The most practical Communism

[SidBh]

What kind of Communism would you say is the most practical and reliable? Would you say that the Chinese model with its Communist form of government/leadership and a capitalist economy is the best? And what communist theory (Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyism, Anarcho, Syndicalist, Stalinist, etc.) would you say is the most dependable and viable in the long run?

[eric922]

Hahah
Communist form of government/leadership and a capitalist economy is the best If you have a capitalist economy, you can't have a socialist government.

[Astarte]

I would say primitive communism has the most successful track record of any societal mode seeing as though humans lived this way for 9/10 of their existence.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's only one form of communism. Communism isn't strictly a political philosophy, it's an aim, an end-game. I hate to be pedantic (well actually I love it), but this really does need hammering home, comrade.

Socialism is our political philosophy, communism is the end goal. Of course, capital-c 'Communism' is a bourgeois invention that has become associated with revolutionary Socialism, but really the classless, moneyless, stateless society that we seek is small-c 'communism', not the former epithet I described.

So, with that in mind, communism will only ever be one form, in terms of a class analysis. it will be classless, moneyless and stateless. Once we are there, left-factionalism will become irrelevant.

A better question would be, 'What kind of Socialist tendency is the most practical and reliable?' At least, I think that is what you are trying to ask, though i'd not tag that question with the epithet 'good', since it will most probably do nothing more than provoke a shitstorm.

In reality, we all follow our own tendencies for particular reasons, most of which have been oft-repeated for many years throughout history and to the present day. The important thing to remember is that, whilst loyalty to a singular tendency is in some ways personally admirable, we must also take into account that there are many variables in the world, in the social, economic, geographical and political spheres. It is not the case that, in answer to your question, there is a one-size-fits-all approach that can be taken. A revolution in 2011 in Germany would require significantly different methods of organisation, education and agitation than a revolution in a small southern African country, for example.

Personally, I would like to see a resurgence in Libertarian and left strands of Socialism, following the teachings of Marx, Engels and Luxemburg. Hopefully, the next significant proletarian revolutionary activity will follow along the principles of self-organisation and extreme council democracy, with any 'party' merely being an educational and agitating tool. This follows from the historical failures of Leninism in many different situations, over many different time periods. I can't be arsed to get into that any more, though. My aim isn't to be overly sectarian.

[ВАЛТЕР]

A Socialist government cannot function with a Capitalist economy. It is an oxymoron.

As for the Chinese model it is horrific, they are about as Communist/Socialist as Ronald Reagan. A nation which claims to be for the people, would not exploit their people as cheap labor for the rest of the world, more specifically for the US which has proven itself to be the most capitalist/imperialist nation around. The party has strayed from its path and has become bourgeoisie themselves.

The theory of Marx is the groundwork for everything else. I agree with the Leninist approach of the use of the Vanguard party, however the Vanguard must dissolve as soon as the revolution is complete. No time can be given for people to get too comfortable being in power.

All in all this would easy solve itself once Capitalism is eliminated. Leninist, Stalinist, etc. can easily be either used or discarded once the revolution takes place.

[Rafiq]

Communism does not equal having a Dictatorship. Bourgeois dictatorships, like the one in China, is not at good terms with the International proletariat.

[SidBh]

Hahah If you have a capitalist economy, you can't have a socialist government.

The socialist market economy or socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics is the official term used to refer to the economic system of the People's Republic of China after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. It is also referred to as socialism with Chinese characteristics. Similar though much less extensive reforms were undertaken in Vietnam, where the economic system is called the (lit. "New Age", trans. "Renovation"), respectively. It consists of a mixture of economic planning with a market economy. (From Wikipedia, dammit unless I have 25 posts I can't post links).


China's economy is capitalist. But nobody denies that China is a Communist country.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The theory of Marx is the groundwork for everything else. I agree with the Leninist approach of the use of the Vanguard party, however the Vanguard must dissolve as soon as the revolution is complete. No time can be given for people to get too comfortable being in power.

All in all this would easy solve itself once Capitalism is eliminated. Leninist, Stalinist, etc. can easily be either used or discarded once the revolution takes place.

I don't understand. You say that the Vanguard Party will suddenly dissolve as soon as the revolution is complete.

1) What are you basing this on? Certainly not history, as history has shown that micro-behaviour in Vanguard Party's tends to lean towards the opposite.

2) When is the revolution 'complete'? One could argue - for the sake of holding onto power - that the 'revolution' isn't complete until the last state ceases to exist, the last Capitalist factory ceases to exist and the last paper currency ceases to exist. That would probably leave you in a Party-led dictatorship a la 20th Century Socialisms or even China.

I would appreciate your responses to these questions.

[SidBh]

Another question I was trying to ask is what form of economy should a true socialist state implement?

[The Man]

The most practical one is the one where it's classless, stateless, and controlled by the workers.

[SidBh]

A Socialist government cannot function with a Capitalist economy. It is an oxymoron.

So would you say that the Economic Model of a true Socialist country will not borrow anything from capitalism? What kind of exchange system would the economic model of that country be based on?

[Rafiq]

Communism isn't an economic theory.

I don't know what the most practical system is.

Comm

[ВАЛТЕР]

I don't understand. You say that the Vanguard Party will suddenly dissolve as soon as the revolution is complete.

1) What are you basing this on? Certainly not history, as history has shown that micro-behaviour in Vanguard Party's tends to lean towards the opposite.

2) When is the revolution 'complete'? One could argue - for the sake of holding onto power - that the 'revolution' isn't complete until the last state ceases to exist, the last Capitalist factory ceases to exist and the last paper currency ceases to exist. That would probably leave you in a Party-led dictatorship a la 20th Century Socialisms or even China.

I would appreciate your responses to these questions.


1) Sorry, maybe I did not word myself properly. I did not mean to imply that the Vanguard would disolve, but that it should. I think it should only carry the revolution until it is a success.

2) This is true and a very good point, I have no real rebuttal for this. The revolution as you said could be used as an excuse to stay in power.

Of course the revolution is an all or nothing affair. Socialist revolution in one country or region will only make it prey to the other capitalist countries and in the end it would be exploited or become bourgeoisie, like China. The revolution must be carried out world wide (or at the very least in a large majority of the world) in order to prevent such problems.

I was actually about to go to bed and then I saw your request for a response. I couldn't leave someone hanging if they ask me a question or present a good argument.

Well good night now, anything else I'll answer in the morning.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1) Sorry, maybe I did not word myself properly. I did not mean to imply that the Vanguard would disolve, but that it should. I think it should only carry the revolution until it is a success.

2) This is true and a very good point, I have no real rebuttal for this. The revolution as you said could be used as an excuse to stay in power.

Of course the revolution is an all or nothing affair. Socialist revolution in one country or region will only make it prey to the other capitalist countries and in the end it would be exploited or become bourgeoisie, like China. The revolution must be carried out world wide (or at the very least in a large majority of the world) in order to prevent such problems.

I was actually about to go to bed and then I saw your request for a response. I couldn't leave someone hanging if they ask me a question or present a good argument.

Well good night now, anything else I'll answer in the morning.

I'm not that bothered about arguing over the semantics of when the revolution is complete or what constitutes a success, though I do take your point of view and don't necessarily oppose it.

What i'm getting at, is that what underlies your support for the Leninist-style Vanguard Party that's at the forefront of the revolution? If it is not going to dissolve at the point of expropriation then, in my opinion, it is a hindrance to Socialism as it is an absolute affront to proletarian democracy and any sort of worker-led society. So, can you present to me any logical underpinnings to your idea about the Vanguard Party, or is it based on sheer 'hope' and 'belief'?

I realise i'm coming across as rude, partly because it's 1.15am and i'm irritable, but also because i'm just being direct, not intentionally rude. And if I can help to show someone that Vanguardism isn't the way forward, then i'd like to do so and am impatient to do so!

[eric922]

The socialist market economy or socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics is the official term used to refer to the economic system of the People's Republic of China after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. It is also referred to as socialism with Chinese characteristics. Similar though much less extensive reforms were undertaken in Vietnam, where the economic system is called the (lit. "New Age", trans. "Renovation"), respectively. It consists of a mixture of economic planning with a market economy. (From Wikipedia, dammit unless I have 25 posts I can't post links).


China's economy is capitalist. But nobody denies that China is a Communist country.
A small correction. No member of the western bourgeois governments denies China is a Communist country,Leftistst have been denying since Deng Xiaping's reforms, and even before them.

[Rodrigo]

I don't understand. You say that the Vanguard Party will suddenly dissolve as soon as the revolution is complete.

1) What are you basing this on? Certainly not history, as history has shown that micro-behaviour in Vanguard Party's tends to lean towards the opposite.

2) When is the revolution 'complete'? One could argue - for the sake of holding onto power - that the 'revolution' isn't complete until the last state ceases to exist, the last Capitalist factory ceases to exist and the last paper currency ceases to exist. That would probably leave you in a Party-led dictatorship a la 20th Century Socialisms or even China.

I would appreciate your responses to these questions.

Even with the little time (yes, very little comparing to the history of other modes of production) of existence of "practical communism" you dare to say these things? The higher phase of communism cannot be achieved night to day, and question 2 has no answer yet. The Vanguard Party is the best option available today for politically organizing the proletariat.

[Zav]

Anarchist Communism is the most practical. It involves the fewest counter-revolutions because it is the most libertarian, meaning it needs only fight the Capies and the State. It entirely eliminates hierarchy from the beginning, so the 'transitory' Socialist State becomes unnecessary to have at all. It is also much more attractive to the Proletariat. It is easier to have people claim freedom now than wait a few generations and maybe get it later. Furthermore, the whole world doesn't need to belong to a Superstate like the USSR for its method to work, as it can be very small and local.

I would also say it is the most reliable. It certainly has more success stories than the more authoritarian methods of reaching Communism. The supposedly Communist States have all either fallen or decayed into State or Private Capitalism.

The only problem with Anarchist Communism is defence. As long as an area is well-defended by a sizable non-hierarchical militia controlled by the people it defends, Communism can exist within it.

[Q]

China's economy is capitalist. But nobody denies that China is a Communist country.

That isn't called communism, but confusionism.

Capitalism is the highest, final development of a class society, communism is its negation. The two are completely mutually exclusive.

The only society in which both could arggued to be "combined" is within socialism, that is the transition from the old capitalist society to the new communist. But this is a society in which the working class rules, where classes are dieing and you can't properly talk about a state any longer. It is the society where the law of value is in decline and the law of planning is being developed to provide in the needs of all, so all can freely develop themselves into fully rounded humans.

I don't think anyone could possibly argue that the working class is in power in China.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Even with the little time (yes, very little comparing to the history of other modes of production) of existence of "practical communism" you dare to say these things? The higher phase of communism cannot be achieved night to day, and question 2 has no answer yet. The Vanguard Party is the best option available today for politically organizing the proletariat.

Yes, comrade, I dare to say this. Look at me, having the cajones to state my own beliefs.

The Vanguard is NOT the best option for political organising the proletariat. A political party with some characteristics of the Vanguard (contains revolutionaries well versed in Socialist theory and practice) is the best option to agitate amongst the working class and educate them, but only the working class can organise themselves, otherwise the organisation of the class will become an abstract (to the workers) hierarchy that will continue post-revolution. Especially with the advances in integrated communication, social media etc., the working class - should it so wish - can very effectively organise itself today. This has been shown in Britain, in the Arab world protests etc.

I still don't understand: why do people expect the Vanguard Party of sometimes petty-bourgeois intellectuals to just self-destruct at a future point of time (the completion of the revolution) that is ambiguous and hasn't been agreed upon at all? It's a utopian ideal. In reality, as we saw in the 20th century, the Vanguard Party itself often becomes a new bureaucratic strata in society as it expands, to maintain its (or it says, the working class') rule, and actually becomes an obstruction to working class rule and Socialism.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I'm not that bothered about arguing over the semantics of when the revolution is complete or what constitutes a success, though I do take your point of view and don't necessarily oppose it.

What i'm getting at, is that what underlies your support for the Leninist-style Vanguard Party that's at the forefront of the revolution? If it is not going to dissolve at the point of expropriation then, in my opinion, it is a hindrance to Socialism as it is an absolute affront to proletarian democracy and any sort of worker-led society. So, can you present to me any logical underpinnings to your idea about the Vanguard Party, or is it based on sheer 'hope' and 'belief'?

I realise i'm coming across as rude, partly because it's 1.15am and i'm irritable, but also because i'm just being direct, not intentionally rude. And if I can help to show someone that Vanguardism isn't the way forward, then i'd like to do so and am impatient to do so!

I see it as the only method that the working class may organize itself in. I don't know how else they would come together, people need leadership in a time of crisis (revolution). I don't necessarily believe that the people will spontaneously organize themselves effectively without some kind of party leading the way.

Of course this is a threat to the revolution as much as it is a benefit. The party must be dismantled post-revolution, either voluntarily or by force if it comes down to it, and I have no evidence of why it would happened but that is the goal.

I see this as the only way at the moment. Maybe you can give me some insight as to why you think differently or another method of organizing the masses? I am always glad to learn.

You aren't coming off as rude at all btw, I understand that this is a serious subject and direct questions and answers are expected. There are no other ways to go about political discussions than to ask and answer questions directly.

[Magón]

China's economy is capitalist. But nobody denies that China is a Communist country.

Are you kidding, plenty of people who know a thing or two about Communism, deny China is Communist.

[Tim Cornelis]

The socialist market economy or socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics is the official term used to refer to the economic system of the People's Republic of China after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. It is also referred to as socialism with Chinese characteristics. Similar though much less extensive reforms were undertaken in Vietnam, where the economic system is called the (lit. "New Age", trans. "Renovation"), respectively. It consists of a mixture of economic planning with a market economy. (From Wikipedia, dammit unless I have 25 posts I can't post links).


China's economy is capitalist. But nobody denies that China is a Communist country.

Arguing that China is "socialist" because the government says so is an appeal to authority.


China's economy is capitalist. But nobody denies that China is a Communist country.

Communism is stateless, classless, moneyless. So yes anyone who knows what communism is denies China is communist--it's a fact. You seem to not know what communism is. Saying China is communist and capitalist at the same time is beyond ridiculous.


So would you say that the Economic Model of a true Socialist country will not borrow anything from capitalism? What kind of exchange system would the economic model of that country be based on?

By "borrowing from capitalism" you seem to mean having all capitalist characteristics but calling it socialism. No communism does not "borrowing" anything from capitalism.


What kind of exchange system would the economic model of that country be based on?

A communist economy would not have an exchange economy.

[Blake's Baby]

...


China's economy is capitalist. But nobody denies that China is a Communist country.

I deny China is a 'communist country'. The idea of a 'communist country' is absurd. Communism is a classless, stateless society. This has not been established anywhere, it can only be established worldwide. Therefore neither China nor any other state is or has ever been 'communist'.

[ВАЛТЕР]

So would you say that the Economic Model of a true Socialist country will not borrow anything from capitalism? What kind of exchange system would the economic model of that country be based on?

The primary goal wouldn't be profit or exploitation. The worker will be paid for his or her labor, and the means of production would be owned by the workers. Meaning a factory could not be sold, or expanded, or painted, without the consent of the workers in it because they would own it.

So, say in a factory the workers would make their product, sell it, receive the money and divide it amongst themselves. Some money would go back into the factory for new parts, supplies, etc. the rest would go to the workers as pay.

While in a purely capitalist economy MOST of the money would go to the owner of said factory, a less but nonetheless great amount would go into the factory for the supplies, parts, etc. and the least amount would go to the workers, who even though they build the product, they put in the work, and they have the know how of how the entire factory functions, get paid the least. The owner who may not know a damn thing about what is being produced, yet he or she seizes all the profits.

I use a factory as an example but the same could be said about farms or other means of production.

However, communism would be a society which does not use capital (money) as an incentive to work. People work less, and work not because they need the money to survive, but because they want society to advance.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I see it as the only method that the working class may organize itself in. I don't know how else they would come together, people need leadership in a time of crisis (revolution). I don't necessarily believe that the people will spontaneously organize themselves effectively without some kind of party leading the way.

Of course this is a threat to the revolution as much as it is a benefit. The party must be dismantled post-revolution, either voluntarily or by force if it comes down to it, and I have no evidence of why it would happened but that is the goal.

I see this as the only way at the moment. Maybe you can give me some insight as to why you think differently or another method of organizing the masses? I am always glad to learn.

You aren't coming off as rude at all btw, I understand that this is a serious subject and direct questions and answers are expected. There are no other ways to go about political discussions than to ask and answer questions directly.

A couple of things.

2011 is a lot different to 1917. At the start of the 20th Century, i'd probably have taken the position that a Vanguard Party was needed in organisational terms, simply because some 'professionalisation' was needed to organise the working class. However, in 2011, it is arguable that everyone is a professional when it comes to communication. Anybody with a mobile phone and access to the internet can use sophisticated techniques to interact one-to-one, one-to-group or group-to-group, via video, social media stream, text or mobile phone call. Arguably, Vanguard Parties once led the way in terms of organisation of the working class into a coherent group. However, a combination of the revolution within communications and the inadequacy of the Leninist Vanguard Parties (my experience in the UK) has led to a reversal in the reality; the political parties often follow, where the working class go. In every effective class action post-2010 General Election in the UK, it has been the working class that has organised itself. Even with the 'day of rage' organised by the TUC on 31st March, it was individuals and small groups, communicating via the communication channels I listed earlier, that managed to break off from the dreary march and Ed Miliband speech, to form a fairly sizeable demonstration group in Trafalgar Square, independent of any party organisation. We have also seen mass, spontaneous organisation across the Arab world, stretching from Tunisia to Egypt to Syria to Djibouti. Where were the vanguard parties, and if they were there, what would they have added?

The main jobs of a Vanguard Party, as I see it, were traditionally to agitate amongst the working class, educate them and organise them. I don't think anybody can deny that there is still a role for educated revolutionaries to agitate and educate amongst the working class, that is obvious. But, in light of what i've elucidated with regards to new communication channels and self-organisation of the working class as a result, what can a tiny, tiny minority of professional revolutionaries add in terms of organisation? I simply don't understand it. For me, there is no need for a minority party to play a leading organisational role in the revolution. A Socialist revolutionary party, as I see it, has two options:

1) It can abandon the professional revolutionary elitism and open itself up as a platform for the masses, i.e. become a mass party. However, this then presents the problems that one can see in the modern day UK SWP: it risks, through the membership's lack of education in, and understanding of, Marxist theory, actually failing in its educational role. I am certain that a Bolshevik-style group of professional revolutionaries would be far better in the agitation and educational roles, so really this idea would only work for those with Social Democratic and Left-of Labour type aims.

2) The Revolutionary Party can abandon its aim to formally lead the working class, and confine itself (or themselves, seeing as in a democratic movement there are likely to be several tendencies) towards agitating amongst the class and educating them in Socialist theory, and taken part as equals within the movement.

20th Century attempts to build Socialism generally failed because of a multiplicity of complex factors, which I won't go into here, but the stand-out one, that they all shared (in the Eastern Bloc in particular) was a bureaucratic degeneration, brought about by the Vanguard Party's attempts to consolidate power by creating and expanding their own bureaucracy, and solidifying their grip on the state, whilst not necessarily translating this power into direct workers' control over the state. Thus, their interests started to transcend the class interest - which must be to construct Socialism by destroying the national state as quickly as possible -, henceforth Socialism was not attained and indeed a Dictatorship of the few, rather than a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, existed.

As a result, it's clear to me, from the failures of the Vanguard Parties historically and currently, and the amazing revolution in communications, that today we have a situation where the Vanguard Party can bring an elevation of consciousness to the class, and an elevated sense of education for sure, but cannot (in the short-term) bring anything to mass organisation that the working class cannot do for itself (As has been shown especially in the past 12-18 months around the world), and (in the long term) is bound by its inability to self-destroy, and thus ends up perpetuating its own interests, rather than those of the working class.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Yeah, but don't forget that to be in a communist state, you have to get into the socialist state, "jump" the limit which is capitalism and imperealism and then you can get into communism.This is my opinion.

[ВАЛТЕР]

A couple of things.

2011 is a lot different to 1917. At the start of the 20th Century, i'd probably have taken the position that a Vanguard Party was needed in organisational terms, simply because some 'professionalisation' was needed to organise the working class. However, in 2011, it is arguable that everyone is a professional when it comes to communication. Anybody with a mobile phone and access to the internet can use sophisticated techniques to interact one-to-one, one-to-group or group-to-group, via video, social media stream, text or mobile phone call. Arguably, Vanguard Parties once led the way in terms of organisation of the working class into a coherent group. However, a combination of the revolution within communications and the inadequacy of the Leninist Vanguard Parties (my experience in the UK) has led to a reversal in the reality; the political parties often follow, where the working class go. In every effective class action post-2010 General Election in the UK, it has been the working class that has organised itself. Even with the 'day of rage' organised by the TUC on 31st March, it was individuals and small groups, communicating via the communication channels I listed earlier, that managed to break off from the dreary march and Ed Miliband speech, to form a fairly sizeable demonstration group in Trafalgar Square, independent of any party organisation. We have also seen mass, spontaneous organisation across the Arab world, stretching from Tunisia to Egypt to Syria to Djibouti. Where were the vanguard parties, and if they were there, what would they have added?

The main jobs of a Vanguard Party, as I see it, were traditionally to agitate amongst the working class, educate them and organise them. I don't think anybody can deny that there is still a role for educated revolutionaries to agitate and educate amongst the working class, that is obvious. But, in light of what i've elucidated with regards to new communication channels and self-organisation of the working class as a result, what can a tiny, tiny minority of professional revolutionaries add in terms of organisation? I simply don't understand it. For me, there is no need for a minority party to play a leading organisational role in the revolution. A Socialist revolutionary party, as I see it, has two options:

1) It can abandon the professional revolutionary elitism and open itself up as a platform for the masses, i.e. become a mass party. However, this then presents the problems that one can see in the modern day UK SWP: it risks, through the membership's lack of education in, and understanding of, Marxist theory, actually failing in its educational role. I am certain that a Bolshevik-style group of professional revolutionaries would be far better in the agitation and educational roles, so really this idea would only work for those with Social Democratic and Left-of Labour type aims.

2) The Revolutionary Party can abandon its aim to formally lead the working class, and confine itself (or themselves, seeing as in a democratic movement there are likely to be several tendencies) towards agitating amongst the class and educating them in Socialist theory, and taken part as equals within the movement.

20th Century attempts to build Socialism generally failed because of a multiplicity of complex factors, which I won't go into here, but the stand-out one, that they all shared (in the Eastern Bloc in particular) was a bureaucratic degeneration, brought about by the Vanguard Party's attempts to consolidate power by creating and expanding their own bureaucracy, and solidifying their grip on the state, whilst not necessarily translating this power into direct workers' control over the state. Thus, their interests started to transcend the class interest - which must be to construct Socialism by destroying the national state as quickly as possible -, henceforth Socialism was not attained and indeed a Dictatorship of the few, rather than a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, existed.

As a result, it's clear to me, from the failures of the Vanguard Parties historically and currently, and the amazing revolution in communications, that today we have a situation where the Vanguard Party can bring an elevation of consciousness to the class, and an elevated sense of education for sure, but cannot (in the short-term) bring anything to mass organisation that the working class cannot do for itself (As has been shown especially in the past 12-18 months around the world), and (in the long term) is bound by its inability to self-destroy, and thus ends up perpetuating its own interests, rather than those of the working class.


Well said, I agree with this completely. I can see now that in the modern age, due to advances in communication a traditional Vanguard Party is not needed. A Vanguard Party, that may be built up of educators and agitators as you have said can help, but it shouldn't be the driving force behind the revolution.

I do need to ask though, say the masses begin organizing themselves via internet, mobile phones, etc. How long would it take before the powers that be got wind of it and shut it down in order to disrupt communication? Or would it be too late for that by the time they figured out what was happening?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They wanted to shut down Blackberry, Twitter and Facebook during the London riots but realised that they shouldn't dare.

If this outpouring of anger (the riots) was a largely isolated incident and still set much of London ablaze, imagine a genuine revolutionary situation that involved such all-out class warfare, imagine what working people would do if the ruling class did such a thing. They'd be fucked.

I was looking at the origins of the term Vanguard just now. It comes from military formation: the van (front), middle and rear. This is the problem with the conception of the vanguard party. In order for a revolution to be genuinely Socialist, it must be carried out by the working class, not on behalf of the working class, especially in the act of the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie (something which did not happen in the Russian Revolution).

[ВАЛТЕР]

They wanted to shut down Blackberry, Twitter and Facebook during the London riots but realised that they shouldn't dare.

If this outpouring of anger (the riots) was a largely isolated incident and still set much of London ablaze, imagine a genuine revolutionary situation that involved such all-out class warfare, imagine what working people would do if the ruling class did such a thing. They'd be fucked.

I was looking at the origins of the term Vanguard just now. It comes from military formation: the van (front), middle and rear. This is the problem with the conception of the vanguard party. In order for a revolution to be genuinely Socialist, it must be carried out by the working class, not on behalf of the working class, especially in the act of the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie (something which did not happen in the Russian Revolution).


I agree, you have made a sound point against the use of a traditional Vanguard Party in the 21st Century.

Yeah, they would not have dared to turn off the means of communications, because that would have just driven more people into the fray. Might I ask, in the recent London riots, did the participants have any sort of class consciousness, or was it more or less out of sheer frustration with the current state of things?

[StoneFrog]

I agree, you have made a sound point against the use of a traditional Vanguard Party in the 21st Century.

Yeah, they would not have dared to turn off the means of communications, because that would have just driven more people into the fray. Might I ask, in the recent London riots, did the participants have any sort of class consciousness, or was it more or less out of sheer frustration with the current state of things?

It was just "sheer frustration"

I think you missed an important part of what a vanguard does and that is prevent the bourgeoisie from manipulating the working class conscious. I don't support a vanguard party (but i do support a vanguard), the means of communication can be infiltrated to misdirect the masses, and that is the down side of organizing via social networking.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It was just "sheer frustration"

I think you missed an important part of what a vanguard does and that is prevent the bourgeoisie from manipulating the working class conscious. I don't support a vanguard party (but i do support a vanguard), the means of communication can be infiltrated to misdirect the masses, and that is the down side of organizing via social networking.

That is what I was thinking as well. Not a "traditional" Vanguard Party, but a more contemporary one capable of being applied to the present day situation in the world. As Stammer and Tickle stated, it may have been needed in the early 20th Century. However, given today's world something slightly more modern and in touch with the working class of today should be applied.

[Tjis]

There's still much to be gained from an organized vanguard. 10 revolutionaries can simply accomplish more than 1 revolutionary can, and 100 more than 10. The more revolutionaries working together, the better the outcome. However, lots of revolutionaries together does not make a vanguard. Only if such a group consistently acts in a way that advances the interests of the working class can they be called a vanguard.

An example of this is a group that builds and maintains an alternative communication network as the need for it arises, for example when current networks start shutting down to make communication more difficult. Clearly, building an alternative network in this situation is an action that advances the interests of the working class, which makes the group responsible part of the vanguard.

Another example is a group that operates as a part of a larger popular movement and consistently tries to push this in a progressive direction, by providing solutions for problems this movement faces, such as the problem of organization, or the problem of strategy and direction. The communist movement collectively has a few centuries of experience with such problems and is in a very good position to direct others in this. If a group does this, then they too are part of the vanguard.

But no group is the vanguard simply cause they have proclaimed it to be so. Leadership in the revolution is a very dynamic thing, depending on who has the right answers to move forward at some time. When faced with a different set of problems, a different group might become the vanguard. This is why old-style Leninist parties set themselves up for failure. They assume that they will be the vanguard for the entirety of the revolution and organize their party, and later on society according to this idea. Then the moment they stop being the vanguard (which is when their strategy stops being progressive for whatever reason) they become a very strong reactionary force instead.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think Tjis has it nailed on.

It needs to be recognised that Socialism is a massively diverse movement and that, in many cases, the only thing that unites us is opposition to Capitalism and a supposed class analysis of society.

Thus, unless you are a fan of dictatorship and not democracy, then you will understand that, in reality, there CANNOT be a single grouping that is THE vanguard party, a la Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Marxism-Leninism is but one of the many varied tendencies within Socialist political philosophy.

Of course I was not arguing against organisation itself, I think it's clear that groups and movements self-organising within the class are necessary for consciousness and organisation. The point is that it is unlikely that there will be one party that is a genuine vanguard. To use the military formation analogy, it is likely that the movement will contain several middle groups, rather than one group of vanguard soldiers who will lead the working class.

[ZeroNowhere]

I would say primitive communism has the most successful track record of any societal mode seeing as though humans lived this way for 9/10 of their existence.
Practicality isn't transhistorical, though.

[Rodrigo]

I see it as the only method that the working class may organize itself in. I don't know how else they would come together, people need leadership in a time of crisis (revolution). I don't necessarily believe that the people will spontaneously organize themselves effectively without some kind of party leading the way.

Agreed.


but only the working class can organise themselves

Translating: "Leave the worker's movement to spontaneity!"


otherwise the organisation of the class will become an abstract (to the workers) hierarchy

Just because it CAN happen doesn't mean Vanguardism is wrong. It's still better than letting the working class movement act at random.


I still don't understand: why do people expect the Vanguard Party of sometimes petty-bourgeois intellectuals to just self-destruct at a future point of time (the completion of the revolution) that is ambiguous and hasn't been agreed upon at all?

That's the same anarchist logic about the State. "Why do people expect the State to just self-destruct at a future point of time?" The answer to your question is very clear (for someone who claims to be Marxist... and I suppose studied this on Marx and Engels), just think more about it.

The lack of a conscious organization of the working class movement and the support for spontaneism is the beg for failure. Instead, what brought the proletariat to a certain success in many different places was the "Leninist party type".


In reality, as we saw in the 20th century, the Vanguard Party itself often becomes a new bureaucratic strata in society as it expands, to maintain its (or it says, the working class') rule, and actually becomes an obstruction to working class rule and Socialism.

^
|
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. :cool: