Revolution Will Come Sooner Or Later ... But ...

[Rakhmetov]

... But what we need is an organizational leadership (i.e. vanguard party) that will capture the revolution and lead it on the correct Marxist-Leninist path. Look at the Egyptian situation: a revolution was launched by the masses and now the military is highjacking it from the people and protecting the interests of the lackeys and cronies. If a vanguard revolutionary party had existed, power could have been assumed by the party leadership and this period of limbo avoided.

[Dimentio]

In extremely militarised societies, it is more important that the army itself is radicalised or has suffered a debilitating defeat. There is a "vanguard" party of sorts in Egypt (though Islamist, it shares many characteristics with Communist movements in terms of organisation), and it accomplished nil on it's own during the revolution.

Egypt is a military camp.

The Russian Revolution succeeded when the Russian armies had been thoroughly beaten by the Germans.

[Decolonize The Left]

... But what we need is an organizational leadership (i.e. vanguard party) that will capture the revolution and lead it on the correct Marxist-Leninist path. Look at the Egyptian situation: a revolution was launched by the masses and now the military is highjacking it from the people and protecting the interests of the lackeys and cronies. If a vanguard revolutionary party had existed, power could have been assumed by the party leadership and this period of limbo avoided.

I'm pretty sure this topic has been debated hundreds of times on this forum. Please use the search function to locate previous discussions rather than draw up the Vanguard debate again.

- August

[Rafiq]

... p (i.e. vanguard party) that will capture the revolution and lead it on the correct Marxist-Leninist path.

lITBGjNEp08

[Fulanito de Tal]

... But what we need is an organizational leadership (i.e. vanguard party) that will capture the revolution and lead it on the correct Marxist-Leninist path. Look at the Egyptian situation: a revolution was launched by the masses and now the military is highjacking it from the people and protecting the interests of the lackeys and cronies. If a vanguard revolutionary party had existed, power could have been assumed by the party leadership and this period of limbo avoided.

And Captain Obvious will be the leader. :p

[Geiseric]

I'm not sure Marxist Leninism will work nowadays, it didn't work well in europe with the exception of the U.S.S.R, and we saw what happened with that, and outside in china, where they're turning into free market capitalist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm not sure Marxist Leninism will work nowadays, it didn't work well in europe with the exception of the U.S.S.R, and we saw what happened with that, and outside in china, where they're turning into free market capitalist.
dont you subscribe to Marx Engels Lenin and Trotsky's ideologies?

[Os Cangaceiros]

What a profound topic. It's not like it hasn't been posted on this board many times before.

And more importantly, it's not like it hasn't been posted by the OP on this board many times before. Oh Egyptian Robespierre, when will you finally show yourself?

[Rakhmetov]

What a profound topic. It's not like it hasn't been posted on this board many times before.

And more importantly, it's not like it hasn't been posted by the OP on this board many times before. Oh Egyptian Robespierre, when will you finally show yourself?


... and judging by the lack of informed judgement on this matter, it's one that should be brought up again and again ... None are so blind as those who say we will not see and none are so deaf as those who say we will not hear ...

[hatzel]

I am profoundly confused. Probably because I'm not a vanguardist. Something like that :confused:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, jeeze, if only a vanguard party could have magically seized control, and subdued the military. I mean, I'm sure the self-organized crowd and the strikers were just praying for some leaders to run into the arms of. It could have worked!

Oh, wait . . .

[Rakhmetov]

Yeah, jeeze, if only a vanguard party could have magically seized control, and subdued the military. I mean, I'm sure the self-organized crowd and the strikers were just praying for some leaders to run into the arms of. It could have worked!

Oh, wait . . .

Pray tell, does the bourgeoisie rely on political parties to advance their class interests, or not? They do not rely on the "spontaneity" of their rank and file members. They promote their interests via political parties and hierarchies, etc.--- that much is clear.

[Pierre L'amour]

It has been said that Karl Marx was correct in everything he said about capitalism, but not with the implementing of communism. In my point of view, if a Marxist-Leninist revolution were to occur, the dictatorship of the proletariat would just take the place of the former ruling classes. In fact, many of them wouldn't be proletarians at all, but people with the same lust for power as the previous wealthy ruling classes.

[Black Sheep]

The masses didn't "start a revolution" , they demanded the resignation of Mubarak.
They demanded bourgeois democracy.

When we talk about a socialist revolution from below, we mean that the below are socialistically educated.

[RadioRaheem84]

The masses didn't "start a revolution" , they demanded the resignation of Mubarak.
They demanded bourgeois democracy.

When we talk about a socialist revolution from below, we mean that the below are socialistically educated.

This is true. The masses were aiming toward reform not socialism it seems. They ended up with the military taking over.

[gestalt]

Exactly what is needed: another vanguard moment for the bureaucratic class in a climate not yet prime for worker revolution.


Pray tell, does the bourgeoisie rely on political parties to advance their class interests, or not? They do not rely on the "spontaneity" of their rank and file members. They promote their interests via political parties and hierarchies, etc.--- that much is clear.

Perhaps it is just me, but I do not often look to the bourgeoisie for examples on how to do things.

[graymouser]

Yeah, jeeze, if only a vanguard party could have magically seized control, and subdued the military. I mean, I'm sure the self-organized crowd and the strikers were just praying for some leaders to run into the arms of. It could have worked!

Oh, wait . . .
People don't just magically organize themselves - they organize along networks that aren't out in the open but do exist. These people have a leadership, they just don't have one that is open and accountable, and has a revolutionary program. That is the importance of a vanguard party: it can function as such a leadership and move definitively against capital.

Human social dynamics are real things. Groups without formal leaderships develop informal ones. If the leaderships that emerge aren't Leninist vanguard parties, they will be forces that do the deadliest thing possible: stop the revolution halfway.

[Magón]

The Marxist-Leninist Vanguard Party idea has been stated and talked about thousands of times since the Soviet Union's fall, and by many people of various political sides. And most people, no matter what their politics are, on the left, see that those who aren't radical leftists, don't want the hassle of another party like in 1917 Russia and elsewhere.

There's been so much talk about it's problems and faults, that people just aren't interested in a Vanguard Party anymore. Something fresh, and something new has to happen, that doesn't involve a Vanguard Party like Lenin and Trotsky scrambled up.

[graymouser]

The Marxist-Leninist Vanguard Party idea has been stated and talked about thousands of times since the Soviet Union's fall, and by many people of various political sides. And most people, no matter what their politics are, on the left, see that those who aren't radical leftists, don't want the hassle of another party like in 1917 Russia and elsewhere.

There's been so much talk about it's problems and faults, that people just aren't interested in a Vanguard Party anymore. Something fresh, and something new has to happen, that doesn't involve a Vanguard Party like Lenin and Trotsky scrambled up.
People are tired of it? That's your whole argument?

Leninist parties are not just one of several realistic strategies; they're the only one that is of any use when the shit hits the fan. Everything else fails - and bluntly, most of the "fresh, new" ideas that I've found are just retreads of quite old ones. Failing to have a party when the revolution comes means that the leadership that does arise cannot be effectively challenged.

[Savage]

Leninist parties are not just one of several realistic strategies; they're the only one that is of any use when the shit hits the fan. Everything else fails - and bluntly, most of the "fresh, new" ideas that I've found are just retreads of quite old ones. Failing to have a party when the revolution comes means that the leadership that does arise cannot be effectively challenged.

Considering that there has only been one really revolutionary situation in the history of capitalism, and considering also that this situation failed (some of us say immediately, some of us say ultimately), i think you should reconsider your display of Leninist chauvinism, especially since your particular brand of Leninism is the most hated minority amongst that camp.

[Magón]

People are tired of it? That's your whole argument?

Leninist parties are not just one of several realistic strategies; they're the only one that is of any use when the shit hits the fan. Everything else fails - and bluntly, most of the "fresh, new" ideas that I've found are just retreads of quite old ones. Failing to have a party when the revolution comes means that the leadership that does arise cannot be effectively challenged.

There hasn't been any fresh new ideas for a long time from the radical left, and that's why we need something new and fresh to pick up the general population's interest in radical left thinking. As for people being tired of it, I was speaking more that they just don't flat out want it, they've seen the holes that it brings, and realized it's like a ship with millions of holes.

Speaking mostly as I was, about the General Population in the US, and else where, the people don't want what Marxist-Leninism has shown and given. They've seen the problems, flaws, and corruptions that it brings to the people, and they don't want to have any of it. If Leninism was really the only realistic way of achieving some sort of revolutionary strategy, we wouldn't have all sorts of different Marxist tendencies and Anarchists who oppose it in one way or another. Obviously those who aren't Leninists, in the Radical Left, realize that Leninism isn't the way to achieve the goal of Communism, or even Revolution. So does the General Population.

[Davie zepeda]

This why i left most organizations the american left is wack! horrible man that's the only words i need to say

[MarxistMan]

Hello my brother. I think that this topic is very good and important, and we should analyze it with more time, i mean about what happened in Egypt, or what is happening that the military have taken control of the state, instead of leaders of the labor unions there

.



... But what we need is an organizational leadership (i.e. vanguard party) that will capture the revolution and lead it on the correct Marxist-Leninist path. Look at the Egyptian situation: a revolution was launched by the masses and now the military is highjacking it from the people and protecting the interests of the lackeys and cronies. If a vanguard revolutionary party had existed, power could have been assumed by the party leadership and this period of limbo avoided.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

O.P. always makes the worst threads. But at least this one isn't a terrible one-liner or Lenin quote!

/stating the obvious

[Toppler]

This is exactly what should never happen again - Stalinist bureucratic counter-revolution.
Fuck the "vanguard party".
Not that the bureaucratic "state socialist" states were all evil, but it is not something we should reentact and emulate.

[Catma]

There hasn't been any fresh new ideas for a long time from the radical left, and that's why we need something new and fresh to pick up the general population's interest in radical left thinking. As for people being tired of it, I was speaking more that they just don't flat out want it, they've seen the holes that it brings, and realized it's like a ship with millions of holes.

Speaking mostly as I was, about the General Population in the US, and else where, the people don't want what Marxist-Leninism has shown and given. They've seen the problems, flaws, and corruptions that it brings to the people, and they don't want to have any of it. If Leninism was really the only realistic way of achieving some sort of revolutionary strategy, we wouldn't have all sorts of different Marxist tendencies and Anarchists who oppose it in one way or another. Obviously those who aren't Leninists, in the Radical Left, realize that Leninism isn't the way to achieve the goal of Communism, or even Revolution. So does the General Population.


This is fallacious twice over. Just because the majority thinks a certain way doesn't mean that it's right, and just because something has (arguably) failed in the past doesn't mean that it's wrong.

You did throw in the word "only", as in "if leninism was the only realistic way..." Which makes your post a lot better.

[Toppler]

Just to be clear on what is being advocated here "Marxist-Leninism" usually means Stalinism (very bad, in my opinion) or revisionist-"Stalinism" (the system in the USSR and Eastern Bloc after the death of Stalin, which is not really bad, but not something we should follow), but still, both of these ideologies are something entirely different than actual Leninism, not that I advocate it, it's just that actual followers of Lenin's teachings (= not those who think Koba is his rightful follower and has continued implementing his teachings correctly) tend to call themselves Leninists (not "Marxist-Leninists", which is a term first codified by Stalin as the official ideology of the USSR), while Trotskyists occasionaly call themselves Bolshevik-Leninists.

[Magón]

This is fallacious twice over. Just because the majority thinks a certain way doesn't mean that it's right, and just because something has (arguably) failed in the past doesn't mean that it's wrong.

You know, the same thing could be said for Capitalism. It's (arguably) failed by some, but doesn't mean it's wrong by others.

Clearly, we can agree that Capitalism is wrong and has failed from the start. There's even a majority of people around the world (not necessarily those in Radical Leftists spheres either), who agree that Capitalism has failed and is wrong, and does no good. Does that mean that the majority who see Capitalism this way are wrong?

Replace Capitalism with Marxist-Leninist theory, and you get the same thing. People have seen what it's done, they've seen the corruption and problems it brings, so why try and bring it back when there are other ideas that can be tried and tested, rather a theory that's failed and gets people no where?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Pray tell, does the bourgeoisie rely on political parties to advance their class interests, or not? They do not rely on the "spontaneity" of their rank and file members. They promote their interests via political parties and hierarchies, etc.--- that much is clear.

I agree wholeheartedly. That you wish to emulate the bourgeois so desperately lays bare your political priorities.

[Jose Gracchus]

Democratic centralism was a (questionable) adaptation to the repressive conditions of Tsarist Russia, and the primitive development of capitalism. Why shouldn't a mass party or mass political organization with less extensive internal authoritarianism be possible in liberal democratic states?

I also thinks it doesn't behoove Trotskyists to lecture others about forming successful parties. The Bolsheviks of late 1917 weren't what Trotskyists in their practice think a Leninist party is, and their practice and history shows that. Stalinists are much better at creating credible parties that aren't leadership cults, as much as I would like to not admit that. Trotskyists should confront that reality with some creative criticism rather than repeating the agitprop they feed the new cadre.

[L.A.P.]

dont you subscribe to Marx Engels Lenin and Trotsky's ideologies?

He obviously means Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, none of those countries he referenced were Trotskyist states.

[BIG BROTHER]

... But what we need is an organizational leadership (i.e. vanguard party) that will capture the revolution and lead it on the correct Marxist-Leninist path. Look at the Egyptian situation: a revolution was launched by the masses and now the military is highjacking it from the people and protecting the interests of the lackeys and cronies. If a vanguard revolutionary party had existed, power could have been assumed by the party leadership and this period of limbo avoided.

Yea I am not sure if you truly understand what a Vanguard party is. The party exists to make the proletariat take power, because as Marx correctly put it the emancipation of the working class can only be done by the working class itself.

The Vanguard party is just the more advanced and conscious sector of the working class in a sense.

And the Egyptian Revolution was a "bourgeoisie" revolution carried out by the Proletariat as the Egyptian "bourgeoisie" under Imperialism is incapable of fufilliing its historical role, I believe that the proletariat has gained confidence from this victory and will soon confront itself with the new government.

[bcbm]

There hasn't been any fresh new ideas for a long time from the radical left

there have been fresh ideas and perspectives its just that they're usually ignored except by small minorities.

[28350]

The problem isn't one of perspective -- Marxism doesn't need to be "reformulated."
The problem is one of praxis. How can we hasten the occurrence of international socialist revolution?
Such a revolution can only occur with a class-conscious proletariat and all that jazz.
I don't really think that global working class revolution can be betrayed by some group of cryptofascist revisionists with their seductive lies and whatever.

As leftists, the most important thing we can do (imho) is try (feebly) to raise class consciousness. Who gives a shit about "ostensibly revolutionary groups" or young v. old marx? I fucking love learning and reading marxist theory, but shit, it's not going to change anything on its own.

[bcbm]

if we acknowledge our efforts as feeble from the start, it seems like kind of our waste for our most important thing to be a subtle form of punishment