The Vanguard Party

[Art Vandelay]

I have been contemplating the idea of the vanguard party a lot recently and have come up with a few ideas. My understanding is that from the ML paradigm, the vanguard party is a necessary step in revolution; the organization of the most class conscious workers into a party to spearhead the revolution. While I think that this can be beneficial to spark revolution, given the historical examples the vanguard can be authoritarian and even eventually form into a new ruling class leading to the restoration of capitalism. Basically the idea I have been floating around in my head is that of a dissolving vanguard. A political party whose aim is to mobilize the masses and to spark the revolution in the traditional Leninist Vanguard Party sense. The only difference being in the DOTP the only purpose of the vanguard will be to defeat the counter-revolutionaries with the help of the masses and to allow the workers to take control over the means of production, upon which it would dissolve rather than take the task of building socialism.

Perhaps this is a well known idea, that in my limited studies, I have never come across, and if it is I apologize. However I would like to hear other comrades opinions on the idea.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That is already the theoretical idea of the Leninists (or was, I have a sneaky feeling that most of them don't support such an idea these days!). The issue is that, in practice, Marx's slightly cliched quote that 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' holds true, and one cannot expect a group of petty-bourgeois, well-educated revolutionaries to take power on behalf of the working class, and then give said power back to the working class and just assimilate back into society.

Such a thing will simply never happen, and has been proven over and over by history.

Another cliched Marx quote: When history repeats itself once it's a tragedy. When it repeats itself twice it's a farce.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah I think the concepts of a vanguard party and dictatorship of the proletariet have been conflated by many of both left-wing supporters and detractors of these ideas. I think a working class vanguard exists in struggles regardless of being organized together or not, but I do think that revolutionaries should organize and coordinate our actions in a democratic but centralized (i.e. coordinated) way (to throw in another often abused term by both supporters and detractors). For one thing there is always more power when people coordinate their efforts for anything. Second, having a united but non-dogmatic strategy helps us as radical workers to test our ideas in practice. For example, while I think there are a lot of anarchists out there with good politics and many who are kick-ass fighters for our class, I think one of the overall weaknesses of anarchism, at least in recent US history, has been that lack of organizing along common goals has meant that these movements have been slow to learn and adjust politically. This leads some of the less-political anarchists into treating tactics as principles - i.e. dogmatism in action which means it's harder to learn if what you are doing is really effective. The same is true obviously for some of the dogmatists on the Marxist end who might elevate theory to a point where it doesn't really relate to actual struggles anymore. So at any rate, I think coordination but also democracy and flexibility all need to be in the balance.

Sorry, I'm really getting off track here. Anyway, in no way should a vanguard organized together be seen as the post-revolution governing body or whatnot. A vanguard is a working class vanguard only if they are leading the class to power, not their group - if that's the case then they are only the vanguard of putting themselves into power.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think a working class vanguard exists in struggles regardless of being organized together or not, but I do think that revolutionaries should organize and coordinate our actions in a democratic but centralized (i.e. coordinated) way (to throw in another often abused term by both supporters and detractors). For one thing there is always more power when people coordinate their effort
The bolded part represents a tautology since it amounts to saying that "revolutionaries should coordinate our actions in a coordinated way". This doesn't help to distinguish between possible forms of co-ordination, centralization being one of them, and indeed it also blurs the very distinction between forms of co-ordination of class struggle.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is all that basically just saying I repeated myself, is that tautology?

[Thirsty Crow]

Is all that basically just saying I repeated myself, is that tautology?
Well, yes, you repeated yourself but you also evaded any concrete determination of specific forms of co-ordination since you stated that centralization entails "co-ordination of activities in a co-ordinated way".

The basic questions is what concrete forms of co-ordination and organization does centralization entail, especially in relation to decentralization?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, yes, you repeated yourself but you also evaded any concrete determination of specific forms of co-ordination since you stated that centralization entails "co-ordination of activities in a co-ordinated way".

The basic questions is what concrete forms of co-ordination and organization does centralization entail, especially in relation to decentralization?

I think you are trying to bait me on a separate question altogether which my vague formulation was specifically alluding to but trying to also avoid as it was secondary to the point I was trying to make. My preference is for democratic-centralism (in which is democracy in debate and decision, but unity in action once decisions have been agreed upon) but in the context of what I was talking about you could also include other forms of coordinated organizing.

Forms like an anarcho-syndicalist union or an anarchist federation are other ways to attempt to do this and while I may not think, for example, that "one big union" alone is ultimately enough (though I do think that syndicalism can and often has had an important part to play in helping our side in the class struggle) this coordination is a huge step up IMO from organizing forms where people are not coordinating much in any way other than maybe on the lowest level such as having a common tactic. In other words, IMO an anarchist federation where members of a vanguard can work together and try and test their ideas in practice (and also debate and exchange ideas and lessons in a way geared toward better future actions) is a step up from just having broad calls to action with diversity of tactics.

On the question of decentralization - what do you mean? I think you are confusing some kind of undemocratic USSR centralized authority straw-man for what I was talking about. Why in a revolution if people have coordinated their efforts would they then want to decoordinate before capitalism has been overthrown and workers taken power? As far as "democratic-centralism" (again, democratic debate, unity in action) goes, this is a model for voluntary radical groups not what I am advocating for how workers should organize governance of society after a revolution. Coordination of this kind needs democracy to figure out a plan and come up with some generalized conceptions on the way forward, but then it also needs everyone to agree on concrete plans of action - as in a union action, if people vote to strike you have to also go otherwise you are not effectively part of that union anymore. A society, however, can not work with everyone acting in unison or even agreeing to more than a few general concepts like worker's power, democratic decision-making etc because it is not a voluntary organization where unity in action is needed or wanted.

But I don't know, maybe I am reading other arguments into what you are saying. My basic point is that a vanguard exists no matter what in struggle and it should coordinate it's lessons and efforts as class struggle intensifies. I sidetracked myself in my original post - the coordination effort part is not addressing how to prevent a vanguard substituting itself for the class after a revolution. In a sense, a vanguard automatically dissolves itself with worker's coming to power because what would that vanguard be the forward aspect of? The vanguard is the advanced "troops" scouting-out ways towards worker's power - with that achieved there is no vanguard as a concept. If sections of the vanguard organize themselves into a party or some other kind of organization, then that organizational body should not "take power" itself at all IMO. In fact would not consider people who want to put a party in power, rather than the class as a whole, to be part of the working class vanguard at all. Also in the context of a modern working class revolutionary situation which would involve millions of workers I don't think there's much of a chance that workers would take up a call for "Power to X Party who represents you" over "Power to the soviets/councils".

[gendoikari]

A dissolving vanguard that becomes corrupt simply will not dissolve. That being said the way to prevent a totalitarian regime from coming to power is to enact a series of old roman laws. which basically would make it legal to assassinate a tyrant, and hard code those laws into any new constitution.

[Paulappaul]

Marx's slightly cliched quote that 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' holds true

Lol Marx did not say that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lol Marx did not say that.
That's what I thought too. I started second-guessing myself though thinking, "all these years I argued that that phrase was anti-materialist and abstract and only now do I find out that it was coined by Marx".:lol:

[gendoikari]

That's what I thought too. I started second-guessing myself though thinking, "all these years I argued that that phrase was anti-materialist and abstract and only now do I find out that it was coined by Marx".:lol:

Lol if marx himself had said that even the right wing could not simply ignore socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A dissolving vanguard that becomes corrupt simply will not dissolve. That being said the way to prevent a totalitarian regime from coming to power is to enact a series of old roman laws. which basically would make it legal to assassinate a tyrant, and hard code those laws into any new constitution.Well I think Stalin could have been assassinated and it would not have changed the trajectory of Russia much at that point.

I think the protection from internal counter-revolution will depend on how strong working class power is. Of course workers could maybe make some "bill of rights" after the revolution that could build some protections in such as securing democratic checks via worker councils over any other potential governance bodies, instant recall of any delegates or elected representatives, mandated and narrow functions for any of these elected positions so that they are only empowered to carry out the will of the workers they represent.

These are all just suggestions of possible things, I have no idea what workers might decide to do at that point to secure their rule.

[Ballyfornia]

That is already the theoretical idea of the Leninists (or was, I have a sneaky feeling that most of them don't support such an idea these days!). The issue is that, in practice, Marx's slightly cliched quote that 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' holds true, and one cannot expect a group of petty-bourgeois, well-educated revolutionaries to take power on behalf of the working class, and then give said power back to the working class and just assimilate back into society.

Such a thing will simply never happen, and has been proven over and over by history.

Another cliched Marx quote: When history repeats itself once it's a tragedy. When it repeats itself twice it's a farce.

I dunno i'm conflicting with the idea of the vanguard. I'd say that there is a chance that it could be successfully applied in a 1st world country.

[S.Artesian]

Another cliched Marx quote: When history repeats itself once it's a tragedy. When it repeats itself twice it's a farce.

Marx didn't say that either. From The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.


It seems to me that if you follow Marx's critique of capitalism, his notions of the emancipation of labor, of the end to the division of labor, of the "class for itself" and the emancipation of the workers as the actions of the workers themselves, then arguments for a vanguard party are in fact reflections of the uneven and combined development of capitalism and not a practical method, solution, vehicle for the overthrow of that uneven and combined development.

Cases in point: fSU and China

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's what I thought too. I started second-guessing myself though thinking, "all these years I argued that that phrase was anti-materialist and abstract and only now do I find out that it was coined by Marx".:lol:

It was Lord Acton.

[Kronsteen]

Yeah I think the concepts of a vanguard party and dictatorship of the proletariet have been conflated by many of both left-wing supporters and detractors of these ideas.

I agree, but with the detail that we need to distinguish between Marx's notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Lenin's notion of the same name.

For Marx, the workers organise themselves, overthrow capitalism by and for themselves, and construct a post-capitalist society with the knowledge gained in doing so.

For Lenin, the workers don't have the knowledge, consciousness or will to organise themselves - or recognise that a revolution is in their interests. So it's the most progressive of the bourgeois intellectuals who organise the workers to overthrow capitalism, then direct them in constructing a new society, continuing to run things until the workers have become sufficiently enlightened to not need guidance anymore.

Who guides the intellectuals? The party which they're all part of. When the workers can make the decisions of the party without the party, the party dissolves itself. When it decides.

So yes, it is highly authoritarian - and substitutionist. That doesn't mean Lenin was necessarily wrong, but his ideas certainly weren't Marx's.

[aplparks]

Perhaps this is a well known idea, that in my limited studies, I have never come across, and if it is I apologize. However I would like to hear other comrades opinions on the idea.


Sounds like Marxism-Leninism. As Engels said, socialism is for the defeating of our enemies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

For Lenin, the workers don't have the knowledge, consciousness or will to organise themselves - or recognise that a revolution is in their interests. So it's the most progressive of the bourgeois intellectuals who organise the workers to overthrow capitalism, then direct them in constructing a new society, continuing to run things until the workers have become sufficiently enlightened to not need guidance anymore.

Who guides the intellectuals? The party which they're all part of. When the workers can make the decisions of the party without the party, the party dissolves itself. When it decides.

So yes, it is highly authoritarian - and substitutionist. That doesn't mean Lenin was necessarily wrong, but his ideas certainly weren't Marx's.If those were really Lenin's ideas then he was most certainly wrong.

This is a completely different reading of Lenin that i have - and a different reading of his ideas even from most left-wing critics of Lenin.

First even critics don't claim that Lenin thought that it was "bourgeois intellectuals" who were going to bring about socialism (some argue that this was the class basis which led to the eventual substitution, but that's a different debate). I think you are talking about the idea of having "a party of professional revolutionaries" because socialism can "only come from without" and all that. Lars Lih has written some interesting things about these very questions and his take is closer to how I read these early concepts. Lenin said in 1901 that it was the "bourgeois intelligentsia" that could develop the ideas of "scientific socialism" (not that would create socialism) but as Lih points out that the ideas of "socialism from without (from the intelligentsia)" are actually the accepted idea of the socialist movement at that time and based on formulations by Kautsky. I think it does downplay the real spontaneity that happens in class struggle, and is historically incorrect based on revolutions that have happpened.

I also think it's just plain untrue that Lenin didn't think workers were creative, intelligent or militant/combative. Lenin regularly talked about positive aspects of spontaneity and workers taking the initiative and after 1905's revolution, said that workers are "spontaneously democratic-socialist" (as socialism was called at that time). So in fact it was Lenin who learned from workers and was disabused of the formulations he held in 1901 that he got from socialist orthodoxy of the time. In fact it was workers who organized the soviets themselves and Lenin saw those organizations as the way workers could run society, so it just is not possible that he held the views of the working class that you describe after that time.

[Art Vandelay]

I guess I should of clarified a little better when I made my original post, the message I was trying to convey. I did not mean the vanguard party in the traditional Lenninist sense. While in the past I considered myself a trot, I now hold a much more anti-authortarian stance than I used to. I guess what I am wondering is there anyway the principle of the vanguard can be transfered into a more anti-authortarian theory?
What started my train of thought on this idea was reading Blanqui's description of what happen during the paris commune and why it was unsuccessfull. He talks, as I am sure many of you know, about each individual barracks protecting itself but not helping one another. In my opinion, for the revolution to not be overturned by reactionaries, there needs to be some order and organization at least in militray aspects following the revolution. While this is possible without a vanguard, it could waste valuable time in the disorder and confusion following any mass upheaval.
I guess simply put my idea of the vanguard is of a group of individuals, not necessarily a party, which come time for revolution has not only been espousing revolutionary beliefs and attempting to bring about class conciousness, but will also be the most organized and ready. They will not form a government of any sorts, but will help in defending the gains of the revolution.
Perhaps I am completely off base here and there is no possible way to avoid authortarianism in a dictatorship. Or maybe it stems from a blind faith in the uncorruptable will of some people. If this idea is not at all feasible, what can be done in the days following a revolution to make sure the people are not re-subjegated to domination by capital? To stop what happened in way to many places, a sucessfull counter-revolution?

[Azula]

I have been contemplating the idea of the vanguard party a lot recently and have come up with a few ideas. My understanding is that from the ML paradigm, the vanguard party is a necessary step in revolution; the organization of the most class conscious workers into a party to spearhead the revolution. While I think that this can be beneficial to spark revolution, given the historical examples the vanguard can be authoritarian and even eventually form into a new ruling class leading to the restoration of capitalism. Basically the idea I have been floating around in my head is that of a dissolving vanguard. A political party whose aim is to mobilize the masses and to spark the revolution in the traditional Leninist Vanguard Party sense. The only difference being in the DOTP the only purpose of the vanguard will be to defeat the counter-revolutionaries with the help of the masses and to allow the workers to take control over the means of production, upon which it would dissolve rather than take the task of building socialism.

Perhaps this is a well known idea, that in my limited studies, I have never come across, and if it is I apologize. However I would like to hear other comrades opinions on the idea.

The Vanguard Party is necessary in order to protect the gains of the masses within a Socialist state. There is a constant risk that such a party could get corrupted, and we need to discuss methods on how to find deviators most efficiently.

However, we cannot accept that the capitalists divide the working class by creating tensions within the socialist state, which could be exploited by foreign imperialists.

We should continue with what has worked - Anti-revisionism.

[S.Artesian]

The Vanguard Party is necessary in order to protect the gains of the masses within a Socialist state. There is a constant risk that such a party could get corrupted, and we need to discuss methods on how to find deviators most efficiently.

However, we cannot accept that the capitalists divide the working class by creating tensions within the socialist state, which could be exploited by foreign imperialists.

We should continue with what has worked - Anti-revisionism.


Where has that "worked"?

[Art Vandelay]

The Vanguard Party is necessary in order to protect the gains of the masses within a Socialist state. There is a constant risk that such a party could get corrupted, and we need to discuss methods on how to find deviators most efficiently.

However, we cannot accept that the capitalists divide the working class by creating tensions within the socialist state, which could be exploited by foreign imperialists.

We should continue with what has worked - Anti-revisionism.

I would agree with this if it had worked. Unfortunately the Leninist concept of the vanguard has lead to corruption and formation of a new ruling class, not to mention a extremely authoritarian society and eventually the restoration of capitalism. Einsteins definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

[Azula]

It worked in the Soviet Union 1922-1956 and in China 1949-1976.

Of course, anything will cease to work if the people don't defend it.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I have been contemplating the idea of the vanguard party a lot recently and have come up with a few ideas. My understanding is that from the ML paradigm, the vanguard party is a necessary step in revolution; the organization of the most class conscious workers into a party to spearhead the revolution. While I think that this can be beneficial to spark revolution, given the historical examples the vanguard can be authoritarian and even eventually form into a new ruling class leading to the restoration of capitalism. Basically the idea I have been floating around in my head is that of a dissolving vanguard. A political party whose aim is to mobilize the masses and to spark the revolution in the traditional Leninist Vanguard Party sense. The only difference being in the DOTP the only purpose of the vanguard will be to defeat the counter-revolutionaries with the help of the masses and to allow the workers to take control over the means of production, upon which it would dissolve rather than take the task of building socialism.


Isn't that already the point of the vanguard, both in the past and now?

[Rooster]

The Vanguard Party is necessary in order to protect the gains of the masses within a Socialist state. There is a constant risk that such a party could get corrupted, and we need to discuss methods on how to find deviators most efficiently.

However, we cannot accept that the capitalists divide the working class by creating tensions within the socialist state, which could be exploited by foreign imperialists.

We should continue with what has worked - Anti-revisionism.

You could probably start by not calling such a thing a "socialist state".

[Rooster]

The Vanguard Party is necessary in order to protect the gains of the masses within a Socialist state. There is a constant risk that such a party could get corrupted, and we need to discuss methods on how to find deviators most efficiently.

However, we cannot accept that the capitalists divide the working class by creating tensions within the socialist state, which could be exploited by foreign imperialists.

We should continue with what has worked - Anti-revisionism.

You could probably start by not calling such a thing a "socialist state".

[Azula]

I would advice you to be a little more productive in this thread.

[Rooster]

I would advice you to be a little more productive in this thread.

It's hardly productive just saying that the party is necessary and then saying that the party is the problem.

I can't accept the idea of a vanguard party in the strict marxist-leninist sense because it seems to be totally against the emancipation of working class, and history has shown that.

[Azula]

Explain why.

[Luc]

a vanguard always exists but The Vanguard Party is undesirable and uneccessary as we have seen by it track record.

We are trying to destroy classes, not replacing the Bourgeoisie with the Nomenklatura.

So come on over the fence called statism M-Ls (and it's children) its a party over here:cool:

[Azula]

We don't need parties.

And tell me, which is the only tendency here which have a track record of gaining power and keeping it?

[Luc]

We don't need parties.

And tell me, which is the only tendency here which have a track record of gaining power and keeping it?

Really? The measure of success of a tendency (each whose goal is to achieve Communism) is how much power it takes and how long as opposed to, I dunno achieving Communism?:confused: By that logic I think the Social Dems are doing better then you.

[Azula]

Really? The measure of success of a tendency (each whose goal is to achieve Communism) is how much power it takes and how long as opposed to, I dunno achieving Communism?:confused: By that logic I think the Social Dems are doing better then you.

Hardly. They are a part of the system they initially fought, due to their heavily flawed theory.

If a Marxist-leninist party should survive, it needs to employ more strict controls.

For example weekly sessions of self-criticism where all members are forced to partake.

[Luc]

I guess it just comes down to anti-statism vs statism as you believe a party can be trusted and I don't.

I just first commented as a joke so I am not gunna take over this thread with my sectarianism.:thumbup1:

Sorry 'bout the disruption OP!

[S.Artesian]

It worked in the Soviet Union 1922-1956 and in China 1949-1976.

Of course, anything will cease to work if the people don't defend it.


And you don't think the "ceasing to work" was part of, embedded in the very core of what you think did work?

You think that this so called "revisionism" was some alien influence inflicted from outside sources rather than both the product and the producer of the very thing you thought was "working"?

Maybe you do. But such "reasoning" is completely antithetical to Marx's work.

So on those grounds I would say the "vanguard party" is an obstacle to be overcome.

[S.Artesian]

Hardly. They are a part of the system they initially fought, due to their heavily flawed theory.

If a Marxist-leninist party should survive, it needs to employ more strict controls.

For example weekly sessions of self-criticism where all members are forced to partake.


Gag. Puke. Retch. Weekly self-criticism... right out of Esalen Institute, Jonestown and other Kool-Aid ideologies.

Yeah weekly self-criticisms so we don't ever have to confront the problems of policy and program, not to mention the actual social organization of labor.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's what I thought too. I started second-guessing myself though thinking, "all these years I argued that that phrase was anti-materialist and abstract and only now do I find out that it was coined by Marx".:lol:

It's quite dialectic in some ways.

But yeah, I thought for years that he was the origin of that quote. Bugger it!

[manic expression]

And you don't think the "ceasing to work" was part of, embedded in the very core of what you think did work?
Ah, so you prefer a foolproof, bulletproof, invincible system that can never possibly fail. Ever.

Well, I'm all ears. Let's hear your brilliant formulation that will lead us to communism without any of those pesky, trivial matters like counterrevolutionary and imperialist opposition, like managing a collective economy in the face of imposed isolation...

Can't wait.

[Roach]

Gag. Puke. Retch. Weekly self-criticism... right out of Esalen Institute, Jonestown and other Kool-Aid ideologies.

I don't understand, an alternative to the often criticised ''centralism'', ''rigidity and ''lack of democracy'' in Marxist-Leninist political structures is presented, but it is quckly dismissed because of somekind of similarity to cult-like organisations.

What is there in ''Vanguard Parties'' that is so as reprehensible to deserve a comparison to a religious cult and some petty-bourgeois alternative community?

[Luc]

I don't understand, an alternative to the often criticised ''centralism'', ''rigidity and ''lack of democracy'' in Marxist-Leninist political structures is presented, but it is quckly dismissed because of somekind of similarity to cult-like organisations.

What is there in ''Vanguard Parties'' that is so as reprehensible to deserve a comparison to a religious cult and some petty-bourgeois alternative community?

Well so far they have historically worshiped great leaders even so far as to name themselves after them. Hoxaist I.e.;)

They acompained statism

Elitism and beauracracy

But I think the main thing is the statism

[Azula]

There needs to be a centralised organ.

Which would control the armed forces, the economy and the society, in the interests of the working masses. Otherwise, we would soon see competing leaders emerge.

We could call that organ "The Grand Collective" if you are more comfortable with that than with a state.

The USSR was not really a state in the usual expression. It was the integrated will of the Soviet Working Class to establish socialism world-wide.

[Luc]

There needs to be a centralised organ.

Which would control the armed forces, the economy and the society, in the interests of the working masses. Otherwise, we would soon see competing leaders emerge.

We could call that organ "The Grand Collective" if you are more comfortable with that than with a state.

The USSR was not really a state in the usual expression. It was the integrated will of the Soviet Working Class to establish socialism world-wide.

Of course:rolleyes:

[Azula]

Of course:rolleyes:

Yes.

Otherwise the Imperialists will march in and destroy the Revolution.

[PhoenixAsh]

It worked in the Soviet Union 1922-1956 and in China 1949-1976.

Of course, anything will cease to work if the people don't defend it.

If people do not defend it...it obviously hasn't worked that well.

[Azula]

If people do not defend it...it obviously hasn't worked that well.

Every successful Socialist state has been established by Marxist-Leninists.

Give an example of a successful Anarchist state.

[Luc]

Every successful Socialist state has been established by Marxist-Leninists.

Give an example of a successful Anarchist state.

Ugh, really?

If you mean an anarchist society then see the Free Territory (not a big fan but it is one), Catalonia and Aragon durign the Spanish Civil War,by Chiapas Mexico is somewhat anarchistic, the paris Commune in the sense the state was replaced by a Commune. Something in Korea I think...

But I must say this is going to turn into an anti-statist vs statist thread so I will stop. Just answering you demand.

[Azula]

And that White-aligned territory in Ukraine? The one where they killed Jews?

[Luc]

And that White-aligned territory in Ukraine? The one where they killed Jews?

Like I said I'm not a fan but this historical revisionism really pisses me off

They saved your red army's ass from defeat by the whites and Makhno ordered the execution of Nikigor Grigoriev. Many in the RIAU were of Jewish decent.

The only bad things Makhno did was the events with the medinites for which I do hate Makhno. Just answering question.

[electro_fan]

Hardly. They are a part of the system they initially fought, due to their heavily flawed theory.

If a Marxist-leninist party should survive, it needs to employ more strict controls.

For example weekly sessions of self-criticism where all members are forced to partake.
that's not a party ... that's a cult mate

[electro_fan]

this self criticism is total bollocks, total cult like shit

i'm all for discussing our strengths and weaknesses as an organisation and identifying areas where we could do better, but "forcing" people to do anything let alone get up in a hostile environment and talk about their failings ... that's a recipe for demoralising, it's a recipe for putting people off coming meetings or participating in the life of the party, and before anyone says it's their fault for not being able to "handle" it, a lot of people have mentnal health problems and confidence problems, and it is a recipe for fear and twisted power trips imo ... a bit like stalin

[electro_fan]

and im someone who does believe that we need a party to take power in a revolution btw. but to do that, we need cadre who are confident, who are thinkers not robots and who the party has helped to develop in a personal and political sense ... what we do not need is people who worship some cult like leader like a god, who are terrified of making a mistake and putting a foot wrong or have any kind of opinion that deviate from the party line in any way ... if someone has substantial disagreements with our programme it is better that they discuss it in the hope of having their mind changed, or at least to just have an honest discussion over it, rather than bottling it up and having their doubts over other stuff be built up too ...

[manic expression]

Like I said I'm not a fan but this historical revisionism really pisses me off

They saved your red army's ass from defeat by the whites and Makhno ordered the execution of Nikigor Grigoriev. Many in the RIAU were of Jewish decent.
The Makhnovists didn't save the Red Army from defeat...not a single person outside of anarchist sympathizing circles would argue that for a second. And there were pogroms, for which the Makhnovists developed a reputation.

But the point is that vanguard parties have found remarkable success in defending revolutions...more than any other form of revolutionary organization, in fact.

[Azula]

this self criticism is total bollocks, total cult like shit

i'm all for discussing our strengths and weaknesses as an organisation and identifying areas where we could do better, but "forcing" people to do anything let alone get up in a hostile environment and talk about their failings ... that's a recipe for demoralising, it's a recipe for putting people off coming meetings or participating in the life of the party, and before anyone says it's their fault for not being able to "handle" it, a lot of people have mentnal health problems and confidence problems, and it is a recipe for fear and twisted power trips imo ... a bit like stalin

I think that is good.

Communists should be devoted, mentally strong individuals.

They should be 100% dedicated to the cause.

Those who are not able to cope would be a liability the day when the Revolution comes.

Rather a small party of gold, than a big party of mud.

[electro_fan]

who says they wouldn't be able to cope? a great way to destroy peoples confidence is to make them have weekly meetings while they describe how shit they are, while the usual ways of building confidence (like inviting comrades to do talks or to participate at various events or organise them themselves) are good ways of building peoples confidence and loyalty to the party up, if you tell them how shit they are all the time they're eventually going to drop out or become brainwashed morons who are incapable of thinking, like what happens in most stalinist organisations, or organisations which mimic a stalinist way of organising

[Binh]

You are right that vanguards and Leninist parties are not the same thing. The American I.W.W., Black Panther Party, and Vietnam Veterans Against the War are all examples of vanguards i.e. the most conscious, militant leaders of their respective constituencies.

The fact of the matter is that Leninist strategy prevents the emergence of vanguards and vanguard parties. It's ironic.

[Azula]

who says they wouldn't be able to cope? a great way to destroy peoples confidence is to make them have weekly meetings while they describe how shit they are, while the usual ways of building confidence (like inviting comrades to do talks or to participate at various events or organise them themselves) are good ways of building peoples confidence and loyalty to the party up, if you tell them how shit they are all the time they're eventually going to drop out or become brainwashed morons who are incapable of thinking, like what happens in most stalinist organisations, or organisations which mimic a stalinist way of organising

If they are broken down by self-criticism, they will be useless in an actual revolutionary situation.

The Bolsheviks were not a mass party during the Revolution.

We need to focus on quality, not quantity.

Prematurely retired old guys in their 40's are not good revolutionary material.

[Luc]

The Makhnovists didn't save the Red Army from defeat...not a single person outside of anarchist sympathizing circles would argue that for a second. And there were pogroms, for which the Makhnovists developed a reputation.

But the point is that vanguard parties have found remarkable success in defending revolutions...more than any other form of revolutionary organization, in fact.

Can you link me some sources about these pogroms? It's not that I don't believe -as I said earlier I'm not a fan of theirs- just want to learn.

As for the "Saving your red army's ass" I retract that statement. I was wrong. I can't find that thing that made me think that.:confused:

[electro_fan]

I think that is good.

Communists should be devoted, mentally strong individuals.

They should be 100% dedicated to the cause.

Those who are not able to cope would be a liability the day when the Revolution comes.

Rather a small party of gold, than a big party of mud.

i agree they should be 100% dedicated to the cause but if you think that the party exists in isolation to everything else you are mistaken, there are outside pressures that exist as well, and having mental health problems doesnt mean you are not "mentally strong" or couldn't cope in a revolution, nor does being under masses of stress.

what if you work a 60 hour week and you have a family to feed , are you going to be enthusaistic about getting up in front of a hostile audience while you say how shit you are and have other people tell you you're shit? what if you're having an arguement with your partner at the time who's telling you you're shit as well, shouldn't you expect support from people that are your comrades?

also isn't, the aim of the vanguard party is to transform it into a mass party that is capable of taking power into the hands of the working class, you cant do that with just a few people who can survive weekly "criticism" sessions, because honestly very few people could, and the way you're describing this seems to me like you're just describing what you think a new "elite" should be like

[PhoenixAsh]

Every successful Socialist state has been established by Marxist-Leninists.

Give an example of a successful Anarchist state.

Why don't you first try and give me an example of a succesful socialist state.

[Azula]

Why don't you first try and give me an example of a succesful socialist state.

The USSR during Stalin.

The People's Republic of China during Mao.

Albania during Hoxha.

[Roach]

Well so far they have historically worshiped great leaders even so far as to name themselves after them. Hoxaist I.e.;)

Enver Hoxha stands as a theoretical aswer to both Soviet and Chinese revisionist trends, not much more than that, no active Marxist-Leninist organisation calls itself ''hoxhaist'', in some cases, ''hoxhaist'' is considered a pejorative term, using Ecuador as an example.


They acompained statism

It is nescessary for the working class, after overthrowing the bourgeoisie, to defend itself from counter-revolutionary forces through organs of working-class power, like councils, the army, etc. The ''vanguard party'' fits inside this category and those organs, as a whole, would constitute the worker's state.

I don't see any problem with this ''statism'' as long as it remains the revolutionary workers state, and doesnt degenarete into something else.


Elitism

The objective of the Vanguard party is to act as an educational and agitator organisation. The American Party of Labour recently wrote an article dealing with the subject of the vanguard, allow me to paste a part that dealed with this exact same point:

Is the Concept of a Vanguard Elitist?
There is nothing there about being elite, superior, or better in any way. Literally, it means that the troops of the vanguard will likely meet the enemy first, and subsequent formations will follow on. True, in colloquial usage we often associate “vanguard” with the best of the best, perhaps reasoning that military strategists would put their best troops at the front. This is not the case in real life, however; often times the vanguard merely finds and fixes the enemy while the reserves actually bring victory. The word vanguard does not automatically imply elite or superior status.

http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/08/17/on-the-vanguard-party/



and beauracracy
Most anti-revisionists associate revisionism in Eastern Europe and Asia with bureacratic deviations inside the ruling parties.

[electro_fan]

If they are broken down by self-criticism, they will be useless in an actual revolutionary situation.

The Bolsheviks were not a mass party during the Revolution.

We need to focus on quality, not quantity.

Prematurely retired old guys in their 40's are not good revolutionary material.

who said they were?

and i would say, honestly, both quality and quantity are important, as you cant have a party consisting of one man and his dog in a field

[Azula]

i agree they should be 100% dedicated to the cause but if you think that the party exists in isolation to everything else you are mistaken, there are outside pressures that exist as well, and having mental health problems doesnt mean you are not "mentally strong" or couldn't cope in a revolution, nor does being under masses of stress.

what if you work a 60 hour week and you have a family to feed , are you going to be enthusaistic about getting up in front of a hostile audience while you say how shit you are and have other people tell you you're shit? what if you're having an arguement with your partner at the time who's telling you you're shit as well, shouldn't you expect support from people that are your comrades?

also isn't, the aim of the vanguard party is to transform it into a mass party that is capable of taking power into the hands of the working class, you cant do that with just a few people who can survive weekly "criticism" sessions, because honestly very few people could, and the way you're describing this seems to me like you're just describing what you think a new "elite" should be like

Even if one or two people are emotionally devastated beyond repair, that is their responsibility.

The Party must focus on ideology and paramilitary tactics, as well as educating commanders for the revolutionary cohorts.

Every party member should be able to lead thousands of workers during the Revolution.

[Azula]

who said they were?

and i would say, honestly, both quality and quantity are important, as you cant have a party consisting of one man and his dog in a field

Rather 100 fanatics than millions of people who are only in for their own ends.

[Luc]

Amusingly I spelt Hoxhaist wrong,:lol: that part about the Personality Cult was less of a criticims than a joke. I will stop making those, they aren't funny.

I disagree about the state but then again, I am an anarchist. :blackA:

Thanks for the article, I'll give it a read.:thumbup1:

[manic expression]

Can you link me some sources about these pogroms? It's not that I don't believe -as I said earlier I'm not a fan of theirs- just want to learn.

As for the "Saving your red army's ass" I retract that statement. I was wrong. I can't find that thing that made me think that.:confused:
No problem. The info on the pogroms is in A Century of Ambivalence...it mentions the reputation gained by Makhnovists among Jewish communities.

[PhoenixAsh]

The Makhnovists didn't save the Red Army from defeat...not a single person outside of anarchist sympathizing circles would argue that for a second.

And every single one would be wrong. If the ABA would not have defeated Denekin at Peregonovka there would have been extremely little opposition for his forces in their march to Moscow. The supression of the Free Territory was outright genocide.



And there were pogroms, for which the Makhnovists developed a reputation.

The Merkza never reported such incidents committed by the ABA....it did however report them from the Red Army...and all other armed groups. Makhno also issued a statement specifically forbidding pogroms. Interestingly enough the allegations of pogroms are mainly comming from the Bosheviks...I have however never seen anything remotely indicating any substantial evidence of the truth of these statements. And anything the Bolsheviks have to say on the subject is highly suspect in any case since they obviously had political motivations in justifying their planned mass murder and betrayal.

[PhoenixAsh]

The USSR during Stalin.

The People's Republic of China during Mao.

Albania during Hoxha.

Ok...then you are obviously talking out of your ass. Thats settled.

[manic expression]

And every single one would be wrong. If the ABA would not have defeated Denekin at Peregonovka there would have been extremely little opposition for his forces in their march to Moscow. The supression of the Free Territory was outright genocide.
Like I said...

not a single person outside of anarchist sympathizing circles would argue that for a second.

Speaks for itself, really. But just so we're clear, Denikin was defeated decisively later in that year, not in September, and not by the hand of the Makhnovists. Peregonovka involved around 8,000 Whites (hardly the titanic clash you're making it out to be), and at that point Denikin's supply lines were so stretched that all the Makhnovists had to do was assemble a physical presence and the Whites would have been disrupted in some fashion. At any rate, it's silly to insist that the Whites would surely have taken Moscow in December as anarchist pseudo-historians often do (because as we all know, the Russian winter's never impeded invading armies, especially those with strained supply lines like Denikin's! :rolleyes:); if anything, the haste in which Denikin's forces fell apart is good evidence that his offensive had already bitten off more than he could chew.


The Merkza never reported such incidents committed by the ABA....it did however report them from the Red Army...and all other armed groups. Makhno also issued a statement specifically forbidding pogroms. Interestingly enough the allegations of pogroms are mainly comming from the Bosheviks...I have however never seen anything remotely indicating any substantial evidence of the truth of these statements. And anything the Bolsheviks have to say on the subject is highly suspect in any case since they obviously had political motivations in justifying their planned mass murder and betrayal.
Oh, a statement against pogroms, very good. That must have done a lot to soothe the Jews who fled from the Makhnovists.

[Kronsteen]

If they are broken down by self-criticism, they will be useless in an actual revolutionary situation.

Ooh yes, punish me Great Leader! I have wicked counterrevolutionary thoughts and I need you to PURGE me of ideological impurity.

Hard.

[PhoenixAsh]

Like I said...

not a single person outside of anarchist sympathizing circles would argue that for a second.

Speaks for itself, really. But just so we're clear, Denikin was defeated decisively later in that year, not in September, and not by the hand of the Makhnovists. Peregonovka involved around 8,000 Whites (hardly the titanic clash you're making it out to be), and at that point Denikin's supply lines were so stretched that all the Makhnovists had to do was assemble a physical presence and the Whites would have been disrupted in some fashion. At any rate, it's silly to insist that the Whites would surely have taken Moscow in December as anarchist pseudo-historians often do (because as we all know, the Russian winter's never impeded invading armies, especially those with strained supply lines like Denikin's! :rolleyes:); if anything, the haste in which Denikin's forces fell apart is good evidence that his offensive had already bitten off more than he could chew.


As you well know the ABA was previously targetted by the Bolshiviks as a band of outlaws. Unfortunately for them...the whites proved a little too strong for our fearless Red Army. Which had largely withdrawn from the Ukrain because of their continued losses at the hans of the whites. The largest part of the remaining troops mutinied and defected to the ABA. With whom the Bolsheviks subsequently were forced to ally themselves with for fear of the rapid move towards Moscow by Denikin.

Peregonovka was not a major battle but it was a decisive victory. And it send the white army on a rout. Two weeks after Peregonvka the whites were expelled from the Southern Ukrain and huge supply storages were conquered. Not to mention that it cut Denikins mains supply line completely from the main body of troops. Which accounts for the horribly overstretched supply lines you mention. :rolleyes:

And that simple fact meant that Denikin had to reorient his attack from the north to the south to recapture his supply base....by withdrawing forces from the front in Russia. Where he previously had been victorious. Thereby weakening his army and allowed the Red Army to counter attack.

Now...without the victory at Peregonovka none of this would have happened. And Denikin would have been unopposed in the south,...NOT losing his supply base. NOT having to withdraw a large part of his troops to retake it...and would have continued to be victorious against the RA.






Oh, a statement against pogroms, very good. That must have done a lot to soothe the Jews who fled from the Makhnovists.

Most of the Jewish communities served in the ABA. And as I mentioned the Merkza...you know...the Jewish group operating in Russia reporting on the mistreatment of Jews..never uttered a single allegation against the ABA...unlike the Red Army, The green nationalists and whites which all operated in the Ukrain...might be they caused the refugees.

[S.Artesian]

The Bolsheviks were not a mass party during the Revolution.

Wrong. If you look at the Bolshevik Party organization in Petrograd and Moscow, in the period from September 1917 - November 1917, that's exactly what they were, the mass party of the working class, with the majority of the workers either entering or supporting the Bolsheviks.

This crap about "vanguardism" ignores the fact that prior to Lenin's return, the "leadership" of the party was offering "qualified support to the PRG" was ambiguous about its position on the war, and wasn't very much unified in its comprehension or strategic orientation to the unfolding revolution.

The party actually appears as a "vanguard" only to the degree that it reflects the actual interests and will of the workers who were expressing their demands for the soviets to take power in increasing numbers, and increasing actions, and doing so through factory committees of workers, district soviets, etc. etc.

[S.Artesian]

I don't understand, an alternative to the often criticised ''centralism'', ''rigidity and ''lack of democracy'' in Marxist-Leninist political structures is presented, but it is quckly dismissed because of somekind of similarity to cult-like organisations.

What is there in ''Vanguard Parties'' that is so as reprehensible to deserve a comparison to a religious cult and some petty-bourgeois alternative community?


Because it is used maintain a certain sector of a party in power; it is used not to encourage critical thinking about policy, program, organization, social relations of production.. but only to enforce adherence to party doctrine. See Getty's The Road to Terror.

[S.Artesian]

Rather 100 fanatics than millions of people who are only in for their own ends.


Thus said Barry Goldwater in 1964.

[manic expression]

Because it is used maintain a certain sector of a party in power; it is used not to encourage critical thinking about policy, program, organization, social relations of production.. but only to enforce adherence to party doctrine. See Getty's The Road to Terror.
One application of the vanguard isn't the only one. Surely we can learn from the mistakes of the past, borne of another time and place under specific circumstances, no?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your never-known-to-fail, 100%-guaranteed-or-your-money-back method for creating a communist society.


As you well know the ABA was previously targetted by the Bolshiviks as a band of outlaws. Unfortunately for them...the whites proved a little too strong for our fearless Red Army. Which had largely withdrawn from the Ukrain because of their continued losses at the hans of the whites. The largest part of the remaining troops mutinied and defected to the ABA. With whom the Bolsheviks subsequently were forced to ally themselves with for fear of the rapid move towards Moscow by Denikin.
So in your opinion: losing control of Ukraine = surely losing Moscow

That doesn't follow. It's a counterfactual with nothing behind it except conjecture.


Peregonovka was not a major battle but it was a decisive victory. And it send the white army on a rout. Two weeks after Peregonvka the whites were expelled from the Southern Ukrain and huge supply storages were conquered. Not to mention that it cut Denikins mains supply line completely from the main body of troops. Which accounts for the horribly overstretched supply lines you mention. :rolleyes:
The whole White Army was routed when 8,000 of its troops were defeated? And the supply lines were overstretched before Peregonovka and you know that.


And that simple fact meant that Denikin had to reorient his attack from the north to the south to recapture his supply base....by withdrawing forces from the front in Russia. Where he previously had been victorious. Thereby weakening his army and allowed the Red Army to counter attack.
So what's your evidence that the Red Army could never, ever have possibly beaten Denikin in the north without Peregonovka? What's your evidence that the considerable distance between Denikin and Moscow could have been successfully closed (especially with the onset of winter, frail lines of supply and the flexibility of the Red Army in and around Moscow) without the Makhnovists? What's to say that the Red Army couldn't conserve men and material and then force Denikin, upon getting closer to Moscow, to turn front to flank, thereby exposing his strained supply lines in the middle of winter?


Now...without the victory at Peregonovka none of this would have happened. And Denikin would have been unopposed in the south,...NOT losing his supply base. NOT having to withdraw a large part of his troops to retake it...and would have continued to be victorious against the RA.
Again, it's a counterfactual with nothing behind it. You can believe that Denikin would have been drinking champagne in Red Square by the end of 1919 without Makhno, but that's not the same as proving it.


Most of the Jewish communities served in the ABA. And as I mentioned the Merkza...you know...the Jewish group operating in Russia reporting on the mistreatment of Jews..never uttered a single allegation against the ABA...unlike the Red Army, The green nationalists and whites which all operated in the Ukrain...might be they caused the refugees.
I see, so all a cossack band has to do now is forcefully conscript Jews into service and all of a sudden they're the savior of the Jewish people.

How much of an idea did the Merzka have of what was going on in that area? Even today the picture is quite hazy. What we do know is that pogroms were carried out by the Makhnovists and Makhno worked with those who were known to have done this (he reportedly executed one of them, but it wasn't because he had the interests of Jews close to his heart).

[Kosakk]

why not a vanguard MOVEMENT?

Or does it just work as a vanguard party?

I do, however, disagree with the concept.
The people can be educated and carry out the revolution themselves.

The idea of a party carrying out the revolution harbours a contempt
for the working class, imo.
"The masses can't be trusted to know best themselves, therefore, we will show them the path"

[Azula]

Thus said Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Goldwater built Reagan, and Reagan created a reactionary movement which is still holding the US working class at the throats. They have not adapted, they have forced the society to adapt to them.

Like we should do.

[Azula]

Wrong. If you look at the Bolshevik Party organization in Petrograd and Moscow, in the period from September 1917 - November 1917, that's exactly what they were, the mass party of the working class, with the majority of the workers either entering or supporting the Bolsheviks.

This crap about "vanguardism" ignores the fact that prior to Lenin's return, the "leadership" of the party was offering "qualified support to the PRG" was ambiguous about its position on the war, and wasn't very much unified in its comprehension or strategic orientation to the unfolding revolution.

The party actually appears as a "vanguard" only to the degree that it reflects the actual interests and will of the workers who were expressing their demands for the soviets to take power in increasing numbers, and increasing actions, and doing so through factory committees of workers, district soviets, etc. etc.

The SR's were much more popular.

The Bolshevik Party only had 40 000 members. It became a proper mass party in the 1920's, when lots and lots of opportunists joined its ranks.

[PhoenixAsh]

So in your opinion: losing control of Ukraine = surely losing Moscow

That doesn't follow. It's a counterfactual with nothing behind it except conjecture.


How hard is this for you to accept?

* Denikin would not have lost his main supply base and about 75% of his military supplies.
* Denikin would not have overstretched supply lines.
* Denikin would not have reduced the amount of troops on the Russian front in order to try to recapture them
* Denikin would have continued his pushing back of the Red Army which were at that time in full retreat.

Trotski and the Boshevik leadership were certainly terrified of his rush towards Moscow. And its for that reason and that reason alone that the Bolsheviks allied themselves with Makhno and the ABA....which they had previously villified.


The whole White Army was routed when 8,000 of its troops were defeated? And the supply lines were overstretched before Peregonovka and you know that.

The whole White Amry in the Ukrain was routed...yes. Within two weeks the Southern Ukrain was under ABA control.

And you know that his supply lines were overstretched and under pressure because of the ABA attacks on them and the loss of his main supply base which forced him to resupply his Front line from the north.

Up until the ABA treaty the RA was on retreat.


So what's your evidence that the Red Army could never, ever have possibly beaten Denikin in the north without Peregonovka? What's your evidence that the considerable distance between Denikin and Moscow could have been successfully closed (especially with the onset of winter, frail lines of supply and the flexibility of the Red Army in and around Moscow) without the Makhnovists? What's to say that the Red Army couldn't conserve men and material and then force Denikin, upon getting closer to Moscow, to turn front to flank, thereby exposing his strained supply lines in the middle of winter?

Considerable distance? 400 km is not considerable distance. Especially when the army opposing you is in full retreat...which the RA was at that time. Having to stretch their supplies and manpower over four different fronts and against four different armies progressing. A month earlier Denikins army had
gained that same amount of territory in his push...pushing the frontline foreward about 430 km which is further than Tula.

The onset of winter would not have hampered either force in an unequal manner seeing as they both were very used to the conditions and were very well adapted to fightig in it. You seem to forget that the Whites were not an invading foreign army with no experience on the Russian conditions.

Bolsheviks were panicking big time. Hence their alliance with the ABA.

After Peregonovka in September Denikin had to send a quarter of his Russian Front troops back to recapture the supply lines in the Ukrain.

The ABA definately saved the RA ass.




Again, it's a counterfactual with nothing behind it. You can believe that Denikin would have been drinking champagne in Red Square by the end of 1919 without Makhno, but that's not the same as proving it.

Well...this is just a reversal of argument now is it? Since Peregonovka DID happen and so far the RA had been in full retreat...why do you NOT argue why you think it was irrelevant?

Or in otherwords...why do you not proof your original statement that it was not the case?

Yeah...you know what...I think I'll let you do that. Since all of your arguments about the ABA being irrelevant in the subsequent victory of the previously in full retreat RA which panicked the Bolsheviks to such an extend that they entered into an alliance with teh very same people they had villified a month earlier.



I see, so all a cossack band has to do now is forcefully conscript Jews into service and all of a sudden they're the savior of the Jewish people.

Why don't you provide some factuial evidence that forecefullty recruiting Jews happened on a large and planned scale...and while yo are at it provide some evidence for the large amounts of progroms the ABA had such a reputation for....BUT WHICH WERE NEVER MENTIONED by the Jewish organisations which reported on these incidents active in the Ukrain and Russia.


How much of an idea did the Merzka have of what was going on in that area? Even today the picture is quite hazy. What we do know is that pogroms were carried out by the Makhnovists and Makhno worked with those who were known to have done this (he reportedly executed one of them, but it wasn't because he had the interests of Jews close to his heart).

No...we do not know this. Since there is NO factual evidence for Pogroms. Jewish organisations reporting on such crimes never mentioned the ABA...but did adress just about everybody else. So...either put up or shut up. If the Jewsih organisations never mentioned it...then you must have some very, very good evidence of the contrary.

And you mention the execution. Grigoriev? Because Grigoriev was executed for two reasons after only three weeks of cooperation:
1). His proposal to collaborate with Denikin against the RA batrayal
2). His openly and rabid antisemitism

So...yeah...wrong there too buddy.

[Roach]

Because it is used maintain a certain sector of a party in power; it is used not to encourage critical thinking about policy, program, organization, social relations of production.. but only to enforce adherence to party doctrine.


Again, the purpose of the vanguard is to be an educational and agitator organ of the working-class, with the sole objective of overthrowing bourgeoisie from power and to establish the dictatorship of the ploretariat, as well as defending the said worker's goverment. Criticisms are welcomed in those organisations that are based under firm Marxist principles, but those same criticisms must also be based on Marxist scientific reasoning, there is no need for reactionaries to have a voice in what should be the main front of the worker's struggle to gain political power.

I must ask the same question that manic expression did, what would be this alternative to the vanguard party, and how it would be able to overthrown capitalism?

I hope that the APL comrades dont mind if I repost their article here, but I will since it shows the proper Marxist-Leninist position on this topic:




Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Vanguard?

Spend any significant amount of time reading leftist literature, and you’re bound to encounter the term “vanguardist” thrown about. It is usually wielded by anarchists, though they are certainly not alone when it comes to using this term in a loaded, pejorative manner aimed at Marxist-Leninists. When used in this fashion, the intended message is that “vanguard” equates with an elite, select group, to which the whole working class must defer. With this assumption the door is then opened to a whole procession of tired and dated anti-communist clichés.

There’s the idea that communist revolutionaries simply replace one ruling class with another, the claim that Marxist revolutionaries really just seek power and authority, and on occasion the idiotic idea that the presence of a vanguard as a component to the practical side of revolutionary theory somehow makes Marxism-Leninism “right-wing,” or at least excludes it from the “real” left.

The very term “vanguardist,” which is utterly meaningless from a Marxist-Leninist point of view, seems to have no other purpose but to reduce Marxist-Leninist theory down to this one practical point, and cast suspicion on Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations. Of course the term vanguard can only take on this magical aura when we accept the irrational and unfounded assumptions with which opponents seek to pile upon the otherwise ordinary word. We will examine these assumptions in detail. For now, let us look at the term’s history within Marxism-Leninism.

What Does “Vanguard” Really Mean?

The basic definition of “vanguard” refers to the forward element of a military formation on the move, the advanced guard, or as it is known in French, avant-garde. Something so mundane as the literal definition of vanguard might strike the reader as being wholly unnecessary, but because arguments over a workers’ vanguard, and especially a vanguard party, typically involve anarchists, ultra-leftists, and even liberals posing as the former when it suits them, it is necessary to begin by going to the basic definition of vanguard, without all the taboo, hidden meanings it is allegedly supposed to convey.

Is the Concept of a Vanguard Elitist?

There is nothing there about being elite, superior, or better in any way.
Literally, it means that the troops of the vanguard will likely meet the enemy first, and subsequent formations will follow on. True, in colloquial usage we often associate “vanguard” with the best of the best, perhaps reasoning that military strategists would put their best troops at the front. This is not the case in real life, however; often times the vanguard merely finds and fixes the enemy while the reserves actually bring victory. The word vanguard does not automatically imply elite or superior status.

For those not familiar with the historical side of Marxism, the term “vanguard” is often associated with Vladimir Lenin, but the term dates as far back as The Communist Manifesto. That there are differences between Marx and Engels’ original concept of the workers’ vanguard and that of Lenin is explained by the profound political and economic changes in Europe since the 1840s when the Manifesto was published. Marx and Engels originally saw the role of communists as one outside parliamentary politics and political parties. Some relevant text from The Communist Manifesto explains:

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
From this passage it is easy to make several quick observations. First, the authors are not referring to communists as a separate party (something they reiterate in the Manifesto), but rather people working within various existing political parties and organizations at that time. At that point in history many workers allied with the bourgeois class against the feudal nobility in those nations where such relations were still in force. A recurring concern of Marx and Engels was that workers would maintain their own interests within these struggles to establish bourgeois democratic republics, and not be bought off by petty reforms. In this passage Marx makes reference to “working-class” and “proletarian” parties, but at the time there were few parties which could truly fit such terms. More accurately there were bourgeois parties whose aims conflicted with that of the monarchies and feudal nobility, and out of the convergence of interests on this point they drew mass support from workers and peasants. The divergence of interests within these parties would become more apparent after the events of 1848 in Europe, that is, after The Communist Manifesto was published.

The second observation we can make is in regards to the language with which Marx describes the communists, as, “…the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.”

In the first part of that quote he calls the communists “the most advanced,” but this does not imply that they are so because of some inherent superiority or wisdom. In the second half of the quote the authors tell us that the communists have a theoretical advantage over the masses of the proletariat, which he outlines in detail. Marx never denied that the working class spontaneously acts in its own interest; in fact in the Manifesto itself he asserts just that, and the fact that the proletariat has a better, more well-defined consciousness of its own class and situation in society is according to Marx one of its defining attributes. But this consciousness or self-awareness alone is not nearly enough to cause a revolution which overthrows the present system, brings the working class into absolute power, and by extension eventually eliminates class altogether.

Here is where the term vanguard first starts to get saddled with emotional baggage. In this context, the idea that someone could have more theoretical knowledge than anyone else is treated as blasphemy, as inherently negative, as though it implied that the workers are stupid, or that the communists are claiming some kind of superior, esoteric knowledge with which to lead the proletariat to victory.
It matters not that we are not even speaking of a vanguard party at this point. The very idea that one person might know something important while another one doesn’t cannot mean anything but that the former is more intelligent and superior than the latter. Anarchists allege that workers don’t need any kind of organization such as a party to abolish capitalism and run their affairs. This, of course, is strange considering that nowhere in the world have workers spontaneously overthrown capitalism in order to create an anarchist communist society.

Liberal Criticisms

Anarchists are not the only people who attack the Leninist concept of a vanguard and a vanguard party. Some liberal authors, such as those of the otherwise provocative and useful book The Rebel Sell (US title- A Nation of Rebels), suggest that the need for some kind of vanguard might proof that workers actually like and prefer capitalism to some allegedly better form of society. At least in this one case, the authors clearly failed to take into account the strength of the labor movement as well as the communist role in that movement for many decades. What this liberal critique provides, however, is one clear reason why a vanguard party or organization is necessary.

Any worker can perceive that he or she is exploited somehow. Everyone knows sayings like, “if work were fun, they wouldn’t have to pay people to do it.” Consciousness of their own predicament as a class is the unique advantage of the modern proletariat. Yet there is a wide gap between perceiving this exploitation in one particular form, and struggling against it via those means historically available to the labor movement, and overthrowing capitalist society to build a new one. The former comes naturally, whereas the latter arises from a realization that the system cannot be made more just or equitable, that there exists between the ruling and working classes a number of irreconcilable contradictions which ensure that exploitation and inequality will continue indefinitely until that society is either overthrown and replaced, or some kind of environmental disaster wipes out human life on Earth, whichever comes first.

Why is a Vanguard Necessary?

Now we may address the question as to why a vanguard or vanguard party is necessary. Prior to a revolution, workers need some organization which can provide education which they would otherwise either not have access to, or for which they might not have enough time. Part of the workers’ lack of political power stems from the fact that workers are often so burdened by their jobs and obligations that there is no time left for contemplation of political and economic issues as a whole. Through party organizations, workers with an interest in such matters gather together to study and help spread what they learn to their colleagues in ways which are easy to understand, unobtrusive, and don’t get in the way of the daily struggle for survival. In addition to this role, a vanguard party helps maintain the struggle for workers’ interests in the political arena at every level, while remaining independent from “progressive” bourgeois parties such as the Democratic party in the US.

The role of a revolutionary proletarian vanguard during and after a revolution will be quite different, though we should not assume that it will resemble previously-existing parties. In fact, since Marxism-Leninism is a living theory which forces us to learn from our past mistakes, we should expect future revolutions to be different, even radically so. This having been said, the vanguard party’s role will, during a revolution, mainly be concerned with military matters. There may be many different workers organizations but during an insurgency the party will probably have to remain underground. As various territories come under the influence of the workers’ revolutionary movement, the party will help to set up what is known as a “parallel hierarchy,” which is nothing more than a provisional institution designed to maintain production and infrastructure in liberated zones until the capitalist government has collapsed and any foreign forces of intervention have been expelled.

After the revolution, the party’s role in general is to provide the workers with the information and knowledge they need to make good, informed decisions toward their short and long term goals. Workers can learn to handle the affairs of their own workplaces and localities quite quickly, but directing the actions of the country as a whole requires some kind of body which collects information from the periphery and redistributes it from the center so that everyone is able to get a big picture view of their situation.
Ultimately, the goal of the party should be to make itself irrelevant by enabling the working class the fullest and most direct control of all their affairs. Key areas where the party needs to take an active role would be in mass media, primary education, and military matters. The victory of socialism throughout the world will eventually make certain institutions, particularly the military, unnecessary; thereby further reducing the need for a party.

Who Should be in the Vanguard?

Coming back to the present, we might ask what sort of people should make up the workers’ vanguard. Who are the “most advanced” workers? Advanced can have a lot of meanings in this case. Those workers who, for whatever reason, reject bourgeois society and passionately seek something higher can be counted among the advanced. Those who for whatever reason have been exposed to leftist thought and theory, or those who have experience in the labor struggle may be considered advanced. Those who go out of the way to help their fellow workers can be considered advanced. Being advanced does not at all imply some kind of superiority of any sort. Inferring such seems to suggest that one cannot possibly learn from anyone else.

In Lenin’s time, the Bolsheviks faced the disadvantage of working in a country with a small proletariat which, along with the peasants, was largely illiterate. The pre-revolutionary struggle in Russia saw a unification of young intellectuals of the student movement and politically active workers; the former supplied the benefits of their study and literacy in the form of theory, while the latter supplied their knowledge of real world conditions in the workplace.

Lenin did not suggest, however, that the intellectuals were superior to the workers. In What is to be Done?, Lenin argued against a number of opponents who favored the “spontaneous” actions of the masses. These people argued that if the trade unions represented the most militant or revolutionary organizations which workers had created up to that point, revolutionaries had to defer to the trade unions as they represented the will of the workers. Lenin argued that the workers actually wanted to go beyond the trade union struggle, and that whenever they had the opportunity to learn about Marxist theory they listened eagerly. The workers wanted to go beyond the trade union struggle, but in a country like Russia, which was as vast in size as it was repressive in the arena of politics, they needed some kind of national organization which served as lines of communication while also protecting revolutionaries from the Tsar’s law enforcement organs.

Historical Examples

There are many who argue that the existence of a party vanguard will inevitably lead to bureaucracy, elitism, and a “party” dictatorship. Their evidence is what actually happened in allegedly all self-proclaimed socialist nations. Reality is far more complicated than this, however. There is no doubt that bureaucracy and privilege existed in socialist societies, but these arose from a number of factors, many of which are inextricably bound up with the history of the Russian revolution or the historical conditions in existing in the nations in question. Struggles were waged against bureaucracy and party-based cronyism from within and without the party.

One technique developed by the Albanian socialists was to require political
representatives to do a certain amount of productive labor in order to maintain their position. Given the presence of a technically proficient working class, the internet, wireless technology, and decades of historical experience, the vanguard party of the future would, after a successful revolution, have far less work to do. It need only provide theoretical guidance, see too defense of the socialist territory, and provide the lines of communication so that workers in every locality are able to make informed decisions. Speaking objectively, there is no reason to believe that a future socialist revolution would turn out exactly like the Russian Revolution of 1917 simply based on the presence of a vanguard party. Lenin’s vanguard party conformed mainly to the needs of that era; our vanguard party must necessarily conform the needs of our era.

The Vanguard & the Needs of the People

One typical argument against a centralized vanguard organization is that it cannot possibly know the needs of the people, and thus serve those needs, better than the people themselves. It is probably worth noting that this argument may come from self-styled “leftists,” but it is eerily similar to assertions made by capitalist apologists when they argue against government oversight and regulation.

We need only to look at the capitalist system to see that the ruling class has its own vanguard, and that this vanguard, in the form of a multi-party “democracy,” has done a fine job of serving our rulers’ interests for more than two centuries now. Capitalists do not rule our society directly; to do so would lead to disaster as capitalists in competition with each other, or branches of capitalists with conflicting interests would inevitably lead the whole country to destruction. This system of administering society indirectly through a party or parties has advanced and preserved the capitalist order quite well thus far. There is no reason to assume that the interests of the proletariat cannot be served via a vanguard party after smashing the organs of a capitalist state, other than, “Pyotr Kropotkin said so.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is far less “elitist” to suggest that the workers organize a party on their behalf, than to demand that they defer to some bourgeois party such as the Democrats. If the ruling class has their parties which fight for their interests above all else, workers are entitled to their own.

Footnote

1) It is worth noting that elsewhere statements made by the First International or the International Working Men’s Association, endorsed by Marx and Engels, spoke of the need for a vanguard party. In the “Resolution on Working Class Political Action” during the September, 1871 London Conference, for example, we find the following text:

In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it;

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes;

That the combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economic struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists

The Conference recalls to the members of the International:
That in the militant state of the working class, its economic movement and its political action are indissolubly united.

[manic expression]

How hard is this for you to accept?

* Denikin would not have lost his main supply base and about 75% of his military supplies.
* Denikin would not have overstretched supply lines.
* Denikin would not have reduced the amount of troops on the Russian front in order to try to recapture them
* Denikin would have continued his pushing back of the Red Army which were at that time in full retreat.
1.) And? Does this mean that Moscow would have surely fallen? No, it doesn't: the Red Army had its greatest amount of flexibility and strength around Moscow, and this would have played into their hands. Was it impossible to force Denikin to turn front to flank? Was it inconceivable that, like with the offensive against Petrograd (which got considerably closer), Red Army resistance would have been fiercest and most effective closer to Moscow? No and no. Try again.

2.) Denikin's supply lines were already stretched. The fact that the defeat of an 8,000-man detachment created so many problems proves this. There's every reason to think that the onset of winter and fierce Red Army resistance (both of which were bound to happen) would have ruptured Denikin's ability to supply and reinforce his offensive at any rate, contributing to the very same conditions that brought about the decisive defeat of Denikin.

3.) :laugh: Show me how many actual troops were transferred from the north to the south, and not vague fractions. Thanks.

4.) "Would have"? How do you know? Oh, yeah, you don't.


Trotski and the Boshevik leadership were certainly terrified of his rush towards Moscow. And its for that reason and that reason alone that the Bolsheviks allied themselves with Makhno and the ABA....which they had previously villified. They were also terrified of the offensive against Petrograd from the Baltic...except they won that in the end, too. Should Makhno get credit for that?

You really think that "they were terrified" justifies your analysis? Are you aware of how absurd that is? Rome was terrified of Hannibal, Spain was terrified of Napoleon, Turkey was terrified of the Greek expedition. I guess they all lost in the end, right? Honestly, each subsequent argument illustrates how much your position is pure conjecture mixed with ideological bitterness.


The whole White Amry in the Ukrain was routed...yes. Within two weeks the Southern Ukrain was under ABA control.Interesting. So how could the defeats that later crippled Denikin, namely in southern Russia at the hands of the Red Army, have ever happened if the White Army was "routed" months beforehand?


And you know that his supply lines were overstretched and under pressure because of the ABA attacks on them and the loss of his main supply base which forced him to resupply his Front line from the north.Well, supply lines usually don't "overstretch" primarily because of attacks on them, in most cases such attacks expose or rupture supply lines already strained. That's what I'm arguing the Makhnovists did in 1919, and I'm also arguing that without Makhno harassing the rear, Denikin would have been in deep trouble anyway entering areas in which the RA held great advantages, and doing so right when weather would have greatly limited his mobility and lines of supply.


Up until the ABA treaty the RA was on retreat.Retreating in good order to more favorable territory.


Considerable distance? 400 km is not considerable distance. Especially when the army opposing you is in full retreat...which the RA was at that time. Having to stretch their supplies and manpower over four different fronts and against four different armies progressing. A month earlier Denikins army had
gained that same amount of territory in his push...pushing the frontline foreward about 430 km which is further than Tula.400 km is a considerable distance, especially when the last 100 km was where the RA was at its strongest. For a comparison, First Bull Run was less than 60 km to Washington DC and yet the Union's defeat and confused retreat didn't mean the Confederates could waltz into the capital.

In contrast, the RA wasn't retreating without order. Another 300-400 km push by Denikin (which wouldn't have been as unopposed as the one you mention) and his army would have practically exhausted his supply lines on its own. At the very least, Denikin would have had a huge uphill battle to fulfill his main objectives, and his army would have been walking an ever-weakening tightrope in trying to take Moscow.


The onset of winter would not have hampered either force in an unequal manner seeing as they both were very used to the conditions and were very well adapted to fightig in it. You seem to forget that the Whites were not an invading foreign army with no experience on the Russian conditions.You seem to forget that throughout the whole of the Civil War, the RA's greatest (and perhaps decisive) advantage was its use of Russia's central hub of infrastructure. Using superior lines of supply and communication that lay around Moscow and Petrograd, the RA was able to move more swiftly and efficiently than its foes. Winter would have only heightened this advantage.


Bolsheviks were panicking big time. Hence their alliance with the ABA.Yeah, and as we know from history, whenever someone panics, they lose. That's why the Ottomans took Vienna. :rolleyes:


After Peregonovka in September Denikin had to send a quarter of his Russian Front troops back to recapture the supply lines in the Ukrain.

The ABA definately saved the RA ass.A quarter? Literally 25% of his forces? Give me a source for actual numbers.


Well...this is just a reversal of argument now is it? Since Peregonovka DID happen and so far the RA had been in full retreat...why do you NOT argue why you think it was irrelevant?

Or in otherwords...why do you not proof your original statement that it was not the case?You're misunderstanding the situation. Makhno's attacks on Denikin's rear were relevant...but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that without Makhno, Moscow would have fallen.

In case you didn't notice, those are two very different things.

Just to make things clear, one can argue that while the successful Allied landing at Normandy was relevant and important, the Nazis were unlikely to have achieved victory by June 1944 even if the landing hadn't accomplished its main objectives.

So although Makhno's actions were relevant, they weren't decisive. We know this because the White Army would only be defeated later, and not by the Makhnovists. The most you can argue is that the Makhnovists gave the Red Army breathing space with which it defeated Denikin, and that without Makhno's activities the Red Army would have faced a stronger opponent later in 1919. You cannot argue, as you are, that Moscow would inevitably have fallen without that harassment.


Why don't you provide some factuial evidence that forecefullty recruiting Jews happened on a large and planned scaleYou're the one who's saying that "most of the Jewish communities" served with Makhno. Provide us with evidence of that and perhaps we can move on to why, if true, this happened.


...and while yo are at it provide some evidence for the large amounts of progroms the ABA had such a reputation for....BUT WHICH WERE NEVER MENTIONED by the Jewish organisations which reported on these incidents active in the Ukrain and Russia.I've already mentioned the study which refers quite clearly to the Makhnovists' pogroms. Read it and get back to me.

And shockingly, "Jewish organizations" aren't omniscient. Did they know everything that was going on in Ukraine at the time? No, not really.


No...we do not know this. Since there is NO factual evidence for Pogroms.Take it up with the book I mentioned.


And you mention the execution. Grigoriev? Because Grigoriev was executed for two reasons after only three weeks of cooperation:
1). His proposal to collaborate with Denikin against the RA batrayal
2). His openly and rabid antisemitism

So...yeah...wrong there too buddy.:lol: Yeah, Makhno tolerated pro-White sentiment (in defiance of Makhno, of course) but drew the line at anti-Semitism. That's a likely story.

No, you fittingly gave the important reason first. It shows that Makhno didn't execute anti-Semites, just anti-Semites who went against his line.

[S.Artesian]

The SR's were much more popular.

The Bolshevik Party only had 40 000 members. It became a proper mass party in the 1920's, when lots and lots of opportunists joined its ranks.


In 1917, the vast majority of the Bolsheviks were urban, factory workers, participating in factory committees and trade unions, and district soviets. You are right... not a mass party, but a class party. What they were not, at the moment of revolution, was a "vanguard" leading a reluctant, hesitant working class.

Prior to the actions of the MRC, the soviets in the major cities had been flooded with petitions from workers demanding that the all power be located in the soviets.

IMO, the "peak" for the Bolsheviks is prior to the taking of power, in that period after the July days, when they begin to recover from the repression, as conditions on the fronts worsen, as the PG restores the death penalty in the military. Then in September, with the defense of Petrograd, the actual formation of militias, the stage is set.

After the taking of power with need to govern, to organize, to actually exercise power, deprived the Bolsheviks of their working class core-- and then the Bolshevik actions in 1918 regarding forced requisitioning, expulsions and arrests of the Left-SRs, suppression of workers' strikes, leaves the Bolsheviks talking about themselves as a "vanguard"-- but that's just it-- they're talking about themselves as a vanguard.

[Azula]

In 1917, the vast majority of the Bolsheviks were urban, factory workers, participating in factory committees and trade unions, and district soviets. You are right... not a mass party, but a class party. What they were not, at the moment of revolution, was a "vanguard" leading a reluctant, hesitant working class.

Prior to the actions of the MRC, the soviets in the major cities had been flooded with petitions from workers demanding that the all power be located in the soviets.

IMO, the "peak" for the Bolsheviks is prior to the taking of power, in that period after the July days, when they begin to recover from the repression, as conditions on the fronts worsen, as the PG restores the death penalty in the military. Then in September, with the defense of Petrograd, the actual formation of militias, the stage is set.

After the taking of power with need to govern, to organize, to actually exercise power, deprived the Bolsheviks of their working class core-- and then the Bolshevik actions in 1918 regarding forced requisitioning, expulsions and arrests of the Left-SRs, suppression of workers' strikes, leaves the Bolsheviks talking about themselves as a "vanguard"-- but that's just it-- they're talking about themselves as a vanguard.

They were the Vanguard by the merit of having established the world's first socialist state.

[S.Artesian]

Goldwater built Reagan, and Reagan created a reactionary movement which is still holding the US working class at the throats. They have not adapted, they have forced the society to adapt to them.

Like we should do.


No, a section of the US bourgeoisie created Goldwater; the need to attack labor after the rate of profit declined in the 1970s fomented that reactionary movement coalescing around Reagan.

Reagan created nothing. He acted as he had always acted-- as a front man, a pitch man, selling the wares of the bourgeoisie.

You think "we should force society to adapt to us" like Reagan did? That's hardly a materialist analysis of Reagan or the prospects for revolution.

[S.Artesian]

They were the Vanguard by the merit of having established the world's first socialist state.


Again, you assume what you need to prove. That the revolution in Russia was led by the proletariat, that power had to be taken based on the organizations of the working class is one thing.

To say that afterwards, the fSU was a "socialist state," really is something else, particularly since after declaring the achievement of "socialism" both the fSU and China were pretty much overwhelmed by internal class conflict.

[S.Artesian]

Criticisms are welcomed in those organisations that are based under firm Marxist principles, but those same criticisms must also be based on Marxist scientific reasoning, there is no need for reactionaries to have a voice in what should be the main front of the worker's struggle to gain political power.


You simply don't know what you're talking about regarding the actual historical uses of "criticism" and "self-criticism" in the VPK (b) in the fSU during the 1930s.



I must ask the same question that manic expression did, what would be this alternative to the vanguard party, and how it would be able to overthrown capitalism?


And I'll answer by directing you the very text you quote from the First International-- the working class constituting itself as a party, and the way it does that is through class wide organs of power-- like the soviets, which were not the product of any vanguard when they appeared in 1905.

[S.Artesian]

I think that is good.

Communists should be devoted, mentally strong individuals.

They should be 100% dedicated to the cause.

Those who are not able to cope would be a liability the day when the Revolution comes.

Rather a small party of gold, than a big party of mud.

Nice to see you have absorbed and can reproduce on demand, the bourgeoisie's image of value. That's so very communist of you. You might want to take a second and criticize yourself for being so thoughtlessly bourgeois.

[Nehru]

Nice to see you have absorbed and can reproduce on demand, the bourgeoisie's image of value. That's so very communist of you. You might want to take a second and criticize yourself for being so thoughtlessly bourgeois.

Not all workers are class-conscious, so logically a minority of workers will be the vanguard, raise awareness, and plan for the action ahead. To believe that the masses will organize everything themselves goes against logic - for, if the masses were that capable, they would've done it a long time ago. Truth is, most workers hold reactionary views and so it is up to the vanguard to educate them.

[Rooster]

Not all workers are class-conscious, so logically a minority of workers will be the vanguard, raise awareness, and plan for the action ahead. To believe that the masses will organize everything themselves goes against logic - for, if the masses were that capable, they would've done it a long time ago. Truth is, most workers hold reactionary views and so it is up to the vanguard to educate them.

Well, history has proven that logic wrong. The vanguard system did not cause a revolution. Instead of saying that the vanguard party in Russia caused the revolution by pushing the masses to a revolutionary ferment, it would be better to say that the Bolsheviks rode on the back of a wave of workers who were pushing the Bolsheviks to make good their demands. If they didn't do it then the workers would have done it themselves.

[Azula]

Nice to see you have absorbed and can reproduce on demand, the bourgeoisie's image of value. That's so very communist of you. You might want to take a second and criticize yourself for being so thoughtlessly bourgeois.

Look here.

Not all workers want or are prepared for what a Revolution means. A lot of the party members want a place to belong to, or to advance their own selfish material interests, or to gain a comfortable power position.

The Party should really only be composed of people who are ready to serve and sacrifice their blood for the working class.

The furnace of self-criticism is necessary in order to find that gold. Base metals will burn, while the gold will stay.

I also believe that members of the Party should live frugal and simple lives. That is to prevent corruption when the Party is in power.


Well, history has proven that logic wrong. The vanguard system did not cause a revolution. Instead of saying that the vanguard party in Russia caused the revolution by pushing the masses to a revolutionary ferment, it would be better to say that the Bolsheviks rode on the back of a wave of workers who were pushing the Bolsheviks to make good their demands. If they didn't do it then the workers would have done it themselves.

If it wasn't for vanguards, every revolution would have ended like the 2011 Egyptian Revolution.

[S.Artesian]

I'm looking, and all I see is gas, vapor, hot air. The "Jesuit" theory of Marxist parties is just that-- a religious construction, not a class one.

[Kronsteen]

The Party should really only be composed of people who are ready to serve and sacrifice their blood for the working class

Here's a puzzler. What's the most ideologically pure a party can be? Is it:

1) A party with one member - the founder. Unless he expels himself for a moment of weakness.

2) A party with no members because no one's good enough to join.

And which is the Azula party?

[Azula]

3) The members must be willing to improve themselves and challenge their own weaknesses.

[manic expression]

And I'll answer by directing you the very text you quote from the First International-- the working class constituting itself as a party, and the way it does that is through class wide organs of power-- like the soviets, which were not the product of any vanguard when they appeared in 1905.
So your idea is that it happens all by itself...kind of like rain. Interesting indeed. Pretty convenient, too...since you're obviously unwilling to tell us how it would work, what it would look like, how different positions would be filled, how policy would be discussed and adopted...you know, annoying stuff.

Now, if you'd be so kind, perhaps you can show how this flawless, ever-so-perfect form of organization (of which you can't describe the slightest detail) has succeeded in overthrowing capitalism.

Can't wait.

[Kronsteen]

Then, Azula, I suggest you identify the weaknesses you've shown in this thread, and challenge yourself. Here's a few pointers:


The Bolshevik Party only had 40 000 members. It became a proper mass party in the 1920's, when lots and lots of opportunists joined its ranks.* Confusing empirical issues with ethical ones.
* Argument by assertion.
* Ad-hominem.


they have forced the society to adapt to them. Like we should do.* Idealism


They were the Vanguard by the merit of having established the world's first socialist state. * Circular reasoning
* Argument by redefinition.


The members must be willing to improve themselves and challenge their own weaknesses.* Platitude

[Roach]

And I'll answer by directing you the very text you quote from the First International-- the working class constituting itself as a party, and the way it does that is through class wide organs of power-- like the soviets, which were not the product of any vanguard when they appeared in 1905.


The most cliché definition of what should be the class nature of the membership of a vanguard is ''the most advanced section of the proletariat'', again manic expression makes the right point in asking what would be your proposal to substitute the vanguard party, I personnally don't believe the conditions of 1905 would be reproduced in every single corner of the world, nor would I think that in those cases were similar conditions do appear, they would have the outcome as in the Russian case. Another problem is that the lack of an organised detachment of the working class might reduce the pace of the worker's political struggle, using the same text you qouted:


"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes;"

[ckaihatsu]

Look here.

Not all workers want or are prepared for what a Revolution means. A lot of the party members want a place to belong to, or to advance their own selfish material interests, or to gain a comfortable power position.

The Party should really only be composed of people who are ready to serve and sacrifice their blood for the working class.

The furnace of self-criticism is necessary in order to find that gold. Base metals will burn, while the gold will stay.

I also believe that members of the Party should live frugal and simple lives. That is to prevent corruption when the Party is in power.


I think this identity-based conception of a leadership is immediately problematic and *encourages* an identity-based grouping, thereby inviting all of the ills that accompany such an "in-crowd" formation.

If the duties of a vanguard are touted as holding some kind of social cachet, and a whole pantheon of personages are encouraged to accompany the vanguard's "members", as with the politics of court, then, yes, there will be a culture of power that pervades such a political formulation.

If such elitism develops *spontaneously*, outside of being fostered from within and around the vanguard's political culture, then that would indicate more *objective*, counter-revolutionary conditions pressing down upon the struggle and its leadership, causing internal stresses and an (arguably) temporary need for formalized positions for the sake of expediency.





And I'll answer by directing you the very text you quote from the First International-- the working class constituting itself as a party, and the way it does that is through class wide organs of power-- like the soviets, which were not the product of any vanguard when they appeared in 1905.





So your idea is that it happens all by itself...kind of like rain. Interesting indeed. Pretty convenient, too...since you're obviously unwilling to tell us how it would work, what it would look like, how different positions would be filled, how policy would be discussed and adopted...you know, annoying stuff.

Now, if you'd be so kind, perhaps you can show how this flawless, ever-so-perfect form of organization (of which you can't describe the slightest detail) has succeeded in overthrowing capitalism.

Can't wait.


We can *learn* from history but we shouldn't expect to have to *re-create* it. Conditions today are different and we should look to having a *critical mass* of a vanguard that, like the trend-setters and taste-makers of any bourgeois press, can develop an (independent) cutting-edge *proletarian* political culture that deals head-on with political and cultural realities, and that is always permeable and dynamic in its composition.

Working class people participating in such vanguard duties shouldn't expect to be hired or fired and shouldn't expect nearly as much formalization as we're used to experiencing from and within regular bourgeois institutions. The politics of class can be thought of as "pure management" on the side of the working class while at the same time no one can claim -- or should want to claim -- to be a puppeteer over marionettes. The objective strength of a vanguard's *ideas* are what counts in the struggle, with actual acceptance and implementation (policy) left to the self-determination of the working class as a whole.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://postimage.org/image/35t4i1jc4/

[electro_fan]

Look here.

Not all workers want or are prepared for what a Revolution means. A lot of the party members want a place to belong to, or to advance their own selfish material interests, or to gain a comfortable power position.

The Party should really only be composed of people who are ready to serve and sacrifice their blood for the working class.

The furnace of self-criticism is necessary in order to find that gold. Base metals will burn, while the gold will stay.

I also believe that members of the Party should live frugal and simple lives. That is to prevent corruption when the Party is in power.



If it wasn't for vanguards, every revolution would have ended like the 2011 Egyptian Revolution.

Who is to say though, that people who joined the party as opportunists or for something to do, won't be pushed towards wanting to serve and wanting to sacrifice their blood as you put it, as the revolution is pushed forward, they see friends of theirs die, they see comrades die, etc? and likewise who's to say that people who join and prepare to lose their life, won't get repelled as they find out what all of this actually means? i don't think it's as simple as you're making out

[Azula]

Who is to say though, that people who joined the party as opportunists or for something to do, won't be pushed towards wanting to serve and wanting to sacrifice their blood as you put it, as the revolution is pushed forward, they see friends of theirs die, they see comrades die, etc? and likewise who's to say that people who join and prepare to lose their life, won't get repelled as they find out what all of this actually means? i don't think it's as simple as you're making out

We don't know that unless we try them out.

The revolutionary struggle should be like a flaming furnace which would burn away bourgeois mentality from the revolutionaries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The furnace of self-criticism is necessary in order to find that gold. Base metals will burn, while the gold will stay.In the US, the LaRouchites do this very thing... it purifies them all right, makes sure that every one of them is pure golden lunatics too scared to think for themselves.


I also believe that members of the Party should live frugal and simple lives. That is to prevent corruption when the Party is in power.Like priests in the Roman Catholic church! No corruption there.

I think, historically, these ideas really come out of the need, not for party discipline in a democratic way, but party obedience. Revolutionaries should be self-critical, but not of our individual strengths and weaknesses but of politics and tactics. This is because such debates can potentially help us and the working class to figure out what political formulations and tactics are useful for the class struggle or not.

Criticizing individuals, moralizing, etc on the other hand... follow through on the logic of this. If individual strength and weaknesses make or break a revolution, then revolution is not based on material circumstances and class forces, but on individual worth and qualities. In other words this is a "great-man" view of revolution and an anti-Marxist conception of history.

Collective strategies and politics should be democratically and collectively assessed and discussed and critiqued... individual strengths and weaknesses are just what being an individual human is. I can't see any situaltion where this cultural-revolution era personal "criticism" doesn't become: "You disagree with this position, then obviously you suck and are inherently reformist or inherently imperialist or just weak and cowardly and therefore to make yourself a better person, you must adopt this line".

None of this is helpful for working class revolution, great for a revolution of followers though.

[Rooster]

Seeing as it was brought up, there's another problem with this concept of a vanguard party (and socialism) and opportunists. If you must centralise the whole of society and manage it from a single body, then why would you use the vanguard party for that? Do most revolutionaries know how to run a state? Must they do everything their selves, from doing statistical work, filing forms, posting them, collecting taxes, distribution, planning the economy and giving orders for every single detail? Wouldn't you really need to let in and expand a bureaucracy and therefore "opportunists"? I can't fathom how a small revolutionary class, who's main criteria for being in a vanguard party is having an advanced class conciousness, could end this contradiction in anyway.

[StoneFrog]

The only way for a vanguard to really be successful is to abandon the party format. While we of the left linger in the idea of a Party being the Vanguard of the revolution, we shall not bring a fruitful revolution. Instead a shame of a party line leadership, based on multiple parties attempting to bring their ideal of a vanguard party to the masses. The party mentality that has been inherited from the last century does not have a valid place in the development of a revolution of the future.

Over the past 100 years of proletariat rise and fall of consciousness, the socialist movement has splintered and splintered. Each splinter grasping onto their hopes of creating a great majestic tree out of their splinter. While we keep our party lines at the forefront of the fight we are lost to the cause of the proletariat.

The vanguard need to be stripped down to its core concepts, and there left with the harden core of the concept of the vanguard; this is where the proletariat will develop onto. In an open democratic way the vanguard needs to be built up, not from party goals and desires.

[ckaihatsu]

Seeing as it was brought up, there's another problem with this concept of a vanguard party (and socialism) and opportunists. If you must centralise the whole of society and manage it from a single body, then why would you use the vanguard party for that?


While I'm entirely for a fully centralized vanguard revolutionary organization of all of society, I don't think that necessarily entails the one-large-fortified-office-building-with-a-dedicated-bureaucracy kind of formulation, though.





Do most revolutionaries know how to run a state? Must they do everything their selves, from doing statistical work, filing forms, posting them, collecting taxes, distribution, planning the economy and giving orders for every single detail? Wouldn't you really need to let in and expand a bureaucracy and therefore "opportunists"? I can't fathom how a small revolutionary class, who's main criteria for being in a vanguard party is having an advanced class conciousness, could end this contradiction in anyway.


It may be better to conceive of a vanguard -- and even a vanguard *party* -- as being a structurally *diffuse* organization, like that of any online intentional community (like RevLeft), whose participants happen to share the same approach to a revolutionary and post-capitalist politics.

With such a formulation there wouldn't be a need for a concentrated bureaucracy since that would be a *societal* function, but rather the vanguard would have a certain major presence throughout society, as through the mass media. The vanguard party wouldn't have to be beholden to its own weighted-down *institutional* culture and history, either, but instead would be the most prominent political fixture because of its 'go-to' availability of reasoned thought and cogent positions on the issues of the day.

I'd imagine that it might not always be monolithic, either, but instead that it would contain a periphery of transient factions that would vehemently differ with the main organization on one or more important issues, and on the finer points of a host of others. In this way there would be an internal dynamism while still presenting a mostly cohesive political direction forward.





The only way for a vanguard to really be successful is to abandon the party format. While we of the left linger in the idea of a Party being the Vanguard of the revolution, we shall not bring a fruitful revolution. Instead a shame of a party line leadership, based on multiple parties attempting to bring their ideal of a vanguard party to the masses. The party mentality that has been inherited from the last century does not have a valid place in the development of a revolution of the future.

Over the past 100 years of proletariat rise and fall of consciousness, the socialist movement has splintered and splintered. Each splinter grasping onto their hopes of creating a great majestic tree out of their splinter. While we keep our party lines at the forefront of the fight we are lost to the cause of the proletariat.

The vanguard need to be stripped down to its core concepts, and there left with the harden core of the concept of the vanguard; this is where the proletariat will develop onto. In an open democratic way the vanguard needs to be built up, not from party goals and desires.


Agreed, in that the focus and emphasis should be on the 'vanguard', and not the 'party', part of the 'vanguard party'.


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://postimage.org/image/35ru6ztic/