The "vanguard party" rationale [Archive]

Skyhilist

1st January 2013, 12:28

Corruption is all over the place anyway under capitalism, so what have you got to lose?

What do you mean useless? The mere fact that it didn't take much of an effort to defeat Makhno tells you that it was a necessary step, if the Bolsheviks didn't want the so called "Free Territory" to fall under control of the foreign capital and become a proxy of Poland or the Entente.

Yeah there's corruption under capitalism, making it useless, but I'm not arguing on behalf of capitalism. My point is that there are systems allowing for way less corruption so it's stupid to risk it on vanguardism. And yeah it was easy to beat the people of Free Territory because the Bolsheviks outnumbered them 10 to 1 practically. Had they fought with the free territory (rather than against it) and helped them instead (much like the makhnovists helped the Bolsheviks fight the white army), there wouldn't be any polish takeover. Instead of allying with them though after they helped them defeat the white army though, they betrayed them like assholes... Not because it was the only viable option but because they saw Free Territory as a threat to their pseudo-egalitarian dictatorship.

Zulu

1st January 2013, 12:44

Yeah there's corruption under capitalism, making it useless, but I'm not arguing on behalf of capitalism. My point is that there are systems allowing for way less corruption so it's stupid to risk it on vanguardism.

My point is that it's stupid not to go with the vanguardism, because the worst case scenario is that you'll end where you've started.

And where are those systems you refer to? The Paris Commune fell within a matter of months, Luxemburg's Spartacists were brutally killed, their leadership included, by the fascistic white guards... that pretty much sums up all the history of the non-vanguardist communist revolutionary action. And I doubt that they would have had any success at transforming the relations of production even if they had lucked out of the counterrevolutionary perils.

Skyhilist

1st January 2013, 12:50

Well imagine like anarchist Catalonia but on a global scale. Really they were only defeated because fascism was popular at the time period (which was an external problem, not an internal problem). Actually vanguard parties that allowed for people like Stalin to come to power I'd say are significantly worse in many cases. Speaking of which, Stalin actually also helped anarchist Catalonia fall. Hmmm, I wonder what his incentive for that was.

Zulu

1st January 2013, 13:02

Stalin actually also helped anarchist Catalonia fall. Hmmm, I wonder what his incentive for that was.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

Anarchism simply can't work. Nevermind it has no coherent economic program(which implies exchange, and exchange means market, and market means capitalism), it is simply paradoxical to expect that a political system without an enforcement mechanism can exist longer than it takes for a single group capable of enforcing some other system (even so primitive as a youth gang) to assert itself.

ind_com

1st January 2013, 13:08

Vanguardism is necessary due to uneven development caused by capitalism. Certain parts of the working class are more advanced than others. They consolidate themselves into the vanguard party and initiate the revolutionary struggle.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

1st January 2013, 13:13

Vanguard parties. Just say no.

Skyhilist

1st January 2013, 13:13

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

Anarchism simply can't work. Nevermind it has no coherent economic program(which implies exchange, and exchange means market, and market means capitalism), it is simply paradoxical to expect that a political system without an enforcement mechanism can exist longer than it takes for a single group capable of enforcing some other system (even so primitive as a youth gang) to assert itself.

Well first of all most anarchism doesn't imply a free market. Anarcho-communism for example is a gift economy for everyone who condtributes. If a syndicate or individual doesn't reciprocate, they don't reap the benefits from society. If local communities have a problem with someone, it's not that difficult to call them out. It's not that anarchy isn't governed from chaos. It's governed by horizontal federation of worker assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, federations of workers in industries, regional federations. These can even scale up to a larger level like with the CNT. This has worked in the past until external forces ruined it. This just means that this society needs to be more well fortified or worldwide. I prefer the latter more. If anarchy wasn't working and wasn't a threat to Stalinism, then Stalin would have no incentive to try to break it up in the first place.

Zulu

1st January 2013, 13:38

reciprocate

You mean exchange.

If local communities have a problem with someone, it's not that difficult to call them out.

What happens if it is?

This has worked in the past until external forces ruined it.

Sure, a well organized external force ruins an anarchy much sooner than it takes for a bunch of selfish pricks to get organized enough to ruin it from within.

This just means that this society needs to be more well fortified
A standing army? Police force? Ho-ho.

or worldwide.
Actually, there was a worldwide anarcho-communism once. Before the neolithic revolution.

If anarchy wasn't working and wasn't a threat to Stalinism, then Stalin would have no incentive to try to break it up in the first place.

Look, as a "threat to Stalinism" anarchy did indeed work quite well. I bet it was a bit of a downer losing all the tanks and other hardware Stalin sent in, just because the idea of the chain of command, even in a war against fascists, was entirely foreign to those anarchists.

Skyhilist

1st January 2013, 13:59

You mean exchange.

Not necessarily. Suppose you contribute music or scientific findings or something. Not everyone has to love it for it to be contributing.

What happens if it is?

Examples? At worst you'd have a few free riders; really not a significant economic burden

Sure, a well organized external force ruins an anarchy much sooner than it takes for a bunch of selfish pricks to get organized enough to ruin it from within

It has to do with sheer numbers. Had Marxist-leninists been as heavily outnumbered, the soviets would've fallen a lot sooner. Again though, how is an internal force to ruin it? Like I explained earlier, it's not that there's no governance, it's just that it's by workers and communities rather than a state.

A standing army? Police force? Ho-ho.

Who says anarchists intervening against selfish pricks who try to ruin equality is against anarchist principles? Obviously not a police state, but just the anarchists and revolutionaries of society in general willing to step in where there is injustice.

Actually, there was a worldwide anarcho-communism once. Before the neolithic revolution.

In a few places, not globally. Much of the world was just anomie without any laws or structuring.

Look, as a "threat to Stalinism" anarchy did indeed work quite well. I bet it was a bit of a downer losing all the tanks and other hardware Stalin sent in, just because the idea of the chain of command, even in a war against fascists, was entirely foreign to those anarchists.

Really? So anarchist strategies worked for you when we helped you defeat the white army, but suddenly not after that? Betraying hypocrites...
Besides, they didn't need a chain of command, they were capable of collectively strategizing.

l'EnfermÃ©

1st January 2013, 14:14

Brosa Luxemburg

1st January 2013, 14:15

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2537612&postcount=3

Posted that recently somewhere. Didn't just wanna type it all out again.

Skyhilist

1st January 2013, 14:20

As far as Makhno goes, if the Bolsheviks had the capacity to bring Soviet power to the Free Territory and they didn't take a chance, that would have been a terrible crime and a betrayal of the proletariat.

So betrayal is justified if it's in the name of Soviet opportunism? I fail to see how the people of free territory were better off after the soviets forced a system that they didn't want on to them, especially after they were aided by them fighting against the white army. Why even accept this help if the soviets were only going to betray them?

Zulu

1st January 2013, 14:44

they didn't need a chain of command, they were capable of collectively strategizing.

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/242/7/e/Tactical_Facepalm_by_Ghost1334652.jpg

Zulu

1st January 2013, 14:51

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2537612&postcount=3

Very nicely put.

Skyhilist

1st January 2013, 17:35

I think collective strategizing on various things can still actually be effectively done. The CNT has even developed a whole protocol for stuff like this I believe, although they certainly haven't voted on war in awhile. Brosa makes an interesting argument; unions, syndicates, and local community assemblies aren't perfect. However, neither is the vanguard party because it's given authority and therefore usually becomes corrupted, sometimes even worse than any revisionist "liberals" who might have been in office before.

Tim Cornelis

1st January 2013, 18:01

And where are those systems you refer to? The Paris Commune fell within a matter of months, Luxemburg's Spartacists were brutally killed, their leadership included, by the fascistic white guards... that pretty much sums up all the history of the non-vanguardist communist revolutionary action. And I doubt that they would have had any success at transforming the relations of production even if they had lucked out of the counterrevolutionary perils.

Firstly, you don't explain the cause of the collapse of the experiments you gave above. You merely assume that because there was (supposedly) no "vanguard" that this must have caused the collapse: a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

How was "Roxa Luxemburg's" Spartacus League not a vanguard party?

Anarchism simply can't work. Nevermind it has no coherent economic program(which implies exchange, and exchange means market, and market means capitalism), it is simply paradoxical to expect that a political system without an enforcement mechanism can exist longer than it takes for a single group capable of enforcing some other system (even so primitive as a youth gang) to assert itself.

This is a strawman. Of course anarchism advocates enforcement of a political system, it is merely that we do not necessarily call this a "state."

And the idea that we have no "coherent economic program" meaning we advocate exhange, markets, and capitalism is an incredibly weird leap based on absolutely nothing.

Look, as a "threat to Stalinism" anarchy did indeed work quite well. I bet it was a bit of a downer losing all the tanks and other hardware Stalin sent in, just because the idea of the chain of command, even in a war against fascists, was entirely foreign to those anarchists.

Here you assume that because anarchists oppose hierarchical social relations that therefore there must have been no hierarchy within the ranks of anarchists in the Spanish civil war.

I advocate (democratic) hierarchy within organisations where this is required: fire fighters, ships, armies.

Your entire argument against anarchism is incoherent gibberish.

EDIT:

What is lacking in this discussion, is a definition of "vanguard party." I advocate vanguardism, in the sense of the most advanced sections of the working class bilaterally leading and politicising the working classes, but not in the sense of a unilateral declaration of leadership and seizing power on behalf of the working class.

Zulu

1st January 2013, 20:28

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Wow... But OK. The Commune would have probably been defeated even if there was some kind of a vanguard party.

How was "Roxa Luxemburg's" Spartacus League not a vanguard party?
It was not militant enough, relied a bit too much on the spontaneity of the masses and generally had too little no clue what it means to be a vanguard party, which was unsurprising seeing how it split from the opportunistic SPD only after the latter had lost all shame and supported the Kaiser. And even after that Luxemburg criticized Lenin's dictatorial tendencies. The tragic end of Luxemburg proved only one thing: revolutionaries must be ready to outmatch their adversaries in every respect, including ruthlessness, or stick to more serene forms of activity.

we do not necessarily call this a "state."

Whatever you call it is immaterial. What it does is important. If it does what the "state" does, then, for all intents and purposes, you're not an anarchist by definition, as you don't really want to abolish the state, you just want to rename it.

And the idea that we have no "coherent economic program" meaning we advocate exhange, markets, and capitalism is an incredibly weird leap based on absolutely nothing.

So I'm told you advocate "reciprocity". Can you prove that this "reciprocity" does not amount to exchange and that this exchange won't lead to market and commodity production?

Here you assume that because anarchists oppose hierarchical social relations that therefore there must have been no hierarchy within the ranks of anarchists in the Spanish civil war.
I just hope you won't go on to assert that the anarchists' formations were superior or equaled even the POUM militia in fighting efficiency.

robbo203

1st January 2013, 20:38

If vanguardism means the capture of political by a minority in advance of the majority becoming socialists then it is foredoomed to only one outcome - betrayal and the rapid evolution of the vanguard into a new ruling class that will vigorously attempt to crush and exploit the working class just as ruthlessly as the old one, if not more so.

So yeah - to hell with vanguardists, their crappy elitist politics and their patronising arrogant view of us workers

Tim Cornelis

1st January 2013, 21:00

Wow... But OK. The Commune would have probably been defeated even if there was some kind of a vanguard party.

It was not militant enough, relied a bit too much on the spontaneity of the masses and generally had too little no clue what it means to be a vanguard party, which was unsurprising seeing how it split from the opportunistic SPD only after the latter had lost all shame and supported the Kaiser. And even after that Luxemburg criticized Lenin's dictatorial tendencies. The tragic end of Luxemburg proved only one thing: revolutionaries must be ready to outmatch their adversaries in every respect, including ruthlessness, or stick to more serene forms of activity.

Okay, that's what you believe, but you have no substantiated it or backed it up by referencing sources that would. You say the German revolution failed for such and such reason, which may or may not be true, but where is the evidence for it? Either way, I'm not sure for the reason of the defeat of the German revolution, but military superiority of the state would be my guess--and that's all it is, a guess. If you have arguments to the contrary, please.

I don't see how Luxemburg's critique of Lenin relates at all to the functioning of the Spartacus League.

Whatever you call it is immaterial. What it does is important. If it does what the "state" does, then, for all intents and purposes, you're not an anarchist by definition, as you don't really want to abolish the state, you just want to rename it.

In which case, anarchism doesn't exist. Which is fine with me, but don't rehash the old strawmen argument that anarchists want to lay down their weapons as I know you know this to be untrue.

So I'm told you advocate "reciprocity". Can you prove that this "reciprocity" does not amount to exchange and that this exchange won't lead to market and commodity production?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that reciprocity leads to market exchange, markets, and capitalism since you are making a positive claim that it does. First give me reasons why it does, and then we can proceed.

I would in fact be very surprised if there is any communist at all that does not, either implicitly or explicitly advocates, reciprocity. In fact, whether advocated or not it has existed in all times, places, cultures, and peoples. Reciprocity does not by definition mean the exchange of material goods.

For example, I don't see how me shoveling my neighbour's front yard and he offering to watch my pets (not a formal exchange or explicit quid pro quo) when on a holiday under communism would lead to market exchange. Likewise, A doing the dishes, and B doing the laundry in a household hasn't lead to market competition within households either.

I just hope you won't go on to assert that the anarchists' formations were superior or equaled even the POUM militia in fighting efficiency.

I'm not familiar with the efficiency of militias in the Spanish Civil War.

Blake's Baby

1st January 2013, 21:25

If vanguardism means the capture of political by a minority in advance of the majority becoming socialists then it is foredoomed to only one outcome - betrayal and the rapid evolution of the vanguard into a new ruling class that will vigorously attempt to crush and exploit the working class just as ruthlessly as the old one, if not more so...

And if it doesn't mean that?

If it instead means that the working class needs to organise itself in a political party, and that, because of capitalism's overwhelming control of the means of communication ('ruling ideas of any epoch' and all that), that party can only ever be a minority?

Let's Get Free

1st January 2013, 21:28

With the lessons we've learned throughout history, I think we can say that any vanguardist approach to revolution can only lead to the entrenchment of a new class society.

hetz

1st January 2013, 21:34

With the lessons we've learned throughout history, I think we can say that any vanguardist approach to revolution can only lead to the entrenchment of a new class society.
We could say that for pretty much every approach to revolution.

Mass Grave Aesthetics

1st January 2013, 22:56

I´m for a vanguard party but this diagram is like a joke. No one seriously argues for it on this stakhanovist basis unless one is a delusional basement- dwelling stalinogothic.

Let's Get Free

1st January 2013, 23:04

We could say that for pretty much every approach to revolution.

The point is that any future revolution attempting to establish a classless society must reject the notion of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries, who will inevitably become the new ruling class. Such a program is based on a fundamental mistrust of the working class.

Blake's Baby

1st January 2013, 23:30

Every previous revolution has failed, whether led by a vanguard party or not. So, should we reject revolution as it will inevitably fail?

robbo203

1st January 2013, 23:41

And if it doesn't mean that?

If it instead means that the working class needs to organise itself in a political party, and that, because of capitalism's overwhelming control of the means of communication ('ruling ideas of any epoch' and all that), that party can only ever be a minority?

I dont buy the argument that capitalism's control of the means of production is so overwhelmingly as to prevent the spread of socialist ideas. Such defeatist talk overlooks that capitalism creates the very material conditions out of which socialist ideas arise. It also overlooks the fact that capitalism itself is not and never can be monolithic; its ideological structure manifests and will always manifest, fractures that render it constantly vulnerable to subversion. One only has to consider the contempt in which politicians are currently held to see the point

Vanguardism does not break with the elistist logic of bourgeois poilitics but reinforces it. Which is why revolutionaries can have no truck with vanguardism whatsoever. It is not only fundamentally undemocratic in outlook but insidiously works to promote the very passivity among the working class upon which capitalism's hegemony depends

There is of course another sense in which one talk about a "vanguard" which is quite different from what it entails in the theory of vanguardism and its notion of a minority capturing power allegedly on behalf of the majority. This is the purely empirical concept of the vanguard as being the small minority who are currently revolutionary in outlook in contrast to the majority. In this empirical sense the vanguard is akin to what might be called an avante garde - that is, those on the cutting edge of socio-political thinking.

However, the whole point of a revolutionary movement is to become the majority and therefore to end its status as a minority - as a vanguard. A vanguard in this sense is thus different from from the idea of a vanquard in vanguardist theory inasmuch as the latter seeks to perpetuate and reinforce its minority status as a political leadership and not end it

If the socialist minority cannot become a socialist majority as your scenario suggests - because capitalism's propaganda machine is supposedly too powerful to overcome - well then you might just as well kiss goodbye to socialism, close down Revleft and every other outlet concerned with the exchange of socialist ideas, and enjoy that pizza and a cold beer in front of a telly pumping out all that capitalist propaganda 24/7 cos thats how its gonna be for the rest of your life .

hetz

1st January 2013, 23:54

The point is that any future revolution attempting to establish a classless society must reject the notion of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries, who will inevitably become the new ruling class
If such a revolution comes to that point then great, I'm all for it.
But in the meantime there's no such force, and all relevant communist/etc. parties of today ( even though the communist movement in general has become weaker ) disagree with your notion.

Such a program is based on a fundamental mistrust of the working class.
And how do you know this, better yet what is the evidence for that claim?

Zulu

2nd January 2013, 03:28

I would in fact be very surprised if there is any communist at all that does not, either implicitly or explicitly advocates, reciprocity. In fact, whether advocated or not it has existed in all times, places, cultures, and peoples. Reciprocity does not by definition mean the exchange of material goods.
Communism stands for an economy consisting of centrally planned one-way transactions without any hint on reciprocity.

For example, I don't see how me shoveling my neighbour's front yard and he offering to watch my pets (not a formal exchange or explicit quid pro quo) when on a holiday under communism would lead to market exchange. Likewise, A doing the dishes, and B doing the laundry in a household hasn't lead to market competition within households either.

That's a very bad example, because you can't organize modern economic activity even on a small Caribbean island (let alone the entire globe) on heighborly favors alone. It either has to be contractual obligations of independent parties (exchange) or functions to be performed in a cooperative effort (plan).

Let's Get Free

2nd January 2013, 03:32

Communism stands for an economy consisting of centrally planned one-way transactions without any hint on reciprocity.

That's absolute fucking crap, that isn't what communism is at all, where do you come up with this horse shit?

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

2nd January 2013, 03:40

The point is that any future revolution attempting to establish a classless society must reject the notion of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries, who will inevitably become the new ruling class. Such a program is based on a fundamental mistrust of the working class.

The essential point is class struggle, what is needed is a party that can led the working class which is led by the working class, one with a dialetical relationship with it's subject so it can continue the class struggle after the military victory of the revolution. This is the party we need.

Flying Purple People Eater

2nd January 2013, 03:53

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2537612&postcount=3

Posted that recently somewhere. Didn't just wanna type it all out again.
"Restricted to the most revolutionary and class conscious"

Could you expand upon this a little? Those words are vague and could mean anything between a party made up of class-conscious proletarians and a powerfully segregated party governed by a restricted, un-negotiable 'class-conscious elite'. Also, how can you measure one's 'class-consciousness'? Who makes the decisions about this when the party is in its infancy? Is there a question sheet or something!?:lol:

Zulu

2nd January 2013, 06:12

That's absolute fucking crap, that isn't what communism is at all, where do you come up with this horse shit?

In Soviet Russia;).

robbo203

2nd January 2013, 07:29

That's absolute fucking crap, that isn't what communism is at all, where do you come up with this horse shit?

The thing is,see, he hasnt got a clue about what "reciprocity" actually means . It is nothing to do with a market economy as such. The most accurate description of a communist society would be one based on a system of generalised reciprocity Zulu perhaps should google the term; he might just the learn something instead of coming out with the predictable stream of drivel he ususually comes out with

As for his comment " Communism stands for an economy consisting of centrally planned one-way transactions" the guy hasnt got a clue. Not a clue. Its laugbale anyway since a "transaction" is by its very nature two way, not one way. Such a system of central planning would not last for a single day without the feedback mechanism than any and every type of economy would require

And as for the Soviet Union being an example of his centrally planned pseudo communism well - 'nuff said! Looked at what happened to that state capitalist disaster. Actually the SU was nowhere near a centrally planned system in Zulu''s idiotic sense of the term and GOSPLAN's plan were little more than a joke. None of them were ever strictly met

Im just amazed there are still people around who fall for this stuff

Brosa Luxemburg

2nd January 2013, 14:19

Those words are vague and could mean anything between a party made up of class-conscious proletarians and a powerfully segregated party governed by a restricted, un-negotiable 'class-conscious elite'.

I meant it as a party made up of class-conscious and revolutionary proletarians, but not a "powerfully segregated party governed by a restricted, un-negotiable etc. etc." If the vangaurd isn't the former, but the later, it stops being the proletarian vanguard. It seems you are asking me to expand on how such a party would internally operate among party members and among members of the proletariat. Of course, I cannot provide a blueprint as to how this would work. What I can say, though, is that the party should be effectively in the hands of the members, with the party leadership acting as the logical representatives of such views. Some power would be delegated to the leadership, but "ownership", so to speak, of the party should remain with the members. Yet, I am not one to fetishize democratic decision-making outside of material conditions, and material conditions themselves would shape the way such a party operates.

Also, how can you measure one's 'class-consciousness'?

I'm not really sure what you are asking me here. Class consciousness means that an individual recognizes they stand in the same relation to production as others and that they have their own interests contradictory to those of other classes. If someone recognizes this, they are class conscious.

robbo203

2nd January 2013, 20:04

The essential point is class struggle, what is needed is a party that can led the working class which is led by the working class, one with a dialetical relationship with it's subject so it can continue the class struggle after the military victory of the revolution. This is the party we need.

"Military victory"? What do you have in mind? That us workers acquire our own exocet missiles and the odd Harrier jump jet? Well blow me over and there I am struggling to get the money to pay the rent let alone splash out on such extravagant purchases like that

Zulu

3rd January 2013, 02:20

generalised reciprocity

Oh, yeah, the reciprocity is "generalized" now! This sure changes things quite a bit, and I can now name the future UN Gosplan something like "Agency for Generalization of Reciprocity" and call it a day.

SU was nowhere near a centrally planned system

Google "GOELRO".

And what about the question #3 I've asked you in that other thread? I'm really eager to see the light, you know...

3rd January 2013, 02:46

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/4222/vanguardpartyrationale.jpg (http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/4222/vanguardpartyrationale.jpg)

Any questions?

Uhm yes, could you explain that picture? That way I know what you mean by "vanguard party" (a vague term that could mean multiple things) and I know what to answer in your poll.

Thanks.

Zulu

3rd January 2013, 03:44

Uhm yes, could you explain that picture? That way I know what you mean by "vanguard party" (a vague term that could mean multiple things) and I know what to answer in your poll.

Thanks.

A vanguard party is a group of advanced conscious elements of a revolutionary class that assists the relations of production to catch up with the productive forces.

Thus, for example, the Christian church may be called the vanguard party of the feudal class as it definitely played a major part in the transition from the slave labor mode of production to feudalism.

3rd January 2013, 04:07

A vanguard party is a group of advanced conscious elements of a revolutionary class that assists the relations of production to catch up with the productive forces.
I think that is a rather strange take on it. I was more expecting something along the spectrum of the "Leninist" mini-group on the one side and the mass party on the other side. But your take is much more focused on the mode of production itself.

What is the "assisting" role of a communist vanguard party, in your opinion?

Thus, for example, the Christian church may be called the vanguard party of the feudal class as it definitely played a major part in the transition from the slave labor mode of production to feudalism.
Besides your take on it being somewhat odd, I think that is historically incorrect. But that is another subject entirely.

blake 3:17

3rd January 2013, 04:29

A vanguard party is a group of advanced conscious elements of a revolutionary class that assists the relations of production to catch up with the productive forces.

Usually those folks are called managers, supervisors or foremen.

Zulu

3rd January 2013, 04:56

I think that is a rather strange take on it. I was more expecting something along the spectrum of the "Leninist" mini-group on the one side and the mass party on the other side. But your take is much more focused on the mode of production itself.

What is the "assisting" role of a communist vanguard party, in your opinion?

I just put the concept of vanguardism into the broader context of the Marxian model of the social formations.

In my opinion, a communist vanguard party role is best explained by Lenin, of course.

Usually those folks are called managers, supervisors or foremen.
On the contrary, managers, supervisors and foremen usually can't think outside the box of the old relations of production and are quite hostile to innovation.

ClassLiberator

3rd January 2013, 05:26

It seems to me like a successful revolution without a centralized group of people organizing what should come afterwards would just lead to a state or disorder. I think, though, that it should be kept in mind that it is dangerous to give absolute power to a small set of revolutionaries, demonstrable by China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. For the revolution's sake, there should be a vanguard party but it should organize a democratic state afterwards to be managed directly by the people with different groups making different proposals to manage the workers' state.

Geiseric

3rd January 2013, 05:49

Let's Get Free

3rd January 2013, 06:48

Te argument gainst vanguardism is very similar to anti communist "power corrupts," excuses from liberals

im against vanguardism because the liberation of the working class can only happen through their own mass organizations and their own efforts, from below. Not by some condescending saviors called a "vanguard party" substituting itself for the direct democracy of the masses.

Blake's Baby

3rd January 2013, 06:59

Geiseric

3rd January 2013, 07:05

robbo203

3rd January 2013, 07:26

Te argument gainst vanguardism is very similar to anti communist "power corrupts," excuses from liberals, so I dont really appreciate any value, we need to understand tha russia was in shambles, so it makes sense that a gang of opportunist statespeople took over the political situation, in an isolated example. Anti vanguardists don't see makhno as a vanguard of anarchism either which is funny. What many people need to get is that the vanguard needs solidify its support before a revolutionary period by taking an active role and guaranteeing the success of transitional campigns, which will in the long run increase class consciousness.

This is an argument for a monarchy actually. Instead of the divine right of kings you have the divine right of the vanguard party to impose order and discipline on the all those shambolic revolting peasants

Its laughable really. Here we have a Trot declaring that it is a liberal sentiment that power corrpupts. BTW what is it with this swearword "liberal"; it seems to crop up everywhere on this forum as a lazy excuse for the politically illiterate to not make any kind of actual argument but merely to indulge themselves in a glow of self righteous denunciation But when it comes to their favourite bogeyman, Stalin - oh no! - our intrepid Trotskyists are positively gushing with liberal sentiments about the corrupting influence of power. The "revolutiuon" foundered all because of that evil ogre.

Of course power fucking corrupts and its got nothing to do with liberalism. The means and the ends must be in harmony. You cannot bring about a free democratic and humane society by methods that contradict this aim. The ends do not justify the means but determine them. When are people going to understand this simple point?

Vanguardists with their wet dream of some top down hierarchical party spearheaded by some all powerful godlike figure - yer Lenin or yer Trotsky or yer Stalin - are a pain in the arse and a serious and formidable obstacle in the path of working class self emancipation. They exhibit in their very mode of thinking the very essence of class society and it is hardly surprising that any vanguard there ever has been, or ever will be , has only reproduced a system of state run capitalism

Le Socialiste

3rd January 2013, 07:47

im against vanguardism because the liberation of the working class can only happen through their own mass organizations and their own efforts, from below. Not by some condescending saviors called a "vanguard party" substituting itself for the direct democracy of the masses.

You aren't terribly acquainted with what vanguardism is then, unfortunately. Vanguard organizations don't inherit substitutionist tendencies by way of their mere existence; they're not condemned to follow the organizational models of the seemingly omniscient, monolithic entities that arose in the early to mid-20th century. Those parties represented a distortion of the communist tradition established by Lenin, the early Comintern, and its forebears. Their degeneracy into heavily bureaucratized agents of state capital was not an inevitability.

No party is destined to "substitute itself" for the direct democracy of the masses, wherein the power of the membership is overtaken by the Central Committee, which in turn is supplanted by the rigidity of a one woman/man dictatorship. Trotsky drew the same mistaken conclusions in 1903-5, irrespective of the dialectical and material nature of the party in relationship with mass self-activity. The party is after all a collection of the most class-conscious, militant workers and intellectuals, embedded in the theory and tradition of Marxism which is, in turn, established amongst the working-class through praxis.

Its involvement in the masses' struggles isn't of a substitutionist nature, but should on the whole reflect its readiness to guide and lead the militant upsurge of the class, refine it, and prepare it for an eventual seizure of power. It needs to work within a Marxist paradigm in order to fully recognize, assess, and adapt to shifts in the class and, more broadly, (inter)national capital itself. Equally important is the observance of democratic models and hierarchies, in a way and manner that is appropriate to the conditions in which the party finds itself; whatever is expedient, really.

All said, I oppose the vanguardism you yourself defined. But I am a vanguardist in that I believe a true mass democratic party of the working-class, as laid out above, is the most relevant and effective model for our time.

Sea

3rd January 2013, 07:49

I think that is a rather strange take on it.Try thinking of it as Capra's Rectangle.

Better?
im against vanguardism because the liberation of the working class can only happen through their own mass organizations and their own efforts, from below. Not by some condescending saviors called a "vanguard party" substituting itself for the direct democracy of the masses.Give this a listen:

http://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/what-kind-of-party-do-we-need-to-build

It's not perfect (welcome to the iso), but it's a decent explanation of what a vanguard party is.

edit: skip to around 8:00 if you want to get to the part where he says "first of all, ..."
Vanguardists with their wet dream of some top down hierarchical party spearheaded by some all powerful godlike figure - yer Lenin or yer Trotsky or yer Stalin - are a pain in the arse and a serious and formidable obstacle in the path of working class self emancipation. They exhibit in their very mode of thinking the very essence of class society and it is hardly surprising that any vanguard there ever has been, or ever will be , has only reproduced a system of state run capitalismFOR THE LAST TIME, THAT'S NOT VANGUARDISM

THAT'S HORRIDFETISHIZEGLORIOUSSOVIETRUSSIA-ISM

3rd January 2013, 11:37

Try thinking of it as Capra's Rectangle.

Better?

Nope.

If anyone cares, I reposted a blog a while back called On vanguardism and "vanguardism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6435).

Tim Cornelis

3rd January 2013, 12:04

Communism stands for an economy consisting of centrally planned one-way transactions without any hint on reciprocity.

That's a very bad example, because you can't organize modern economic activity even on a small Caribbean island (let alone the entire globe) on heighborly favors alone. It either has to be contractual obligations of independent parties (exchange) or functions to be performed in a cooperative effort (plan).

If your interpretation of communism involves class society, there isn't much use in continuing this discussion. I'm was not saying that particular example would be the manner into which an economy should be organised at all. You have yet to show why reciprocity would lead to market exchange.

I meant it as a party made up of class-conscious and revolutionary proletarians, but not a "powerfully segregated party governed by a restricted, un-negotiable etc. etc." If the vangaurd isn't the former, but the later, it stops being the proletarian vanguard. It seems you are asking me to expand on how such a party would internally operate among party members and among members of the proletariat. Of course, I cannot provide a blueprint as to how this would work. What I can say, though, is that the party should be effectively in the hands of the members, with the party leadership acting as the logical representatives of such views. Some power would be delegated to the leadership, but "ownership", so to speak, of the party should remain with the members. Yet, I am not one to fetishize democratic decision-making outside of material conditions, and material conditions themselves would shape the way such a party operates.

The problem with economic determinists is that they do not recognise that there isn't one inevitable historical trajectory. It's absolute and utter nonsense to insist the material conditions determine the structure of a party. For one, there are many socialist parties subject to the same material conditions with different structures.

It is one thing to say we cannot articulate a blueprint of a future communist society since the material conditions will potentially be vastly different and the material conditions guide the economic structure. It is another to say that we can't articulate how a party should reach decisions in the here and the now! How do you suppose we go about settling on a decision-making structure within a party? Wait until the material conditions, as a deity, reach us and dictate it? How does letting the material conditions determine it make any sense whatsoever when humans do it. If you refuse to articulate a decision-making structure you become subject to the tyranny of structurelessness. Whomever is most vocal or zealous with the organisations and accumulates most influence will be able to hijack the organisation: there is no accountability. Whatever will be the result of this organised chaos will be justified under the guise of "apparently the material conditions necessitated it" as if the material conditions set in stone an inevitable organisational trajectory.

Additional question: what is the role of the vanguard in the revolution?

Brosa Luxemburg

3rd January 2013, 15:40

The problem with economic determinists is that they do not recognise that there isn't one inevitable historical trajectory. It's absolute and utter nonsense to insist the material conditions determine the structure of a party. For one, there are many socialist parties subject to the same material conditions with different structures.

You misunderstood what I was saying, but i'll get into your criticisms to show how.

It is one thing to say we cannot articulate a blueprint of a future communist society since the material conditions will potentially be vastly different and the material conditions guide the economic structure. It is another to say that we can't articulate how a party should reach decisions in the here and the now!

What I was saying was that certain situations and material conditions would play a huge part in how decision-making would occur. I wasn't saying that it is impossible to "articulate how a party should reach decisions in the here and now!" If a party was working in conditions of illegality and oppression, it's decision-making process would almost certainly be different than if it was working in conditions of legality. In times when the party is not being suppressed, etc. then obviously we know how it would operate (with the vast majority of decision-making in the hands of the party membership, etc. etc.) but in conditions of illegality, oppression, etc. it would certainly have to act differently.

How do you suppose we go about settling on a decision-making structure within a party? Wait until the material conditions, as a deity, reach us and dictate it? How does letting the material conditions determine it make any sense whatsoever when humans do it. If you refuse to articulate a decision-making structure you become subject to the tyranny of structurelessness. Whomever is most vocal or zealous with the organisations and accumulates most influence will be able to hijack the organisation: there is no accountability. Whatever will be the result of this organised chaos will be justified under the guise of "apparently the material conditions necessitated it" as if the material conditions set in stone an inevitable organisational trajectory.

I am not looking at my original post, but you misunderstood what I meant to say. Either I wrote it so it was easy to misunderstand, or you skimmed over it and misunderstood what I meant. Either way, I was not at all arguing the above.

Red Enemy

3rd January 2013, 16:47

I consider myself undecided on the idea of a "vanguard party", but I am not of the notion that Lenin's vanguard is some "elitist, state capitalist, non-worker, commander of the proletariat", as some are.

Desy

3rd January 2013, 17:12

but I am not of the notion that Lenin's vanguard is some "elitist, state capitalist, non-worker, commander of the proletariat", as some are.

Thank you. I was wondering if everyone thought that.

So, with no vanguard party, who leads? The masses of the people? In peoples anti-vanguard party vision, you have millions of people that think the same way and they all just know what to do? Kind of sounds like occupy wall street. :P

Geiseric

3rd January 2013, 19:15

the vanguard isn't an elitist thing, it's simply whoever is carrying out the revolution. The sans culottes were the vanguard of the french revolution, with the jacobins, and whoever supported the revolution from the get go of the actual civil war. Babeuf came around later, and he would be the first socialist, but that's besides the point. The french revolution like the russian one both went through periods of thermidor and internal reaction, due to isolation and internal economic distraught. When the degeneration was going on, is when the state bureaucracy becomes an entity for its own interests. Through the civil war and the early N.E.P. the state was managing economic development, due to necessity, and wasn't for the most part acting in the interests of anybody except the working class, doing things like founding universities and making everybody literate, and basically modernizing the country. This economic development was impossible with anything except for a state owned, not for profit, planned economy, because if it was capitalist it would of developed in the same way as capitalist imperialized states, such as argentinia, if we think about combined and unequal development.

TheRedAnarchist23

3rd January 2013, 19:51

lolstalinists!

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3121/2622591529_3b7529aa2f.jpg

That's is all I have to say about this. You can guess what I voted.

robbo203

3rd January 2013, 20:45

the vanguard isn't an elitist thing, it's simply whoever is carrying out the revolution. .

This is rubbish. It is deceitfully playing on the double meaning of the word "vanguard" to disguise its own blatant elitism

You can use the word "vanguard" to refer to what might be called the avant garde - the small minority on the cutting edge of social thinking, artistic sensiblity or whatever. That is a purely empirical or descriptive sense of the word "vanguard" to mean a minority

However vanguardism as a political theory means something quite different and I wish people would stop conflating these two terms!

Vanguardism as a political theory means a small minority can emancipate the vast majority by seizing political power allegedly on behalf of the latter - perhaps on the pretext that the latter are too enslaved and disempowered by the power of capitalist ideology to know whats good for them. This is a view that people like Trotsky held. It is utterly and completely opposed to the Marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be done by the working class itself

Because it is the working class as a whole that must emancipate itself though a socialist revolution, what this means is that socialist ideas can longer be the province of a small minority - a vanguard - as they are now. In other words, a socialist revoltion depends on the de facto elimination or disappearance of the "vanguard", in the former descriptive sense of this term, and its replacement by a socialist majority. After all. it makes no sense at all to talk of socialists being a vanguard any longer if most workers are socialists - as they will need to be to effect a socialist revolution

So what this means is that anyone who advocates a role for a vanguard in a socialist revolution - I.E espouses a vanguardist political theory - ipso facto place themselves outside and against the whole marxist tradition which asserts that the workers must emancipate themselves and not a vanguard

l'EnfermÃ©

3rd January 2013, 22:03

This is rubbish. It is deceitfully playing on the double meaning of the word "vanguard" to disguise its own blatant elitism

You can use the word "vanguard" to refer to what might be called the avant garde - the small minority on the cutting edge of social thinking, artistic sensiblity or whatever. That is a purely empirical or descriptive sense of the word "vanguard" to mean a minority

However vanguardism as a political theory means something quite different and I wish people would stop conflating these two terms!

Vanguardism as a political theory means a small minority can emancipate the vast majority by seizing political power allegedly on behalf of the latter - perhaps on the pretext that the latter are too enslaved and disempowered by the power of capitalist ideology to know whats good for them. This is a view that people like Trotsky held. It is utterly and completely opposed to the Marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be done by the working class itself

Because it is the working class as a whole that must emancipate itself though a socialist revolution, what this means is that socialist ideas can longer be the province of a small minority - a vanguard - as they are now. In other words, a socialist revoltion depends on the de facto elimination or disappearance of the "vanguard", in the former descriptive sense of this term, and its replacement by a socialist majority. After all. it makes no sense at all to talk of socialists being a vanguard any longer if most workers are socialists - as they will need to be to effect a socialist revolution

So what this means is that anyone who advocates a role for a vanguard in a socialist revolution - I.E espouses a vanguardist political theory - ipso facto place themselves outside and against the whole marxist tradition which asserts that the workers must emancipate themselves and not a vanguard
And like always, you're full of shit.

Vanguardism, for one, isn't even a real thing. All the borderline-liberals(robbo is just a liberal who thinks he's a leftist, though) can howl all they want about the Leninist "vanguard-party" and the evils of Leninist "vanguardism", but in reality, we find neither term in any of Lenin's major writings. "Vanguardism"(авангардизм) is not even a real political term in Russian, it's almost exclusively used to refer to experimental shit in art(impressionism, post-minimalism, expressionism and all that stuff). It's a bit funny when robbo contrasts a "vanguard" with the "avant-garde" because he's apparently unaware that in Russian "avangard"(авангард) is "vanguard".

Liberals can complain all they want about the minority connotations of "vanguard" and how Lenin invented "vanguardism" in WITBD, but funnily enough, if memory serves me right like 90 percent of the times Lenin uses the word "vanguard" in WITBD, it's in a chapter called "The Working Class as the "Vanguard" for the Fight for Democracy" or something along those lines. Yes, the entire working class.

:rolleyes:

Let's Get Free

3rd January 2013, 22:10

Hit The North

3rd January 2013, 22:22

So what this means is that anyone who advocates a role for a vanguard in a socialist revolution - I.E espouses a vanguardist political theory - ipso facto place themselves outside and against the whole marxist tradition which asserts that the workers must emancipate themselves and not a vanguard

This is a ludicrous statement. The notion of a vanguard expresses the fact that political class consciousness is not distributed equally among workers and that even in a revolutionary situation many workers will move to the right or cling to the illusions of the governing powers. The vanguard is the revolutionary organisation of the working class and therefore fits the bill of being the working class emancipating itself.

If Marx and Engels didn't have a sense of a vanguard why was their political activity geared towards organising communists and the most advanced class conscious workers across Europe and North America in the First International? If Marx and Engels thought that it was just a matter of awaiting the arrival of a "socialist majority" amongst the working class, whatever that is supposed to mean, why did they do anything at all?

If it is not the vanguard that agitates, educates and organises, how do socialist ideas become generalised among the class - particularly when there exists persuasive alternatives like racism or nationalism or class-collaborationist labourism which are more likely be carried by mass media?

You amuse me Robbo in that part of your anti-Leninism involves a tacit agreement with Leninists (or perhaps your caricature of Leninists) over what terms like DOTP and vanguard actually mean, rather than formulating a more nuanced (that is to say, dialectical) approach.

Ele'ill

3rd January 2013, 22:34

Ah yes, we're liberals. and you are the authentic voice of the working class, the bread-and-butter, the one true proletarian vanguard, the glorious leader of the oppressed masses.

Is there such a thing as one working class that a vanguard can lead (with notebooks and pocket protectors). I think I've had enough bosses in the work place during my time as a worker. I hated everything about it.

TheRedAnarchist23

3rd January 2013, 23:43

Funny how stalinists you the term liberal or bourgeois-liberal on anarchists, and how I use the term stalinists on them...

A vanguard party cannot exist, because if a vanguard party exists then a state exists, and if a state exists classes exist, and if classes exist private property also exists. So you fight for the abolition of classes and decide to use something that will not allow classes to be abolish?

I consider that using a vanguard party is a reactionary practice that holds the movement back. If you use a vanguard party you end up with something like the USSR, or all other revolutions where vanguard party was used.

So you say that vanguard party must be used so that we can force people who do not want communism into our side? That transforms into forcing the people who do not want the party to rule into accepting their rule or dying. This has happened many times before and it led to nothing good. The anarchists who see that the state must be abolished unless we don't really want liberation. If you really want liberation, then you must abolish the state, it is that simple, because if you don't abolish the state, it will enslave you.

As Bakunin said it "Freedom without socialism is priviledge and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality".

Also:http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/25/3ed2acb6e22b49218a5cb85d785b329d/l.jpghttp://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/25/3ed2acb6e22b49218a5cb85d785b329d/l.jpg

I have been listening to neo-classical metal for 2 hours, and I have only slept 4 hours last night. That should explain this posting style.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 00:11

...
A vanguard party cannot exist, because if a vanguard party exists then a state exists...

What is the connection between 'a vanguard party' and 'a state'?

Le Socialiste

4th January 2013, 00:21

Vanguardism as a political theory means a small minority can emancipate the vast majority by seizing political power allegedly on behalf of the latter - perhaps on the pretext that the latter are too enslaved and disempowered by the power of capitalist ideology to know whats good for them. This is a view that people like Trotsky held.

I guess he was just bullshitting then when he said “Without a guiding organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.”

Trotsky made plenty of mistakes, drawing some pretty faulty conclusions from what transpired around him, but what he, Lenin, and others understood was the integral role of the proletariat as the vehicle, the agent of profound social change. Their argument was the same as Marx, Engels, and those steeped in the precedent set by the former: history is driven by motions and movements within class society. Within this framework, the working-class is capable of ushering in the next monumental epoch in human development - but only if it becomes a class for itself. It will not adopt these traits en masse, suddenly and without warning, but through struggle. Struggle does not automatically equal the acquisition of consciousness, much less that of a revolutionary or socialist one, as some on here mechanically reiterate. It is adopted, in part, by a realization of struggle in tandem with the agitation and education provided by a coherently revolutionary mass organization of the most radical and class-conscious people. Each engages in a dialectical relationship with the other; aspects of a greater whole.

newdayrising

4th January 2013, 00:53

What would be the difference between a vanguard party and a non-vanguard party? Is there such a thing as a non-vanguard party?
Wouldn't it make more sense to ask if people believe the party should run the state than if they support a "vanguard" party? I suppose any revolutionary organization presupposes a vanguard of some sort. The role of this vanguard is what actually matters, I suppose.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 00:59

Geiseric

4th January 2013, 02:59

You could argue that there are 'non-vanguard' parties, like the SPGB, who believe that the overwhelming majority of the working class will join the party; but no, not the way I understand vanguard parties, because a 'party' is a 'vanguard'.

I agree that 'should the party administer the state?' is a better question.

Well if we accept the role of the vanguard as the ones who are the ones overthrowing the bourgeois state, it makes sense they take the responsibility of managing the new workers state.

blake 3:17

4th January 2013, 03:40

Well if we accept the role of the vanguard as the ones who are the ones overthrowing the bourgeois state, it makes sense they take the responsibility of managing the new workers state.

And, as a Leninist, I see this as a central problem for Leninism as a politics of liberation.

Within the revolutionary Marxist tradition, it was really only Trotsky who developed a Marxist critique of bureaucracy. Luxemburg anticipated some of these problems but wasn't able to apply it to the SPD. Some of the anarchists were well onto the problem, but didn't really pose effective solutions.

And NONE OF THEM really grappled with bourgeois democracy and the rule of the law. I was talking to one of the local leaders of the IS a while back, and she had been testifying in court on a relatively complex immigration case with constitutional implications, and she had realized that in all her years as a revolutionary Marxist she really hadn't grappled with liberal democracy as a state practice and how friggin complex it was.

I've been really interested in questions around agriculture and the peasantry and recognizing more and more that most of the parties which have led social revolutions in the 20th century have really screwed over the peasants and screwed up agricultural practice. The Chinese peasants did well during the Cultural Revolution not because of any positive practice from CCP but from the fact that the Chinese state was so twisted and turned that it couldn't enforce policies or collect taxes.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 11:29

Well if we accept the role of the vanguard as the ones who are the ones overthrowing the bourgeois state, it makes sense they take the responsibility of managing the new workers state.

No it doesn't. By that logic, only chefs should be allowed to eat, only mechanics should be allowed to drive, only artists can go to galleries etc.

Thirsty Crow

4th January 2013, 13:12

Well if we accept the role of the vanguard as the ones who are the ones overthrowing the bourgeois state, it makes sense they take the responsibility of managing the new workers state.
Does this include the militant workers who would be the "foot soliders" of revolution, in direct confrontation with the repressive apparatus of the capitalist state, and thus effectively "the ones who are overthrowing the bourgeois state"? Or does it merely include the order givers, the political and combat strategists in the party?

newdayrising

4th January 2013, 14:24

Of course, that's what they want (or believe) to happen in the future. They're ideologically "non-vanguard". But, as you say a party is always started by some sort of vanguard, and that's obviously the case with the SPGB and all others in a non revolutionary period at least.

You could argue that there are 'non-vanguard' parties, like the SPGB, who believe that the overwhelming majority of the working class will join the party; but no, not the way I understand vanguard parties, because a 'party' is a 'vanguard'.

I agree that 'should the party administer the state?' is a better question.

Desy

4th January 2013, 17:02

No it doesn't. By that logic, only chefs should be allowed to eat, only mechanics should be allowed to drive, only artists can go to galleries etc.

That's not at all his logic. I am wondering if you didn't really understand it because you're stuck on a single idea or if you did and you just took it out of context to prove your point? If we took his logic with your horrible example it would be more like this :

A person goes to college to learn math and wants to teach it, so he should probably teach math and not English or History.

A person is very good at fixing car's he should fix the car and not someone like me who doesn't know a single thing about how a car runs.

robbo203

4th January 2013, 23:05

And like always, you're full of shit.

Vanguardism, for one, isn't even a real thing. All the borderline-liberals(robbo is just a liberal who thinks he's a leftist, though) can howl all they want about the Leninist "vanguard-party" and the evils of Leninist "vanguardism", but in reality, we find neither term in any of Lenin's major writings. "Vanguardism"(авангардизм) is not even a real political term in Russian, it's almost exclusively used to refer to experimental shit in art(impressionism, post-minimalism, expressionism and all that stuff). It's a bit funny when robbo contrasts a "vanguard" with the "avant-garde" because he's apparently unaware that in Russian "avangard"(авангард) is "vanguard".

Liberals can complain all they want about the minority connotations of "vanguard" and how Lenin invented "vanguardism" in WITBD, but funnily enough, if memory serves me right like 90 percent of the times Lenin uses the word "vanguard" in WITBD, it's in a chapter called "The Working Class as the "Vanguard" for the Fight for Democracy" or something along those lines. Yes, the entire working class.

:rolleyes:

If Im a liberal , sunshine , then I guess that makes you a fascist. Well why not? I mean if we are going to get into silly games of name calling I am just as entitled, and with just as much reason to call you a fascist as you you are to call me a liberal, So there. :D

But to be serious for a moment - what is it with some users on this forum? They cant come up with a half decent argument to counter criticism leveled against them and immediately they resort to calling their opponent a "liberal." For fuck sake grow up, people. Sometimes I wonder what the fuck am I doing here on this forum. Its like a bloody school playground at times. Ever since Rafiq in a remarkably unremarkable post (which is about par for him frankly ) laughably called me a "liberal of the worst kind" (or words to that effect) a week or so ago ive had an earful from the usual little clique of suspects - the mutual admiration society - likewise calling me that too. Not that I care two hoots for their opinion but is does rather get in the way of a serious exchange of ideas. Which I kind of thought was the whole point of this forum

Talking of which, what is all this drivel you are on about with respect to vanguardism. Im not particularly interested in the etymology of the word vanguard or how many times Lenin mentioned it in What is to Be Done. I was simply talking in general terms about the political theory of vanguardism and its political implications. Comprende?

If you want to display your prowess at looking up a Russian dictionary and showing the world what a clever little boy you are then go ahead - be my guest. All it evokes is a big yawn frankly as far I am concerned - and no doubt others too

Oh and by the way - get your facts straight, dickhead, I didnt contrast vanguard with avant garde. What I actually said was this

You can use the word "vanguard" to refer to what might be called the avant garde - the small minority on the cutting edge of social thinking, artistic sensiblity or whatever. That is a purely empirical or descriptive sense of the word "vanguard" to mean a minority

If you cant even get something as simple as this correct, what chance of
managing a serious theoretical argument, huh? :rolleyes:

robbo203

4th January 2013, 23:13

I guess he was just bullshitting then when he said “Without a guiding organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.”

That wasnt so much the quote from Trotsky I had in mind as this which is a fairly clear exposition of what I call the "political theory of vanguardism" and which runs totally counter to the Marxian idea of working class self emancipation:

The masses are held down with “compulsory general education”, kept “on the verge of complete ignorance”, exist in “spiritual slavery” and are terrorised to such a degree that the minority must seize power on their behalf. Then, and only then, can the “most ignorant, most terrorised sections of the nation” be slowly educated in the “meaning of socialist production” (L Trotsky Terrorism and communism,London 1975, pp58-59).

TheRedAnarchist23

5th January 2013, 00:35

What is the connection between 'a vanguard party' and 'a state'?

Your definition of vanguard party is a libertarian one, so why the hell do you still call it a party? It is not a party in the traditional sense, and it is just an organisation.

Geiseric

5th January 2013, 04:17

No it doesn't. By that logic, only chefs should be allowed to eat, only mechanics should be allowed to drive, only artists can go to galleries etc.

Those are completely different. Should the mensheviks of been in charge of the soviets? Hell no. I'm talking about political roles, and there was no suitable party in 1917 of leading the soviets, so we can expect nothing different in the future.

Geiseric

5th January 2013, 04:20

That wasnt so much the quote from Trotsky I had in mind as this which is a fairly clear exposition of what I call the "political theory of vanguardism" and which runs totally counter to the Marxian idea of working class self emancipation:

The masses are held down with “compulsory general education”, kept “on the verge of complete ignorance”, exist in “spiritual slavery” and are terrorised to such a degree that the minority must seize power on their behalf. Then, and only then, can the “most ignorant, most terrorised sections of the nation” be slowly educated in the “meaning of socialist production” (L Trotsky Terrorism and communism,London 1975, pp58-59).

Well marx founded the 1st international, so much for your sectarian theory of "workers self emancipation," which doesn't mean anything since the vanguard is obviously part of the working class. Unless you think communism is some conspiracy theory.

robbo203

5th January 2013, 07:23

Well marx founded the 1st international, so much for your sectarian theory of "workers self emancipation," which doesn't mean anything since the vanguard is obviously part of the working class. Unless you think communism is some conspiracy theory.

Sheesh. What is it with people here who pass comment but can't even be bothered to read what the other person has wrritten? Ive said quite clearly you can describe the "vanguard" in terms of being a socialist minority of the working class. Is that not saying "the vanguard is obviously part of the working class", huh?

What I also said was that the political theory of vanguardism - illustrated by the quote from Trotsky which I gave - suggests that this small minority can somehow seize power on behalf of the non-socialist majority in order to socially engineer society in the drection of socialism. That is simply not possible. Moreover it is this theory that driectly contradicts the Marxian theory of working class self emancipation.

The emancipation of the working class - which is the establishment of a classless socialist society and means in effect the abolition of the working class - can only be carried out by a clear majority of the working class who are convinced of the need for such a society. This is what Marx was saying.

If anything, it is vanguardism that is more akin to conspiracy theory in thinking that the vanguard can somehow lead the masses to socialism. It can't . In fact, in order for socialism to be brought about, the vanguard in the sense of a small minority who are socialists must cease to exist. If the majority of workers are socialists then obviously there is no longer a socialist minority and hence a vanguard.

Thus, the DISAPPEARANCE of the vanguard is the primary precondition for the establishment of socialism by a working class majority

Art Vandelay

6th January 2013, 01:51

Yuppie Grinder

6th January 2013, 02:04

why do no stalinists understand the vanguard party idea

robbo203

6th January 2013, 08:49

I think its quite obvious to anyone (unless they're only dealing with caricatures) that the vanguard parties which have arisen in the past, arose due to very specific material conditions. Having said that, the vanguard party (or parties) which will arise in the future, will obviously be very different from any we've seen before.

In my opinion, the vanguard party of the future will arise organically out of the class struggle and will not be any singular self proclaimed 'vanguard' but will most likely be a combination of a multitude of parties and will be multi-factioned and mulit-tendencied.

And yet the vanguard, in whatever form you speculate it might take , must disappear come the socialist revolution because the vanguard is, by definition, a minority and there can be no socialism without the majority of workers wanting and understanding socialism. A socialist majority is no longer and cannot sensibly be called a "vanguard"

Thus:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

Blake's Baby

6th January 2013, 13:33

That's not at all his logic. I am wondering if you didn't really understand it because you're stuck on a single idea or if you did and you just took it out of context to prove your point? If we took his logic with your horrible example it would be more like this :

A person goes to college to learn math and wants to teach it, so he should probably teach math and not English or History.

A person is very good at fixing car's he should fix the car and not someone like me who doesn't know a single thing about how a car runs.

Not really. His 'example' is: 'those who work to destroy capitalist society, should administer socialist society'. We agree that that is what Broody is proposing, yes?

Can you explain what the logical connection is between 'organising and training to destroy one society' and 'administering a different society'?

Is there a link between 'organising to destroy' and 'administering'? I don't think there is.

Is there a link betweeen 'capitalist society' and 'socialist society'? I don't think there is.

So really, there's no connection at all. You're right that my examples weren't exact, however, as I put too much linkage in them. Broody's example is more like 'only people who set fire to fields of crops should be allowed to raise cows (because the burning of the crops happens to free up the space where the cows can go)'.

Blake's Baby

6th January 2013, 16:46

... A socialist majority is no longer and cannot sensibly be called a "vanguard" ...

Actually, I agree with you here Robbo.

Does the 'socialist majority' necessarily join the party, though?

Geiseric

6th January 2013, 19:37

Not really. His 'example' is: 'those who work to destroy capitalist society, should administer socialist society'. We agree that that is what Broody is proposing, yes?

Can you explain what the logical connection is between 'organising and training to destroy one society' and 'administering a different society'?

Is there a link between 'organising to destroy' and 'administering'? I don't think there is.

Is there a link betweeen 'capitalist society' and 'socialist society'? I don't think there is.

So really, there's no connection at all. You're right that my examples weren't exact, however, as I put too much linkage in them. Broody's example is more like 'only people who set fire to fields of crops should be allowed to raise cows (because the burning of the crops happens to free up the space where the cows can go)'.

Whoever takes charge in destroying capitalism, as in whoever has the support from the majority of the working class is forced to lead in the forming of the socialist society, out of necessity, who else would you trust, and who else has socialism in their interests other than the class movement which abolises capitalism? I don't see how this is controversial, let's trust the liberals bureaucrats and opportunists to run revolutionary society like CNT did and we'll see how it works.

robbo203

6th January 2013, 21:39

Actually, I agree with you here Robbo.

Does the 'socialist majority' necessarily join the party, though?

No not necessarily. I see no reason why the socialist majority has to belong to a political party. The political party is just a tool for the working class to use and later dispense with upon achieving stateless socialism

I belong to no political party though, if it came to it, I would probably vote for the SPGB despite my several serious disagreements with the SPGB that prevents me from being a member. I think they are closest thing to my idea of a revolutionary socialist political party, despite their defects

Not that I am suggesting the electoral strategy is the only game in town or that it is not possible for a number of genuinely socialist political parties who agree on the fundamentals but disagree on the secondary issues, to collaborate and combine on the electorial front

Blake's Baby

6th January 2013, 21:48

Art Vandelay

6th January 2013, 22:25

And yet the vanguard, in whatever form you speculate it might take , must disappear come the socialist revolution because the vanguard is, by definition, a minority and there can be no socialism without the majority of workers wanting and understanding socialism. A socialist majority is no longer and cannot sensibly be called a "vanguard"

Sure it can, not sure what definition of vanguard you are using, but there is no reason why it must necessarily be a minority of the proletariat. I tend to use the military definition of what constitutes a vanguard; in the metaphorical sense it could be considered the leading segment of the advancing proletarian army. I would actually argue that in the future, the vanguard will be a Mass proletarian Marxist party.

Thus:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

I've never stated anything which is contradicted by this.

robbo203

6th January 2013, 22:56

Sure it can, not sure what definition of vanguard you are using, but there is no reason why it must necessarily be a minority of the proletariat. I tend to use the military definition of what constitutes a vanguard; in the metaphorical sense it could be considered the leading segment of the advancing proletarian army. I would actually argue that in the future, the vanguard will be a Mass proletarian Marxist party.
.

This is somewhat confused. A vanguard by any definition is a minority. In the context of what we are talking about the vanguard is the socialist minority - the minority of workers who are presently socialist. For socialism to happen the minority must become the majority as I think you have agreed

Your talk of the vanguard being a mass proletarian marxist party is thus a contradiction in terms since, assuming you mean it constitutes a majority of the workers, it can no longer by defintion be a "vanguard". It is an ex-vanguard

Art Vandelay

6th January 2013, 22:59

This is somewhat confused. A vanguard by any definition is a minority. In the context of what we are talking about the vanguard is the socialist minority - the minority of workers who are presently socialist. For socialism to happen the minority must become the majority as I think you have agreed

Your talk of the vanguard being a mass proletarian marxist party is thus a contradiction in terms since, assuming you mean it constitutes a majority of the workers, it can no longer by defintion be a "vanguard". It is an ex-vanguard

van·guard
/ˈvanˌgärd/

Noun
A group of people leading the way in new developments or ideas.
A position at the forefront of new developments or ideas: "in the vanguard of technical development".

I'm not the one who is confused here robbo; a vanguard is not 'by definition' a minority.

Blake's Baby

6th January 2013, 23:07

It does at least imply a 3-fold division of whatever it's the vanguard of though, 9mm. In the usual (military) sense of the term, it's the forward part of the army and contrasted with both the 'rearguard' and the 'main battle' or 'centre' (ie the main body of troops) - which may be the same size or bigger than the van- and rear-guards combined.

In artistic terms (synonymous with 'avant-garde') it means a small new experimental or unconventional group.

In either case it's difficult to argue 'vanguard' would equal 'majority'.

robbo203

6th January 2013, 23:10

Right, I agree that the political party is a tool the working class uses, and I also agree that the tool is not of use once 'stateless socialism' (tautology) is reached, and I agree that entire or even majority of the working class does not need to join the party.

We'll make a vanguardist of you yet.

Why on earth would the above make me inclined to want to become a vanguardist?

I accept that I belong to a minority or "vanguard" (though i dont use this term) in society who are socialist minded, irrespective of whether or not they belong to a political party. I want to see this state of affairts altered so that I am no longer part of a minority but, rather, of a majority and therefore no longer a part of a mere "vanguard"

A "vanguardist" as distinct from someone who is in a vanguard perforce, is someone who seeks in some way to perpetuate or reinforce ones status as part of minority and, indeed even to revel and glory in the elitisim and exclusivity that goes with that

Sorry but I have no intention whatsoever of ever going down that road and you willl never make a vanguardist of me!

Geiseric

6th January 2013, 23:17

Blake's Baby

6th January 2013, 23:19

...

A "vanguardist" as distinct from someone who is in a vanguard perforce, is someone who seeks in some way to perpetuate or reinforce ones status as part of minority and, indeed even to revel and glory in the elitisim and exclusivity that goes with that...

No, really it isn't, it's someone who recognises that the political organisations of the proletariat are going to remain minority groups under present conditions, but works in/with (we're neither of us members of the organisations we support) those organisations towards the emancipation of the proletariat. That's all.

robbo203

6th January 2013, 23:19

I'm not the one who is confused here robbo; a vanguard is not 'by definition' a minority.

Im sorry but you are incorrect, A vanguard is by defintion a minority and the very dictionary definition you provide hints at this

"A group of people leading the way in new developments or ideas" implies a mass of others who are not yet in sync with these developments or ideas. Leaders require followers to be considered leaders at all and it is in the nature of things that followers will outnumber leaders so that the leaders will thus constitute a minority.

Which is what a vanguard is....

robbo203

6th January 2013, 23:33

No, really it isn't, it's someone who recognises that the political organisations of the proletariat are going to remain minority groups under present conditions, but works in/with (we're neither of us members of the organisations we support) those organisations towards the emancipation of the proletariat. That's all.

No I disagree completely. You are focussing on the political organisation of the proletariat which may or may not remain a minority of the working class. But even on these terms it make no sense to call yourswelf a vanguardist since the whole point of a political organisation is to attract the support of as many people as possible and preferably a majority. Calling yourself a vanguardists suggests that you dont want this to happen, that you wish indeed to actively resist it

I , on the other hand, am focussing more broadly on socialist consciousness, on people who are socialists and who today constitute a minority and can thus be considered a "vanguard". However, I emphatically do not wish for us to remain a minority and I certain do not revel in the fact that we are a minority

Saying you are a vanguardist is impliitly endorsing this state of affiars if being a minority viewpoinr and suggesting a relationship between yourself and those not of your vanguard that is elitist and excluding

Blake's Baby

6th January 2013, 23:40

... suggests ... impliitly ...

Have to do better than that I'm afraid.

One could (I'm not, but one could, using your logic) say that calling onself a socialist 'suggests' that one supports the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and 'implicitly' identifies oneself with them. But you don't, do you?

robbo203

7th January 2013, 00:08

The bolsheviks were a minority of Russia, so I don't see why that's important. They still led the woring class, usuall aganst the majority of peasants who supported the counter revolution. They did have the majority of working class support however, see the soviet elections in october. This conversation is pointless since Robbo, like anarchists, doesn't hasve the same definition of "vanguard" as marxists. THE VANGUARD IS FROM THE WORKING CLASS, IT ISN'T A CONSPIRACY GROUP TRYING TO BECOME THE NEW RULING CLASS BY OVERTHROWING CLASS SOCIETY. This shit doest even make sense, its the same BS teachers told me in high school. Lol the bolsheviks planned it out, overthrow czarism, make private property illegal, then become the ebil new capitalists, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," even if the bolsheviks were voted in during the revolution to an absolute majority in the main soviets, and led the fight against petty warlords who were supported by capital. Were the bolsheviks capitalist for ending russian involvement in Ww1? Or not participating in the provisional government? Or was it just a big plot, robbo, to become state. Bureaucrats and 90 years later, divide up the state?

But the the Bolshevik government did become the new ruling class ,did it not? And it did develop capitalism in the guise of state capitalism, did it not? Even if it nationalised the property of some private capitalists

I dont see this as some plot or conspiracy as you allege. It is generally inadvisable to impute motives to individuals in order to account for large scale social developments. No doubt there were plots and conspiracies here and there swirling around like eddies in the broader currents that ran through Russian society but they cannot really explain the larger picture

By and large Bolsheviks had no option but to what they did in broad terms which was to develop a system of production that could only be operated in the interests of capital and not wage labour. The details of how they went about doing it might be put down to the specifics of Bolshevik iideology and organisation but not the general outcome. Im sure some of the old Bolsheviks sincerely wanted a genuine socialist moneyless economy but there was simply no popular mandate for this - neither in Russia nor anywhere else in the world

They may have had majority support among the Russian workers at least in the brief honeymoon period before the lights went out and a brutal dictatorship emerged but the system they developed and built on could not by its very ever operate in the interests of that majority

robbo203

7th January 2013, 00:27

Have to do better than that I'm afraid.

One could (I'm not, but one could, using your logic) say that calling onself a socialist 'suggests' that one supports the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and 'implicitly' identifies oneself with them. But you don't, do you?

No this does not follow at all. The term "vanguardist" contains the root concept of a vanguard which indisputably denotes a minority and therefore the sense of wanting to perpetuate this minoroty whether it be minority in the sense of members of a political party or minority in the sense of socialist consciousness

On the other hand I am not identifying with Soviet Union by calling myself a socialist if I define socialism as something which precludes the Soivet Unioin as an example of socialism. People may think I idenbtity with the SU but they would be wrong and i would be ablke to show thenm why they wrong by defining what I mean by socialism to them

Analogously speaking this is not what you are doing in the case of thw term "vanguardist". You are not redefining it in a way that precludes the sense in which we understand it. You are still identifying with the minority or vanguard as something to be retained and perpetuated Otherwise you would not use the term vanguardist but something else

Geiseric

7th January 2013, 00:29

But the the Bolshevik government did become the new ruling class ,did it not? And it did develop capitalism in the guise of state capitalism, did it not? Even if it nationalised the property of some private capitalists

I dont see this as some plot or conspiracy as you allege. It is generally inadvisable to impute motives to individuals in order to account for large scale social developments. No doubt there were plots and conspiracies here and there swirling around like eddies in the broader currents that ran through Russian society but they cannot really explain the larger picture

By and large Bolsheviks had no option but to what they did in broad terms which was to develop a system of production that could only be operated in the interests of capital and not wage labour. The details of how they went about doing it might be put down to the specifics of Bolshevik iideology and organisation but not the general outcome. Im sure some of the old Bolsheviks sincerely wanted a genuine socialist moneyless economy but there was simply no popular mandate for this - neither in Russia nor anywhere else in the world

They may have had majority support among the Russian workers at least in the brief honeymoon period before the lights went out and a brutal dictatorship emerged but the system they developed and built on could not by its very ever operate in the interests of that majority

I don't even care at this point.

Blake's Baby

7th January 2013, 00:57

No this does not follow at all. The term "vanguardist" contains the root concept of a vanguard which indisputably denotes a minority and therefore the sense of wanting to perpetuate this minoroty whether it be minority in the sense of members of a political party or minority in the sense of socialist consciousness...

No that doesn't follow.

I could just as easily use the term 'partyist'. A recognition of the existence of a vanguard, a recognition that under current conditions all that is possible is a vanguard organisation, is not the same as 'wanting' a vanguard.

Again, you seem to think that external conditions can be overcome merely by wishing.

Die Neue Zeit

8th January 2013, 05:05

Die Neue Zeit

8th January 2013, 05:10

Right, I agree that the political party is a tool the working class uses, and I also agree that the tool is not of use once 'stateless socialism' (tautology) is reached, and I agree that entire or even majority of the working class does not need to join the party.

We'll make a vanguardist of you yet.

It does at least imply a 3-fold division of whatever it's the vanguard of though, 9mm. In the usual (military) sense of the term, it's the forward part of the army and contrasted with both the 'rearguard' and the 'main battle' or 'centre' (ie the main body of troops) - which may be the same size or bigger than the van- and rear-guards combined.

In artistic terms (synonymous with 'avant-garde') it means a small new experimental or unconventional group.

In either case it's difficult to argue 'vanguard' would equal 'majority'.

I missed this excellent debate on worker-class activism.

I would strongly advise against the presence of a "vanguard party" during a revolutionary period for the working class, not because of councilist fetishes, but because the majority of the class must be ready to exercise durable rule.

For comrades, the term "vanguard party" should be useful only to the extent that the class-based party-movement, the "substitutionist" class-for-itself, has not yet gained majority political support from the broader class-in-itself.

AgrarianCommunist

12th January 2013, 20:18

Vanguard party inherently leads to corruption as we seen in USSR and other satellites of Moscow so it's clear that we don't need any kind of party but rather revolutionary people.

cclark501

13th January 2013, 04:19

I think the vanguard party is essential in the early stages of a revolution. They are needed to help the working class and the population at large develop class consciousness. However, once the ruling powers have been overthrown and expelled from the government then a transitition should begin to hand over power from the vanguard to the workers.

Geiseric

13th January 2013, 04:41

I missed this excellent debate on worker-class activism.

I would strongly advise against the presence of a "vanguard party" during a revolutionary period for the working class, not because of councilist fetishes, but because the majority of the class must be ready to exercise durable rule.

For comrades, the term "vanguard party" should be useful only to the extent that the class-based party-movement, the "substitutionist" class-for-itself, has not yet gained majority political support from the broader class-in-itself.

But the only successful revolution had a vanguard leading it, vanguard is another word for "class conscious, actively revolutionary workers." That's all it means, the definition is changed on the whim with whoever wants to take an opportunist, subjective jab at the bolsheviks.

Die Neue Zeit

13th January 2013, 21:52

But the only successful revolution had a vanguard leading it, vanguard is another word for "class conscious, actively revolutionary workers." That's all it means, the definition is changed on the whim with whoever wants to take an opportunist, subjective jab at the bolsheviks.

That wasn't my point, Broody. For a successful revolutionary period today, the level of political commitment required from a good majority of workers needs to exceed the dogmas of free-rider councils and minoritarian groups.

If the majority if workers are "class conscious, actively revolutionary," are they still a "vanguard" relative to the minority of workers who aren't?

A crude example of what I meant size-wise would be perhaps the Romanian CP, with about third of the working-class population and enough political support outside dues-paying membership to constitute overall majority political support. Guess how many tens of millions of US workers would have to be party-movement active, dues-paying members for there to be a true revolutionary period in the US?

[Perhaps I'm exaggerating in all of this, but I'm making a fundamental point about what "class for itself" means in different periods.]

Geiseric

14th January 2013, 02:13

That wasn't my point, Broody. For a successful revolutionary period today, the level of political commitment required from a good majority of workers needs to exceed the dogmas of free-rider councils and minoritarian groups.

If the majority if workers are "class conscious, actively revolutionary," are they still a "vanguard" relative to the minority of workers who aren't?

A crude example of what I meant size-wise would be perhaps the Romanian CP, with about third of the working-class population and enough political support outside membership to constitute overall majority political support. Guess how many tens of millions of US workers would have to be party-movement active members for there to be a true revolutionary period in the US?

[Perhaps I'm exaggerating in all of this, but I'm making a fundamental point about what "class for itself" means in different periods.]

The label of Vanguard has to do with quality, not quantity. That's how I see it. There can be ten true communists trying to organize the rest of working class and lead struggles, they and whoever works with them would be the vanguard.