Vanguard as an Educator

[The Jay]

How would the vanguard party fix the consumerist culture? It can't be as simple as pamphlets, and would it bother until after a revolution?

[#FF0000]

What do you mean "consumerist culture"?

[thefinalmarch]

Why do you think any "vanguard" would take the form of a political party (which is, as marxists.org puts it, an organisation aspiring to administer public political power on behalf of a social class) which stands outside and above the proletariat?


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

Again referring to the definition given by marxists.org's encyclopedia/glossary, the vanguard are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organised and able to take a leading role in the struggle. In this sense, it can be seen as simply an observable phenomenon that appears to manifest itself during heightened times of class struggle rather than a conscious political organisation with definitive structure and objectives.

It's also really patronising to do so much as imply that the working class needs to be "educated" by this party standing outside and above it.

[The Jay]

Why do you think any "vanguard" would take the form of a political party which stands outside and above the proletariat?


It's also really patronising to do so much as imply that the working class needs to be "educated" by this party standing outside and above it.

In regard to the first critique, that's a good question, thank you. Also, thanks for the good definition, that clears things up a bit. As for the patronizing question, many working class people still consider socialism a dirty, evil thing. Fox News is the most popular "news" for zeus's sake. Looking at that, I don't think that it's patronizing to ask what can be done to educate people. I wasn't calling them stupid or incapable, you just assumed I did.

[MarxSchmarx]

Again referring to the definition given by marxists.org's encyclopedia/glossary, the vanguard are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organised and able to take a leading role in the struggle. In this sense, it can be seen as simply an observable phenomenon that appears to manifest itself during heightened times of class struggle rather than a conscious political organisation with definitive structure and objectives.

It's also really patronising to do so much as imply that the working class needs to be "educated" by this party standing outside and above it.

I don't think the OP was implying that "the vanguard" has to be separate from the working class. Even if we were to take the more prosaic definition of "the vanguard" as simply being fellow workers that are already committed to ending capitalism, I don't see how the question is patronizing.

Now to be sure there is A LOT that is troubling with the way the classification of workers into "the vanguard" and "the non-vanguard" has historically played out in times of strong struggle, I agree, but that seems to me to be a different issue.

[thefinalmarch]

I don't think the OP was implying that "the vanguard" has to be separate from the working class. Even if we were to take the more prosaic definition of "the vanguard" as simply being fellow workers that are already committed to ending capitalism, I don't see how the question is patronizing.
Nevertheless it's common that many of the newer users here typically have politics that are comparatively less developed than that of older users here. Many new to Marxism get the idea that a vanguard should resemble what the Bolsheviks did circa 1920s. To me the thread title made it very clear that the OP's conception of the vanguard was that it was an external force acting on the working class. But none of that really matters now.

[The Jay]

Why doesn't it matter?

[thefinalmarch]

Why doesn't it matter?
Because the issue between you and I seems to have been cleared up.

[The Jay]

I could still use your feedback as to whether or not a revolution can still occur despite a large pro-gov't attitude resides in the working class.

[the desire to rebel]

I don´t see anything wrong with the concept of a vanguard that would help instigate rebellion on the working class, as long as that vanguard is not institutionalized (i.e Lenin´s theory of the party leading the "uneducated masses" a.k.a vanguardism).

Anarchists use the term "vanguard" to refer to those workers who know theory and are commited to the revolutionary movement.

[thefinalmarch]

I could still use your feedback as to whether or not a revolution can still occur despite a large pro-gov't attitude resides in the working class.
Well, the idea is to raise class consciousness - that is, we militants aim to foster in the wider working class a fundamental awareness of our common position in class society and the actions we can collectively take to overthrow the ruling class and free ourselves.

I'd recommend reading NHIA's post for an elaboration on just how that should take place today:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2219376&postcount=12

One part in particular should be stressed, and it specifically relates to the idea of a revolution in times when class consciousness is low (e.g. when workers hold pro-government attitudes, like in the example you gave):

“…the Communists know only too well … that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” – Engels
As a general rule, pro-establishment attitudes indicate that these are not the right circumstances for a revolution.