Questions on the nessecity of the vanguard party [Archive]

PopulistPower

18th August 2011, 22:47

The necessity of the vanguard party was quite strongly shown by the recent revolt in the UK. Working-class frustration and anger at capitalism manifested itself in a random outburst, and not in a concentrated manner against the ruling class. All level-headed progressive observers noted the glaring lack of a revolutionary voice in the midst of that situation, and how a clear force for revolutionary consciousness would have changed its entire complexion to the benefit of the masses. That is why a vanguard party is needed: to give revolutionary direction and leadership to the working class as a whole.

And remember, a vanguard party is nothing but an organization of the most politically advanced and militant workers. It's not separate from the working class.
That's a very odd formulation given that it assumes the rioters as a whole were acting in direct response to capitalism (though that's at least partially true, they were also very much embracing the consumeristic tendencies of that very system as they just attempted to acquire lots of stuff), that there is some specific series of actions that the rioters should have undertaken in order to more effectively changed the system, and that a hypothetical vanguard would have righteously and fairly led them to this goal (and not be at all opportunistic or oppressive in their own ways).

Who are you to claim that just smashing shit isn't a legitimate response for the disenfranchised, hopeless and angry? Now that the riots are over, at least people are talking about what could have caused it.

What makes Egypt a revolution is not its immediate results. It's the level of consciousness and social solidarity that the multitude of Egyptians now experience. They are not afraid, and they continue today to protest their government and demand changes, though its no longer a sexy media story and not many people are noticing it. And it is because of this populist power that Egypt will likely continue to progress. Whereas, had a single group or ideologue co-opted the movement, they likely would have just used the opportunity to get into office, pass a few reforms, and channel all that rage into making a few people's political and economic careers.

Saying a vanguard is inseparable from the working class is disingenuous. If that were the case you wouldn't need it. You wouldn't need to propel that subsection over and above the rest, and you wouldn't treat them specially.

The working class as a whole is the only thing that can or should give direction to itself. Everything else is illusion, elitism, and authoritarian, despite whatever platitudes its proponents might dress it in.

PopulistPower

18th August 2011, 22:50

In what sense? In the Marxist definition, 'vanguard' refers to a section of the working class - its most militant and class-conscious section - in a period of class conflict. It does not necessarily refer to a party. A vanguard does not even necessarily have to be socialist. Indeed if you look at the history of class struggles in the post-WW2 period, at least in the West, vanguards were almost always tied to reformist parties (whether social democratic or official Communist), not revolutionary ones.

A socialist party becomes a vanguard party only once it has won the vanguard over to its cause.

Because I see the very designation of the "most militant and class conscious section" as being seeded with elitism and authoritarianism. I'm not for considering that any part of the working class should rise above or lead the rest. If that's not where we want to go then it is not how we should get there.

manic expression

18th August 2011, 23:47

That's a very odd formulation given that it assumes the rioters as a whole were acting in direct response to capitalism (though that's at least partially true, they were also very much embracing the consumeristic tendencies of that very system as they just attempted to acquire lots of stuff), that there is some specific series of actions that the rioters should have undertaken in order to more effectively changed the system, and that a hypothetical vanguard would have righteously and fairly led them to this goal (and not be at all opportunistic or oppressive in their own ways).
It's not odd at all, it's simple fact. The riots, which were indeed a direct response to the deprivation and oppression caused by capitalism, had no focus and no direction and therefore had no potential to be anything more than they ended up being.

A vanguard party would have been able to direct that anger, to explain who the real enemy of the workers are, to lead the workers to strongly oppose capitalism instead of just defying it.

Who are you to claim that just smashing shit isn't a legitimate response for the disenfranchised, hopeless and angry?It's a legitimate response, sure...but it's not a revolutionary response. Smashing shit only gets you so far; if you don't believe me, compare the Luddites to the Communards.

Saying a vanguard is inseparable from the working class is disingenuous. If that were the case you wouldn't need it. You wouldn't need to propel that subsection over and above the rest, and you wouldn't treat them specially.That's silly logic. The vanguard shows itself whether or not there's a vanguard party. The Spanish anarchists carried out social revolution in certain areas...the workers who were at the forefront of that effort were a vanguard. The idea that such a vanguard can and should be organized into a stronger and more disciplined unit aligns fully with any materialist analysis of revolutionary struggles. In other words, it recognizes the reality that in revolutionary situations, the most militant and revolutionary workers emerge as leaders of the class in its struggle, and that a disciplined unit that can speak with one revolutionary voice is a positive force for progress.

The working class as a whole is the only thing that can or should give direction to itself. Everything else is illusion, elitism, and authoritarian, despite whatever platitudes its proponents might dress it in.:lol: You're one to talk of platitudes. Your only objection to the vanguard party that we can see so far is some moral code you've concocted for yourself. You're uncomfortable about the idea that not every worker will be in support of revolutionary struggle, that not every worker thinks alike, that leadership makes a difference in class warfare. Perhaps you can explain to us why you put your own moral purity above the progress of the workers.

Tim Cornelis

18th August 2011, 23:51

That is why a vanguard party is needed: to give revolutionary direction and leadership to the working class as a whole.

And remember, a vanguard party is nothing but an organization of the most politically advanced and militant workers. It's not separate from the working class.

In that sense, as an anarchist, I agree with the necessity of a vanguard organisation.

What resents anarchists from embracing a vanguard as principle is the fear of the vanguard party becoming the new ruling class. The vanguard should be chosen by the people evidenced by their decisions to follow their leadership, or not. For example, if a general strike was declared and an organisation like the IWW calls for the establishment of factory committees and thereby assert or claim a vanguard position, and workers do so they have chosen the vanguard by virtue of choosing to follow it. The IWW does not seize power in its name.

This differs from the Leninist approach in practice.

Trotsky gave an example of this:

Sit-down strikes are a serious warning from the masses addressed not onlyto the bourgeoisie but also to the organizations of the workers, including the Fourth International. In 1919-20, the Italian workers seized factories on their own initiative, thus signaling the news to their ”leaders” of the coming of the social revolution. The ”leaders” paid no heed to the signal. The victory of fascism was the result.

PopulistPower

19th August 2011, 00:54

It's not odd at all, it's simple fact. The riots, which were indeed a direct response to the deprivation and oppression caused by capitalism, had no focus and no direction and therefore had no potential to be anything more than they ended up being.

It's a legitimate response, sure...but it's not a revolutionary response. Smashing shit only gets you so far; if you don't believe me, compare the Luddites to the Communards.

That's silly logic. The vanguard shows itself whether or not there's a vanguard party. The Spanish anarchists carried out social revolution in certain areas...the workers who were at the forefront of that effort were a vanguard. The idea that such a vanguard can and should be organized into a stronger and more disciplined unit aligns fully with any materialist analysis of revolutionary struggles. In other words, it recognizes the reality that in revolutionary situations, the most militant and revolutionary workers emerge as leaders of the class in its struggle, and that a disciplined unit that can speak with one revolutionary voice is a positive force for progress.

:lol: You're one to talk of platitudes. Your only objection to the vanguard party that we can see so far is some moral code you've concocted for yourself. You're uncomfortable about the idea that not every worker will be in support of revolutionary struggle, that not every worker thinks alike, that leadership makes a difference in class warfare. Perhaps you can explain to us why you put your own moral purity above the progress of the workers.

Well, as I would have imagined your 'materialist analysis of revolutionary struggles' would have informed you, vanguard parties tend to be opportunistic, as all forms of concentrated power are. Any individual or group can pander to "the best interests of the people", but as soon as the people are separated from deciding what is in their best interests themselves, they will inexorably be oppressed by those that have fooled them. Plus or minus concessions that lend legitimacy to the rulers, separation of the public between 'deciders' and 'masses' always leads to abuse of power. Whether its a vanguard party, a monarch, senators, or a CEO makes no difference.

You are correct in saying that what happened in the UK was not revolutionary. The conditions will probably have to get worse for widespread revolutionary movement in the developed countries. We are getting very close though.

ckaihatsu

19th August 2011, 01:01

Instead of shoehorning our wordings in an attempt to fit them onto extant reality, inevitably leading to endless back-and-forths over just how accurately the model covers the reality -- or doesn't -- I like to suggest here that a working class vanguard is an *emergent* property, like the use of language or the class struggle itself.

I don't mean to brush off real concerns about *particular* formulations of purported leadership, either from the past or present, but rather to say that among the distributed population engaged in active struggle there *will* be a generalized opinion *somewhere* within those ranks that is the 'leading edge', articulating the struggle's best interests on a moment-to-moment basis within a specific context.

manic expression

19th August 2011, 01:54

Well, as I would have imagined your 'materialist analysis of revolutionary struggles' would have informed you, vanguard parties tend to be opportunistic, as all forms of concentrated power are. Any individual or group can pander to "the best interests of the people", but as soon as the people are separated from deciding what is in their best interests themselves, they will inexorably be oppressed by those that have fooled them. Plus or minus concessions that lend legitimacy to the rulers, separation of the public between 'deciders' and 'masses' always leads to abuse of power. Whether its a vanguard party, a monarch, senators, or a CEO makes no difference.
What makes a vanguard party isn't "pandering". In fact, just about every political formation today claims to seek "the best interests of the people". Thus, this has nothing to do with my argument, it's simply a strawman misconception of your own invention.

You claim that the vanguard will always "oppress" the masses, but you continually ignore that the vanguard is not separate from the masses but part of the masses. Instead of materialist argument, you simply state the dangers of "concentrated power"; forgetting, of course, that revolution means concentrating power into new hands. Your position, as I noted, is a search for a personal moral purity and not a search for how workers can struggle for their interests.

But most importantly, you simply aren't understanding what a vanguard party does. Being a "leader" and being a "decider" are two different things. Just because a group of people take the lead in something doesn't mean they have complete control over it. It's natural that the most militant, politically advanced workers would take the lead in class struggle...and it happens whether or not they're called a party or not. Why not accept this fact instead of erroneously believing that all workers can think and act as one?

You are correct in saying that what happened in the UK was not revolutionary. The conditions will probably have to get worse for widespread revolutionary movement in the developed countries. We are getting very close though.
If the left followed your tactics, we'd all be saying "we are getting very close" for the next 100 years instead of organizing like communists should.

Kronsteen

19th August 2011, 03:07

A society of equals can only achieved by a party of equals.

So society splits itself into two parts, one of which is superior to society. We've heard that before somewhere.

Engels said it, Cohn-Bendit said it, Michael Albert said it, Eugene Debs said it

A load of people said it. So what?

Kronsteen

19th August 2011, 03:17

a clear force for revolutionary consciousness would have changed its entire complexion to the benefit of the masses.

So adding a revolutionary voice to the mix of voices would have steered them towards revolution? Why should one more voice lessen rather than increase the confusion?

You seem to think revolutionary ideas have only to be heard to be accepted - presumably because they're so obviously true. But you also seem to think they're not so obviously true the workers couldn't work them out for themselves.

That is why a vanguard party is needed: to give revolutionary direction and leadership to the working class as a whole.

And remember, a vanguard party is nothing but an organization of the most politically advanced and militant workers. It's not separate from the working class.

You're trying to have it both ways - the vanguard as enlightened leaders above the confused masses, and the vanguard as the mass.

PopulistPower

19th August 2011, 04:14

What makes a vanguard party isn't "pandering". In fact, just about every political formation today claims to seek "the best interests of the people". Thus, this has nothing to do with my argument, it's simply a strawman misconception of your own invention.

Right. It is not specific to your argument about vanguards, its a statement on every political formation today in fact oppressing in spite of their claims to seek the best interests of the people.

You claim that the vanguard will always "oppress" the masses, but you continually ignore that the vanguard is not separate from the masses but part of the masses. Instead of materialist argument, you simply state the dangers of "concentrated power"; forgetting, of course, that revolution means concentrating power into new hands. Your position, as I noted, is a search for a personal moral purity and not a search for how workers can struggle for their interests.

I don't agree that "revolution means concentrating power into news hands". Anything resembling the working class taking power wouldn't be concentrated, since we are the vast majority of the population.

It's got nothing to do with moral purity. It's the same argument George Orwell and many others have advanced. Lennists can be far more dangerous than the worst capitalists.

But most importantly, you simply aren't understanding what a vanguard party does. Being a "leader" and being a "decider" are two different things. Just because a group of people take the lead in something doesn't mean they have complete control over it. It's natural that the most militant, politically advanced workers would take the lead in class struggle...and it happens whether or not they're called a party or not. Why not accept this fact instead of erroneously believing that all workers can think and act as one?

If the left followed your tactics, we'd all be saying "we are getting very close" for the next 100 years instead of organizing like communists should.

I do organize, and I'm not advocating people just wait for things to get worse. I'm simply explaining what I see in the US.

I'm not expecting every worker to read Capital before we move to socialism.

Being a leader does mean you have more power than those you are leading (your followers). Calling for the intellectuals and activists to form a cohesive core that plans and propels the class struggle lays the foundation for those leaders to set themselves up in power in any post-revolutionary society. That's what has happened historically, and it has by and large led to less freedom, starvation, and the elimination of all political dissent.

Simply thinking that there is some element of the working class that 'really gets it and should lead us' is what leads to new elites just replacing the old ones. Everyone gets it. They just don't know what 'it' is in the terms or to the extent that you or I do, or what to do about 'it' (or if anything can be done about it).

Vanguards aren't 'just' that part of the working class that has class-consciousness. It's the organization and united action of that group under the assumption that they are better than those whom they lead, that, after they have taken power or properly educated the public, then everything will work out. When has that ever actually been the case?

ckaihatsu

19th August 2011, 08:28

So adding a revolutionary voice to the mix of voices would have steered them towards revolution? Why should one more voice lessen rather than increase the confusion?

This is disingenuous -- if you meant to frame your question as 'Why should one more *revolutionary* voice lessen rather than increase the confusion', then it's a fair formulation and the answer is obvious.

You seem to think revolutionary ideas have only to be heard to be accepted - presumably because they're so obviously true. But you also seem to think they're not so obviously true the workers couldn't work them out for themselves.

This is a basic matter of the logistics of ideas -- sure, if children are suddenly orphaned they are able to figure out how to survive in any given social environment, but it's easier and less cumbersome / traumatic if they have reliable life-guardians there to pass along a body of accumulated knowledge and know-how. (I'll note that all things developmental and civilizational have changed dramatically recently, due to the maturation and availability of Internet access, notably with Wikipedia.)

So, likewise, *of course* workers can 'work things out for themselves', but if there happens to be some among the ranks who can more readily lend knowledge and expertise to *that* kind of situation -- militant working-class ones -- then *all the better* since it doesn't have to be done over and over from scratch, in every location.

You're trying to have it both ways - the vanguard as enlightened leaders above the confused masses, and the vanguard as the mass.

This is a base, snide dismissiveness -- you're preferring a moralistic tone wrapped around an argument that purports to expose a seeming contradiction. There *is no* contradiction. By the yardstick of conventional linear logic it *could be* *construed* as an alleged contradiction, but if seen in its proper context that regards matters of *scale* there *is no* contradiction.

In other words, the vanguard, however formulated, will only be derived from the working class masses and -- by definition -- will not be an "outsourced" body or have any kind of special, separate interests of its own outside of those of the working class itself.

So this subset of the masses that dedicates more time proportionally to large-scale matters and issues of class *will* be "enlightened leaders", in the best sense of the term, by definition. But this doesn't necessarily have to have the stereotyped "dark side" of cult-leader worship, personified power, dictatorial social engineering, etc.

On the "light side" there's nothing to say that *more people* wouldn't simply become more interested in vanguard-ish large-scale matters and issues of class. Their added class consciousness and participation would most likely be beneficial to the working class as a whole. The "enlightened leaders" may actually be inspiring and provide a "service" to those of the working class who are more militant and could directly benefit from such circles of thought. Basically a critical-mass vanguard *can* act as a catalyst -- just like its namesake chemical kind -- to facilitate and accelerate social / political processes that are latent and would / should take place anyway, but would happen far more slowly *without* such a catalyst.

ckaihatsu

19th August 2011, 09:10

Right. It is not specific to your argument about vanguards, its a statement on every political formation today in fact oppressing in spite of their claims to seek the best interests of the people.

You're conflating a working-class-based subset of the world's working-class population -- a vanguard -- with *all* bourgeois, ruling-class formulations of power. The respective political bases are fundamentally different.

I don't agree that "revolution means concentrating power into news hands". Anything resembling the working class taking power wouldn't be concentrated, since we are the vast majority of the population.

This seems close to being a dispute over *semantics*.

Would a revolution *transfer* power into new hands? Yes. Is the working class the vast majority of the population? Yes. Could this new power be considered to be "concentrated" -- ? Yawn. Whatever. Feel free to scuffle here.

I do organize, and I'm not advocating people just wait for things to get worse. I'm simply explaining what I see in the US.

I'm not expecting every worker to read Capital before we move to socialism.

Being a leader does mean you have more power than those you are leading (your followers).

This part right here is probably the source of the difference of opinion playing out in this thread.

If one's definition of a 'vanguard' is an abstracted, *formalized*, rigid system of fixed social relationships based on 'leaders' and 'followers', then, yeah, that might lead to some problems down the line.

Calling for the intellectuals and activists to form a cohesive core that plans and propels the class struggle lays the foundation for those leaders to set themselves up in power in any post-revolutionary society. That's what has happened historically, and it has by and large led to less freedom, starvation, and the elimination of all political dissent.

Simply thinking that there is some element of the working class that 'really gets it and should lead us' is what leads to new elites just replacing the old ones. Everyone gets it. They just don't know what 'it' is in the terms or to the extent that you or I do, or what to do about 'it' (or if anything can be done about it).

Vanguards aren't 'just' that part of the working class that has class-consciousness. It's the organization and united action of that group under the assumption that they are better than those whom they lead, that, after they have taken power or properly educated the public, then everything will work out. When has that ever actually been the case?

We could counterpose a more "academic" model of what a vanguard is here: the people, whoever they might be, who can posit -- and provide reasonable justification for -- a particular interpretation of events that is understandable within the context of working class interests, and a proffered plan for action that is aligned with these interests.

If a particular line from within the 'proven-reputable' 'vanguard' happens to be at odds with past performance and is of dubious quality for moving forward, *no one* within the ranks of the working class would be *obligated* to adhere to that new line due to fixed formal relationships of "leaders" and "followers". Certainly the general circles of political discussions could take note of any aberrant turns in the political line coming from a 'reputable vanguard' and could decide to look to other directions for a political way forward.

manic expression

19th August 2011, 13:04

Right. It is not specific to your argument about vanguards, its a statement on every political formation today in fact oppressing in spite of their claims to seek the best interests of the people.
Which means your moral opposition applies to your political formations of choice, as well...we'll get to that in a second.

I don't agree that "revolution means concentrating power into news hands". Anything resembling the working class taking power wouldn't be concentrated, since we are the vast majority of the population.:rolleyes: The working class taking power is concentrating power into new hands. Any way you cut it, revolution is taking power away from one group and concentrating it to another.

It's got nothing to do with moral purity. It's the same argument George Orwell and many others have advanced. Lennists can be far more dangerous than the worst capitalists.Oh, cool, you have George "I Work for British Imperialism" Orwell on your side. But anyway, your opposition to Marxism is indeed about personal moral purity; you haven't made any argument except for "Revolution makes me uncomfortable because class struggle isn't cute and cuddly."

I do organize, and I'm not advocating people just wait for things to get worse. I'm simply explaining what I see in the US.

I'm not expecting every worker to read Capital before we move to socialism.

Being a leader does mean you have more power than those you are leading (your followers). Calling for the intellectuals and activists to form a cohesive core that plans and propels the class struggle lays the foundation for those leaders to set themselves up in power in any post-revolutionary society. That's what has happened historically, and it has by and large led to less freedom, starvation, and the elimination of all political dissent.

Simply thinking that there is some element of the working class that 'really gets it and should lead us' is what leads to new elites just replacing the old ones. Everyone gets it. They just don't know what 'it' is in the terms or to the extent that you or I do, or what to do about 'it' (or if anything can be done about it).Ah, so you engage in political activity...which means you and whatever group you're a part of are making decisions about its political direction, separate from the working class as a whole. Oh, the horror! You're just like kings, CEOs and senators! You're a bunch of activists and intellectuals! You're treating yourself "specially" and dividing yourself from the masses! :rolleyes:

In essence, all the arguments you've made so far can be applied to any leftist political grouping, which means you're guilty of an immense double-standard based on nothing but ideological blinders.

Further, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Plain and simple, you're making stuff up. It's quite likely that you've bought into imperialist propaganda (which explains your fascination with Orwell), and so you claim that vanguards lead to "less freedom" and "starvation". Now, to address these briefly, every Marxist-Leninist state has had far more freedom for workers than any capitalist society. Read this for more information (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2195984&postcount=41). And starvation? Are you drunk? Look at the amount of workers under capitalism who die from preventable causes every single day and then compare that to Cuba or the Soviet Union. You're acting like the most pathetic apologist for capitalism.

Next, you're again ignoring my words. Every single revolutionary situation in the historical record shows that a number of workers end up being more militant, more vocal, more revolutionary than the rest. They end up being leaders, they're looked up to by their fellow workers, they're instrumental in making revolution. We can see this in Spain and Paris. THAT is the vanguard. It isn't separate from the class, it's just the strongest members of the class politically speaking. This is what has led the most successful revolutions to victory in Russia, Cuba, China and elsewhere.

Vanguards aren't 'just' that part of the working class that has class-consciousness. It's the organization and united action of that group under the assumption that they are better than those whom they lead, that, after they have taken power or properly educated the public, then everything will work out. When has that ever actually been the case?When did I say the members of a vanguard were "better", instead of being more politically advanced and militant? Please point out where I used that word, or where I insinuated the workers in the vanguard were somehow "better"...because I didn't.

PopulistPower

20th August 2011, 03:04

But anyway, your opposition to Marxism is indeed about personal moral purity; you haven't made any argument except for "Revolution makes me uncomfortable because class struggle isn't cute and cuddly."

It is possible to believe that with socialism, means are ends; achieving a radical democracy is a radically democratic process. It is bizarre to equate an opposition to Leninism with opposition to Marxism. Because we all know how well the M-L model worked out in the USSR and China.

Ah, so you engage in political activity...which means you and whatever group you're a part of are making decisions about its political direction, separate from the working class as a whole. Oh, the horror! You're just like kings, CEOs and senators! You're a bunch of activists and intellectuals! You're treating yourself "specially" and dividing yourself from the masses! :rolleyes:

In essence, all the arguments you've made so far can be applied to any leftist political grouping, which means you're guilty of an immense double-standard based on nothing but ideological blinders.

As others have pointed out, this conversation is only meaningful with a good definition on what form your vanguard takes. Is it a party or cohesive organization working towards revolution and gaining power "on behalf of the people"? Or are you simply describing all the individuals who understand the necessity of revolution and work toward it in different ways? The problem with vanguards as I understand them is that they want to be in power in a "transitional" period, which usually doesn't turn out to be so transitional.

Further, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Plain and simple, you're making stuff up. It's quite likely that you've bought into imperialist propaganda (which explains your fascination with Orwell), and so you claim that vanguards lead to "less freedom" and "starvation". Now, to address these briefly, every Marxist-Leninist state has had far more freedom for workers than any capitalist society. And starvation? Are you drunk? Look at the amount of workers under capitalism who die from preventable causes every single day and then compare that to Cuba or the Soviet Union. You're acting like the most pathetic apologist for capitalism.

Capitalism is horrendous, this is true. That does not mean authoritarian communism is a desirable alternative.

ckaihatsu

20th August 2011, 03:57

As others have pointed out, this conversation is only meaningful with a good definition on what form your vanguard takes.

Since you spoke my name I'll chime in here again....

= )

Is it a party or cohesive organization working towards revolution and gaining power "on behalf of the people"? Or are you simply describing all the individuals who understand the necessity of revolution and work toward it in different ways?

In the best of all developments these two descriptions would actually be describing one and the same reality.

The difficulty inherent to the topic we're discussing is that it's the tip of the nose cone -- we can describe things like 'the vanguard' in abstract generalities, but where the real concerns lie are in the *specifics*, as in what those of a vanguard would do in a situation of transitioning power. But we *can't* discuss (those) specifics here, because at this point they're not extant so there *are no* specifics.

The problem with vanguards as I understand them is that they want to be in power in a "transitional" period, which usually doesn't turn out to be so transitional.

Capitalism is horrendous, this is true. That does not mean authoritarian communism is a desirable alternative.

Authoritarianism, like terrorism (for example), is only a *tactic*, and does not speak to the underlying *politics* itself.

Authoritarian communism *could* very well be a desirable alternative, depending on conditions, and especially as an alternative to capitalism. Again, the devil is in the details, so we're back to being at an impasse in trying to describe details that don't actually exist.

syndicat

20th August 2011, 19:37

That's silly logic. The vanguard shows itself whether or not there's a vanguard party. The Spanish anarchists carried out social revolution in certain areas...the workers who were at the forefront of that effort were a vanguard. The idea that such a vanguard can and should be organized into a stronger and more disciplined unit aligns fully with any materialist analysis of revolutionary struggles. In other words, it recognizes the reality that in revolutionary situations, the most militant and revolutionary workers emerge as leaders of the class in its struggle, and that a disciplined unit that can speak with one revolutionary voice is a positive force for progress.
the issue shouldn't be the issue of the vanguard or the desireability of organization. the problem arises in regard to how you conceive of the relation between a "vanguard party" and the mass of the working class. if you conceive of it as the directing and managing agency of the process of change, this prefigures and will tend to lead to, that party and its leadership becoming the managers of society. It leads to the idea of the need for this leadership to run the society top down thru a state. And this leads to the continuation of the class system, thru the emergence of a dominant bureaucatic class.

The alternative is to think of the vanguard as influencing and organizing the masses so they can direct their own movement and empower themselves.

manic expression

20th August 2011, 20:04

It is possible to believe that with socialism, means are ends; achieving a radical democracy is a radically democratic process. It is bizarre to equate an opposition to Leninism with opposition to Marxism. Because we all know how well the M-L model worked out in the USSR and China.
Indeed means are ends, which is why we need to find the most effective method for making working-class revolution. The vanguard party greatly contributes to this.

What does "radical democracy" mean? Does it mean a system in which power flows from working-class committees? How do you see a socialist society working when it comes to political power (assuming capitalism hasn't been destroyed the world over)?

As others have pointed out, this conversation is only meaningful with a good definition on what form your vanguard takes. Is it a party or cohesive organization working towards revolution and gaining power "on behalf of the people"? Or are you simply describing all the individuals who understand the necessity of revolution and work toward it in different ways? The problem with vanguards as I understand them is that they want to be in power in a "transitional" period, which usually doesn't turn out to be so transitional.
Good points...IMO, no vanguard can take power "on behalf of the people", for the vanguard is one with the working class(es). But yes, it definitely includes those who understand the nature of capitalist oppression and that the solution is working-class revolution...however, I wouldn't say it's "all the individuals", because there is a difference between knowing and understanding, and more importantly there is a difference between understanding and applying. The vanguard, I think, has to do with action combined with understanding.

Capitalism is horrendous, this is true. That does not mean authoritarian communism is a desirable alternative.
Well, I would submit that every single example of what you call "authoritarian communism" (Pol Pot doesn't belong in there, by the way) was leaps and bounds better for the workers than capitalism. In addition, I hold that because we can differentiate the two so comfortably, it stands to reason that each said example was that of the working classes liberating themselves from the capitalist yoke.

the issue shouldn't be the issue of the vanguard or the desireability of organization. the problem arises in regard to how you conceive of the relation between a "vanguard party" and the mass of the working class. if you conceive of it as the directing and managing agency of the process of change, this prefigures and will tend to lead to, that party and its leadership becoming the managers of society. It leads to the idea of the need for this leadership to run the society top down thru a state. And this leads to the continuation of the class system, thru the emergence of a dominant bureaucatic class.
A few things here. First, no vanguard (party or otherwise) can "direct and manage...the process of change", because it's much bigger than that. No vanguard can make a capitalist crisis happen (at least, it would be a neat trick). Thus, it's more useful to think of the vanguard as, just with any other group of people, responding to the circumstances presented.

As far as being the "managers" of any new society, I think it's inevitable that there will be some making ultimate decisions in some cases. You simply can't have everyone vote on everything, it's neither physically possible nor politically expedient. However, ideally we can create a system in which those who do make some decisions answer directly to the delegates of the masses. After all, a bureaucrat pushing paper isn't the bloodcurdling menace that most make him/her out to be...s/he is working for a government, and that government can be under the full sway of the working classes.

The alternative is to think of the vanguard as influencing and organizing the masses so they can direct their own movement and empower themselves.
True enough, but if we limit the vanguard's scope to "influence and organize", we can hardly call it a vanguard. When push comes to shove, the vanguard needs to be out in the front, opposing the forces of reaction and leading the way for their fellow workers. That is why we can say there was a vanguard present in anarchist Spain, even though there wasn't necessarily a vanguard party. Do you disagree?

Luc

20th August 2011, 20:45

Could you guys help with this question about the vanguard?

It seems my animosity towards the Vanguard stems from this:

Does the vanguard method inherently entail the existence of the state post-revolution?

Flying Trotsky

20th August 2011, 21:47

I wouldn't say so no.

And there's probably some debate left to be had about exactly what constitutes a "vanguard party"- certainly some things can be lost in translation.

Think of it more like this- a political party merely reacts to situations or issues. There's a general set of values or principals it tries to bring about through elections, but at the end of the day, there's no final destination. A vanguard party, on the other hand, is as much of a social movement as it is a political entity. It doesn't simply try to support a general set of ideas, it attempts to bring about a distinct vision for the future.

In the short version, a political party is reactive, a vanguard party is proactive.

Of course, the issue here is that the party might forget its place, and see itself not as a movement of the people, but a movement for the people. Once you have this split, you start to see the party becoming an elite intelligentsia, and from there it's a slippery slope to USSR-style corruption and degeneration.

syndicat

20th August 2011, 22:01

Good points...IMO, no vanguard can take power "on behalf of the people", for the vanguard is one with the working class(es).

the vanguard could be "one" with the working class only if it included the whole class. but that vitiates the very idea of a "vanguard" which is supposed to be the active section, with ideas and organizing abilities. this section can grow during a period when the confidence and social power of the class is growing but it's not the whole class.

A few things here. First, no vanguard (party or otherwise) can "direct and manage...the process of change", because it's much bigger than that. No vanguard can make a capitalist crisis happen (at least, it would be a neat trick). Thus, it's more useful to think of the vanguard as, just with any other group of people, responding to the circumstances presented.

what I meant was managing the social movements, which provide the power to push thru the changes. but if a hierarchy, controlled by a particular party, controls the movements, their members don't, and what results will be shaped by the interests and conceptions of that party leadership.

As far as being the "managers" of any new society, I think it's inevitable that there will be some making ultimate decisions in some cases. You simply can't have everyone vote on everything, it's neither physically possible nor politically expedient. However, ideally we can create a system in which those who do make some decisions answer directly to the delegates of the masses. After all, a bureaucrat pushing paper isn't the bloodcurdling menace that most make him/her out to be...s/he is working for a government, and that government can be under the full sway of the working classes.

but we're talking about people who will be the managers in the state and the workplaces...a boss class in other words...and thus the continuation of class domination and exploitation...no doubt under "socialist" rhetoric.

manic expression

20th August 2011, 22:22

the vanguard could be "one" with the working class only if it included the whole class. but that vitiates the very idea of a "vanguard" which is supposed to be the active section, with ideas and organizing abilities. this section can grow during a period when the confidence and social power of the class is growing but it's not the whole class.
False. Workers are one with the class, and yet a worker is not the whole class. Strikes and other forms of struggle are part of the class, and yet they don't involve the whole class.

By that argument, unless every single worker on the face of the planet becomes an anarchist, you're in the same boat as everyone else...

what I meant was managing the social movements, which provide the power to push thru the changes. but if a hierarchy, controlled by a particular party, controls the movements, their members don't, and what results will be shaped by the interests and conceptions of that party leadership.
The hierarchy of a vanguard party is generally controlled by the rank-and-file through the principle of democratic centralism, so your point doesn't much apply.

but we're talking about people who will be the managers in the state and the workplaces...a boss class in other words...and thus the continuation of class domination and exploitation...no doubt under "socialist" rhetoric.
People appointed as managers aren't a "boss class" unless they hold a social position as bosses, unless they own the means of production. Suffice to say, this has absolutely nothing to do with the worker states established by communists.

syndicat

21st August 2011, 03:34

False. Workers are one with the class, and yet a worker is not the whole class. Strikes and other forms of struggle are part of the class, and yet they don't involve the whole class.

By that argument, unless every single worker on the face of the planet becomes an anarchist, you're in the same boat as everyone else...then what does your idiosyncratic phrase "one with the class" mean? it can't mean "they all agree". if you mean to claim that the vanguard alone have know the "true" interests of the class (and how would they know that, crystal gazing while musing about Uncle Vlad?), that becomes then a paternalistic claim to make decisions "for" others.

each person is a single person. they are not identical with the class. nor do they have the same viewpoints as the class. the class is very heteriogeneous, in terms of having different circumstances...different abiliities, different ideas, different gender, different vulnerability to race oppression, different income, etc.

now i wrote:
what I meant was managing the social movements, which provide the power to push thru the changes. but if a hierarchy, controlled by a particular party, controls the movements, their members don't, and what results will be shaped by the interests and conceptions of that party leadership. and you reply:
The hierarchy of a vanguard party is generally controlled by the rank-and-file through the principle of democratic centralism, so your point doesn't much apply.
your usual sleight of hand. "democratic centralism" never ends up being democratic, but that only concerns the relation of members of the party to the party hierarchy.

I was talking about the relation of the party to the mass. the party is a particular minority. and the historical experience of every "vanguard party" that came to state power is that it ended up running a hierarchical state, issuing orders top down, and with a managerial bureaucracy as bosses over workers in the workplaces. workers ended up as dominated and exploited as under capitalism.

People appointed as managers aren't a "boss class" unless they hold a social position as bosses, unless they own the means of production. Suffice to say, this has absolutely nothing to do with the worker states established by communists. bullshit. most of the managers who workers face day to day under corporate capitalism aren't the owners of the companies. yet decision making power and information are concentrated into the hands of the managerial hierarchy and their top professional advisors. soviet union had a similar type of managerial hierarchy. only there there were no capitalists so the bureaucratic class were the ruling class. here the middle managers and lawyers and what not are alliies and employees of the billionaires...but they are still our bosses.

ckaihatsu

21st August 2011, 04:43

If I may here....

I'd just like to point out that what's being discussed here are various entities at various scales. It's more than obvious that not everything political always generalizes smoothly from one level to the next, as with mass worker sentiment being accurately reflected by a representative of any kind.

then what does your idiosyncratic phrase "one with the class" mean? it can't mean "they all agree". if you mean to claim that the vanguard alone have know the "true" interests of the class (and how would they know that, crystal gazing while musing about Uncle Vlad?), that becomes then a paternalistic claim to make decisions "for" others.

One curious dynamic is that not all workers may automatically *know* what's in their best interests for any given situation -- meaning only that we're not all born with political educations. There may very well be points in the struggle where a vanguard-type organization will be able to point out certain factors in the situation at hand that many rank-and-file workers hadn't thought of, and/or hadn't known about.

We should *always* be on guard against substitutionism at *any* time, though. That point is always well-taken.

each person is a single person. they are not identical with the class. nor do they have the same viewpoints as the class. the class is very heteriogeneous, in terms of having different circumstances...different abiliities, different ideas, different gender, different vulnerability to race oppression, different income, etc.

*Internally*, yes, any group of workers is made up of individuals, each with their own lives -- hopefully -- including some extent of personal self-determination. But in the material world as it is, *all* working people are in the same boat in regards to how they access the goods and services of the world -- we have to *sell our labor* for some monetary-proportional share of global production. Cash, within a global economy, is a *good* thing in that it allows the bearer to lay claim to a portion of what the world produces, equitable by the standard of cash -- obviously this standard could be much improved on since it only functions through the exploitation of labor value.

PopulistPower

21st August 2011, 06:21

Indeed means are ends, which is why we need to find the most effective method for making working-class revolution. The vanguard party greatly contributes to this.

What does "radical democracy" mean? Does it mean a system in which power flows from working-class committees? How do you see a socialist society working when it comes to political power (assuming capitalism hasn't been destroyed the world over)?

I would explain radical democracy as there no longer being any form of class power relations in any social relations, meaning no state (as we think of nation-states now), no representatives, no worker-boss relations, no gender hierarchy, no racial discrimination, etc. It gets at the root of the democratic (and socialistic) principle insofar as people have direct control over and power in the institutions in which they participate. I don't think you can deliver on the moral and material promises of socialism without direct democracy. Which is what I oppose if we are talking about having "managers of the revolution". What you are saying conceives of just abolishing class distinctions between workers and the owners of capital, but does so -- at least in the beginning -- by making another set of class distinctions, those who "got it first and were gonna make it happen", and everyone else. To say nothing of leaving in tact other forms of oppression in society (I have seen revolutionaries who were still quite sexist, for example).

Good points...IMO, no vanguard can take power "on behalf of the people", for the vanguard is one with the working class(es). But yes, it definitely includes those who understand the nature of capitalist oppression and that the solution is working-class revolution...however, I wouldn't say it's "all the individuals", because there is a difference between knowing and understanding, and more importantly there is a difference between understanding and applying. The vanguard, I think, has to do with action combined with understanding.

So, you have some individuals that both understand the political moment and act to change it. Presumably they work in some sort of united and coordinated manner. So far, sounds great. I think it works to describe almost every leftist group. But, when we start to say, "well, that set of people understand things and are leading the way, so as we oppressed peoples take power, we will have that set of individuals take over certain functions of the state/bureaucracy/matters of decision making for us". I imagine that's where the line is drawn between "the vanguard" and just being revolutionaries, because the latter clearly exist now in most countries, and in my view, the former is what you would at least consider a vanguard and I maintain it inherently contains different power relations that will still allow for class distinctions, other forms of oppression, and potential tyranny.

Well, I would submit that every single example of what you call "authoritarian communism" (Pol Pot doesn't belong in there, by the way) was leaps and bounds better for the workers than capitalism. In addition, I hold that because we can differentiate the two so comfortably, it stands to reason that each said example was that of the working classes liberating themselves from the capitalist yoke.

So it sounds to me like you're saying the new set of power relations was justified because it was a progressive step forward and got us to the next, but not final, epoch? Or do you think an authoritarian setup is a desirable endgame? I feel people predisposed to supporting a true vanguard will tend to say, yes to that, which concern me for the reasons I listed above.

A few things here. First, no vanguard (party or otherwise) can "direct and manage...the process of change", because it's much bigger than that. No vanguard can make a capitalist crisis happen (at least, it would be a neat trick). Thus, it's more useful to think of the vanguard as, just with any other group of people, responding to the circumstances presented.

How can they be just a group of people responding to circumstances? It's only meaningful to refer to them as a coordinated group, with some sort of earned status or role in painting the future and moving us towards it. So how that group is organized, how they get and use their power, and whether or not they're desirable in the first place, isn't just a matter of them reacting as any old political participants. Especially when one considers your next paragraph that:

As far as being the "managers" of any new society, I think it's inevitable that there will be some making ultimate decisions in some cases. You simply can't have everyone vote on everything, it's neither physically possible nor politically expedient. However, ideally we can create a system in which those who do make some decisions answer directly to the delegates of the masses. After all, a bureaucrat pushing paper isn't the bloodcurdling menace that most make him/her out to be...s/he is working for a government, and that government can be under the full sway of the working classes.

You've just made the case for representative democracy, and segued into by referring to the necessity of a vanguard which be those "making ultimate decisions in some cases". Mind you, that is precisely the philosophical foundation of Western bourgeois democracy, which even in a socialist state would divide the people against each other between those who work for/are led by the 'decision makers' and those to whom the decision makers are theoretically held responsible to.

True enough, but if we limit the vanguard's scope to "influence and organize", we can hardly call it a vanguard. When push comes to shove, the vanguard needs to be out in the front, opposing the forces of reaction and leading the way for their fellow workers. That is why we can say there was a vanguard present in anarchist Spain, even though there wasn't necessarily a vanguard party. Do you disagree?

Exactly. It has to establish the type of power relations between itself and those it theoretically works for in order to be a vanguard, thereby producing all the problems I argued in the beginning of my post. I challenge the premise that we need a specific organization of individuals to fight the counter-revolution (or to initiate or begin the revolution -- I think the revolution is a means to its own in that its the conscious realization by a sufficient portion of the oppressed that they have united more power than those who oppress them, and the revolution happens at the material level when that realization is acted upon. And this is ultimately the biggest issue with a vanguard, is that it considers it an afterthought of whether or not the public understands what is going on, when really that is the only thing that matters.)

Dunk

21st August 2011, 10:55

Common control realizes common ownership. A minority of the working class exercising control over the attempt to abolish private property will always fail.

Azula

21st August 2011, 14:29

Common control realizes common ownership. A minority of the working class exercising control over the attempt to abolish private property will always fail.

This thread is the negation of that sentiment.

Some parts of the working class are more advanced than others (in terms of revolutionary sentiment). Everybody needs to develop according to their level of understanding.

The Vanguard should not believe it is privileged. On the contrary, it has more duties towards it's class, to defend and uphold the life and dignity of their comrades.

Dunk

21st August 2011, 18:35

This thread is the negation of that sentiment.

Some parts of the working class are more advanced than others (in terms of revolutionary sentiment). Everybody needs to develop according to their level of understanding.

The Vanguard should not believe it is privileged. On the contrary, it has more duties towards it's class, to defend and uphold the life and dignity of their comrades.

How so?

Anyway, sounds pretty noble and wholly un-material: the duty and responsibility of the by-definition minority group to take charge, and lead the overthrow of capitalism. It simply doesn't matter what the "vanguard" believes. It doesn't change that you can't have socialism without common ownership, and you can't have common ownership without common control. A minority taking action isn't going to cut it.

A vanguard isn't just unnecessary for the overthrow of capitalism, it's a guarantee capitalism can't be overthrown.

Kadir Ateş

21st August 2011, 20:29

A working class in revolt fundamentally is a process of change, a qualitative change in how they had perceived life before and each struggle becomes in its own way an edifying force to broaden its consciousness as a class for itself. Some political organisation would be necessarily to discuss theoretical problems arising from practice and vice-versa. This would be the "party" which the workers themselves would develop and create.

The vanguard party is different. Here, the assumption is that it is their mission to spread propaganda and deliver class consciousness prior to any actual confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It may have at one point been the product of class struggles, but in absence of any larger revolutionary milieu today, has cooled-down to become a distributor of ossified, dogmatic, quasi-theological principles which are then mechanically applied to analyse contemporary struggles. It is with grand hopes to ultimately lead the working class through victory, though according to their own program, regardless of what decisions the workers themselves formulate.

Kronsteen

21st August 2011, 23:40

So adding a revolutionary voice to the mix of voices would have steered them towards revolution? Why should one more voice lessen rather than increase the confusion?
This is disingenuous

No, the question was quite clear. If there are 100 voices saying different things, why should adding voice 101 bring any of the others into accord? You're advocating entrism, which to my knowledge has never succeeded.

if you meant to frame your question as 'Why should one more *revolutionary* voice lessen rather than increase the confusion', then it's a fair formulation and the answer is obvious.

One revolutionary voice or a dozen, that's not the issue. There are several dozen revolutionary voices on these forums - do you see any consensus?

And if you think the answer is obvious, try giving it.

So, likewise, *of course* workers can 'work things out for themselves', but if there happens to be some among the ranks who can more readily lend knowledge and expertise to *that* kind of situation -- militant working-class ones -- then *all the better* since it doesn't have to be done over and over from scratch, in every location.

I think that's perfectly true as far as it goes - and it fits better with Marx's notion of 'self-emancipation' than the more top-down Lenin, or the downright elitist Castro.

But it doesn't address the actual issue. Stating your ideas clearly will not automatically persuade people mired in confusion. Showing people that a course of action is ultimately in all their interests will not unite them if they don't already think in 'ultimate' terms.

And adding your smart voice to the sound of the crowd make the crowd louder, not smarter.

By the yardstick of conventional linear logic it *could be* *construed* as an alleged contradiction but if seen in its proper context that regards matters of *scale* there *is no* contradiction.

Ah, "What You Fail To Understand Comrade Is, It's Dialectical."

In other words, the vanguard, however formulated, will only be derived from the working class masses and -- by definition -- will not be an "outsourced" body or have any kind of special, separate interests of its own outside of those of the working class itself.

Ideally yes. But it's never happened, not even in Russia. You have a very 'pure' notion of what a vanguard could and could not be. My trotskyist friends would call it "mechanical".

ckaihatsu

22nd August 2011, 00:48

I'm going to use the following as a premise for my following arguments:

[W]e're not all born with political educations.

Also, similarly:

Some parts of the working class are more advanced than others (in terms of revolutionary sentiment). Everybody needs to develop according to their level of understanding.

No, the question was quite clear. If there are 100 voices saying different things, why should adding voice 101 bring any of the others into accord?

You're glossing over the *substance*, or *content*, of what's being said. If the 100 voices are all saying distinctly different, disparate things then that is the definition of chaos -- that there is *zero* congruence among the opinions expressed.

If one or more voices (added) is expressing a *revolutionary* politics then there is something of *substance* there -- it is *orderly* and constructive, compared to the backdrop of incoherence. (Whether such a revolutionary voice "bring[s] any of the others into accord" would be particular to the concrete situation at hand -- I could only speculate here in the abstract about it.)

You're advocating entrism, which to my knowledge has never succeeded.

No, entryism pertains to formal involvement in bourgeois institutions. The scenario you've just outlined doesn't indicate this.

One revolutionary voice or a dozen, that's not the issue. There are several dozen revolutionary voices on these forums - do you see any consensus?

You're arguing for an interpretation of chaos resulting from the discussions at RevLeft -- that's hardly the reality, and the degree of 'consensus' present varies according to the topic being discussed.

[If] you meant to frame your question as 'Why should one more *revolutionary* voice lessen rather than increase the confusion', then it's a fair formulation and the answer is obvious.

And if you think the answer is obvious, try giving it.

My answer is that the inclusion of one more revolutionary voice adds a constructive partisan content, cutting against the incoherence of the confusion present, per your hypothetical scenario.

I think that's perfectly true as far as it goes - and it fits better with Marx's notion of 'self-emancipation' than the more top-down Lenin, or the downright elitist Castro.

But it doesn't address the actual issue.

Stating your ideas clearly will not automatically persuade people mired in confusion. Showing people that a course of action is ultimately in all their interests will not unite them if they don't already think in 'ultimate' terms.

I disagree with your framing here.

It's not about people having to be in an 'ultimate-terms' mindset -- it's about rank-and-file workers both being in *particular*, *local* situations on a class basis while also sharing *worldwide* class interests on a broadly *general* class basis. If the world's working class can realize broad-based gains as a whole class -- say with worldwide formal recognition of their right to collectively bargain as rank-and-file workers -- then that is a gain won for every *local*, particular situation as well.

So, by this reasoning, it's in every working-locality's class interests to think about the larger picture -- "ultimate" terms, as you put it -- so that their *local* working conditions can improve, along with those of every other locality, since the political conditions at all locations are empirically the same anyway due to their class nature in common.

Of course nothing about the struggle or its politics is "automatic".

And adding your smart voice to the sound of the crowd make the crowd louder, not smarter.

This statement definitively reveals your defeatist attitude. You were *indicating* it in the previous portion, but here you've stated it decisively.

Ah, "What You Fail To Understand Comrade Is, It's Dialectical."

Please feel free to elaborate here.

In other words, the vanguard, however formulated, will only be derived from the working class masses and -- by definition -- will not be an "outsourced" body or have any kind of special, separate interests of its own outside of those of the working class itself.

Ideally yes. But it's never happened, not even in Russia. You have a very 'pure' notion of what a vanguard could and could not be. My trotskyist friends would call it "mechanical".

In our discussion here of generalities we're limited to meta-context *abstractions*, unless we're discussing actual historical examples or present-day realities. That's why I am inherently limited to addressing a 'vanguard' according to its *definition* -- necessarily an abstraction.

Much of the discussion on this thread has been essentially about whether a 'vanguard' in reality would fulfill the abstract definition of what a 'vanguard' *should* be, or not -- in other words, purely abstract speculating in a void.

For you to roundly *dismiss* the possibility of a genuine vanguard being realized from the present day forward, based on a simple recitation of a historical example, is sheer defeatism.

manic expression

22nd August 2011, 02:01

I would explain radical democracy as there no longer being any form of class power relations in any social relations, meaning no state (as we think of nation-states now), no representatives, no worker-boss relations, no gender hierarchy, no racial discrimination, etc. It gets at the root of the democratic (and socialistic) principle insofar as people have direct control over and power in the institutions in which they participate. I don't think you can deliver on the moral and material promises of socialism without direct democracy. Which is what I oppose if we are talking about having "managers of the revolution". What you are saying conceives of just abolishing class distinctions between workers and the owners of capital, but does so -- at least in the beginning -- by making another set of class distinctions, those who "got it first and were gonna make it happen", and everyone else. To say nothing of leaving in tact other forms of oppression in society (I have seen revolutionaries who were still quite sexist, for example).
I think those who "got it first and were gonna make it happen" (aka the most advanced and militant workers) have the responsibility and obligation...to say nothing of the basic need...to involve the masses with whatever post-revolutionary construction is done. Of course, different revolutions in different times and places will yield different systems, but the important thing is that the workers are in power.

Another thing is that we can't abolish class until capitalism is smashed everywhere and until the new order is sufficiently developed. The first step, really, isn't how to get to classless society, but how to get to working-class society.

So, you have some individuals that both understand the political moment and act to change it. Presumably they work in some sort of united and coordinated manner. So far, sounds great. I think it works to describe almost every leftist group. But, when we start to say, "well, that set of people understand things and are leading the way, so as we oppressed peoples take power, we will have that set of individuals take over certain functions of the state/bureaucracy/matters of decision making for us". I imagine that's where the line is drawn between "the vanguard" and just being revolutionaries, because the latter clearly exist now in most countries, and in my view, the former is what you would at least consider a vanguard and I maintain it inherently contains different power relations that will still allow for class distinctions, other forms of oppression, and potential tyranny.
Those are different ways of saying the same thing, actually. In a post-revolutionary situation, you have to figure out how food goes from here to there, how the lights stay on, how this militia gets equipped from this ammunition depot, who fixes the sewers, who picks up the trash.

You can't do that unless there are some decision-makers in place. The trick is to have them appointed by the democratic decision-making of the working class as a whole...which proves a difficult but important task. However, one of the things you might be forgetting is that, given there are "some individuals that both understand the political moment and act to change it", those individuals will in the course of their struggles likely win the trust and respect of their fellow workers. When it comes time to decide who will speak for this factory or this district in a revolutionary committee...who better than they?

So it sounds to me like you're saying the new set of power relations was justified because it was a progressive step forward and got us to the next, but not final, epoch? Or do you think an authoritarian setup is a desirable endgame? I feel people predisposed to supporting a true vanguard will tend to say, yes to that, which concern me for the reasons I listed above.
Yes, that is what I'm saying, but only if that new set of power relations revolves around the power of the workers. Any revolution will be authoritarian in some sense...we have to tell the capitalists and their supporters "no, you can't exploit workers anymore...no, you can't use this TV station to spread hatred and lies."

How can they be just a group of people responding to circumstances? It's only meaningful to refer to them as a coordinated group, with some sort of earned status or role in painting the future and moving us towards it. So how that group is organized, how they get and use their power, and whether or not they're desirable in the first place, isn't just a matter of them reacting as any old political participants. Especially when one considers your next paragraph that:

You've just made the case for representative democracy, and segued into by referring to the necessity of a vanguard which be those "making ultimate decisions in some cases". Mind you, that is precisely the philosophical foundation of Western bourgeois democracy, which even in a socialist state would divide the people against each other between those who work for/are led by the 'decision makers' and those to whom the decision makers are theoretically held responsible to.
First, yes, they are coordinated, and in that lies the strength of the vanguard party. Second, the fact is that representative democracy in one form or another is a necessity of any modern, industrialized society. Not even Luxembourg is small enough to be ruled by a fully direct democracy, and that's without taking into account the chaos and imperialist meddling that would happen in a revolutionary situation. However, not all forms of representative democracy are the same, and we have to distinguish between those under the control of the bourgeoisie and those under the control of the workers. The vanguard party's responsibility is to lead the construction of the latter after overthrowing the former.

Exactly. It has to establish the type of power relations between itself and those it theoretically works for in order to be a vanguard, thereby producing all the problems I argued in the beginning of my post. I challenge the premise that we need a specific organization of individuals to fight the counter-revolution (or to initiate or begin the revolution -- I think the revolution is a means to its own in that its the conscious realization by a sufficient portion of the oppressed that they have united more power than those who oppress them, and the revolution happens at the material level when that realization is acted upon. And this is ultimately the biggest issue with a vanguard, is that it considers it an afterthought of whether or not the public understands what is going on, when really that is the only thing that matters.)
Like I said before, the vanguard (not necessarily organized into a party) wins the trust and respect of the masses in the course of revolutionary struggle...so of course they're going to be looked to first when the time comes to create a revolutionary government. If that vanguard is organized into a party, that doesn't change, the vanguard will still be at the forefront of any revolutionary government because of its role before that point.

As for your challenge, I would direct you to the history of any revolutionary situation in the course of modern history. Organizations, strong ones, have always been needed to fight counterrevolution and reaction. The more organized they are, the more successful they generally are.

black magick hustla

22nd August 2011, 07:54

i don't think it is a question of "necessity". if there is a revolution, an organized vanguard, as the "brain of the class" will emerge, period. its not a matter of trying to "train ourselves" into "not leading" the masses as some anarchists postulate, but that naturally the vanguard will always emerge. the "brain of the class" are those who are always in the forefront and avant-garde, does not have to be declassed intellectuals, its a minority thrown into the front by History itself.

No_Leaders

22nd August 2011, 08:04

As long as the vanguard isn't used to hijack the revolution and keep the same oppressive forms of hierarchy and the state intact. Unfortunately history has always proven otherwise.

citizen of industry

22nd August 2011, 08:32

I've always hated the term "vanguard party." It's a point of such contention and divides so many people in the left, and it really shouldn't. Of the 100 or so lefty parties in the US, how many times have you heard anyone say with confidence "My party and my party alone is going to lead the masses in a successful revolution"? We cannot predict how a revolution will develop and pan-out. But would you claim none of these "vanguard" parties have any value? They are a form of working-class organization. They comprise dedicated worker-activists who contribute their time, labor and money to working class struggles. They propagate socialist ideas. They are in the front line of the struggle against imperialism.

ckaihatsu

22nd August 2011, 09:04

I'll respectfully submit that much of the concern expressed about a vanguard is actually a kind of obsessing over *formalism*. I say this because politics is politics and will take place *regardless* of degrees of formalism.

The only real variable in effect is how strong, organized, and cohesive a formalized vanguard-type revolutionary organization may be -- the *subjective factor*, in short. Some revolutionaries go to the extent of saying that revolution is merely a waiting game in that capitalism will inherently exhaust itself and will be toppled with a mere push of the finger. Others say that those in power will *always* find a way to reconstitute the class basis no matter how much damage is sustained by the capitalist system in particular.

I tend towards the mid-ground point myself, saying that there *should* be as much of a collectively conscious self-organizing vanguard as possible, but to not be substitutionist with it, either. Politics being what it is will quickly become critical of any organization that *claims* to represent the working masses while it's clearly become overextended and detached from the real day-to-day issues.

*My* concern, at this point in the current context of bourgeois-based rule, is not with a vanguard that's *too strong*, but rather with one that's *too weak*, since the current arena offers rewards for opportunism and soft-left edifices that simply cave and funnel left-wing momentum over towards the status quo drumbeat.

If concerns are to be raised about a vanguard's potential substitutionism they should be raised at a *more appropriate* point in the struggle, when such a possibility is actually *more possible* than now. To do so under current conditions is soundly out-of-context and only plays into status quo politics.