Vanguardism applied to other forms of organization

[StoneFrog]

I was wondering if it is plausible for the vanguardist approach to be applied to other forms of organization besides a party?

[RedMarxist]

vanguardism is not something you want. It leads to, no is, dictatorship, It implies the party must "protect" the revolution, no matter the costs. Democracy will die under vanguardism.

Look at the Paris Commune. They, the proletariat, did not need a vanguard party to tell them what to do. They organized themselves. Marx himself was against autocracy, which Leninism implies. The commune was and still is the ideal society we should strive for.

[StoneFrog]

*sigh* could of done without the sectarianism.. plus flawed arguments.

There is a reason i asked this question, its because i've started to think that the vanguard can be implemented in more open democratic way. Lenin wanted an open vanguard, but the constraints of the time prevented this. Also i believe that basing a vanguard on a party is the wrong way of doing it, since it encourages "toting the party line" instead of development of socialism. I was hoping some input to see if it is a valid concept.

[RedMarxist]

well, I don't see why not you can't have a democratic vanguard, but history has not been kind to Leninism.

I really grapple with wether or not I'm a Leninist or not. I side more with council communism obviously, but Leninism historically has also been a recipe for success for revolution.

[StoneFrog]

well, I don't see why not you can't have a democratic vanguard, but history has not been kind to Leninism.

I really grapple with wether or not I'm a Leninist or not. I side more with council communism obviously, but Leninism historically has also been a recipe for success for revolution.

We share something then, i use my own definition "Leninism from a councilist approach". I don't think if fit into being a Leninist nor a council communist as a defined tendency.

[jake williams]

I think that a "vanguardism" in some sense is going to be an intrinsic feature of class struggle, because class struggle develops unevenly. The notion that a revolution could or will exist where all workers are at the same level of political consciousness is absurd. Of course it would be ideal, but it won't happen. As long as the bourgeoisie exists, it will be possible to repress the class consciousness of some workers. I don't think it's possible even in principle that we'll see a point before the abolition of capitalism where social and political development is totally even, but in part I think if we get anywhere close to that the class would have abolished capitalism already.

If some subset of the working class sees a genuine opportunity to advance the class struggle, they should absolutely do it. I think this raises important questions about what constitutes a "genuine" opportunity - what advances the class struggle? what actions are open and democratic? what actions are in the interest of the class as a whole? and so on - but class struggle is complex and those questions don't have simple answers. Nonetheless the point absolutely stands. Abstentionism from struggle on the basis that other workers aren't advanced enough is one of the best ways to fail to advance the political consciousness of the class in a way that brings the greatest possible number at any given time into the revolutionary process.

[RedMarxist]

Leninism things I agree on: strong organization, violent revolution is more concrete and necessary then peaceful revolution, the CP being capable of leading a rev to victory and making sure it doesn't fall apart.

Councilism- worker democracy through councils, violent revolution, the worker being capable of leading a rev and making sure it doesn't fall apart

ya so I'm very conflicted here.

[Paulappaul]

I was wondering if it is plausible for the vanguardist approach to be applied to other forms of organization besides a party?

I think some Syndicalists would argue that the "Grand Union" could be a Vanguard to the revolution. The Black Panthers pursued a Vanguard line which meant having the most educated and experienced members of the party at the forefront of physical confrontations to lead them. I think this is unusual in the Vanguard schema, from what I have seen. Usually we find the Vanguard in the armchair while the mass of party is doing its work.

I've heard Workers' Councils tossed around by some Council Communists as the "Vanguard" to the revolution. As well as Anarchists describing Political organizations such as the FAI to be "Vanguards".


vanguardism is not something you want. It leads to, no is, dictatorship, It implies the party must "protect" the revolution, no matter the costs. Democracy will die under vanguardism.

Look at the Paris Commune. They, the proletariat, did not need a vanguard party to tell them what to do. They organized themselves. Marx himself was against autocracy, which Leninism implies. The commune was and still is the ideal society we should strive for.

For someone who claims to be a Marxist there is alot Rhetoric here which doesn't have any level of truth beyond your own narrow Ideological formations. Vanguardism is not synonymous with Dictatorship. The actions of a Vanguard can lead to dictatorship. However a Vanguard can also provide clarity for which any Workers' Struggle needs. To often are there struggles for which workers fail because there is no outside guidance. What the Council Communists, for whom you claim to follow call the "Unflinching Compass towards Communism".

Furthermore, the Paris Commune failed. They, the proletariat, failed because they took measures which fundamentally trapped the revolution in Paris. As Marx, someone with experience and perspective (i.e. a "Vanguard") said the Proletariat of Paris would have had a better chance if they had nationalized the Banking institutions and pushed the revolution to neighboring cities.


I really grapple with wether or not I'm a Leninist or not. I side more with council communism obviously, but Leninism historically has also been a recipe for success for revolution.

Despite never succeeding. Hmm...

[Coach Trotsky]

I consider myself a Leninist and Trotskyist, and agree about the need for the revolutionary vanguard organization of the most advanced workers, oppressed, and youth.

But unfortunately, many ostensible 'Leninists' and non-Leninists interpret vanguardism to mean some sort of cut-off special elite group of bureaucrats, and it sure doesn't help that many so-called 'Leninists' (of various tendencies) have applied this cut-off elitist bureaucrat interpretation of vanguardism in their own organizations in such manner as to make the "dictatorship of the party" or "party-cult" stereotypes seem true.

I think that one main source of the problem among revolutionary socialists is misunderstanding of what is meant by the 'proletarian vanguard'. Here, I'm not talking about any particular organization, but rather about the most political advanced and active (and hopefully soon to be organized) segment of the proletariat. To put it another way, they are (or should be) the most advanced worker-leadership of the proletariat and oppressed, derived organically FROM OUR CLASS, and REMAIN ROOTED WITHIN OUR CLASS.
Sorry, but mostly 'middle class'-derived Left sects don't fit the bill this way of interpreting vanguardism. If your particular ostensibly revolutionary Left group tends to be dominated by 'middle class' elements and significantly lacking leaders and members from the working class and the oppressed, and yet you want to claim to be representing the 'proletarian vanguard'...well, you really really got to get to work realigning and rerooting your organization primarily inside the proletariat and the oppressed, and intensely recruiting and developing leadership from among the workers and oppressed. Even if you have to apply some sort of internal Proletarian/Oppressed Comrades' Affirmative Action policy to make sure to achieve this necessary task of recruiting and developing workers and oppressed people into revolutionary socialist leaders to their maximum capacity, do it actively and seriously, and don't let the "middle class" "better educated" guys try to monopolize and lord it over these groups and keep all their "Leftist special knowledge" and its dissemination to the membership under their control, because they will use this as the basis to justify a monopoly of the official organizational leadership positions in their hands.

A lot of so-called 'Leninists' (of various tendencies) also seem to forget that its Democratic Centralism, not merely Centralism. The whole point of this is develop the capacity and consciousness of the proletariat to successfully self-emancipate and rule the whole of society itself in its own interests as it builds and further advances socialist society. Democratic Centralism is supposed to increasingly include, engage, teach and steel the proletariat, preparing them to investigate and constructively discuss and act decisively and to govern, and to become their tool for actually accomplishing proletarian self-emancipation and class rule in their interests. The point is NOT to stay on the fringe cut-off from the proletariat and the oppressed. The point is NOT to maintain or even widen the gap between the most advanced layers of the proletariat and the whole class. The point is NOT to try to set up a new caste of liberating saviors "from above" that are unaccountable to the workers and oppressed and merely dictates commands "top-down" to them. Yeah, yeah, I understand the immediate emergency situations and military conflict contexts where one has to bend the stick a bit in favor of more centralist applications of Democratic Centralism. But that is not supposed to be the fucking day-to-day norm in all situations, and ideally you want to prepare all comrades holding or potentially holding leadership responsibility to be able to act in cases of these emergencies, so that they often are calling up the leaderships they are accountable to saying "WE handled it...and I'm sending you a detailed report", instead of "oh shit, what do we do?!" or "oh shit, but we have to wait for the Politburo to authorize us to act and tell us what to say as they see appropriate before we can do anything!"

There is some practically applicable wisdom to be gained from the U.S. military chain-of-command doctrine, where commanders and NCOs in charge at all the various levels have quite a bit of independent flexibility and authorization to act. Even if the buck sergeant is the highest ranking among a unit of soldiers in an emergency situation, he can take charge immediately and do what it takes to get the immediate emergency situation resolved with a minimum of friendly and collateral damage. A common saying is "better to be judged by 12 then to be carried by 6". I encourage all revolutionary socialist leaders to embrace that attitude---it will enable you to act decisively when you must, it may very well keep you and your comrades alive, and at the same time you don't forget that we are held accountable for our actions and that as revolutionary socialist leaders we've accepted (even at the stake of our own lives) that level of responsibility and accountability to the proletarian vanguard and to the proletariat generally, because we are rooted in them, and we are actually servant-agents of the proletarian class (that's what it actually means to be a 'professional revolutionary').

[manic expression]

Look at the Paris Commune.
Yeah, it had a vanguard. What's your point?

Oh, and if you actually want to learn about what happens in "Leninist" socialist societies, read this (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html). If you don't care to learn the facts, then by all means keep believing in the lies you've been fed.

[RedMarxist]

I read it and it brings up some fundamental questions. Why doesn't the US government implement some of these ingenious polices? like making sure rich fuck faces can't produce newspapers or TV news stations I'm assuming(like ugg, FOX "News")

If it is so democratic, why does Obama drone on about "bringing 'democracy' to Cuba?" does his "version" of democracy just an excuse to bring back capitalism as well?

I'm well aware I've been lied to, and this makes me reconsider my stance on Leninism. I mean, I do agree with Leninism more it seems then council communism...

I really, really, REALLY want to start When I grow older, a Vanguard party now(I guess this is rather in haste) similar to the CPUSA, but not the CPUSA. I want to keep it separated from the democratic party, want to genuinely agitate for revolution, want to genuinely educate the proletariat, and genuinely want to lead them to victory. Maybe I'm just dreaming.

Would I be able to do it on account of my autism and average social skills if I did this? Would my family hate me for forming a party? can just anyone form a party? and finally, 50 million questions aside, I have to say this:


I don't know if this any indicator, but I like leading people. In classroom environments, teachers claim I'm good at leadership, and I've been told that I should presume leadership positions/studies when in college. I hate when people get off task, like to only focus on the task at hand, and keep fellow students disciplined(as much as I can) and strictly despise off task behavior(which happens quite often without me)

[Weezer]

vanguardism is not something you want. It leads to, no is, dictatorship, It implies the party must "protect" the revolution, no matter the costs. Democracy will die under vanguardism.

Look at the Paris Commune. They, the proletariat, did not need a vanguard party to tell them what to do. They organized themselves. Marx himself was against autocracy, which Leninism implies. The commune was and still is the ideal society we should strive for.

How do you think the libertarian socialists and anarchists in the Spanish Civil War organized? Just out of thin air?

They used a vanguard. Revolutionary anarchism REQUIRES VANGUARDISM. JUST LIKE EVERY REVOLUTION DOES. The CNT/FAI acted as the vanguard in the Spanish Civil War for the Spanish and Catalan proletariat.

[RedMarxist]

that's nice I get it you need a vanguard, I knew that already. So, what do you think my chances are at forming a vanguard party of my own in the USA is? One that is underground, doesn't bother with running in elections, and conducts, at first, humanitarian missions to get support, as well as educates people about socialism?

[Hebrew Hammer]

ZOMGAH COUNCIL COMMUNISM, HOW CUTE!

Back on topic, I do think perhaps the 'vanguardist' model of organization could apply to other things aside from a political party.

[StoneFrog]

So few have notes anarchist vanguards, have any of these groups specifically written about them? Was wondering how it was organized.

[Savage]

read this (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html).

I thought Cuba was supposed to be under the DOTP?

Edit: This is a rhetorical question.

[RedMarxist]

ha ha ha! yes how cute...

No Cuba is led by the Cuban CP, which in theory is the DOTP.

But it isn't that simple. Was Fidel democratically elected? Nope. Does the nation have multiple parties. Nope.

Good things include however: free healthcare and housing, social welfare programs(which I fear are disappearing due to introducing those blasted economic reforms), Cubans are gradually receiving more freedoms, etc.

It is a lie that capitalism == democracy. A the very best it is limited democracy. The Greek Revolution cannot under any circumstances allow for big business style capitalism if it is to have true democracy. As a Monsanto type corporation would try to influence the assemblies and is undemocratic in structure. socialism on the other hand would allow for more equality/democracy then Greece currently has.

Sorry if I'm inexperienced here. I'm in fucking high school, give me a damn break.

I more and more seem to support Leninism. I don't think it truly FAILED, as it seems to have wrought success in every 20th century revolution, EXCLUDING post-revolution BUT democracy could easily solve that in the guise of the Commune of Paris.

as i stated above, do you think I could lead a CP? I want to from a true CP, not like the CPUSA.

conducting humanitarian missions, helping the homeless and poor, garnering support, working UNDERGROUND, publishing a newspaper or pamphlets, refusing to run in elections, instead striving for the overthrow of the current state government.

[wunderbar]

Wait, do you want to be A leader, or THE leader? And why underground? And are there no parties currently around that have the same ideals and goals as you?

[Ilyich]

vanguardism is not something you want. It leads to, no is, dictatorship, It implies the party must "protect" the revolution, no matter the costs. Democracy will die under vanguardism.

Look at the Paris Commune. They, the proletariat, did not need a vanguard party to tell them what to do. They organized themselves. Marx himself was against autocracy, which Leninism implies. The commune was and still is the ideal society we should strive for.

I generally agree with your point on vanguardism, though I would have to disagree with some of the things you say about Leninism and the Paris Commune.

First of all, I do not think it is totally fair to say that Leninism implies autocracy. In What Is to Be Done? Lenin outlines democratic centralism, which, in theory, is not autocratic at all. In theory, democratic centralism keeps the vanguard party an organ of, by, and for the proletariat. In practice however, democracy hardly exists within the vanguard party.

Also, the Paris Commune, while a prime example of democracy, was not fully socialist or communist. The proletariat did not collectively own the means of production and the capitalist mode of production had not yet been replaced by the associated mode of production. Marx himself even admitted "the majority of the Commune was in no wise socialist, nor could it be." I used to think that the Paris Commune was an ideal (if not short lived) society until a discussion on the matter with user Tim Finnegan (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blanqui-and-paris-t157216/index.html).

[RedMarxist]

is it at all possible for their to be a rebirth[and not to sound as if I'm a diehard ML] in Leninism? If India and the Filipino revolutions succeed, will that cause an upsurge of revolutions world wide? or will the revolutions be isolated?


Is it truly possible for a revolution to occur in America, socialist or otherwise? the reason I want to form a party is yes, Because I want the experience of leadership as well as want to experiment with Leninism

I'm serious here when i say I'm into leadership and want to become political. Not necessarily underground but I want to form a true working class party. I'm willing to spend a life time on this. Any steps I could take to do this?

[Rafiq]

Why can't we have vanguards that are based on the will of the proletariat, democratic vanguards? I have no problem with vanguards.

[thefinalmarch]

For what it's worth, from a thread I bookmarked after I stumbled upon it:


question: What exactly is the party in the broad, historical sense?
Is it a mass of self-organised, militant workers fighting for their mutual class interests? Am I even close?
You are basically correct. Marx didn't actually have an elaborated theory of the 'historical party' as such, the passages of his work that touch on the subject are due to the very loose sense in which the word 'party' was often used in the 19th century prior to the rise of modern electoral machines to refer to any broadly concieved interest group. The loose way in which Marx uses the word 'party' in these instances however does touch on parts of his theoretical work which are integral to his project rather than just passing remarks. The only place Marx actually explicitly refers to the 'party in the broad historical sense' which I'm aware of his February 1860 letter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1860/letters/60_02_29.htm) to Freiligrath. The context is him denying his involvement in any kind of organised socialist/communist group since 1852, since after the disbanding of the Communist League he and Engels had refused all the offers put to them to join some effort to rebuild the revolutionary movement. Elsewhere he discussed the Paris Commune and the June insurrection of 1848 as the acts of 'our party'.

The underlying thread is Marx's critique of utopian theories which build fantastic images of a future reality and seek to impose their visions on the world through propaganda work. This leads logically to the idea that the important 'party' is the party constituted by the 'conscious' socialists organised in the paticular sect of their preference. Marx on the contrary was keen to emphasise that he did not seek to impose anything on the world, but merely show the world what it was already fighting for. The important 'party' for Marx was the party constituted by workers' defending their own interests, more specifically we could say that the 'party' for Marx is a class union as opposed to the trades unions which only defend the interests of workers in a paticular trade. I personally think we could point to the Soviet movement of 1917 or the factory group movement associated with the KAPD - the Allgemeine Arbeiter Unionen Deutschlands (I believe Dauvé in his book on the Communist Left in Germany had also used 'class union' to refer to the AAUD, though I can't remember if he linked it to the idea of the party) - as examples of 'the party' in a much more accurate sense than we could point to, say, the Communist Party of Great Britain at any point in it's existence, and especially all of the laughably miniscule sect organisations which constitute the modern 'left'.
And from another thread:

It seems to me that a big assumption underpinning a lot of ideas that the 'left' has about 'the party' is that it has something to do with the organisation of 'conscious' socialist militants. Without going into the details (Since that is not the purpose of this thread), I think there is an alternative case to be made that Marx and Engels at least saw 'the party' as simply the organisation of workers in defence of their own interests - a union of the class as opposed to the unions of individual trades.
A vanguard is a group of the most class-conscious workers at the forefront of class struggle, and not just a bunch of more often than not "enlightened" intellectuals.

[bricolage]

Yeah, it had a vanguard. What's your point?
What, in your opinion, was the vanguard of the Paris Commune?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree here:








The important 'party' for Marx was the party constituted by workers' defending their own interests, more specifically we could say that the 'party' for Marx is a class union as opposed to the trades unions which only defend the interests of workers in a paticular trade.

[thefinalmarch]

What, in your opinion, was the vanguard of the Paris Commune?
Still waiting for manic expression.

[RemoveYourChains]

We share something then, i use my own definition "Leninism from a councilist approach". I don't think if fit into being a Leninist nor a council communist as a defined tendency.

I think we may be kindred spirits in this regard.

While I have strong left-communist sympathies (importance of the role of workers in effecting their own emancipation, popularity of revolution, popular participation and direct democracy, etc), I am not anti-Leninist - if we mean by that therm the actual positions advocated by Vladimir Lenin. Frankly, I find some of the critiques of Lenin to be very "heads in the clouds."

There is always a natural "vanguard" in a revolution - those who by way of their heightened consciousness and willingness to put their ideals into practice naturally act as the guides of the revolutionary activity of larger segments of the population. And in this regard, some are "more so" revolutionary leaders and guides than others.

The real question is how that natural vanguard organizes itself, and in turn what its formal relationship is to the broader society. Just as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" itself does not represent a permanent condition in socialist society, neither should dependence upon a revolutionary party for guidance.

Unfortunately, wherever privilege establishes itself, there arises motive to continue perpetuating institutions for their own sake. That creates motive to remove accountability as well. In doing so, "the party" effectively ceases to be the representatives of worker interests, and becomes a distinct class of citizens (and but a replacement for the rule of capitalists, even if arguably "better.")

I think much of the "theory" justifying increased concentration of power in party membership (and particularly its executive bodies) was consequential of the failure of the "real revolution" to materialize in Western Europe as comrade Lenin had hoped for. This is overlooked too often, with the consequence that later developments that tried to deal with this misfortune end up being rationalized and perceived as "part of the original plan."

Thus it was left for a socialist party to guide a recently feudal, mostly pre-industrial society through a phase of its development (both in terms of infrastructure and culture) which otherwise would have been accomplished not through the strong-arm of party rule, but the strong-arm of capitalist oligarchy.

Seeing the Soviet Union in this light removes some of the bitterness from critiques of it (for me at least.) It even somewhat makes the (I think accurate) charge of "state capitalism" somewhat meaningless.

In a nutshell - when revolution comes to the industrialized world (in particular the "first world"), the cultural and economic conditions which facilitated the emergence of party autocracy will not exist - we'll already have been through our ugly growing pains of capitalist development.