeated by a forceful invasion from outside. The proletariat can and will create its own organs when required. But without pursuing its overall, international, long term interests, things can dissipate (eg. France 1968).

Of course in France, it was the "vanguard parties" that were derailing the struggle all along, calling for the workers to turn their struggle back into a "regular strike." Despite the claims to the contrary by those who seek to lead well in advance of any outbreak of struggle, history seems to show that formal, permanent leftist organizations are more dangerous than beneficial.
Paris 1968 also failed due to a lack of leadership thus the French ruling class was given quarter and able to regroup. Yes there was "vanguard parties" derailing the struggle but that because there was no strong real vanguard to steam roll over all counter-revolutionary forces both internal and external.

Yes true vanguards crystallize during revolution but they rely on the pre-revolutionary vanguard to educate them so they don't make the same mistakes of their predecessors.

[revolution inaction]

psy that makes no sense whatsoever, and why are you still using a red and black avatar? stop pretending to be an anarchist.

[Dimentio]

They usually succeed.

It's first in the aftermath that leaders emerge and start to try to build up new governments.

Leader-led revolutions are those which usually are failing. Or turning into guerilla campaigns.

I don't know, but I don't see military campaigns - often carried out over decades - as revolutions.

[Psy]

psy that makes no sense whatsoever,

If the proletariat can be tricked by opportunists waving red flags they can tricked by the bourgeoisie so you can't lay blame on the failure of Paris May 1968 on those derailing the revolution under a red banner as if May 1968 had sufficient leadership it would have taken much more to derail the revolution.



and why are you still using a red and black avatar? stop pretending to be an anarchist.
The red and black actually is the symbol of anarcho-syndicalist that was never opposed to vanguardism. I have never seen a anarcho-syndalist labor union that didn't see itself as a vanguard ahead of the rest of the proletariat even the I.W.W works with the assumption that its members are advance of the proletariat in general thus should guide the rest of the proletariat to being more class consciouses and towards being closer to be ready for revolution.

Anarcho-syndaicalism was never opposed to vanguardism, their split with Marxism comes from anarcho-syndaliscalist seeing the battleground for revolution being in the workplace thus no need for a revolutionary party only revolutionary labor unions and that said unions should be the vanguard not revolutionary parties.

[Psy]

They usually succeed.

It's first in the aftermath that leaders emerge and start to try to build up new governments.

The vanguard is needed to push the proletariat to make a full revolution, for example in Paris May 1968 the government was preparing to flee yet the proletariat didn't keep pushing to seize the capital as it didn't form a revolutionary army to brush aside what was left of the police and entrench itself in the government buildings.

[RedTrackWorker]

Of course in France, it was the "vanguard parties" that were derailing the struggle all along, calling for the workers to turn their struggle back into a "regular strike." Despite the claims to the contrary by those who seek to lead well in advance of any outbreak of struggle, history seems to show that formal, permanent leftist organizations are more dangerous than beneficial.

Yes, formal leftists organizations have been more dangerous throughout history than beneficial, like the Second International in WW1 and the Third in the lead-up to WW2. But the question isn't whether "left organizations" are needed, but do revolutionary-minded workers need to self-organize internationally?
A careful analysis of history shows that is necessary. In Tunisia and Egypt right now, most people realize that something must be done with the police and with the army, but do not have a clear plan for what that is. Key elements of that are:
Disarm and disband the police, call for the election of officers in the army and for the soldiers to arm the protesters. Such slogans may spread "spontaneously"...but they haven't yet, leading to great danger in both revolutions. Acutely in Egypt, the generals are playing a game to seem on their side, when it is a military regime! To ask revolutionaries who understand that not co-ordinate their political program through debate and action (required to develop a scientific understanding of society) is to hamstring the revolution.
The workers and poor of Tunisia, Egypt and the surrounding regime are rapidly moving toward revolutionary ideas, but they should not have to re-work through the whole history of human thought individually in order to develop those ideas, to see that in Tunisia, they cannot just get rid of the RCD and institute "democracy", for instance.
Terms like "vanguard," "party" and such have been so abused they can seem to loose all meaning, but what we are talking about is the self-organization of revolutionaries for the revolution. To oppose that is...sad. These events should be clarifying how important that self-organization of revolutionaries is, how much that is needed and a necessary part of the revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So which "revolutionary party" was it that taught the workers of Paris to create the Commune, or the workers of Russia to create the Soviets, or the workers of Hungary to create councils and committees?

[Amphictyonis]

What do you think? Egyptian revolution clearly has none, is that a liability?

A leaderless revolution can succeed but one with no ideological core cannot. Revolt without ideology is just revolt not revolution.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

A leaderless revolution can succeed but one with no ideological core cannot. Revolt without ideology is just revolt not revolution.

But all working class revolt is significant. Within these struggles class militancy and "ideology" develops.

[Amphictyonis]

But all working class revolt is significant. Within these struggles class militancy and "ideology" develops.

Ya but in a case such as Egypt it would make a whole hell of a lot of difference if socialism was on their minds well before they took to the streets. Smaller struggles do indeed generate class awareness but something of the magnitude of Egypt it would have been nice to see different dynamics. I don't know, we'll see what happens. Whats going on is significant but I'm not sure if a socialist friendly government will be put in place. I think the masses may lack the proper class awareness to demand that? I may be wrong. I'd like to be wrong.

[RedTrackWorker]

So which "revolutionary party" was it that taught the workers of Paris to create the Commune, or the workers of Russia to create the Soviets, or the workers of Hungary to create councils and committees?

None. And it wasn't a revolutionary party that called for the February revolution in Russia in 1917 either. And a revolutionary party didn't initiate these revolutions either.
But only in Russia did the workers take power from the capitalist state, and for that you need a revolutionary party. Workers have created soviets time and time again, but the soviets--in one sense--are a vehicle for creating, testing and selecting various political leaderships. Poland, Chile, and many more have had soviets or other forms of workers' mass organization that could be the basis for a new kind of society.
But that is not enough.
If it was enough, would the Tunisian revolution be in the delicate situation it's in? With workers and poor running some towns and cities, while the bourgeoisie still controls the most important centers and has the loyalty of the officers? Why would we be still fighting capitalism at all if it was just a matter of creating soviets, shouldn't it have worked by now it's been done so many times?
This kind of anti-organization of revolutionaries boils down to: Let's not prepare for the seizure of workers' power because when parties prepared before, they betrayed/derailed/what-have-you. Cynicism infects the left today like no other time in history, though these revolutions should go a long way to helping some shake that off.
If you do want to actually help prepare for the workers taking power, rather than just hoping for it, then check out the policies suggested in my link on the Tunisian revolution and let's discuss it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Ya but in a case such as Egypt it would make a whole hell of a lot of difference if socialism was on their minds well before they took to the streets. Smaller struggles do indeed generate class awareness but something of the magnitude of Egypt it would have been nice to see different dynamics. I don't know, we'll see what happens. Whats going on is significant but I'm not sure if a socialist friendly government will be put in place. I think the masses may lack the proper class awareness to demand that? I may be wrong. I'd like to be wrong.

I fail to see how demanding a socialist friendly government and class awareness is related. Of course it would be nice if there was a underlying, overwhelming class character to the protests in Egypt (we have seen isolated strikes but nothing major), but that's just not the way it works. A workers movement has been growing in Egypt over the past decade or so. There is something to take from every struggle and the lessons of the past inform future struggles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So which "revolutionary party" was it that taught the workers of Paris to create the Commune, or the workers of Russia to create the Soviets, or the workers of Hungary to create councils and committees?

The Blanquists and Proudhonians, the Bolsheviks and Menshevik-Internationalists, and a failed anomaly.

And in the Third World, Caesarean Socialist leaders are absolutely necessary.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, formal leftists organizations have been more dangerous throughout history than beneficial, like the Second International in WW1 and the Third in the lead-up to WW2. But the question isn't whether "left organizations" are needed, but do revolutionary-minded workers need to self-organize internationally?
A careful analysis of history shows that is necessary. In Tunisia and Egypt right now, most people realize that something must be done with the police and with the army, but do not have a clear plan for what that is. Key elements of that are:
Disarm and disband the police, call for the election of officers in the army and for the soldiers to arm the protesters. Such slogans may spread "spontaneously"...but they haven't yet, leading to great danger in both revolutions. Acutely in Egypt, the generals are playing a game to seem on their side, when it is a military regime! To ask revolutionaries who understand that not co-ordinate their political program through debate and action (required to develop a scientific understanding of society) is to hamstring the revolution.
The workers and poor of Tunisia, Egypt and the surrounding regime are rapidly moving toward revolutionary ideas, but they should not have to re-work through the whole history of human thought individually in order to develop those ideas, to see that in Tunisia, they cannot just get rid of the RCD and institute "democracy", for instance.
Terms like "vanguard," "party" and such have been so abused they can seem to loose all meaning, but what we are talking about is the self-organization of revolutionaries for the revolution. To oppose that is...sad. These events should be clarifying how important that self-organization of revolutionaries is, how much that is needed and a necessary part of the revolution.

What "revolutionaries" exist outside the working class? What kinds of "revolutionaries" are these? What can they do that the class can't do on its own?

“If the proletariat does not know how to create the necessary prerequisites for socialist organisation of labour, no-one can do this for it and no-one can compel it to do this. The stick, if raised against the workers, will find itself in the hands of a social force which is either under the influence of another social class or is in the hands of the soviet power; then the soviet power will be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class... it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation must be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will not be set up at all; something else will be set up...” - ‘On the Building of Socialism', Kommunist #2, April 1918


But only in Russia did the workers take power from the capitalist state, and for that you need a revolutionary party. Workers have created soviets time and time again, but the soviets--in one sense--are a vehicle for creating, testing and selecting various political leaderships. Poland, Chile, and many more have had soviets or other forms of workers' mass organization that could be the basis for a new kind of society.
But that is not enough.

The commune in Paris and the revolution in Hungary were drown in blood. They didn't just end in nothing because they were missing a "vanguard."
When the revolt broke out in Paris in 1968 it was the "vanguards" that at every turn tried to turn it back into something acceptable. And we all see what came out of the "vanguard" in Russia.

I don't think any of these events prove the need for such an organization. In fact, they prove the opposite.

Those workers conscious of the overall line of march and final goals are more than capable of arguing for those among their fellow workers when the possibilities exist. They don't need outside commanders for that.


If it was enough, would the Tunisian revolution be in the delicate situation it's in? With workers and poor running some towns and cities, while the bourgeoisie still controls the most important centers and has the loyalty of the officers? Why would we be still fighting capitalism at all if it was just a matter of creating soviets, shouldn't it have worked by now it's been done so many times?

Of course it's not just "a matter of soviets." I never said that it was.

Second, your question is as ridiculous as it is simplistic. It's like asking why capitalism took so long to take hold.

(Also, I don't use the word soviet, since it's a Russian term and we're speaking English. Soviet means council and that's why it was used in the Russian revolutions. I think the continued use of those sorts of terms now illustrates the doctrinaire nature of much of the left.)


This kind of anti-organization of revolutionaries boils down to: Let's not prepare for the seizure of workers' power because when parties prepared before, they betrayed/derailed/what-have-you. Cynicism infects the left today like no other time in history, though these revolutions should go a long way to helping some shake that off.

The problem is who is preparing to "seize power." If the working class isn't revolutionary in the current period, how can it prepare for the revolutionary seizure of power? Nor can it be "built up" into something like that, whether with the help of an outside vanguard or otherwise.

It's not like 50%+1 of the workers are recruited to the "correct line" and then they abandon all reactionary and backward notions and the revolution breaks out. The class is transformed through the act of revolution, which grows out of the workers' fight for their own liberation.

And in fact, the people preparing to seize power most often come from every class but the proletariat. We've seen how that works out in practice. We're not interested.


If you do want to actually help prepare for the workers taking power, rather than just hoping for it, then check out the policies suggested in my link on the Tunisian revolution and let's discuss it.

I know all about the LRP, and I'm about as interested in it as the rest of the working class is.

If you really want to discuss the issues at hand here, how about doing it here on this discussion board. You can start by addressing my post here on parties and organization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-leaderless-revolution-t149316/index.html?p=2010712#post2010712).

[Dimentio]

The vanguard is needed to push the proletariat to make a full revolution, for example in Paris May 1968 the government was preparing to flee yet the proletariat didn't keep pushing to seize the capital as it didn't form a revolutionary army to brush aside what was left of the police and entrench itself in the government buildings.

Paris 1789, Paris 1830 and Paris 1848 were largely leaderless occurences.

I think the main problem in 1968 was the dichotomy between the workers and the students.

Usually, vanguards are those who come after a revolution, takes credit of it and then establish their own governments.

[Hoplite]

A leaderless revolution may succeed based on momentum alone, but their success long-term is based in FINDING a leader. Otherwise you basically have a semi-organized mob and semi-organized mobs rarely make good political choices.

[Dimentio]

A leaderless revolution may succeed based on momentum alone, but their success long-term is based in FINDING a leader. Otherwise you basically have a semi-organized mob and semi-organized mobs rarely make good political choices.

Usually, such leaders appear after the revolution, sometimes in armoured trains from Switzerland.

[RedTrackWorker]

Nothing Human Is Alien says that...I don't know what he's saying. He says he knows "all about" the LRP's theory of the party, and constantly refers to "outside vanguard, "outside commanders, revolutionaries "outside the working class", when our theory of the party is the self-organization of revolutionaries, i.e. it is a party built by workers for the task of international socialist revolution.


Those workers conscious of the overall line of march and final goals are more than capable of arguing for those among their fellow workers when the possibilities exist.

I don't even know what to make of this. I pointed to our statement on the Tunisian revolution to try to make the discussion more concrete. He instead refers me to a question of his that I already answered, while ignoring issues in the statement like, how to split the army. The "possibilities exist" to split the army, especially in Tunisia. The ""the new content of the proletarian class views formed in the proletarian class struggle" is the content of the party. That "content"--knowledge obtained by analyzing by class struggles--includes such ideas as how to deal with the police and the army at such times as these, such as: disband and disarm the police, call on soldiers to share their arms with the masses and for soldier to elect their officers. In Tunisia and in Egypt, those are urgent, urgent, urgent demands. And there's indications that they're being raised on the ground in Egypt by Workers' Power supporters (I just know they have supporters there and support at least some of those demands I suggest), and yet they haven't swept the masses.
Why?
One, in Tunisia, those demands have a more objective and subjective base right now, it'd be easier. Two, if they are being raised, they're being raised by individuals essentially. Some slogans by take over a crowd in an instant, but it's not like every good idea can do so. Such demands and strategies require organization. Understanding society requires organization. Nothing Human I guess would have individuals running around thinking about society, rather than the voluntary self-organization of revolutionary workers collectively working out an approach and collectively putting it to the test of practice to get feedback: i.e. a workers' party is scientific and built according to working-class methods.
He mocks such ideas and yet says he didn't say it's just a "matter of soviets." Well, what is it then? Revolutionaries shouldn't build a party, the class builds soviets, but it's not just soviets...what is it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Usually, such leaders appear after the revolution, sometimes in armoured trains from Switzerland.

You're overplaying the spontaneity part. The Bolsheviks already secured working-class political support during the days of the Duma, and used that to gain more support in the soviets.

[Dimentio]

You're overplaying the spontaneity part. The Bolsheviks already secured working-class political support during the days of the Duma, and used that to gain more support in the soviets.

Yes, that is essential. They did not initiate the revolution though. In fact, Lenin had written a little while before February 1917 that a revolution in Russia would wait decades.

[Psy]

Paris 1789, Paris 1830 and Paris 1848 were largely leaderless occurences.

I think the main problem in 1968 was the dichotomy between the workers and the students.

Yet Detriot 1967 militant Vietnam vets alone without the larger proletariat put more of a fight against the National Guard to the point the US Army sent in M113 light armor. In Paris 1968 it was not a manpower problem but a problem with organization, discipline and experience in warfare. For example if in Paris 1968 had the same militant Vietnam vets that fought in Detroit 1967 when the Paris ruling class was preparing to flee, then it would have been a cake walk to secure the French state as there wasn't many armed force defending the state as they were bottled up in bases since the French ruling class at the time feared French troops joining the revolution.

In revolutions there are windows of opportunity where the armed body of the revolution has mobilize quickly and there isn't time to wait for the bulk of the proletariat to all be on the same page.

[Dimentio]

Yet Detriot 1967 militant Vietnam vets alone without the larger proletariat put more of a fight against the National Guard to the point the US Army sent in M113 light armor. In Paris 1968 it was not a manpower problem but a problem with organization, discipline and experience in warfare. For example if in Paris 1968 had the same militant Vietnam vets that fought in Detroit 1967 when the Paris ruling class was preparing to flee, then it would have been a cake walk to secure the French state as there wasn't many armed force defending the state as they were bottled up in bases since the French ruling class at the time feared French troops joining the revolution.

In revolutions there are windows of opportunity where the armed body of the revolution has mobilize quickly and there isn't time to wait for the bulk of the proletariat to all be on the same page.

Give me one example of a Vanguard party rousing all the masses and then seizing power through taking over the streets in the capitol? Not even Petrograd 1917 could be said to be an example.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There can be no successful socialist revolution without leadership - the leadership of the working class. The question of the vanguard is how to get there, not to "seize power" themselves.


Give me one example of a Vanguard party rousing all the masses and then seizing power through taking over the streets in the capitol? Not even Petrograd 1917 could be said to be an example.
The role of a vanguard organized into a party shouldn't be to dictate when and where a revolution happens specifically, revolts and uprisings and revolutions happen based on their own logic.

The question for revolutionaries is, what class ideas, what agenda comes out ahead when the old hegemony begins to break down.

Concretely, why a vanguard is important is that if some of the Egyptian vanguard had been more organized and had effective groups with connections to the working class (hard under police-state conditions) then they could help add a new dynamic to the protest movement that would put the question of working class leadership into the mix.

The existing opposition parties in Egypt seem to be arguing for a new constitution and elections and so on. The youth seem to reject any dealings with the old regime, but do not have an alternative to put forward. Put crudely, an independent organized group of radicals that's organically connected to working class communities could be arguing right now that the community patrols and neighborhood and work councils could be the way to organize society rather than a Parliament. That's the role of the vanguard - to argue a way forward for the working class who are already in motion, taking history into their own hands.

If it is not radical working class politics that win out, then it will be some other set of class politics and that's why leadership and organizing the working class are important. Without an organized working class, able to work together and articulate an independent agenda, Egypt will most likely result in an elected Parliament-type system or a reformed version of the same regime - either way there would be a cooling-off period which would allow the ruling class to regroup and repress the parts of the movement while buying the loyalty of the more amenable parts. A vanguard is important for arguing an alternative to this and for the working class to step into the social/political vacuum while the Egyptian ruling class is still in disarray and the military split.

[Psy]

Give me one example of a Vanguard party rousing all the masses and then seizing power through taking over the streets in the capitol? Not even Petrograd 1917 could be said to be an example.
First you have to understand what a vanguard is. A vanguard is just a force in advance of the main body thus even militant labor unions are vanguards. Really without vanguards the left can just wait for a revolution to happen and even then can't direct the revolution as that would require a force in advance of the main body.

An example of a vanguard seizing power through take over the streets would be the great railway strike of 1877 where the vanguard of the strike help mobilized the masses to take to the streets and recruited defected national guardsmen into a revolutionary armed body to join them, created saboteur teams to ensure scabs couldn't get the trains moving so they didn't have to picket the rail yards thus was able to focus their manpower in fighting the national guard rather then keeping scabs from getting the trains moving again.

[Dimentio]

Then all revolutions are spontaneous and leaderless from the beginning.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's not online yet, but the newest International Socialist Review has an interesting article about 1917 that talks about some of these issues.


Jason Yanowitz
February’s forgotten vanguard
The myth of Russia’s spontaneous revolution It'll probably be added to the website in a few weeks - or you can fly to Oakland and borrow my copy.:lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

One of the first acts of a successful proletarian political struggle must be the reduction of 'leadership positions' to mere functionaries of the will of the proletariat. Of course, at this point the proletariat probably wouldn't even be socialist en masse yet, so by the time that they are forced into implementing socialism, I doubt there'd be 'leaders' in a substantive sense. I also doubt that the proletariat will become socialist because of the 'leadership' of socialists, and conversely the leadership of socialists won't be enough to gain socialism unless the material conditions are those of developed capitalism and crisis where the fulfillment of the demands of the proletariat requires a progression towards socialism, rather than the development of capitalism for example. In a capitalist crisis, the demand for bread and peace is implicitly socialist, given that the demands of the working class are demands for a lower profit rate, while in a crisis of lacking capitalism it is rather revolutionary as a demand for the eradication of feudal remnants.

In any case, the vanguard doesn't lead a revolution, it is formed in the act of revolution. However, I'm not sure that this is entirely relevant to the present Arab struggles, certainly not yet. I don't think that one could even label them 'revolutionary' yet, but rather it depends on how things develop.

[vyborg]

the problem is what victory really means.
the overthrow of Moubarak is easy, but this is not the victory. the defeat of imperialism is also possible, still this is not the victory.
victory is the creation of a workers' state based on workers milita and the seizure of the productive forces by the proletariat. this final goal is not fully achievable without a revolutionary party

[punisa]

the overthrow of Moubarak is easy
You think? :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

You think? :rolleyes:

His removal is like removing a two metre long slug from a delicate red rose with a hedgetrimmer.

[TC]

There is no such thing as a leaderless revolution there are just (attempts) at revolution where the leaders names are populairzed in the press and those in which the names of the people doing the organizing are not widely known.

One of the tactics used in shifting popularity for or against a movement or organization is in personifying it (e.g. "the war against Saddam") so that a movement or group or organization can be reduced to a fallible individual - or in treating it as an abstract popular thing (e.g. "the attacks against America") so that the group or movement is elevated to a mythical "will of the people" or "the people" or other collective abstraction identified with goodness and democracy.

The Egyptian protest movement most certainly has leaders, but if the media kept running with the branding of "ElBaradei's Protest" then people would be invited to formulate attitudes towards ElBaradei - but if you brand it as "The Egyptian People's Protests" then people instead are invited to formulate their attitudes towards the Egyptian people - and attitudes towards a people are almost always more positive than attitudes towards a fallable individual - one who the media can slander and demonize, since slander and demonization of a whole people is seen as well, racist.

So really, the decision to depict the Egyptian uprising as 'leaderless' is a political decision by the media to depict it sympathetically - similarly the decision to depict the Mehdi Army uprising in Iraq as led by Al Sadr was a political decision to depict it unsympathetically.

[Sentinel]

The formation of a large and well-organised left-wing working class movement is crucial in order to secure the progressive direction of the revolution, ie to prevent it from being hijacked by either the bourgeoisie or the islamists. Unfortunately, that is what most likely will happen otherwise.

I'd call such a movement the vanguard of the revolution, regardless of which existing revolutionary leftist tendency it represents, if any. What I mean is that it doesn't really matter whether it be a marxist, or even a classwar anarchist organisation.

It might also be union-based. The point is that when any such an org becomes large and influential enough, while retaining it's role as an authentic advocate of working class power, it will in practice constitute the vanguard of the proletariat in the marxist sense -- whether it likes it or not.

And this is necessary for the revolution to reach it's goals.

[The Author]

Can a leaderless revolution ever succeed?

In the short run, yes.

In the long run, no.

[bricolage]

The Blanquists and Proudhonians
Blanqui was in jail and his followers were largely hidden and inactive, except in the police department. The Proudhonists wavered here and there never really exercising that much control, definitely not starting anything.
The Paris Commune emerged on March 18 with the spontaneous resistance of ordinary workers - mainly women - against the army taking the cannons of the National Guard.
The Communal Council that was elected later that month, if you read anything about it is notable in that noone had really ever heard of anyone in it.

[Fulanito de Tal]

It might help this discussion is we define exactly what a revolution is. I propose the following definition.

From what I understand, a revolution is a significant change in the social order within a relatively short period of time. A revolution can be battle less such as the Revolutions of 1989. There are others that are drenched in blood such as the French Revolution. However, the battle is not the revolution. A battle without a revolution is just a battle. The necessary factor is the significant change in social order. As Fidel Castro said once M-26-7 took control of Cuba, "We have just won the war. The revolution starts now."

Using this definition, a socialist revolution cannot happen without leadership. The chances of everyone having the same agenda and behaving in a manner to meet the same socialist goals are so low, it would be silly to calculate if possible. The leadership would have to provide goals and a plan to reach those goals. Otherwise, it will be fine for a short while until it either turns into madness or a leader with other intentions comes along and takes advantage of the situation.

[vyborg]

You think? :rolleyes:

O yes and I was right....easily so