do we need a vanguard ?

[pranshu]

"The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K.
K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism
originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed
proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions
allow that to be done."--V.I. Lenin (what is to be Done) 1901-2
note these lines from "what is to be done", here Lenin does not even try to pretend that the leadership of the revolutionary party would lie with the working class, he emphasizes that the leadership would always come from the bourgeois intelligentia. if this is indeed true then what is the meaning of a revolutionary working class party ?

[Paulappaul]

Between Lenin and Marx there is a world of difference, particularly in the Lenin of "What is to be Done".

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

"The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K.
K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism
originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed
proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions
allow that to be done."--V.I. Lenin (what is to be Done) 1901-2
note these lines from "what is to be done", here Lenin does not even try to pretend that the leadership of the revolutionary party would lie with the working class, he emphasizes that the leadership would always come from the bourgeois intelligentia. if this is indeed true then what is the meaning of a revolutionary working class party ?

Well Lenin is quoting Kautsky for one, but in any case this is a historical description. It's only used to illustrate that modern socialist ideas are the product of study and don't arise spontaneously in the economic struggles of the workers, not that workers can never lead their own vanguard or something. With the origins of scientific socialism the task is for the "more intellectually developed proletarians"(the vanguard) to "introduce it into the proletarian class struggle."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes:

"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing." (Lars Lih)

[Agent Equality]

Don't listen to DNZ. He talks out of his ass and uses words no one knows the meaning of.

No we do not

[Jimmie Higgins]

"The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K.
K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism
originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed
proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions
allow that to be done."--V.I. Lenin (what is to be Done) 1901-2
note these lines from "what is to be done", here Lenin does not even try to pretend that the leadership of the revolutionary party would lie with the working class, he emphasizes that the leadership would always come from the bourgeois intelligentia. if this is indeed true then what is the meaning of a revolutionary working class party ?

First of all look at the date - 1902. Where was the Russian working class movement at at that point?

Second, look at the tense...
it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originatedWas this not the case in Russia? Is there another history where the social democratic movement in Russia was not created by small reading groups of intellectuals starting groups to attract working people? He is stating the facts of the Russian movement up to that point. It would be like if we said: the history of the radical movement over the last generation was that radical ideas were held and maintained in a period of stagnation by small and divided socialist groupings and disparate anarchist affinity groups. Would we be saying that's the goal for our movement?

Third, the most elitist things the Lenin wrote in 1902 were straight form the mainstream of the socialist movement at that point. It's a Kautskyian formulation that socialism "comes from without".

As to the original question, do we need a vanguard. If by vanguard we mean radical workers who are organizing in their workplaces and communities, have connections to people around them and have come to revolutionary conclusions... yes we need as many as possible as quickly as possible. DO we need them to organize together and how should they organize? That's a different question.

Do we need some group of people who declare themselves leaders and say they have the right ideas and we should all listen to them? No.

[Broletariat]

FvNb0x5muno

No, we do not.


"“The working classes move spontaneously, without knowing what the ends of the movement will be. The socialists invent no movement, but merely tell the workmen what its character and its ends will be.”"

-Marx

[Die Neue Zeit]

If by vanguard we mean radical workers who are organizing in their workplaces and communities, have connections to people around them and have come to revolutionary conclusions... yes we need as many as possible as quickly as possible. DO we need them to organize together and how should they organize? That's a different question.

Do we need some group of people who declare themselves leaders and say they have the right ideas and we should all listen to them? No.

Actually I think that even part of the third is necessary. Proper education is the basis for proper agitation and then proper organization. The "right ideas" don't come in the form of "party lines" or "correct slogans," but in the form of a list of ultimate aims and comprehensive interim public policies like those encapsulated in the Erfurt Program.

That naturally flows into your second question and my citation of the model set by pre-WWI German Social Democracy.

[Rafiq]

Don't listen to DNZ. He talks out of his ass and uses words no one knows the meaning of.


:laugh: Don't you know that just means you're an idiot? It entertains me to see you dismiss what he posted merely because you didn't understand what it meant. Perhaps you should spend a little more time reading rather then talking out of your ass and making baseless assumptions at people who probably are have a better grasp on things like Socialism then you.

I mean of course we need a Vanguard to lead the proletariat. You're naive if you think otherwise.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes, however, I by no means believe that the vanguard should consist of just the professional revolutionaries. The revolutionary party of the masses should be seen as the vanguard. The centralism of Leninist vanguardism is one of the issues leading to sectarianism, leading to authoritarianism leading to totalitarianism.

The need for some centralization is there, however, it must bend to the will of the majority of the party masses. Not order dictatorial directives, and force its will on the rest, and stifle criticism.

[Marxaveli]

Bolshevism has greatly hindered the workers emancipation in my opinion, so I fundamentally reject any vanguard where self-determination of the state is involved.

[Rafiq]

Bolshevism has greatly hindered the workers emancipation in my opinion, so I fundamentally reject any vanguard where self-determination of the state is involved.

"Bolshevism" was the only tactic that got the proletariat in power for the first and only time ever.

[Marxaveli]

But look what resulted afterward. The cure was just as bad as the disease, and made almost the entire western world (unfairly of course) dismiss Marxism; as they conflated it with tyranny and the killing of millions. The revolution has to come from the workers, there is no other way.

[Agent Equality]

"Bolshevism" was the only tactic that got the proletariat in power for the first and only time ever.

The proletariat was never in power with Bolshevism and was never going to be in power. The party was in power and its leaders, NOT the people. The proletariat never had a say in the way things were run and were required to adhere to strict party doctrine or else. Questioning of the party would get you deported, gulag-ed, or downright killed. You're quite naiive to think otherwise. Here are a few places in which The workers had control and which communistic/anarchistic ideas were actually implemented with a varying degree of success:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
Zapatista Chiapas
Hungarian communes during the 1956 revolution
etc.

So maybe it is you who should learn to get passed your self-righteous indignation at everything that even goes slightly against your rock-solid beliefs. In almost every thread you post in you either:

A.) denounce someone for doing something "non-revolutionary", "liberal bourgeois", or my personal favorite, "moralist bourgeois liberal non-revolutionary"

B.) Say that anything that is even remotely trying to bring about communism and communistic ideas as in actually trying to emancipate humanity from capitalism, inequality, injustice, and oppression is moralist trash that goes against materialism and is bourgeois.

C.) Argue with pretty much anyone and everyone who isn't a strict adherent to the sacred doctrine that is the god of socialism's, Marx, texts. Any deviation from this line of thinking, even though your line is one of extreme deviation, is considered heresy and you will attack them vehemently for their lack of loyalty to our heavenly father of socialism, Marx.

or

D.) scapegoat anyone for doing anything at all and viciously call them a number of names and insults in an effort to release the rage that has built up inside of you for what seems like since the creation of the universe over 7 billion years ago.


Now, I suggest you see a therapist or a shrink of some sort as you obviously are hiding some extremely personal issues that may or may not be the cause of your infernal rage at anything not marx or vanguard related. In the meantime, I think it would be best if you simply lurk these respectable forums for a good modicum of time to actually try and open up to new ideas. Perhaps this is even too much for you, as the possibility of triggering a meltdown from not being able to carry out one of the three habits that you are so keen on making would be too great. Perhaps even the best solution to your problems would be to forever leave this place and think about joining another leftist forum such as say, Socialist Phalanx? Your style of thinking and arguing is deeply appreciated and accepted there.

Good day to you sir

[Le Socialiste]

Vanguardism arises from opportunism, leading to a repressive system, the preservation of the bourgeois state and its functions along with the class structure, and the birth of a new privileged class. The working-class does not rise to power through the use of vanguardist principles and tactics; only those who make up the vanguard do. The ranks that make up the vanguard reap the benefits of its immediate organization and implementation, leaving the majority that make up the working-class to abide by the rules and regulations handed down to them. By claiming to be the revolution's sole authority (supposedly built up from years of "experience in the realms of theory and application"), any vanguard can purge from its ranks or the opposition's any who question its place. It strangles the class struggle while it is in its infancy, stifling the efforts of the working-class with slogans that demand the preservation of the revolution and its ideals. In short, no - we do not need a vanguard. History has proven it to be faulty and insufficient in furthering working-class awareness; it would be best left in the annals of history as a lesson to those who would seek its resurrection.

[Rafiq]

But look what resulted afterward. The cure was just as bad as the disease, and made almost the entire western world (unfairly of course) dismiss Marxism; as they conflated it with tyranny and the killing of millions. The revolution has to come from the workers, there is no other way.

Hooooooold on there, Rosa.

What resutled afterword was not a cause of Bolshevism, merely it was a result of the failure of the revolution to spread to the already industrialized countries. Russia didn't have a proletariat majority, either.

And you want to know something Ironic? the failure of the German proletariat was a result of them not adopting the Bolshevik method or a method similar. Had the German proletariat adopted the Bolshevik method, not only would the revolution had spread to the likes of France, Britain, it would have spread globally, and we would be living in Communism today.

What happened afterwords was a tragedy. But we must know why that is, instead of making baseless assumptions like Agent Libera-I mean Equality, does. (that the bolsheviks never represented the Russian proletariat from day 1).

[Zealot]

Lenin did not say the Vanguard would be the bourgeois intelligentsia but the advanced class conscious workers. There's a reason why only Leninists have been successful with revolution because there is a myth floating around that somehow the masses will spontaneously become class conscious or start a revolution which is so idealist that it reminds me of the people at my door ever Sunday telling me the world is ending next week. Even if this did happen it would still be bourgeois in nature i.e the "Arab Spring". Either they want to be Communists but are too lazy to participate in revolution or they are ignorant.

[citizen of industry]

I've read my Lenin and belong to a party. Can't fucking stand that stupid godawful word "vanguard," that is the cause of so much dispute among the left. It's a word for shitsake. If you ask me it's time to throw that word into the dustbin. Makes me cringe everytime I have to hear it.


van‧guardhttp://www.ldoceonline.com/imgs/_20__22v_E6ng_E4_d_20_24_A0_2Dg_E4_rd_.gif

1 in/at the vanguard (of something)

in the most advanced position of development: http://www.ldoceonline.com/images/678/entry/pronsentencea.gifThe shop has always been in the vanguard of London fashion trends.


2
the vanguard

PM the leading position at the front of an army or group of ships moving into battle, or the soldiers who are in this position



Let's go with the first definition. Guys and gals, are you a worker? Do you find that, unlike many other workers around you, you harbor some time of revolutionary belief? Do you read leftist literature, perhaps believe in class struggle and and take a Marxian view on economics? Do you do something about it, perhaps join political parties, trade unions, take part in demonstrations, strikes, and the like? I guess that would mean, from a Marxian perspective, you are "in the most advanced position of development" in comparison to the rest of society at this stage in regards class-consciousness. Congratulations, you're part of the vanguard. Are you an anarchist? Still part of the vanguard. You are in the "van," not the "rear." Are there many left-wing parties today calling for a centralized beureaucracy that deprives people of freedom? Hardly.

Everytime I hear that shitty word I think of a Nazi tank army spearheading somekind of assualt. Vanguard, rearguard, mouthguard. Enough already.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It is a difficult question as the vanguard parties in past revolutions helped galvinise and organise the working classes into a collective might that could overthrow past oppressors in a way that wouldn't have been successful if they arose on their own; divided. In the process, however, the vanguard dismiss the workers' own opinions and desires and the workers only become a tool for the party to take power themselves.


I think we've seen in the modern revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia that there becomes very little need for an overarching party to control and direct the workers when the internet and other forms of modern communication allows co-operation and united action against their oppressors. What we really need is for the working classes not to rise up merely to end the past government's rule and re-establish social chains of command but to instigate an emancipation from all oppression in society and establish a bottom-up heirarchy.

[Rafiq]

The proletariat was never in power with Bolshevism and was never going to be in power.

Yes it was. Even the Libertarian likes of Luxemburg, etc. Acknowledge this. It was only until 1918 where the Soviets lost some power, but this was out of pure desperation, to deal with the counter revolutionary hoards of the "Allies" and of the White Army.


The party was in power and its leaders, NOT the people.

Get the fuck out of here with your populist shit. We aren't for rule of the people, we are for the rule of the proletariat. There is a difference.


The proletariat never had a say in the way things were run and were required to adhere to strict party doctrine or else.

You're talking out of your ass.

Walter Reuther, later the anti-Communist president of the United Auto Workers, who worked in a Soviet auto factory in the 1930s said, "Here are no bosses to drive fear into the workers. No one to drive them in mad speed-ups. Here the workers are in control. Even the shop superintendent had no more right in these meetings than any other worker. I have witnessed many times already when the superintendent spoke too long. The workers in the hall decided he had already consumed enough time and the floor was given to a lathe hand who told of his problems and offered suggestions. Imagine this at Ford or Briggs. This is what the outside world calls the 'ruthless dictatorship in Russia'. I tell you ... in all countries we have thus far been in we have never found such genuine proletarian democracy"... (quoted from Phillip Bonosky, Brother Bill McKie: Building the Union at Ford [New York: International Publishers, 1953]).


As the British bourgeois scholar Mary McAuley writes (in "Labour Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969), there were special courts to hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access; managerial personnel could appear there only as defendants and were barred from initiating cases (pp. 54-55). Even before matters came to court, there were ways that the workers on the shop floor could let a troublesome director know who was boss.
One of these avenues, the production meeting, is described by the bourgeois
scholar David Granick in his book, "The Red Executive":

"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical
handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . .
. implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question
as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who
suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be
removed, he would be tried.'" (New York, 1960, p. 230)

As we can see there was a great deal of worker's power even in the early 1930's under Stalinism. All of which were gone after, say 1936 (As part of the degeneration of the revolution). Stop making such accusations without a base for them.


Questioning of the party would get you deported, gulag-ed, or downright killed. You're quite naiive to think otherwise.

You are over simplyfing the complex nature of the Stalinist regime. And Gulags did not exist until the rise of Stalin, unless you are an idiot who sais Bolshevism = Stalinism, which, to be quite frank, it does not.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
Zapatista Chiapas
Hungarian communes during the 1956 revolution
etc.

Free Territory did not have any proletarians. they were all members of the peasantry. Speaking of the subject, take a look at this: http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

And Catalonia is gone, just as much as the Soviets under the Bolsheviks were gone.

The Hungarian Communes? this is the society you want to model all of planet Earth on? You're too fucking naive, "Agent Equality".




So maybe it is you who should learn to get passed your self-righteous indignation at everything that even goes slightly against your rock-solid beliefs. In almost every thread you post in you either:

I don't think you are one to talk, regarding who should be "learning".


A.) denounce someone for doing something "non-revolutionary", "liberal bourgeois", or my personal favorite, "moralist bourgeois liberal non-revolutionary"

I've never said "Moralist Bourgeois Liberal Non Revolutionary". Bring up that specific quote or shut the fuck up and stop putting a show on. This is a revolutionary leftist website. Reformists are sent to the OI. If you don't like it, dump your half assed 'radical' politics and piss off.


B.) Say that anything that is even remotely trying to bring about communism and communistic ideas as in actually trying to emancipate humanity from capitalism, inequality, injustice, and oppression is moralist trash that goes against materialism and is bourgeois.

Here we go with the Romanticism and Emotional shit. You are talking out of your ass. You, not only do not know what Materialism is, you openly twist my words. People who are going to go out of their way to write up what communism should be like in vivid detail are wasting all of our time. And if you are a communist only for Moral reasons then you're position is the Weakest possible and will be crushed by Bourgeois economists in the near future.


C.) Argue with pretty much anyone and everyone who isn't a strict adherent to the sacred doctrine that is the god of socialism's, Marx, texts. Any deviation from this line of thinking, even though your line is one of extreme deviation, is considered heresy and you will attack them vehemently for their lack of loyalty to our heavenly father of socialism, Marx.


Marx didn't invent socialism. What kind of fucking idiot would call Marx the father of socialism?

Now you are just trolling. Point out an example or piss off.



D.) scapegoat anyone for doing anything at all and viciously call them a number of names and insults in an effort to release the rage that has built up inside of you for what seems like since the creation of the universe over 7 billion years ago.


I get frustrated with people like you because I used to believe all the shit you did and even was a Libertarian socialist. It takes a while to see the bullshit, but you will eventually. I get angry when people like you are naive and think you are schooling me with anything, you're not teaching me anything, buddy, you're parroting the same shit that has been said on this site for a long time.


Now, I suggest you see a therapist or a shrink of some sort as you obviously are hiding some extremely personal issues that may or may not be the cause of your infernal rage

Do you think I would take a user named "Agent Equality";s advice as to who I should see? You're the definition of a revleft noob.


at anything not marx or vanguard related.

no, just people like you who talk out of their ass. A user one time, Bailey_187 neg repped me a while back because I was spouting the same shit you did. He said it was useless and a waste of his time. Looking back, I can really appreciate why he did that.


In the meantime, I think it would be best if you simply lurk these respectable forums for a good modicum of time to actually try and open up to new ideas.

That's it, you are a fucking prick. You have been here for how long? And you're fucking telling me to "Lurk" the forums and "Find new Ideas"? It's the other way around, you need to stop posting useless shit and start reading. All of your posts are useless.

The fuck if I am going to let a 5 month old user tell me to "Take a break and start lurking only". You wanna know what I did when I was at 5 months on this site? Learned. That's not what you are doing.

I don't need new Ideas, I used to be a Libertarian socialist you dope. In fact I probably know more about the subject then you ever have. At one point I was on the verge of becoming an Anarchist, actually!

Stop. Talking. Out. Of. Your fucking Ass.




Perhaps even the best solution to your problems would be to forever leave this place and think about joining another leftist forum such as say, Socialist Phalanx? Your style of thinking and arguing is deeply appreciated and accepted there.

Read the Rules, Noob, it's not allowed to tell other users to leave, especially to tell them to go to another forum.

Do I look like a fucking nationalist to you, you useless rag of horse shit? If I was a nationalist, wouldn't I be supporting my own ethnic struggles? Am I a pan-arabist, Agent Fucktard? I wish you the worst.


Good day to you sir

yeah, you totally striked me down, you fucking piece of shit. This post you made, I was literally laughing at a lot of it.

In fact, just so you know, out of all the users I have ever encountered on this site, you are the one I distaste the most. You started out as a Market Socialist, because you wanted to appeal to Mainstream-Bourgeois economism, and then you became a Lib Socialist.

Yeah, you fucker, you totally are the grand master of Socialist politics. I totally need a lesson FROM YOU! :laugh:

[Zealot]

lol this is getting hilarious.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And you want to know something Ironic? the failure of the German proletariat was a result of them not adopting the Bolshevik method or a method similar. Had the German proletariat adopted the Bolshevik method, not only would the revolution had spread to the likes of France, Britain, it would have spread globally, and we would be living in Communism today.

Actually, it was the Bolsheviks that tried to adopt the German method in Russian conditions. However, the SPD's left wing wasn't organized enough to form the USPD earlier and call for "All Power to Independent Social Democracy!"

[RedTrackWorker]

"The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K.
K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism
originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed
proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions
allow that to be done."--V.I. Lenin (what is to be Done) 1901-2
note these lines from "what is to be done", here Lenin does not even try to pretend that the leadership of the revolutionary party would lie with the working class, he emphasizes that the leadership would always come from the bourgeois intelligentia. if this is indeed true then what is the meaning of a revolutionary working class party ?

Lenin was wrong. And after the 1905 revolution he realized he was wrong. See "What Has Been Done to “What Is to Be Done?”", Proletarian Revolution No. 29, 1987, not online yet sadly--but the basic idea is addressed in a section "Class-Free Marxism (http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/conscription78.html#classfree)" of an article on conscription.

[promethean]

Lenin was wrong. And after the 1905 revolution he realized he was wrong. See "What Has Been Done to “What Is to Be Done?”", Proletarian Revolution No. 29, 1987, not online yet sadly--but the basic idea is addressed in a section "Class-Free Marxism (http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/conscription78.html#classfree)" of an article on conscription.
On the contrary, it is a myth that Lenin ever recanted his writings in What Is To Be Done? In fact, here is Lenin, writing in praise of an article written by the young Stalin defending the thesis of WITBD against attacks on it by a Goergian Menshevik, in October 1905


In the article “Reply to Sotsial-Demokrat” we should like to mention the splendid way in which the problem of the celebrated “introduction of a consciousness from without” had been posed. The author divides the problem into four independent parts: 1) The philosophical problem of the relation of man’s consciousness to his social being—social being determines consciousness. Corresponding to the existence of two classes, two kinds of consciousness are evolved—the bourgeois and the socialist. Socialist consciousness corresponds to the position of the proletariat. 2) “Who can and does evolve this socialist consciousness (scientific socialism)?” “Contemporary socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge” (Kautsky), i.e., its evolution “is a matter for a few Social-Democratic intellectuals who possess the necessary means and time”. 3) How does this consciousness penetrate into the proletariat? “It is here that Social-Democracy (and not only Social-Democratic intellectuals) comes in, and introduces socialist consciousness into the working-class movement.” 4) What does Social-Democracy meet with when it comes to the proletariat with the message of socialism? It meets with an instinctive urge towards socialism. “Together with the proletariat, a tendency towards socialism is of necessity engendered both among the proletarians themselves, and among those who adopt the viewpoint of the proletariat; this accounts for the birth of an urge towards socialism” (Kautsky). From this the Menshevik draws the following ridiculous conclusion: “Hence it is clear that socialism is not introduced into the proletariat from without, but, on the contrary, comes from the proletariat and enters the minds of those who adopt the views of the proletariat”!
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/oct/24b.htm)

[Tim Cornelis]

Hooooooold on there, Rosa.

What resutled afterword was not a cause of Bolshevism, merely it was a result of the failure of the revolution to spread to the already industrialized countries.

This is ahistorical nonsense. The Bolsheviks started to dismantle grassroots self-governing bodies of workers, peasants, and consumers in 1918 and by 1919 it has dissolved workers' councils, communes, and consumers' cooperatives. That is to say, it dismantled socialism before the German revolution failed.

The Bolsheviks wanted to skip capitalism by centralising capital (whilst under capitalism this would have occurred naturally) and thereby increasing the productive forces of society. They intended to achieve this by introducing one-man management, centralized distribution, and strict discipline. They had no intention of allowing for workers' control.

The argument that the German revolution failed therefore the Russian revolution failed is evidently false as the Bolsheviks had begun to destroy traces of socialism and working class power (soviets) before the German revolution was crushed.

(also I don't see how if the German proletariat had adopted Bolshevik tactics they would have been victorious as you didn't explain why this would be the case).

[Tim Cornelis]

As an anarchist and libertarian socialist I may be at odds in my political tradition but I do think we need a vanguard.

Due to the Bolsheviks, however, the word "vanguard" is associated with "elitist group who will take power in the name of the proletariat" rather than the proletariat itself.

A vanguard is simply an organisation to organises, educates, and agitates in order to provoke a revolution by the workers. The vanguard guides the workers, but is only allowed to lead by virtue of the working class choosing to follow them (that is to say, the vanguard will not use physical coercion to align the workers with them).

The IWW, CNT, UGT, and (anarcho-)syndicalist unions are also vanguard organisations.

[RedTrackWorker]

On the contrary, it is a myth that Lenin ever recanted his writings in What Is To Be Done? In fact, here is Lenin, writing in praise of an article written by the young Stalin defending the thesis of WITBD against attacks on it by a Goergian Menshevik, in October 1905
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/oct/24b.htm)

Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/stalin/ch03.htm) referring to that article and that Lenin later changed his views:

In August, 1905, Stalin restated that chapter of Lenin’s book, “What Is To Be Done?”, which attempted to explain the correlation of the elemental labor movement and socialistic class-consciousness. According to Lenin’s representations, the labor movement, when left to its own devices, was inclined irrevocably toward opportunism; revolutionary class-consciousness was brought to the proletariat from the outside, by Marxist intellectuals. This is not the place for a criticism of that concept, which in its entirety belongs in a biography of Lenin rather than of Stalin. The author of “What Is To Be Done?” himself subsequently acknowledged the biased nature, and therewith the erroneousness, of his theory, which he had parenthetically interjected as a battery in the battle against “Economism” and its deference to the elemental nature of the labor movement.

The clearest quote from Lenin I know of that shows a conception that consciousness comes from the proletariat and its struggle is from 1910 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1910/oct/30.htm):

Capital collects the workers in great masses in big cities, uniting them, teaching them to act in unison. At every step the workers come face to face with their main enemy—the capitalist class. In combat with this enemy the worker becomes a socialist, comes to realise the necessity of a complete reconstruction of the whole of society, the complete abolition of all poverty and all oppression.

[thefinalmarch]

The question is entirely dependent on what is meant by "vanguard".

If you mean anything a la the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, then the question should be approached in the same manner as how Bordiga approached the democratic principle: that forms of organisation became and will become necessary or useful to the working class according the conditions it was/is placed in.

[thefinalmarch]

yo rafiq while you're still here. I still haven't gotten a response to my question:


No, you have not.

Russia was ready for a socialist revolution. The material conditions in place in Russia were perfect, as was the October revolution.

The problem was that it did not spread, specifically, to germany.
how exactly does this view account for soviet russia and the later soviet union being capitalist states?

I mean, what exactly was it about the specific problem you mentioned that prevented the overthrow of capitalism?

[Marxaveli]

As an anarchist and libertarian socialist I may be at odds in my political tradition but I do think we need a vanguard.

Due to the Bolsheviks, however, the word "vanguard" is associated with "elitist group who will take power in the name of the proletariat" rather than the proletariat itself.

A vanguard is simply an organisation to organises, educates, and agitates in order to provoke a revolution by the workers. The vanguard guides the workers, but is only allowed to lead by virtue of the working class choosing to follow them (that is to say, the vanguard will not use physical coercion to align the workers with them).

The IWW, CNT, UGT, and (anarcho-)syndicalist unions are also vanguard organisations.

Sounds great, but whether it would work in practice is another question. Like you, I am a Libertarian socialist/Marxist. But I am rather skeptical of any sort of vanguard that consists of something other than the workers themselves. A certain faction of the workers that understands class consciousness and Marxism extensively may be ok, but they would lead only in terms of knowledge and information so the revolution is carried out right, and would have no more political power than the rest of the movement. I agree, to an extent, of having unions and councils help guide the revolution, but again, any organization that has political power is a slippery slope at best IMO, a recipe for disaster at worst. Bolshevism, especially Stalinism, really set back the movement in terrible ways. I know, because I live in the United Fascist States of America, which is about the most anti-communist place on earth, unfortunately.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes we do need a vanguard. A vanguard which emerges organically from the working class. An aggressive entity which serves the purpose of organizing the proletariat to fight the ruling class where it is weakest. To work with all masses of workers and to prevent counter-revolutionary elements from seizing power. Every revolution has had a vanguard.

[Le Socialiste]

As an anarchist and libertarian socialist I may be at odds in my political tradition but I do think we need a vanguard.

Due to the Bolsheviks, however, the word "vanguard" is associated with "elitist group who will take power in the name of the proletariat" rather than the proletariat itself.

A vanguard is simply an organisation to organises, educates, and agitates in order to provoke a revolution by the workers. The vanguard guides the workers, but is only allowed to lead by virtue of the working class choosing to follow them (that is to say, the vanguard will not use physical coercion to align the workers with them).

The IWW, CNT, UGT, and (anarcho-)syndicalist unions are also vanguard organisations.

It's a slippery slope. I suppose it's true that there will always be some semblance of a 'vanguard' in a revolutionary situation, but unless it is organized organically around the self-liberation of the workers within it I doubt it would help in the long run. The ideal vanguard is one that theorizes over and puts into practice collective organization and management by the workers themselves. It should never degenerate into an elite rank-and-file of the 'intelligentsia,' and resist efforts that trend towards a centralization of all decisions and modes of action into the hands of a few 'able-minded men and women.' If a vanguard is build on the democratic aspirations of the workers within it, organizing and expanding on a model of self-run management instead of top-heavy leadership, then I'd have little issue with it. The mistake lies in the seizure of political power by the vanguard, which if it isn't reliant on what I've outlined above can only reduce itself to taking over the mechanisms of the state without even a modicum of accountability.

[Rafiq]

yo rafiq while you're still here. I still haven't gotten a response to my question:

My mistake, I must have missed it, I promise.




how exactly does this view account for soviet russia and the later soviet union being capitalist states?

Because communism or socialism isn't possible within the borders of one country. It started with the NEP and gradually grew from that. And the NEP was a result of Russia's war torn economy. Had the revolutions spread to the industrialized countries, Britain and Germany would be proletarian states and wouldn't have backed the White Forces in Russia, and they wouldn't have invaded Russia either, not to mention the constant harassment and sabotage they displayed against the SU later in the 20's.

The SU was forced to open up trade relations with the capitalist countries, in the end, as a country like that wouldn't survive by itself running communism.



I mean, what exactly was it about the specific problem you mentioned that prevented the overthrow of capitalism?

Like I said above. It's really not a hard concept to grasp. There is a reason Marx and Engels stressed it had to spread.

[W1N5T0N]

Hooooooold on there, Rosa.

What resutled afterword was not a cause of Bolshevism, merely it was a result of the failure of the revolution to spread to the already industrialized countries. Russia didn't have a proletariat majority, either.

And you want to know something Ironic? the failure of the German proletariat was a result of them not adopting the Bolshevik method or a method similar. Had the German proletariat adopted the Bolshevik method, not only would the revolution had spread to the likes of France, Britain, it would have spread globally, and we would be living in Communism today.

What happened afterwords was a tragedy. But we must know why that is, instead of making baseless assumptions like Agent Libera-I mean Equality, does. (that the bolsheviks never represented the Russian proletariat from day 1).



of course, its always every body else, isnt it?

[Rafiq]

This is ahistorical nonsense. The Bolsheviks started to dismantle grassroots self-governing bodies of workers, peasants, and consumers in 1918 and by 1919 it has dissolved workers' councils, communes, and consumers' cooperatives. That is to say, it dismantled socialism before the German revolution failed.

Like I said before, this was a desperate act to hoard off the Allies and the Counter revolutionary forces, as the bolsheviks needed something quick and rapid to mobilize the masses, and a complete proletarian democracy wasn't going to do the job. I mean think about it, Socialism didn't even exist after the Bolshevik revolution, Russia was still running the capitalist mode of production. Time was scarce. Quick action was necessary. It was tragic, but they had to do it.

As for it being done before the failure of the German revolution, had the revolution spread to the very countries sieging the former russian empire, there wouldn't be a need for this type of action, would there?


The Bolsheviks wanted to skip capitalism by centralising capital (whilst under capitalism this would have occurred naturally) and thereby increasing the productive forces of society. They intended to achieve this by introducing one-man management, centralized distribution, and strict discipline. They had no intention of allowing for workers' control.

You're talking out of your ass now. The centralisation of capital and the "discipline" was desperate action taken by the Bolshevik government to deal with the invaders and later, to stimulate the economy.

The Bolsheviks were fighting with their blood for the rule of the proletariat from day 1. The October revolution wasn't planned, it was spontaneous. They were put into a position of desperation. If the Bolsheviks wanted to crush worker's power in day 1, why did it take them almost a year to decide to do that?

And it's much more complex than that, too. Even under Stalin the worker's were given the right to disrespect the management at factories and plan things on their own, with 90% of the time when they voted on something (So long as it did not violate the laws set by the Stalinist regime) it overruled the decision of the manager.


The argument that the German revolution failed therefore the Russian revolution failed is evidently false as the Bolsheviks had begun to destroy traces of socialism and working class power (soviets) before the German revolution was crushed.

What the bolsheviks did was meant to be temporary. It stayed that way after they realized it wasn't going to spread, they had to organize themselves to address the material conditions of the Soviet states.

Had the revolution spread to Germany, power to the Soviets would have been restored and would have over ruled the party, thus the NEP would not have happened.


(also I don't see how if the German proletariat had adopted Bolshevik tactics they would have been victorious as you didn't explain why this would be the case).

The Bolsheviks had adopted the Jacobin method to a great extent while the German proletariat weren't organized enough to take class power. The Bolsheviks on the other hand, managed to organize the proletariat in an efficient manner.

[Rafiq]

As an anarchist and libertarian socialist I may be at odds in my political tradition but I do think we need a vanguard.


No, you're not. Spanish Anarchists adopted the Vangaurd as they realized it was an absolute necessity.

[Agent Equality]

No, you're not. Spanish Anarchists adopted the Vangaurd as they realized it was an absolute necessity.

The CNT was not a vanguard in the way the bolshevik party was a vanguard, and certainly not in the purpose of what said vanguard was supposed to do.

Goti most likely means an organically grown group of workers with class consciousness and who are educated in socialist thought who can help their other workers gain class consciousness. Vanguard is not a singular term with a singular definition. To some its something that helps the revolution on and helps those that are meant to carry it out (the working class). To others its an strong entity that leads the revolution in the name of the working class then give power back to them once it is all over and done with.

[Le Socialiste]

Goti most likely means an organically grown group of workers with class consciousness and who are educated in socialist thought who can help their other workers gain class consciousness. Vanguard is not a singular term with a singular definition. To some its something that helps the revolution on and helps those that are meant to carry it out (the working class). To others its an strong entity that leads the revolution in the name of the working class then give power back to them once it is all over and done with.

^ This.

The formation of a 'revolutionized' vanguard (made up of workers and individuals with varying levels of class consciousness and understanding of revolutionary theory) is an inevitable aspect of the class struggle. The goal, however, shouldn't be the seizure and/or infiltration of the state - nor should it base its politics around a policy that doesn't utilize the full potential of the mass working-class (or does, but goes about it in an undemocratic/repressive manner). The workers who make up the vanguard should focus on reaching out to the various layers of the broader working-class while agitating for its mass mobilization.

One can't emphasize enough the importance of keeping the day to day business and decision making in the hands of the collective (as opposed to their centralization). Any vanguard must be organized through purely organic means, and it must carry these organizational methods to the working-class as a whole. The vanguard in this instance takes up the fight alongside the workers, not at their head. It provides much needed support and agitates for the radicalization of the workers through the propagation of revolutionary theory and tactics. Once a sizable number of the working-class has been mobilized the vanguard's importance within the broader struggle gradually declines until it ceases to be the epicenter of revolutionary dissent and discourse. As a growing number of class-aware workers take on the mantle of revolutionary action, the need for a vanguard eventually lessens.

In short, the vanguard plays a vital role, but this role isn't one of declared leadership. Its place is at the side of the proletariat; its role is to provide an alternative to the constant deluge of liberal and reformist-opportunist elements within the broader struggle. When conditions have approached the point in which the revolutionary fervor of the working-classes are solidified and unmistakably strong, the vanguard's place is of minimal importance (if anything, it's only job is to keep the workers focused on the task at hand).

[The Idler]

Isn't a vanguard what Marx dismissed as Blanquism? In that respect, I disagree with Rafiq and Die Neue Zeit but I think Die Neue Zeit could teach Rafiq a thing or two about disagreeing civilly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No it isn't Blanquism. Again, the pre-war SPD was itself a vanguard party.

[leemadison11]

I am for Vanguard, i think it would benefit all facets of the society including the General Public and the Government.

[dodger]

Vanguard a military term. Advanced detachment. Does not sound promising. Would it mean they were like us...in the sense of working for a living? Would they be full time revolutionaries? Supported by the party. Another question, would it make sense if they were intellectual mentors? I am starting to find the whole idea disagreeable. The working class might find the whole idea laughable...why should I listen to them? What makes them(vanguard) so special? So far meeting folks who have proclaimed themselves our vanguard have been found wanting, on many levels.

On the other hand I see the class needs its own party, that is a 'must'. The accent on 'of our class'. I would be absolutely useless as a party member, but I want to make a stand and fight our enemies. Being a supporter makes more sense for me. Still I would hope the party was educated and thriving not sclerotic. The ideas of what sort of transmission belt would e needed to connect with the class needs looking at, any ideas? Would members be trade unionists? CHANGING OUR THINKING WILL BE THE HARD PART.

[ckaihatsu]

Vanguard a military term. Advanced detachment. Does not sound promising. Would it mean they were like us...in the sense of working for a living? Would they be full time revolutionaries? Supported by the party.


This isn't as inadvisable as one's initial reaction may recommend. A good rule of thumb for evaluating *any* proposed politics and/or course of action is to consider how it could conceivably be implemented in a critical or emergency societal situation.

Historically we've seen that any time civil society comes under particular stress it utilizes institutions that are most expedient -- especially for the ruling class' continued rule. If one particular method -- the use of hierarchy -- happens to work well in time-critical situations then we can't summarily dismiss its potential usefulness, even if we are aware of its inherent possibility for abuse. Involvement in revolutionary struggle is political, by definition, so whatever measures used would be the product of a mass-based political process, regardless.

I don't think that a proletarian revolution should necessarily *forfeit* any form of organization that would actually be appropriate and effective for certain circumstances.

That said, it's difficult to be any more prescriptive on details when the topic itself is only discussed in the abstract, lacking any posited scenario or situation.





Another question, would it make sense if they were intellectual mentors? I am starting to find the whole idea disagreeable. The working class might find the whole idea laughable...why should I listen to them? What makes them(vanguard) so special? So far meeting folks who have proclaimed themselves our vanguard have been found wanting, on many levels.


As with anything political the responsibility remains on the individual to ascertain and confirm matters at hand. No one would be doing the revolution a service by being a semi-conscious sect follower. Empirical aspects would necessarily have to be cross-checkable and verifiable, per the scientific method. (I don't think we need to harbor the stereotype of automatically turning ourselves into masses of mindless drones merely by our functioning with a self-selected leadership.)





On the other hand I see the class needs its own party, that is a 'must'. The accent on 'of our class'. I would be absolutely useless as a party member, but I want to make a stand and fight our enemies. Being a supporter makes more sense for me. Still I would hope the party was educated and thriving not sclerotic. The ideas of what sort of transmission belt would e needed to connect with the class needs looking at, any ideas? Would members be trade unionists? CHANGING OUR THINKING WILL BE THE HARD PART.

[dodger]

ckaihatsu...plenty of food for thought in your post. What kind of a party is it to be? We know the dangers of dividing organisations into thinkers and doers. If all party labour is voluntary, so there can be no division between paid full-timers? Many reject Engels’s and Lenin’s idealist notion of a “labour aristocracy”, which was always an attack on skilled workers and a way of dividing the class.

Any attempt to separate a political arena or phase of development from an economic arena or phase is to invite a division of the Party into two wings – the ‘intellectuals’ and the ‘workers’, as has happened in other parties with disastrous results. The results would be equally disastrous whether the alleged ‘intellectuals’ dominated the professed ‘workers’ or vice versa. A split, inherited from historical development, long since resolved has no place in an advanced working class party. I am still puzzled by what will be the transmission belt betwixt class and party both before and after revolution. ARMCHAIR THEORISTS OR GENERALS, 'experts' to do our thinking for us wont advance our true understanding or take us to a better place......they will in time divorce us from our party and the great mass of people. Face it we have all seen our fair share of witless slogans and too clever agendas.
Do we need a vanguard, I suppose I should at least give a response.....I think I must fall down on the side of....NO. I believe a fresh approach is needed. With collective thought and due care to circumstance. What we want a Party for...what we want it to do, for us...we can hone something more useful. We will see.............

[ckaihatsu]

Do we need a vanguard, I suppose I should at least give a response.....I think I must fall down on the side of....NO. I believe a fresh approach is needed. With collective thought and due care to circumstance.


I -- as you can see from the title -- am a 'vanguardist' in that I think there will be those who are, for whatever reasons, just *more attentive* than most to the issues and personages involved around militant labor and revolutionary political organizing. Given that far-left / hard-left politics is *not* the norm--

(Until recently, that is....)


Communism (among other things) more popular than US Congress

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-among-other-t164813/index.html


So, again, given that far-left / hard-left politics is not the norm, it follows that those who decide to be politically active somehow in revolutionary leftist circles will be the "de facto" revolutionary vanguard. This would include RevLeft.

So this could be considered to be the 'inclusive', broadest way of defining 'vanguard'.





What we want a Party for...what we want it to do, for us...we can hone something more useful. We will see.............




ckaihatsu...plenty of food for thought in your post. What kind of a party is it to be? We know the dangers of dividing organisations into thinkers and doers. If all party labour is voluntary, so there can be no division between paid full-timers? Many reject Engels’s and Lenin’s idealist notion of a “labour aristocracy”, which was always an attack on skilled workers and a way of dividing the class.

Any attempt to separate a political arena or phase of development from an economic arena or phase is to invite a division of the Party into two wings – the ‘intellectuals’ and the ‘workers’, as has happened in other parties with disastrous results. The results would be equally disastrous whether the alleged ‘intellectuals’ dominated the professed ‘workers’ or vice versa. A split, inherited from historical development, long since resolved has no place in an advanced working class party. I am still puzzled by what will be the transmission belt betwixt class and party both before and after revolution. ARMCHAIR THEORISTS OR GENERALS, 'experts' to do our thinking for us wont advance our true understanding or take us to a better place......they will in time divorce us from our party and the great mass of people. Face it we have all seen our fair share of witless slogans and too clever agendas.


You're correct, of course, to point out the dangers inherent to a certain formalization and institutionalizing of revolutionary political activity.

The tricky thing is that there's a perfect mirror-like *flipside* to these concerns, that of the *benefits* of centralization and central coordinating control -- albeit in the abstract. Who on the ground *wouldn't* want better funding, an organizational infrastructure of services that could be relied on, a procedural go-to chain of command for internal matters, a better interconnecting of related struggles, etc. -- ? These are all the 'pros' of organizational hierarchy, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Why would such a dichotomy as that between 'intellectuals' and 'workers' develop at all? Might it have something to do with an emergence of a hierarchy of power of sorts, the existence of managed / administrated assets, private property, etc. -- ? As terrible as this may sound, none of those characteristics are *necessarily* unwanted. Rather, it would depend on *how* hierarchy and other methods are *used* in practice given the certainty of forceful opposition from the capitalist class.

Ideally we can posit a far better model of a vanguard, and a vanguard party, to advocate for -- one that is fluidly egalitarian, even during the heat of the moment, with almost perfect levels of commitment and support from those involved, etc. etc. Unfortunately the vicissitudes of life under capitalism affect also those organizations directly counterposed to its functioning, and the problems inherent to capitalist social organization will be seen in anti-capitalist organizational structures as well.

[Red Rosa]

Unfortunately, because of bad examples of vanguardism in the past, people tend to criticise and question the need and the affect of vanguard as such, which is quite understandable position, but I think it's on the wrong track. And when they do that, people (which is also understandable and logical) tend to seek solutions which are decentralized, such as anarchist afinity groups. It seems like thinking and discussion doesn't come beyond these two outlets.
As I said, I understand where the need for decentralization is coming from, but it won't solve the problem, since the problem isn't in centralized party as such, the problem is everywhere else :D (namely, party members' relationship to the rest of the working class). It all comes down to this, I think - you either have a political party or many various groups. In the first case, the danger that the party members would become this violent and opressive bunch exists, and in the second case the danger is depolitization (which weakens the political aspect of the working class struggle and thus the struggle itself) and individualization.
In the first case, violence and opresivness could be stopped if the working class realizes (which, of course, is the most difficult task) that it owns the party; the party belongs to them, and not the other way around, so the working class needs to react right away to any kind of violent trace manifested on the party's part, it needs to put pressure on the party and keep doing that. The proletariat doesn't have to be much educated in order to do that. If they recognized that they have been in capitalist chains, they should recognize that someone who's supposed to be on their side is doing something wrong to it.
If we want to end the individualistic crap that occurs in these many anarchist groups, we need to discuss and come up with the idea that's the best, one idea, one political program. (if we, of course, managed to overcome the unwillingness of creating an ideological and political unity due to individualist "you can't put a chain on me" proudhonist stupidity).That's the cure for this; you can't perform a task using 100 methods to complete it at the same time. And when we did that, why not centralize it and turn it into a party? This model of various autonomous groups without a firm political line is not sustainable, although people might find and very attractive because of it's positions against any hierarchy. The need for vanguard is in nature of class struggle, so to speak. So we shouldn't think about the elimination of vanguard and implementation of something else, we should think about how to make vanguard most effective and compatible with the rest of the proletariat.
Should the party members be profesional revolutionaries? I think yes, if that means putting the party duties to the centre of your life. Why should we listen to them? Well, unlike parties in parliament, our party won't be shouting stupid demagogic paroles; it will use argument, logic and reason.

[StoneFrog]

Vanguard party im on the side of NO, but vanguard as a wider concept im a YES. I do believe that a vanguard will be there to supply the working masses with the tools and information to create a successful revolution. There is a difference in my eyes of a vanguard leading, and a vanguard creating the opportunity which the working class can seize. Ultimately the power is in the hand of the workers on the streets, but they need organized revolutionaries to help breaks the barriers the capitalist class have created to prevent the masses from awakening. This includes gathering details and analyzing them so the working class can make an informed and calculated decision for themselves not made on behalf of.

I see the vanguard appearing in contrast to the parties of our socialist groups, since there can be no vanguard that is truly on the side of the working mass, that divides the people by sticking to party lines. Falling into the trap of dogma and becoming blind to the face of the real struggle, this is where we stand today. It will always be a definition of the people to have differences yet our tool which we wield now, the parties have become our poison.

So will the proletariat realize the potential of their strength when united, so too the workers who have the skills, needed to create a spearhead and shield to create the opening of the revolution, and the shield us to victory.

The Vanguard by my definition is a tool not a leader.

[dodger]

CKAIHATSU
I don't have a problem with democratic centralism, it is a culture hardly foreign to Britons. It having it's root in early craft trade unions I was told Lenin studied the ASE engineering union structure and found it to his liking. 1902.What we do is agree a line, through democratic discussion and decision, and then we put it into practice.
How democratic would it be for a member to then turn round, after the discussion and decision, and say they don't agree with it?

Democratic centralism merely means doing what you have said you will do.
First, discussion, with as wide a spectrum of workers as possible; then agreement by majority vote on what is to be done and how to do it; then, agree to do it; then, do it!
Above all it must be clear transparent to better galvanise the party. This allows the Party to punch above its weight...... certainly transparency lends itself to an increase in workers confidence and combats many of the lies that have been internalized. Later I should like to go over some of the interesting points you have made.....Rosa too. Thanks.

[Red Rosa]

There is a difference in my eyes of a vanguard leading, and a vanguard creating the opportunity which the working class can seize.

This doesn't stand in opposition to the concept of leadership at all, if we define leadership as an initiative, an influence, granded power to do something first, etc. (this definition is improvisatory but you catch my drift, hopefuly) Creating the opportunity for someone fits in the definition of leadership.


I see the vanguard appearing in contrast to the parties of our socialist groups, since there can be no vanguard that is truly on the side of the working mass, that divides the people by sticking to party lines. Falling into the trap of dogma and becoming blind to the face of the real struggle, this is where we stand today. It will always be a definition of the people to have differences yet our tool which we wield now, the parties have become our poison.

This party line is supposed to be a political program that will enable the working class to seize the political power. Why would this divide the working class? This will be a rather simple analogy, but i'll use it anyway because i think it's not invalid - it's like i wanted to grab a glass from a table. I can reach my hand and take it. I can't take it with my foot because it will fall on the ground and mission won't be accomplished. I will also fail if i decide to grab it with my nose. I can only take it with my hand. And if people around me want me to grab this glass from the table (because they won't a share of water in it, doesn't matter) than "the line" would be taking it with my hand. It would be stupid of them to stick to the "take it with the foot" line since i won't be able to complete the task and they won't get water. So, the problem is not sticking to the line, that's the solution.
As for blind dogma, why do you think if people stick to one line that they automatically become blind "to the face of real struggle"? This could happen, i'm not saying that it can't, but then these particular individuals or groups are to be blamed, and not the "method" itself, since that "blind dogma" helps us participate and create reality. Practice comes out of theory.

[ckaihatsu]

Vanguard party im on the side of NO, but vanguard as a wider concept im a YES. I do believe that a vanguard will be there to supply the working masses with the tools and information to create a successful revolution. There is a difference in my eyes of a vanguard leading, and a vanguard creating the opportunity which the working class can seize. Ultimately the power is in the hand of the workers on the streets, but they need organized revolutionaries to help breaks the barriers the capitalist class have created to prevent the masses from awakening. This includes gathering details and analyzing them so the working class can make an informed and calculated decision for themselves not made on behalf of.


Un-hype-ing....





I see the vanguard appearing in contrast to the parties of our socialist groups, since there can be no vanguard that is truly on the side of the working mass, that divides the people by sticking to party lines. Falling into the trap of dogma and becoming blind to the face of the real struggle, this is where we stand today. It will always be a definition of the people to have differences yet our tool which we wield now, the parties have become our poison.

So will the proletariat realize the potential of their strength when united, so too the workers who have the skills, needed to create a spearhead and shield to create the opening of the revolution, and the shield us to victory.

The Vanguard by my definition is a tool not a leader.


I guess it both begs the question and fufills it at the same time -- it would be strengthened by its expanding support for revolutionary movements, policy, funding, and public works, for starters. Certain axiomatic assessments would be put forth by the larger online communities, and discussions would ensue. Parties could be treated like monarchies and surpassed with direct action, collectivization / socialization of mass productive means away and out of rapacious financial capital investment flows -- MASS-BUILT MEANS FOR SCHEDULING, PRODUCTION IN PEOPLE'S HANDS!!