Invisible vanguard

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Here's a sensationalist topic; instead of focusing on flashy symbolism, fixating on key personalities and finally seizing control at the end of the revolution, would it be better if the vanguard worked in the shadows and more importantly stay there? Maybe the party leader could be a new subcomandante Marcos who pops in occasionally to sow the seeds of discord and than vanishes without a trace. If they win, the vanguard could publicly disband and choose a few members of medium importance to play a public role while the rest could retire to communist mt vernins to brew alcohol and craft neomasonic superlodges.

[Q]

You'll love this guy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/blanqui/index.htm).

[roy]

well if an elite cabal of super-secret leftists cant bring about communism I don't know what can

[Let's Get Free]

Lets trash the vanguardist model of revolution altogether.

[Comrade Jandar]

I think what he is talking about is an organization, probably made up of anarchists, who did everything to decry vanguardism or parties, but were in fact a vanguard themselves.

[GoddessCleoLover]

My theory of invisible vanguardism is a bit different. I think we ought to come up with a magic potion that makes people invisible. Then we could distribute it to our Blanguian vanguard once they are invisible to the bourgeoisie they can take over the state and the means of production before the bourgeoisie can figure out what is going on.:lol:

[Comrade Jandar]

Lets trash the vanguardist model of revolution altogether.

Let's not. In that case we will never see revolution. You are de-fanging the proletariat with that nonsense. I used to be vehemently against vanguardism until I realized that the level of class consciousness that the workers would have to attain to not need some kind of centralized, organizational leadership is a utopian pipe dream.

[Let's Get Free]

Let's not. In that case we will never see revolution. You are de-fanging the proletariat with that nonsense. I used to be vehemently against vanguardism until I realized that the level of class consciousness that the workers would have to attain to not need some kind of centralized, organizational leadership is a utopian pipe dream.

If you want to make sure that a communist society never comes about then go ahead and rely on your so called "vanguard party". One thing is for sure - the moment it seizes power it will by default have to administer a capitalist society, given that the majority do not yet grasp and support an alternative to capitalism. That being so, your vanguard would be obliged to operate capitalism in the only way it can be run - in the interests of capital against wage labor.
Soon enough your vanguard communist party will drop all pretensions to being communist at all and will become like, well, Tony Blair's government or maybe Gorby's version of the same. And i don't need a crystal ball to tell you that this is absolutely certain

[Ostrinski]

You'll love this guy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/blanqui/index.htm).Or this one. (http://marxists.org/archive/bordiga/index.htm)

[Yuppie Grinder]

Or this one. (http://marxists.org/archive/bordiga/index.htm)

ouch

[Yuppie Grinder]

Aye let's get something clear, the Vanguard is not a conspiratorial minority party that can be trusted to seize state power on behalf of the proletariat, it is the section of the proletariat that has developed revolutionary consciousness and must be won over to the party. The Stalinist bastardization of Leninism is thoroughly Blanquist, Lenin himself is not.

[Caj]

Or this one. (http://marxists.org/archive/bordiga/index.htm)

Perhaps you should read him.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think what he is talking about is an organization, probably made up of anarchists, who did everything to decry vanguardism or parties, but were in fact a vanguard themselves.

Or clandestine societies whom understand the concept of propaganda, sabotage, infiltration, class struggle, conspiracy and most importantly that loose lips sink ships aka how shit fucking worked in history.

"There is only one power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of our principle."-Mikhail Bakunin.

"We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official power– even if it is an ultra-revolutionary power. We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. But, you will ask, if we are anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's revolution? By a force that is invisible, that no one admits and that is not imposed on anyone, by the collective dictatorship of our organization which will be all the greater the more it remains unseen and undeclared, the more it is deprived of all official rights and significance...Secret organizations would finally have the strength of that close solidarity which binds isolated groups in one organic whole...These groups would not seek anything for themselves...and they would be in a position to direct popular movements...This is what I call the collective dictatorship of a secret organization."-Mikhail Bakunin.

Invisible Dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_dictatorship)

[Grenzer]

I was surprised nobody brought up Bakunin before this. With all the Kautskyites running around screaming about Bakuninism, it'd be nice for them to show up in a case where it was actually real.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I was surprised nobody brought up Bakunin before this. With all the Kautskyites running around screaming about Bakuninism, it'd be nice for them to show up in a case where it was actually real.

To be clear, I like Bakunin and the above mentioned theory. As for examples in which it was real, there have been secret societies similar to what he is speaking of as was commented by Mao in his, Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society he said "They lead the most precarious existence of all. …they have their secret societies, which were originally their mutual aid organizations for political and economic struggle, for instance, the Triad Society..." The Triad society also was originally a way to combat and struggle against oppressive landlords. Not a perfect example mind you but a teaser to illustrate a point.

[Comrade Jandar]

If you want to make sure that a communist society never comes about then go ahead and rely on your so called "vanguard party". One thing is for sure - the moment it seizes power it will by default have to administer a capitalist society, given that the majority do not yet grasp and support an alternative to capitalism. That being so, your vanguard would be obliged to operate capitalism in the only way it can be run - in the interests of capital against wage labor.
Soon enough your vanguard communist party will drop all pretensions to being communist at all and will become like, well, Tony Blair's government or maybe Gorby's version of the same. And i don't need a crystal ball to tell you that this is absolutely certain

You do understand that widespread "socialist consciousness" of the caliber needed for full communism will not come about under capitalism but only after the productive forces begin to evolve under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Your claim that the majority of workers must be won over to socialism prior the revolution is idealism.

[Let's Get Free]

You do understand that widespread "socialist consciousness" of the caliber needed for full communism will not come about under capitalism but only after the productive forces begin to evolve under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Your claim that the majority of workers must be won over to socialism prior the revolution is idealism.

Well, how do you expect a cooperative socialist society to be run without widespread desire and understanding for such a system? Socialism cannot be forced onto a population that neither wants or understands it. A new form of capitalism will inevitably be created as happened in the Soviet Union should it be the case that a majority of workers are still not socialist minded.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You'll love this guy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/blanqui/index.htm).

I was almost tempted to say that you had the wrong guy, comrade, only to reference Bakunin and not Blanqui.


Or this one. (http://marxists.org/archive/bordiga/index.htm)

Definitely the wrong guy.

[TheOther]

Cool thought, that reminded me of the movie Hitman, of the computer game Hitman, based on a secret organization. In the movie Batman Begins there was also a sort of secret organization The League of Shadows, their purpose was to destroy corrupt societies. But man, the workers, poor people and oppressed are too mainstream, I don't know if they are radical enough to support organizations like that


Here's a sensationalist topic; instead of focusing on flashy symbolism, fixating on key personalities and finally seizing control at the end of the revolution, would it be better if the vanguard worked in the shadows and more importantly stay there? Maybe the party leader could be a new subcomandante Marcos who pops in occasionally to sow the seeds of discord and than vanishes without a trace. If they win, the vanguard could publicly disband and choose a few members of medium importance to play a public role while the rest could retire to communist mt vernins to brew alcohol and craft neomasonic superlodges.

[TheOther]

You are 100% right, it is almost impossible to force socialism on people. The only way that socialism can be propagated to people without having to be forced, is if a sort of populist reformist like Hugo Chavez rises to power in USA, and with the US government economic power buys and nationalizes CNN, FOX news, Univision, ABC and most mainstream TV news stations. And from powerful media power possition, uses those powerful media sources and propagates the socialism ideology to americans, using state of the art advanced technology with real good advertising and marketing technology to convince the american masses that socialism is their only solution for poverty and misery




Socialism cannot be forced onto a population that neither wants or understands it.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, how do you expect a cooperative socialist society to be run without widespread desire and understanding for such a system? Socialism cannot be forced onto a population that neither wants or understands it. A new form of capitalism will inevitably be created as happened in the Soviet Union should it be the case that a majority of workers are still not socialist minded.

Consciousness changes in a revolutionary situation. Do you think the strikers who went demonstrating on Feb 25th went out to bring down the Czar? No. Should they then have insisted that he did not abdicate? Do you think the workers' deputies who set up the Petrograd Soviet did so thinking 'oh I know what, let's set up dual power and in a couple of months we can overthrow the Provisional Government'? No. Should the Petrograd Soviet then have allowed the Provisional Goverment to continue the war? Do you think the soldiers who deserted the front in 1916 and 1917 left their regiments thinking 'let's go back to Petrograd, put ourselves at the disposal of the organs of workers' power that haven't even been established, and help topple the Autocracy'? No. Should they have sat out the revolution, saying 'it's nothing to do with us, we haven't sufficiently developed our socialist consciousness yet'?

Socialism cannot be forced, true, but it can be created even by people who don't have a formulated theory beforehand. Waiting until everyone has changed their consciousness will mean it will never happen - the ruling ideas of any epoch, and all that, consciousness being a reflection of material reality, and all that. Socialism isn't some messianic doctrine that you just take to the masses, it's 'the real movement' of the working class.

[Let's Get Free]

Consciousness changes in a revolutionary situation. Do you think the strikers who went demonstrating on Feb 25th went out to bring down the Czar? No. Should they then have insisted that he did not abdicate? Do you think the workers' deputies who set up the Petrograd Soviet did so thinking 'oh I know what, let's set up dual power and in a couple of months we can overthrow the Provisional Government'? No. Should the Petrograd Soviet then have allowed the Provisional Goverment to continue the war? Do you think the soldiers who deserted the front in 1916 and 1917 left their regiments thinking 'let's go back to Petrograd, put ourselves at the disposal of the organs of workers' power that haven't even been established, and help topple the Autocracy'? No. Should they have sat out the revolution, saying 'it's nothing to do with us, we haven't sufficiently developed our socialist consciousness yet'?

All that stuff is fantastic, but it did not lead to socialism, the biggest single reason being that the workers, and even more, the 80% peasant population, did not have a mass socialist conscious.


Socialism cannot be forced, true, but it can be created even by people who don't have a formulated theory beforehand. Waiting until everyone has changed their consciousness will mean it will never happen - the ruling ideas of any epoch, and all that, consciousness being a reflection of material reality, and all that. Socialism isn't some messianic doctrine that you just take to the masses, it's 'the real movement' of the working class.

I don't think anybody here denies that socialism will be established by the working class and that its establishment will result from an intensification/escalation of the class struggle. That follows almost by definition--obviously, if the working class are going to overthrow capitalism and capitalist class rule the class struggle is going to be stepped up. But workers don’t just wake up one morning and think to themselves - "Ah that’s it! Eureka! Socialism is the answer!" This is the mechanistic theory that a socialist consciousness can somehow materialize by circumventing the realm of ideology. We come to a socialist view of the world by interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them. And that is perhaps the role of the revolutionary group as being - as a catalyst in the process of changing consciousness. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. Saying you can have a socialist revolution without a broad socialist conscious is like saying you can drive from Los Angeles to Chicago, without knowing how to get to Chicago or even that a place called Chicago exists.

[Blake's Baby]

All that stuff is fantastic, but it did not lead to socialism, the biggest single reason being that the workers, and even more, the 80% peasant population, did not have a mass socialist conscious...

I think it didn't lead to socialism because the world revolution failed. Then again, I don't believe you can build socialism in one country.

EDIT: nor did I post it because I thought it could or would lead to socialism, but to demonstrate that people can take actions that have unexpected results, ends that were not forseen when they began. It is entirely possible that workers could expropriate property, demolsh the state apparatus and set about running society for the benefit of all, without having any notion that a bearded German newpaperman had an argument with a bearded Russian aristocrat 145 years ago.



...
I don't think anybody here denies that socialism will be established by the working class and that its establishment will result from an intensification/escalation of the class struggle. That follows almost by definition--obviously, if the working class are going to overthrow capitalism and capitalist class rule the class struggle is going to be stepped up...

I think probably the majority of RevLeft users don't think this is going to be the case, I think most users of this site think that, though the proletariat will do the donkey work, 'The Party' will be the brains behind it.



... But workers don’t just wake up one morning and think to themselves - "Ah that’s it! Eureka! Socialism is the answer!" ...

I know, I'm the one telling you that, because you seem to think they will.


...This is the mechanistic theory that a socialist consciousness can somehow materialize by circumventing the realm of ideology. We come to a socialist view of the world by interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them. And that is perhaps the role of the revolutionary group as being - as a catalyst in the process of changing consciousness. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. Saying you can have a socialist revolution without a broad socialist conscious is like saying you can drive from Los Angeles to Chicago, without knowing how to get to Chicago or even that a place called Chicago exists.

Yeah, of course you can. You can't plan to go to Chicago if you don't know Chicago exists, but you can still go there. I've often ended up at places I didn't know about beforehand. Do you really think that's impossible? Can you only do things you know you can do? Do you never do anything you don't have planned?

I don't disagree that one of the roles of the revolutionary organisation is generalising class consciousness, but seriously, are you claiming that no process can go beyond what its immediate aims are conceived to be?