Advantages/Disadvantages of the Vanguard

[RedMarxist]

I've noticed through reading Lenin's What is to be Done? and other writings that a so called "Vanguard" Party seems to have many advantages.

One of which is its ability to effectively agitate to the working masses, as Lenin continually stresses. Another is the organization and structure it provides to violent/peaceful revolutions, a la The Russian Revolution and the subsequent civil war.

And finally the disadvantages:

-Tendency towards authoritarianism
-Tendency towards Capitalist restoration by the often times bureaucratic leadership
-Tendency towards under estimating the power of the said working masses

this was when the party decided to lead the revolution after the revolution however.
Now, again I will mention the KOE(Koy in English). They seem to be providing extensive organization and agitation that without a firm party structure would never have seen the light of day in the square movement.

But they have taken it upon themselves to stay outside the movement and refrain form "leading the Revolution", instead reducing their actions to that of only agitation.

I hear a lot on this forum that Marxism-Leninism is a total failure. Then how do you account for KOE and other examples of Marxism-Leninism being applied successfully(India, Nepal during the revolution, Philippines). Without such organization and structure, could those revolutions continue onwards today/or succeed as they did?

Curious as to what you think. :confused: is it a dated ideology that has failed, or can it still be applied today effectively?

[Rodrigo]

Well, the vanguard party, that is, the vanguard detachment of the working class, seeks to direct the revolutionary and spontaneous activity of the masses. It has to be implemented with a revolutionary theory, with knowledge about the laws of the movement, with the knowledge of the laws of the revolution, so it can correctly direct the revolution and make the proletarian political-ideological line triumph over the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois lines, for example liberalism and anarchism. In Lenin's "What to do?" the concept of vanguard is more "dogmatic" (limited in relation to its members), but later he stated: let people enter the party, 99% of those would be social-democrats (in the sense it had in Russia, of course), we have nothing to fear. As you see, the vanguard party has nothing to do with "elitism", but the way of conducting the revolution. And that's this way which led the proletarian to many victories in History.

[The Idler]

Organisation, structure and voting does NOT equal leadership, hierarchies and vanguards.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't think that it is a dated ideology and I think a vanguard of some sort has its place.

We can take the successes of Marxism-Leninism while pointing out the flaws it may have. To completely discard it or to completely accept it is foolish.

To be honest, I'm not incredibly well read when it comes to the concept of a vanguard. I know the concept itself and the flaws and up-sides to it but I have never read any of Lenin's work on it. Though, I think the idea that (maybe not exactly a party) a vanguard take the forefront in a revolutionary period. That vanguard would have to be democratic amongst the working class inside of it while retaining a strong structure and plan of action. I don't think it's a great idea to think if there is no vanguard that there can be no revolution and vice versa.

[The Idler]

Yeah, no-one would be so dismissive as to completely consign something to the dustbin of history. Let alone be proud of such an asinine statement, would they? Oh wait.

In the 21st Century movements and organisations like 15-M, UK Uncut have made it quite clear, anything less than complete democracy isn't acceptable.

[RedMarxist]

In the 21st Century movements and organisations like 15-M, UK Uncut have made it quite clear, anything less than complete democracy isn't acceptable.

ya...about that.

Really, just wow. Look, regardless of your personal political beliefs, Lenin's take on Marxist theory still has much merit left after all these years.

What I'm trying to argue is that when the party simply agitates during protests for example, much is to be gained from that. but when it takes vanguardism to the extreme and takes over the country post-revolution, then it gets ugly and "fails"

So, why not use the party structure to one's advantage to help usher in a revolution. The shortcomings of "True Democracy", not that I have anything against it(I support it), is that a vangaurdist structure save KOE is missing, leading to defeat after defeat of the unorganized protesters.

See why a vanguard in party form is useful?

Lenin was right in that regard.

[The Idler]

Vanguardism doesn't help a revolution, it hinders it. The working class aren't stupid, they don't need leading anywhere. Eugene Debs said it best in 1908 when he said workers led into socialism, can be led right back out.

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Moses) to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands.

[Geiseric]

Russia had vastly different conditions than england, so a comparison of the two would be foolhardy. The working class was a minority, and most of it de facto supported the bolsheviks. "Underestimation of the masses" is a result of tactical planning and avoiding ultraleft paths for a "revolution NOW" situation which is unrealistic. Marxism-leninism doesn't equal things that Lenin actually wrote about, ML's use select quotations and misquotations to lead the reader to a false conclusion about the nature of a revolution, by using things Lenin said out of context. The vanguard is a de facto position, the bolsheviks and revolutionary workers were the vanguard in russia because they were the party who truly represented the most class consious workers. Any talk of allowing the mensheviks and SR's to keep functioning would be the same as somebody to suggest the democrats and old labor beurecrats should be allowed to maintain state control. the vanguard is chosen by and is formed by the revolutionary workers.

[Agent Equality]

RedMarxist you seem to be making an awful lot of threads on the vanguard party. While I'm glad you are finally realizing the extremely obvious disadvantages it pertains, you still seem to think that its completely and totally necessary.

It is not. Pretty much this:
Organisation, structure and voting does NOT equal leadership, hierarchies and vanguards.

And honestly are you really actually curious as to what we think? or are you just trying to find opinions that reinforce your own?
If you truly are curious as to what i think then I choose answer A.) it is a dated ideology that has failed.

[RedMarxist]

How exactly has it "failed?"

again, if it failed, then explain its successes in major and minor revolutions the world over, its use in successful protests in the 21st century, and the lack of Anarchist and "Left Wing" Communist movements in history that worked [well.] (no offense to anyone in particular)

Explain to me how, as some have said, that a vanguard is a failure because it's always bad/authoritarian/a threat to the working class, etc. etc.

even if its true(which through most of the 20th century sadly it was due to a tendency, to as i have said, to be too vanguardist in nature), how does that make it a failure?

my POINT, again, is that if we are to use it successfully "next time", then we must refrain from "being the vanguard of the post-revolutionary country." my POINT being that it has worked wonders pre-revolution/during the revolution. Again, why not use it as an advantage.

The problem with the direct democracy movement *is a lack of organization*, which a vanguard can provide for.

And I'm not suggesting that workers are dumb. Not even Lenin thought that. I'm saying that the whole point of the agitation by the vanguard is to keep them away from tea Party type movements(which through Sarah Palin basically said it was a "friend of the workers"), but not to think for them, as they still have free will of course.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The working class itself will not establish socialism unless they have revolutionary leadership.To say otherwise inevitably implies a reformist movement as the working class will side with the bourgeoisie (due to a lack of revolutionary knowledge).

A vanguard is necessary.

[ColonelCossack]

^^ Lol you've gone from M-L to some kind of left communist and back to leninist again. :D

What's next? Anarcho-syndicalism?

btw not dissing anarcho syndicalists.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

@ OP: See the following article- http://www.socialistaction.org/vanguard.htm

@ColonelCossak: Am not quite sure what you are referring to. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=33788)

(Ignore the link to your profile,no idea how it got there)
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=33788)

[ColonelCossack]

@ OP: See the following article- http://www.socialistaction.org/vanguard.htm

@ColonelCossak: Am not quite sure what you are referring to. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=33788)

(Ignore the link to your profile,no idea how it got there)
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=33788)

Sorry not referring to you. :S

talkin about redmarxist.

hence the "^^" and not a "^" :P

[Geiseric]

Again ML doesn't even mean Leninist. Lenin considered himself a practical orthodox marxist. any debate on the lack of democracy in the ussr will be fruitless since the plan was never to attempt socialism in one country. Russia post civil war was cut off from the world in the same way that north korea is today... Any lack of a present state which could maintain some workers intrests while keeping the whites and imperialists at bay would have resulted in a sure return to capitalist rule... again i'm saying these things with the upmost scientific method, look at revolutions where the vanguard didn't use state power to maintain or build socialism, and then look at the USSR where the state was used as a tool of class oppression of the bourgeois. Any reputation of a state being used as an effective tool of class oppression is purely ideological. AGAIN no purges of socialists, anarchists, just oppression of the bourgeois.

[Agent Equality]

How exactly has it "failed?"

again, if it failed, then explain its successes in major and minor revolutions the world over, its use in successful protests in the 21st century, and the lack of Anarchist and "Left Wing" Communist movements in history that worked [well.] (no offense to anyone in particular)

Explain to me how, as some have said, that a vanguard is a failure because it's always bad/authoritarian/a threat to the working class, etc. etc.

even if its true(which through most of the 20th century sadly it was due to a tendency, to as i have said, to be too vanguardist in nature), how does that make it a failure?

my POINT, again, is that if we are to use it successfully "next time", then we must refrain from "being the vanguard of the post-revolutionary country." my POINT being that it has worked wonders pre-revolution/during the revolution. Again, why not use it as an advantage.

The problem with the direct democracy movement *is a lack of organization*, which a vanguard can provide for.

And I'm not suggesting that workers are dumb. Not even Lenin thought that. I'm saying that the whole point of the agitation by the vanguard is to keep them away from tea Party type movements(which through Sarah Palin basically said it was a "friend of the workers"), but not to think for them, as they still have free will of course.

When the time comes, a revolution will happen regardless of whether or not there is a party to lead it. The problem and the reason it always fails and will always fail is because the whole idea of a vanguard party extends from hierarchical thought. While the intentions of those in the vanguard may not be bad (as in Lenin's case), the method is wrong. The vanguard as most prescribe it is not a solution to the problem, merely a diversion of it. Instead of actually educating ANY of its citizens as to why capitalism is bad and why socialism works, Every single M-L party has used propaganda and utopian illusions to subdue the people. They never got rid of the problem, they merely avoided it and tried covering it up.

And as history *key word* shown, that problem always comes back to bite them in the ass (i.e. re-capitalization of all former M-L and maoist countries, particularly in the form of mass pro-capitalist, western liberal, solidarity movements). They never educated their citizens as to why hierarchy and capitalism are bad, because their very thought pattern was hierarchical and thus they wanted to keep the hierarchy they themselves had created, in place. It should be the people not the party that decides what happens after the revolution(if there even is a party during the revolution)

Think of it like this: The communist party is the cool kid's club. The people are all the other kids. You can join the cool kid's club if youre a regular kid, but you got to go by the cool kids' rules. This cool kid's club has the slogan "every kid is a cool kid", but this is just advertisement in order to get more kids to join so that way they can do what the real cool kids' want them to do. The cool kids at the top of the club are the ones that really own the show.

You're arguing with history here mate. It just doesn't work.

Now I do believe that you do want to help the working class mobilize and gain class consciousness, as a good commie should :) But your hopes in a vanguard party are sorely misplaced.

What you should be advocating for is for individuals to go out there and help educate people on capitalism and socialism/communism/etc. and why one is good and why one is bad. Use logical arguments, evidence, etc. You can probably even start or join an education organization meant to simply educate people on this kind of stuff so that when the time for revolution comes, the people will know what to do and how to do it.(not freaking lead them in the revolution, they don't need to be lead by anyone but themselves). While this is what a lot of communist parties do today, they still have the hierarchical mindset.

Education is key in all of this. And historically, no vanguard party has educated the people. They've merely brainwashed them into thinking that their new glorious people's republic is a socialist workers utopia come true and that they should not continue to think and try and better their enviroment.

Now if simply us communists educating the masses is your idea of the "vanguard" then by all means there isn't a problem with it. Revleft itself serves as an education center for wandering eyes on the internet.

[Geiseric]

Has anybody read my posts? A vanguard in Lenin's case doesn't mean a heirarchy, it means a group of REVOLUTIONARY workers who want to overthrow capitalism! If CNT and FAI represented the entire working class and want to fight the bourgeois, THEY are a vanguard! It means any organisation at all who has workers support for their political activities of overthrowing capitalism. It is a De Facto role in any organised revolution. Unless you want no organisation at all among revolutionaries, you are a vanguardist.

[Geiseric]

Unless you want no organisation at all of true revolutionaries, who are organised and have a clear cut goal, you are a vanguardist. It's that simple. if a labor union was the de facto main organisation of a revolution, it's the vanguard. The vanguards in catalonia were anarcho syndicallists.

[Leftsolidarity]

Syd is correct. Why did no one address his points if they actually disagree with the concept of a vanguard?

[RedMarxist]

agreed. And can't some of us agree that in party form a vanguard approach is the most effective form a revolution can take?

AGAIN, I'm not at all suggesting I support brainwashing the population and leading a one-party state. not even Lenin I don't think meant that.

History also shows us that factors beyond Lenin's control forced him to shift towards authoritarian single-party politics.

nowhere did he talk about single-party politics. He never meant it to be that way. He once said/alluded to that he would allow more democracy IF the revolutions in Europe succeeded. I know it is a big IF, but IF this had happened, who knows what might have occurred. It is called alternate history.

how narrow minded you are to say that vangaurdism is bad, parties are all bad, etc. etc. History tells a different story.

To Lenin, a party organization was obviously the most effective organization. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

AGAIN(for the last time), why do, in your minds, DO ALL Communist Parties AUTOMATICALLY seize power from the Proletariat. Remember that KOE thing I repeatedly mentioned that everyone ignored. They(KOE) are agitating, and it led to good, socialistic demands by the Greek square movement.

Imagine if there was not KOE?

[Geiseric]

Isn't KOE the guys who ran away when the fighting happened? I heard that somewhere. Anyways theoretically, in greece if a party concretely represented the protesters politics and their class demands, they would be the vanguard. It isn't a union's job to do this, it is a political party's job. A party that is a workers party through and through is a vanguard.

[Leftsolidarity]

agreed. And can't some of us agree that in party form a vanguard approach is the most effective form a revolution can take?



No


To Lenin, a party organization was obviously the most effective organization. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.


Maybe to Lenin and maybe in Russia. Lenin is dead and it's 2011. Conditions are different in modern day America and most other places.


AGAIN(for the last time), why do, in your minds, DO ALL Communist Parties AUTOMATICALLY seize power from the Proletariat. Remember that KOE thing I repeatedly mentioned that everyone ignored. They(KOE) are agitating, and it led to good, socialistic demands by the Greek square movement.

Imagine if there was not KOE?


I don't think anyone said that. Some are talking about how parties might not be the best opinion and that there are equally valid vanguards.



Btw, you are terrible at debating a topic. Making personal assertions and ridiculous questions get you no where other than making people not give a fuck about what you are saying.

[RedMarxist]

:(

[TheGodlessUtopian]

:(

You will get better at debating,don't sweat it. :)

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

van·guardNoun/ˈvanˌgärd/
1. A group of people leading the way in new developments or ideas.
par·ty
[pahr-tee]
3.*group supporting a common cause or policy

The vanguard party, if done correctly, is a democratic government, that is the protector of the people against capitalism, dictator Totalitarianism, and fascism. It's advantages is a theoretical gathering point point for the masses. Noticed how I said masses? It sometimes will over look the minority. Any questions, just ask me.

[Agent Equality]

being an integral part of the revolution and helping to organize it is not the same as leading it, nor is it the same as controlling it.

[Le Socialiste]

The very concept of the vanguard presupposes the inability of the working-class to adequately organize itself along similar lines of ideological thought (in this instance one pertaining to the agitation against and overthrow of capitalism). It views the efforts of self-organization and autonomy as useless and ineffectual, and never hesitates to say as much. Its logic lies in the idea that a small group of revolutionized workers/intellectuals can successfully rally the rest of the proletariat to a conscious rejection of the capitalist modes of production and exploitation, thus furthering the general struggle against the capitalistic state. When conditions are ripe, it follows that the vanguard will lead the newly conscious working-class to victory over capitalism, the state, and its defendants/beneficiaries, setting itself up as the guarantor of workers’ liberation through the usurpation and replacement of the old order with a revolutionary one. It destroys the faces of the state, but shies away from dismantling it in its entirety. Instead, it is co opted as the means through which the people will be fully brought into communism. However, the path undertaken by the vanguard cannot work, for it does not destroy the old order, the old society; it merely alters it according to its vision. It reforms the state, often violently, in order to bring it into line with the general train of thought that makes up the vanguard’s reason for existence. By setting itself up as the only true path to communism, the vanguard merges the general ideological line of its members with the goals of the revolution, putting itself in a position of authority that dictates what qualifies as essential to the revolution and what doesn’t. Over time, the vanguard takes the inevitable step of merging itself with that of the state, once more altering the latter’s appearance without making any real change to the general structure. In doing so the two are considered one and the same, indivisible.

What this does, though, is create a structure vital to the maintenance of the society it has altered. It becomes a crutch which the vanguard can only increasingly rely on to further its own ends. This overreliance on the general mechanisms of the state forces the vanguard to present it as the only real means of attaining communism, leaving the general public in a position of listlessness and complacency. The revolutionary character of the proletariat is left to rot in favor of the state apparatus, their potential left untapped. Instead of utilizing the consciousness of the working-class on an equalized cooperative field the vanguard-state views the toiler as a tool of labor—a cog lost in the machinery of the state. This results in the working-class being dispossessed of its labor and labor’s means of production, transport, and distribution. The worker is alienated from the fruits of its production. The character of the revolution is purely artificial, stifling the authenticity of the working-class struggle. It manufactures the appearance of revolution, while actively preventing it from reaching the public. Whether this is intentional or not remains, in some cases, to be seen. But the maintenance of the vanguard-state and the state in its general form stymies the very essentials of the class struggle, namely its militancy, organization, character, method, and vision. It serves, first and foremost, the creation of a new financial and political elite, a new bureaucratic aristocracy. Its inability to effectively carry out the aspirations of the revolution leads it to revert back to its previous, predatory nature (although the very concept of the state, regardless of ideology or intent, carries this deficiency). In most cases, it results in the state’s transition to previous forms of governance and governmental makeup.

The vanguard sees the state as a necessary component of the revolution, but it fails to use it in a way that leads toward the eventual dismantlement of said state. You’ve probably heard it before, but I’ll just say it again: the state cannot dismantle itself. Only the will and actions of the working-class can. Providing much needed guidance to the efforts of the proletariat while maintaining an active presence within its struggles needn’t translate into direct leadership over its direction.

[Geiseric]

The state will disolve once there is no need for class oppression, i.e. once capitalism is abolished worldwide. To say that a state isn't needed for the oppression of a class isn't logical, a state's role is in fact to resolve disputes between classes. The anarchist refusal of a state is a refusal of any sort of organisation and violence from the proletariat directed towards the bourgeois.

[Le Socialiste]

The state will disolve once there is no need for class oppression, i.e. once capitalism is abolished worldwide. To say that a state isn't needed for the oppression of a class isn't logical, a state's role is in fact to resolve disputes between classes. The anarchist refusal of a state is a refusal of any sort of organisation and violence from the proletariat directed towards the bourgeois.

Oh, I can't wait to see what proof you have of this. :glare:

[Geiseric]

All a state is is a tool of class oppression, if a labor union takes control of a city, it is the new state, if a peasent uprising takes control of a countryside, its assembly or soviet is the new state.

[Le Socialiste]

All a state is is a tool of class oppression, if a labor union takes control of a city, it is the new state, if a peasent uprising takes control of a countryside, its assembly or soviet is the new state.

No, it isn't.

[Geiseric]

Ok theoretically what is the difference between a state and an armed group who intends on gaining more political power?

[Dogs On Acid]

Vanguard =/= Party

But the Party can = Vanguard

Using the Party as the Vanguard is a flawed concept. And I doubt it would ever work in the Developed West. Most Westerners shiver at the idea of Authoritarianism, and with good reason. This is exactly why Libertarian Socialism is the future of the so called "1st world nations".

Now, if we look at underdeveloped countries, a Leninist Party is understandable, and a way to quickly develop the country into Capitalism in post-revolutionary conditions. Otherwise, to establish true Socialism, it's been proven inefficient.

[StoneFrog]

Vanguard =/= Party

But the Party can = Vanguard

Using the Party as the Vanguard is a flawed concept. And I doubt it would ever work in the Developed West. Most Westerners shiver at the idea of Authoritarianism, and with good reason. This is exactly why Libertarian Socialism is the future of the so called "1st world nations".

Now, if we look at underdeveloped countries, a Leninist Party is understandable, and a way to quickly develop the country into Capitalism in post-revolutionary conditions. Otherwise, to establish true Socialism, it's been proven inefficient.

Yup i agree, the Party is what needs to be looked at not the use of a vanguard. Party rhetoric has made it impossible for a party structure to ever create an environment that classes can be destroyed. The vanguard is there to create a strong revolutionary proletariat, one that is organized and politically aware ( this does not mean toting the party line ).

[Rooster]

Surely this concept is too vague to actually be of any use? I'm also sure the vanguard concept is mostly myth in regards to the Russian revolution.

[black_tar_heroin]

Revolution, a fundamental rapture in economic structure and class, isn't a question of forms of organization.

[Geiseric]

The point of a leninist party isn't to develope capitalism, the point is to destroy it! If there is any group of individuals who represent and are composed of revolutionary proletariat, if they are a vanguard party. A party doesn't mean that it will be modeled in the same way as a bourgeois party, it will be democratic centralist but that's the effective and efficient way to have any source of disciplined force. I don't understand why people think a revolution that isn't organised will succeed.