A Motive for Forming Vanguard Party?

[00000000000]

This is merely a thought I've had recently re those who believe in, or are a part of what aims to be, the Vanguard Party that leads a revolution.

Do you think that some people who join a so-called vanguard socialist / communist party do so because they want to be part of said vanguard? They feel their ideas and opinions are right enough that they should be part of an effective new elite who guide the country / the world on the right path. Their motivation is not about working towards a better human society for all but rather because they want to weild power, albeit for seemingly more 'noble' reasons than members of capitalist-supporting political parties.

In other words, the only difference between them and members of conservative or liberal or fascist parties is purely ideological; in the end, they want power for themselves because they know what's best for everyone else.

Your thoughts comrades?

[ed miliband]

Quite similar to, say, Tony Benn, then.

[KurtFF8]

I'm sure that this does indeed happen. Although in places like the US, these delusions of grandeur probably don't last long considering the current state of the Left and the Labor movement.

I think it's quite risky territory, however, to try to analyze folks based on their personal motivations instead of contributions (because usually one will help to reveal the other in due time).

So to answer the OP post: sure it would be naive to believe that folks don't "just want power" but at the same time, considering the state of the Left: it would be absurd for them to be the dedicated members of these organizations based on that motivation.

[Q]

This is merely a thought I've had recently re those who believe in, or are a part of what aims to be, the Vanguard Party that leads a revolution.

Do you think that some people who join a so-called vanguard socialist / communist party do so because they want to be part of said vanguard? They feel their ideas and opinions are right enough that they should be part of an effective new elite who guide the country / the world on the right path. Their motivation is not about working towards a better human society for all but rather because they want to weild power, albeit for seemingly more 'noble' reasons than members of capitalist-supporting political parties.

In other words, the only difference between them and members of conservative or liberal or fascist parties is purely ideological; in the end, they want power for themselves because they know what's best for everyone else.

Your thoughts comrades?

The proletarian revolution needs to be an act of the proletariat itself. The political instrument for this is the party, that being a politicised mass movement striving for working class power and communism. The "vanguard party" conception as being a tiny group leading over the proletariat will lead to mere coups and bureaucratism and is for that reason obviously reactionary.

I refer to my blogpost here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6435) that is about this subject.

[DaringMehring]

The proletarian revolution needs to be an act of the proletariat itself. The political instrument for this is the party, that being a politicised mass movement striving for working class power and communism. The "vanguard party" conception as being a tiny group leading over the proletariat will lead to mere coups and bureaucratism and is for that reason obviously reactionary.

I refer to my blogpost here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6435) that is about this subject.

Agree. The idea of a vanguard is misinterpreted by wanna-be vanguardists to mean "guardians of the sacred scriptures and ideas." Wrong. The vanguard forms out of the working class and it is measured by its ability to achieve results in the class struggle.

Right now the closest thing to a vanguard are progressive, fighting trade unionists, and their community allies, who have clashed with the bosses and given as good as they've got, in unions like NUHW, UNITE HERE, SEIU-USWW -- even though their ideas may be lacking, they are the actual material social force that is closest to a vanguard and most likely to form the basis of a new vanguard Party as capitalism continues its long-term death spiral.

[Philosopher Jay]

People who join political parties generally do so because these parties advocate policies that they agree with.

The concept that communists are power hungry and selfish is promoted by capitalist who produce constant and continuous propaganda to convince the masses of this false idea. Communists are generally motivated by a desire to help working class and poor people. I have never met a communist whom I thought was motivated by wanting power for herself or himself. On the contrary, I fine that this is generally a motivation of those who join bourgeois pro-capitalist parties





This is merely a thought I've had recently re those who believe in, or are a part of what aims to be, the Vanguard Party that leads a revolution.

Do you think that some people who join a so-called vanguard socialist / communist party do so because they want to be part of said vanguard? They feel their ideas and opinions are right enough that they should be part of an effective new elite who guide the country / the world on the right path. Their motivation is not about working towards a better human society for all but rather because they want to weild power, albeit for seemingly more 'noble' reasons than members of capitalist-supporting political parties.

In other words, the only difference between them and members of conservative or liberal or fascist parties is purely ideological; in the end, they want power for themselves because they know what's best for everyone else.

Your thoughts comrades?

[Enragé]

well the motive for wanting a vanguard party usually is that you need a great deal of coordination if you want to come out of the revolutionary upheaval victorious. That is, it is very useful, perhaps even necessary, for us to all do the same thing at the same time.

I basicly agree with this, although i think you can arrange this without a monolithic vanguard party (for instance a coalition of different groups) built by massive amounts of paper sellers.

That said, the only times in recent history where the state has lost control of a certain situation is when alot of different things happen at a lot of different places, so the state cannot concentrate its forces. For instance the english riots this summer. I dont think its possible to plan that, simply because our organisational capabilities and structure will never be able to allow for that. Any attempt at trying to make it so, will lead to us copying the bureaucratic state the moment we replace it, and will most likely fail anyway.


As for your insinuation that some people join 'the vanguard' to come into power later, thats probably true. But i dont think the groups calling themselves 'the vanguard' are anyway close of actually being 'the vanguard', so you can ask yourself if that even matters :P

[Die Neue Zeit]

Agree. The idea of a vanguard is misinterpreted by wanna-be vanguardists to mean "guardians of the sacred scriptures and ideas." Wrong. The vanguard forms out of the working class and it is measured by its ability to achieve results in the class struggle.

Right now the closest thing to a vanguard are progressive, fighting trade unionists, and their community allies, who have clashed with the bosses and given as good as they've got, in unions like NUHW, UNITE HERE, SEIU-USWW -- even though their ideas may be lacking, they are the actual material social force that is closest to a vanguard and most likely to form the basis of a new vanguard Party as capitalism continues its long-term death spiral.

That is where there's room for disagreement. What comrade Q stated is closer to Occupy movements than even to grassroots unionists.

[Veovis]

I think this misses the point of the vanguard completely.

I haven't read Lenin, but from asking around, I understand the vanguard to be simply the most class-conscious and politically motivated section of the working class. Their goal isn't to rule a "socialist" society as some kind of new ruling class, but rather to bring more workers into socialism and class politics; i.e. make itself bigger.

That's not something an elite clique of wannabee party bosses would want to do.

[DaringMehring]

That is where there's room for disagreement. What comrade Q stated is closer to Occupy movements than even to grassroots unionists.

The Occupy movement is mainly petit-bourgeoisie, members in unions like SEIU-USWW (janitors) and UNITE HERE (hotel workers) etc. are working class. Granted Occupy has an independent and some-what class conscious political analysis, but... surely the vanguard will come from the working class.

[ckaihatsu]

I think this misses the point of the vanguard completely.

I haven't read Lenin, but from asking around, I understand the vanguard to be simply the most class-conscious and politically motivated section of the working class. Their goal isn't to rule a "socialist" society as some kind of new ruling class, but rather to bring more workers into socialism and class politics; i.e. make itself bigger.

That's not something an elite clique of wannabee party bosses would want to do.


Absolutely, but we also can't afford to be too casual during conditions of mass class struggle in which decisiveness is called for (due to time pressures, for example). Besides the more-general vanguard -- like RevLeft, as an entity -- there could *potentially* also be a vanguard party which would be more formal, organized, and arguably more specialized than the general vanguard that's intrinsic to the working class itself.

While existing socialist organizations and the news of the day are usually sufficient on a day-to-day basis, the working class *could* be *more* empowered if it had a vanguard-party-type organization on its side. A tighter configuration of organization yields the benefits of centralization such as a go-to hierarchy, greater strategizing possibilities, and infrastructure.


Good recent thread:


do we need a vanguard ?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-need-t163876/index.html

[ckaihatsu]

Q, just read your blog post on the topic and I'm in general agreement. Couple specific things here:





One alternative term for "democratic centralism" might be "unity in disagreement". Organisationally we stand as one against the capitalists, but we have to "agree to disagree", to coin a phrase.


Would you care to address the *implications* of this formulation -- ?

I mean that, in real situations, especially under critical and time-sensitive conditions, there would have to be *excellent* pre-existing organizational cohesion and for everyone to be ready for the possibility of having to "take one for the team" if they find that they're in the minority faction on a vote for imminent action (strategic / tactical).

In this way the entire organization *would* act as you're describing -- the only other possibility I can think of would be more of an ad hoc, *factional*-based kind of mobilization after a vote, but that would certainly fall short of being a consistent full organizational entity and would probably just be synonymous with splits and splintering anyway.





You see, the vanguard - while consisting of the most advanced sections of the working class - is not a homogeneous bloc either. Life experiences, differing ideas, the job a person has, its gender, "race", etc, all play a role in which positions one takes politically.


Um, this actually sounds problematic.

I, for one, *don't* think that one's politics should relate to one's individuality -- or, if they do, that it would just be incidental. Are you talking about a postmodernist-ish personalization of politics, or would we rather see debates that are based on *principled* positions -- ?

[Q]

I'll post the same reply as I put on my blog:


Would you care to address the *implications* of this formulation -- ?

I mean that, in real situations, especially under critical and time-sensitive conditions, there would have to be *excellent* pre-existing organizational cohesion and for everyone to be ready for the possibility of having to "take one for the team" if they find that they're in the minority faction on a vote for imminent action (strategic / tactical).

In this way the entire organization *would* act as you're describing -- the only other possibility I can think of would be more of an ad hoc, *factional*-based kind of mobilization after a vote, but that would certainly fall short of being a consistent full organizational entity and would probably just be synonymous with splits and splintering anyway.
What I was talking about is about a long term form of organisation. In such a culture, unity through democratic vote while retaining a right to campaign for your position, would be much more natural than is conceivable today. Today, we live in a culture where splits are the natural thing to do when you disagree and we need to break with that culture and fight for the right to openly disagree.

Splits will probably always be inevitable at some point or another, but such groups would find themselves isolated pretty soon and will fall back into unity.


Um, this actually sounds problematic.

I, for one, *don't* think that one's politics should relate to one's individuality -- or, if they do, that it would just be incidental. Are you talking about a postmodernist-ish personalization of politics, or would we rather see debates that are based on *principled* positions -- ?
The point I was trying to translate is that people are unique, not clones. A simple truism. From this point flows my position that we need democracy if we want to achieve politics that fit our collective needs, an ongoing process to reach our collective interests. Again, a truism as far as I'm concerned.

[dodger]

Democracy....here goes...we discuss...vote....decide how to do it....then we do it. The alternative? We discuss...we vote....some(majority?) decide how to do it...then some do it. Can't for the life of me see where the democracy is in the latter. No party can function like that. If one does not agree with a line, better to leave....best not to join in the first place. Look at Labour Party...they embrace the latter example with gusto. We declare ourselves for peace....Blair takes us to war....we say the tube should be state owned...Brown promptly sells it off. What a mess where is the democracy in Labour? How can one maintain personal integrity? Jump ship is what a lot have done... of course the members could have invited him to go form a Blair or Brown party if Labour had decent rule book or any sort of working class culture.

[Fawkes]

This is merely a thought I've had recently re those who believe in, or are a part of what aims to be, the Vanguard Party that leads a revolution.

Do you think that some people who join a so-called vanguard socialist / communist party do so because they want to be part of said vanguard? They feel their ideas and opinions are right enough that they should be part of an effective new elite who guide the country / the world on the right path. Their motivation is not about working towards a better human society for all but rather because they want to weild power, albeit for seemingly more 'noble' reasons than members of capitalist-supporting political parties.

In other words, the only difference between them and members of conservative or liberal or fascist parties is purely ideological; in the end, they want power for themselves because they know what's best for everyone else.

Your thoughts comrades?

While I'm sure there are delusional megalomaniacs in every political party (ahem (http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3333/3666445084_ab9727c07a_z.jpg)), I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who've joined "vanguard parties" did so out of a legitimate desire to better their own circumstances and those of their communities. However, it's when a party obtains a high degree of political/military power detached from the class they both claim to represent and owe their initial success to (i.e. they assume control of the state) that material conditions trump any sense of "good-heartedness" in its (powerful) members. Material conditions drive revolutions, not caring sentiments (that's why the bourgeois is not a revolutionary class). It doesn't matter how well-intentioned its leaders may have initially been, history has shown us time and time again without fail that those in control of the state utilize everything at their disposal to defend and perpetuate their positions of power.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll post the same reply as I put on my blog:


What I was talking about is about a long term form of organisation. In such a culture, unity through democratic vote while retaining a right to campaign for your position, would be much more natural than is conceivable today. Today, we live in a culture where splits are the natural thing to do when you disagree and we need to break with that culture and fight for the right to openly disagree.

Splits will probably always be inevitable at some point or another, but such groups would find themselves isolated pretty soon and will fall back into unity.


Okay, got it, good point.

I've addressed the empirical need for a political culture in the model that I developed, which I advocate. Here's the relevant excerpt:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/




Propagation

communist administration -- A political culture, including channels of journalism, history, and academia, will generally track all known assets and resources -- unmaintained assets and resources may fall into disuse or be reclaimed by individuals for personal use only





The point I was trying to translate is that people are unique, not clones. A simple truism. From this point flows my position that we need democracy if we want to achieve politics that fit our collective needs, an ongoing process to reach our collective interests. Again, a truism as far as I'm concerned.


Yes.

[ckaihatsu]

While I'm sure there are delusional megalomaniacs in every political party (ahem (http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3333/3666445084_ab9727c07a_z.jpg)), I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who've joined "vanguard parties" did so out of a legitimate desire to better their own circumstances and those of their communities. However, it's when a party obtains a high degree of political/military power detached from the class they both claim to represent and owe their initial success to (i.e. they assume control of the state) that material conditions trump any sense of "good-heartedness" in its (powerful) members. Material conditions drive revolutions, not caring sentiments (that's why the bourgeois is not a revolutionary class). It doesn't matter how well-intentioned its leaders may have initially been, history has shown us time and time again without fail that those in control of the state utilize everything at their disposal to defend and perpetuate their positions of power.


It's almost like we need the revolution to continuously keep refreshing itself, with the proletariat ready to displace any leadership at any moment so that it doesn't become entrenched. It's like we would need a revolution *permanently* -- a 'permanent revolution', so-to-speak. I think I just invented something here...(!)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Occupy movement is mainly petit-bourgeoisie, members in unions like SEIU-USWW (janitors) and UNITE HERE (hotel workers) etc. are working class. Granted Occupy has an independent and some-what class conscious political analysis, but... surely the vanguard will come from the working class.

Genuine class struggle originates from cookie-cutter "politico-political" struggle, not from mere labour disputes and other non-political economic squabbles.

The vanguard will come and is coming not from the tred-iunion bunch, but from those unionized and non-unionized working-class participants in the Occupy movement. "We Are The Two-Thirds," indeed.

[ckaihatsu]

---








Occupy is the vanguard of the 99% and OWS is the “vanguard of the vanguard", to borrow an expression of Leon Trotsky’s. OWS’s vanguard role explains why its methods prevail over those preferred by more traditional organizations such as unions, liberal NGOs and socialist groups.

http://links.org.au/node/2657

[Jimmie Higgins]

@LeftRDead - I think that issue may happen when the left is actually more powerful, but someone would have to be a masochist to try and make a reputation or get power through radical politics. Often it's radicals who then sell-out who are given personal power and lots of cred and attention from academic institutions and the media and politicians - such as our dreary departed Mr. Hitchens. Probably a bigger issue right now is people joining radical groups or movements for Mactivist reasons or some kind of romantic rebel cred.

I find the idea that "power corrupts" to be less than convincing. Capitalist politicians are corrupt because their job isn't really to legislate but to carry out the wishes of various industries and interests as well as the capitalist system as a whole. When the point of your job is to grease the wheels of your land-developer friends or the oil industry or whatnot, then political campaigns are not about political issues, but maintaining your position - since it takes resources to do this, politicians make other deals and build their personal war-chests. Business people become corrupt because they are in constant competition - both personally and also their companies. So when there's pressure to always bring-back a return then maybe you move money around or store some away or cook the books to ensure your business reputation or keep investors from pulling out or whatnot.

If an organization of vanguard workers puts itself in power over the population, then there are bigger issues and problems than personal corruption. The problem then would be subsitutionism and lack of democracy and possibly weakness in actual working class consciousness and confidence. But I think if there is working class power from below in society, then personal corruption wouldn't be an issue for any representatives or whatnot - it would be fairly easy for people to ensure that any represenative positions don't become entrenched or come to rule over people rather than just carry out the demands and dictates of the people who empowered the reps.


Genuine class struggle originates from cookie-cutter "politico-political" struggle, not from mere labour disputes and other non-political economic squabbles.

The vanguard will come and is coming not from the tred-iunion bunch, but from those unionized and non-unionized working-class participants in the Occupy movement. "We Are The Two-Thirds," indeed.

I think the overlap here is that the best rank and file militants in unions are down at their local occupy trying to figure out how to unite their workplace struggles with the potential class-based solidarity movement possible through occupy and Wisconsin-style actions. If there are seeds of an organic vanguard in the US right now, it's down at occupy - including the union rank and file activists.

Because of the business-unionism of the union leadership (and their position in capitalism) the occupy movement presents a chance to sidestep their conservatism or push them from below; it provides an alternative arena for rank and file militants to organize actions, independent of the union bureaucracy. This is a start, but ultimately, workers are going to have to take on the trade-union leaders either by pushing them aside or rebuilding internal democracy from below - I think that's what a vanguard inside the trade union movement would be doing. Trying to side-step the bureaucracy or ignore the trade-union movement would be problematic IMO because in a period of increased struggle the official trade unions would increase along with community-based initiatives by workers and allies (like occupy) and radical unions and wildcat actions. If faced with an upsurge from below, even the most conservative union leaderships would probably have to move left just to continue their existence and because of their resources they'd be able to reap increased membership and influence out of rising class struggle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the overlap here is that the best rank and file militants in unions are down at their local occupy trying to figure out how to unite their workplace struggles with the potential class-based solidarity movement possible through occupy and Wisconsin-style actions. If there are seeds of an organic vanguard in the US right now, it's down at occupy - including the union rank and file activists.

Indeed.


Because of the business-unionism of the union leadership (and their position in capitalism) the occupy movement presents a chance to sidestep their conservatism or push them from below; it provides an alternative arena for rank and file militants to organize actions, independent of the union bureaucracy. This is a start, but ultimately, workers are going to have to take on the trade-union leaders either by pushing them aside or rebuilding internal democracy from below - I think that's what a vanguard inside the trade union movement would be doing. Trying to side-step the bureaucracy or ignore the trade-union movement would be problematic IMO because in a period of increased struggle the official trade unions would increase along with community-based initiatives by workers and allies (like occupy) and radical unions and wildcat actions. If faced with an upsurge from below, even the most conservative union leaderships would probably have to move left just to continue their existence and because of their resources they'd be able to reap increased membership and influence out of rising class struggle.

Forgive me for remaining skeptical about mere labour disputes and organizational struggles around them. These blokes are too glued to the Dems to form even a Labourite PACs and electoral organizations, let alone follow the party tradition of Ferdinand Lassalle, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and Daniel DeLeon.