Hello

[one10]

I'm 23, born and raised in Miami, FL, the son of Cuban immigrants. Yes, they are both Anti-Castro and share right-wing ideals. I was raised in a Republican house-hold, believing that Communism is the work of the devil.

It wasn't until high school that I actually gained an interest in politics and philosophy. At first I thought my views were those of the Democrat party, then I realized that they were in fact Marxist.

I'm currently an Audio Engineer, working in both live audio and studio settings.

I like to keep my personal life private, but I will say that I am married and have a daughter.

I look forward to engaging in discussion with fellow Leftists on this forum. I'm not much of a sociable person and a majority of the people I do know don't share ideals as far left as mine.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

What type of 'Marxist' are you?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Welcome to the forum, we're glad to have you! We have a Cuban or two here I think, I forgot his username though. Anyways, feel free to jump into a discussion if you feel you have something to add. :)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Welcome!

I bet your Cuban exile family just loves it you're a communist then, hahaha. Thankfully my family seems to not mind my communist views while my mother is actually sympathetic.

[one10]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

What type of 'Marxist' are you?

I really don't know anymore. I believed myself to be Marxist-Leninist for a few years, but I am not so sure of it anymore.

I agree with establishing a vanguard party as the dictatorship of the proletariat during the early stages of a revolution and having that eventually transition into a democratic socialist system. Once a democratic socialist state is established, the transition to a classless communist society begins.

The only questions I have are....

1.) The rule of a vanguard party lends itself to Stalinism (which I consider a deviation from Marxist-Leninism), what measures can be taken to prevent such from occuring?

2.) If the transition from the rule of the vanguard party to a democratic socialist state is successful, what guarantees that Socialism will hold up in a democratic system? Perhaps you can create an amendment making the Socialist system irrevocable?

3.) How do you begin the transition from a democratic socialist state to a classless communist society?

Overall, I know I disagree with Capitalism and find such a system to be immoral. I believe the workers should own the means of production and that the end goal is a classless communist society.

If that isn't enough, feel free to ask questions and I will gladly answer them.

[Q]

Good questions I think. You're certainly on track to think through your politics.

As a little teaser: The "vanguard party" concept may also be understood in a different sense. That is the sense of a mass party-movement where the proletariat is formed as a class-for-itself, with its own political agenda (communism), its own social and cultural life, its own economical institutions and much more. A "society within society" that is organising all (or intents to organise all) of our class so that our class is formed as a potential ruling class, intent on carrying out its revolution.

To put it more succinctly: The Stalinoid "vanguard party" is minoritarian whereas the Orthodox Marxist vanguard party is majoritarian in outlook.

[one10]

Good questions I think. You're certainly on track to think through your politics.

As a little teaser: The "vanguard party" concept may also be understood in a different sense. That is the sense of a mass party-movement where the proletariat is formed as a class-for-itself, with its own political agenda (communism), its own social and cultural life, its own economical institutions and much more. A "society within society" that is organising all (or intents to organise all) of our class so that our class is formed as a potential ruling class, intent on carrying out its revolution.

To put it more succinctly: The Stalinoid "vanguard party" is minoritarian whereas the Orthodox Marxist vanguard party is majoritarian in outlook.

Wasn't Lenin's "vanguard party" supposed to be temporarily minoritarian, with the intention of it becoming majoritarian, in accordance with orthodox Marxist views?

What I'm asking is, how do you prevent it from remaining minoritarian (Stalinsim)?

[Q]

Wasn't Lenin's "vanguard party" supposed to be temporarily minoritarian, with the intention of it becoming majoritarian, in accordance with orthodox Marxist views?

What I'm asking is, how do you prevent it from remaining minoritarian (Stalinsim)?

Nope. The RSDLP (Bolshevik) were an explicitly majoritarian party, modeled after the SPD in Germany. It was however much smaller due to the Tsarist police state.

We shouldn't model ourselves to a party that operated under Tsarist police state conditions (like duh).

I wrote more on this here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parliament-and-mass-t179260/index.html?p=2589542#post2589542), so I won't repeat myself ;)

[l'Enfermé]

This terminology is the opposite of useful. The infamous "vanguard party" is a creation that exists only in the fantasies of anti-Bolsheviks. One finds usage of this phrase only in the vocabulary of various revisionists(Stalinists, Maoists, Trots, ultra-lefts, and so on), and anti-Marxists. Yet Marx and Engels did not write a single line about this "vanguard party". It's not in any of Lenin's major works. Not even in Trotsky's, nor Stalin's.


In Marxisy theory, there is no such thing as a "vanguard party". There is a party, and there is no party, and that's about it.

[one10]

This terminology is the opposite of useful. The infamous "vanguard party" is a creation that exists only in the fantasies of anti-Bolsheviks. One finds usage of this phrase only in the vocabulary of various revisionists(Stalinists, Maoists, Trots, ultra-lefts, and so on), and anti-Marxists. Yet Marx and Engels did not write a single line about this "vanguard party". It's not in any of Lenin's major works. Not even in Trotsky's, nor Stalin's.


In Marxisy theory, there is no such thing as a "vanguard party". There is a party, and there is no party, and that's about it.

I'm pretty sure that Lenin goes into detail about the vanguard party in What is to be done?

[VDS]

I'm the other Cuban, and this is my friend I mentioned in my introduction post a few months earlier (though my account was deleted from non-use after school/work got heavy for me)

[l'Enfermé]

I'm pretty sure that Lenin goes into detail about the vanguard party in What is to be done?
A common myth, yes, but there is no truth in it. Lenin makes not a single mention of this "vanguard party" in WITBD.

[Q]

A common myth, yes, but there is no truth in it.

Thoroughly disproven, yes (http://books.google.nl/books/about/Lenin_Rediscovered.html?hl=nl&id=8AVUvEUsdCgC).

[LeonJWilliams]

Welcome comrade

[Lucretia]

Nope. The RSDLP (Bolshevik) were an explicitly majoritarian party, that thought they were modeling themselves after the SPD in Germany. It was however much smaller, in part, due to the Tsarist police state.

We shouldn't model ourselves to a party that operated under Tsarist police state conditions (like duh).

I wrote more on this here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parliament-and-mass-t179260/index.html?p=2589542#post2589542), so I won't repeat myself ;)

Fixed it for you.

[Q]

Fixed it for you.

No need for your "fixes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/)", comrade.

[Old Bolshie]

1.) The rule of a vanguard party lends itself to Stalinism (which I consider a deviation from Marxist-Leninism),

It really doesn't. That's a false presupposition perpetuated by the bourgeoisie culture which tends to consider the vanguard as some kind of cult or secret society.

You can find Stalinsim roots in two elements which are complementary to one another: the Russian bureaucracy and the post of Secretary-General of the Bolshevik Party.

The bureaucracy of the USSR's state didn't come from the Bolshevik party itself but rather from the Tsarist State which wasn't dismantled by the Bolsheviks. Adding to the tsarist bureaucracy, the creation of the secretary-general post within the party and the substantial amount of power concentrated in this one-man post allowed autocracy to reemerge in Russia.


what measures can be taken to prevent such from occuring?In light of what I just said above, fight bureaucracy, dismantle the former state and keep the highest political responsibilities in collegial organs. Lenin in his last testament defended the extension of the CC of the Bolshevik Party to 50 or 100 members and recognized the excessive power concentrated in the hands of the secretary-general of the Bolsheviks.


Wasn't Lenin's "vanguard party" supposed to be temporarily minoritarian, with the intention of it becoming majoritarian, in accordance with orthodox Marxist views?


By drawing his concept of vanguard as opposed to a mass party type Lenin was avoiding to lead his party into a new SPD which ended up as a reformist and electoral party. Lenin knew fully well that revolutions aren't made inside parliaments and opted to build a revolutionary party composed by revolutionaries recruited from the working class.

Lenin put forward his idea in WITBD and in the next year came the break with the Menshviks over the membership issue with Martov arguing for a ampler base and Lenin a more restricted one.

Lenin's thesis proved to be correct as the Bolsheviks were able to size the state through revolutionary means and the Mensheviks ended up siding with the Provisional Government.


What I'm asking is, how do you prevent it from remaining minoritarian (Stalinsim)?

I don't know where you got this idea that Stalinism advocates the remaining of a minoritarian party. The communist party under Stalin's leadership peaked 3.5 million while in the beginning of 1917 it had no more than 23,000-24,000 members. However, this doesn't mean that during Stalin's rule the party was more representative of the proletariat interests than in 1917, on the contrary. While in 1917 the Bolshevik party was in fact struggling for proletariat interests and gathered its tendencies (as you may know the party under Lenin's leadership was democratic and had different tendencies within it) during Stalin's term it represented nothing more than Stalin's own will.

This dichotomy between majority/minority party is really misleading. The number of militants is really irrelevant to understand how the Russian revolution degenerated into another type of autocracy.

[Lucretia]

No need for your "fixes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/)", comrade.

Oh, I see. Thanks for letting me know I have to choose between Kautskyite social-dem reformism and Stalinist state capitalism. How magnanimously informative of you. Still, one would think you'd make workers' revolution one of the options. :rolleyes:

Your little hero Lars Lih gets a lot right in his book, but he also gets some pretty important shit wrong in his book, too. He mangles Lenin's use of "economism," wrongly chalks up Lenin's comments about "fighting spontaneity" to "hasty editorial judgments" -- basically everything that shows Lenin moving, even at that very early stage, to a completely different conception of the revolutionary party, a conception that posits that it is supposed to reflect the best of the working class, what it is to become under a revolution -- not what it presently is under bourgeois hegemony. Of course, Lenin wasn't aware that was different than Kautsky's conception, but it became obvious enough after WWI broke out, evident in the different logics that dominated the respective parties' responses to the conflict. But I guess we're supposed to believe his criticism of Kautsky was a spur-of-the-moment shift by a power-hungry Lenin.

If you want to discuss this further, with detailed references to Lih's mishandling of textual evidence, feel free to send me a private message. I don't think an introductions thread is quite the place to have it.