Social Movements and the Vanguard Party

[Althusser]

Good lord... this is why spontaneous uprisings mean nothing to me. They need the guidance of a vanguard party to make sure the movement develops correctly ideologically in all aspects. People need re-education... just changing the relationship to the means of production is not enough.

Mod Note - this thread was split off from this discussion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/huge-trigger-warning-t180849/index.html) in the Women's Struggle subforum.

- Le Socialiste

[Fourth Internationalist]

Good lord... this is why spontaneous uprisings mean nothing to me. They need the guidance of a vanguard party to make sure the movement develops correctly ideologically in all aspects. People need re-education... just changing the relationship to the means of production is not enough. And if any of you think that's horribly elitist, you can fuck yourself.

A vanguard, yes, is needed. But vanguard party, especially when it begins to rule and govern over society, is harmful.

[evermilion]

A vanguard, yes, is needed. But vanguard party, especially when it begins to rule and govern over society, is harmful.

So what's your conception of a non-party vanguard? And what's the difference?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So what's your conception of a non-party vanguard? And what's the difference?

The vanguard is simply the proletarians who are striving to achieve socialism. It's our job to help teach other fellow workers about socialism, but the vanguard is not separate from the working like a vanguard party is from the workers and general population, as it has been thru out history.

[evermilion]

The vanguard is simply the proletarians who are striving to achieve socialism. It's our job to help teach other fellow workers about socialism, but the vanguard is not separate from the working like a vanguard party is from the workers and general population, as it has been thru out history.

You may want to take a look at the actual definition of "vanguard (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vanguard)." How is an entire movement at the forefront of itself? I also reject the assertion that a vanguard party has always been distinct from the class.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You may want to take a look at the actual definition of "vanguard (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vanguard)." How is an entire movement at the forefront of itself? I also reject the assertion that a vanguard party has always been distinct from the class.


The leading units at the front of an army or fleet.(by extension)
Yes, the leaders of the proletariat. Not all proletarians are communists.


The person(s) at the forefront of any group or movement.
The group is the proletarians. The forefront are the socialists.

[evermilion]

Yes, the leaders of the proletariat. Not all proletarians are communists.


The group is the proletarians. The forefront are the socialists.

In other words, in your conception of revolution, most proletarians are not socialists.

[Fourth Internationalist]

In other words, in your conception of revolution, most proletarians are not socialists.

No. At the beginning of a revolution, that is probably the case. However, in the middle, if the revolution is on the course towards socialism, a majority will be socialists. All communists are what make up the vanguard, because it is our job to help guide the working class to socialism

[evermilion]

No. At the beginning of a revolution, that is probably the case. However, in the middle, if the revolution is on the course towards socialism, a majority will be socialists. All communists are what make up the vanguard, because it is our job to help guide the working class to socialism

Let me get this straight: at the beginning of the revolution, that is, at the beginning of class collective action against the state, most of our class is not socialist. You want a majority socialist proletariat at the halfway point of revolutionary action.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Let me get this straight: at the beginning of the revolution, that is, at the beginning of class collective action against the state, most of our class is not socialist. You want a majority socialist proletariat at the halfway point of revolutionary action.


I don't want that way, but that is they way it has been and they way I think it will go. The masses are going to get angry at the current order of things. That is what starts a revolution, it is not wanting to obtain a certain specific future. However, during the process of attacking the old order is, historically, when people looked for a new system. In Russia, they looked to the provisional people's groups whatever, other non-socialist groups, and then of course the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.

For example, people were frustrated with the old order and they wanted change, but not necessarily revolutionary change. Parties such as the Bolsheviks grew popular during this period. While people did not begin their want for change as communists, many became communists as the revolutionary process, which is a very long long time, went on.

[evermilion]

I don't want that way, but that seems the way it's gonna go. The masses are going to get angry at the current order of things. That is what starts a revolution, not a want to a certain future. However, during the process of attacking the old order is, historically, when people looked for a new system. In Russia, they looked to the provisional government, other non-socialist systems, Mensheviks, and the Bolsheviks.

For example, after something like Bloody Sunday, people were frustrated with the old order and they wanted change, but not necessarily revolutionary change. Parties such as the Bolsheviks grew popular during this period. While people did not begin their want for change as communists, many became communists as the revolutionary process, which is a very long long time, went on.

In other words, the beginning of the revolutionary process is characterized by worker gravitation toward parties.

[Palmares]

Who isn't to say the "vanguard" is not made up of (at least some) sexist men? Infact, given the state of patriarchy, it's inevitable.

I hardly think people of various social oppressions will want to told what to do (as in, be led by) people not necessarily from their own struggles. We all have the right to empower ourselves in our diverse struggles against capital.

For example, even if you were the most articulate, well-read, pro-feminist man around, doesn't mean you know what's best for women. Talk with them all you want, but in the end, it is them who have to truly free themselves. And same goes for people of colour, queers, workers, etc. But then again, I'm an anarchist.

If at all, we will work together, in solidarity.

[Fourth Internationalist]

In other words, the beginning of the revolutionary process is characterized by worker gravitation toward parties.

Kinda.

[evermilion]

Who isn't to say the "vanguard" is not made up of (at least some) sexist men? Infact, given the state of patriarchy, it's inevitable.

I hardly think people of various social oppressions will want to told what to do (as in, be led by) people not necessarily from their own struggles. We all have the right to empower ourselves in our diverse struggles against capital.

For example, even if you were the most articulate, well-read, pro-feminist man around, doesn't mean you know what's best for them. Talk with them all you walk, but in the end, it is them who have to truly free themselves. And same goes for people of colour, queers, workers, etc. But then again, I'm an anarchist.

If at all, we will work together, in solidarity.

Okay, then? I'm not sure who was saying the vanguard was going to be made up exclusively of white guys, but we agree with you?

[Skyhilist]

No. At the beginning of a revolution, that is probably the case. However, in the middle, if the revolution is on the course towards socialism, a majority will be socialists. All communists are what make up the vanguard, because it is our job to help guide the working class to socialism

You have anarchism listed as your tendency though? Anarchism is directly opposed to vanguard parties.

[Palmares]

Okay, then? I'm not sure who was saying the vanguard was going to be made up exclusively of white guys, but we agree with you?

I think you've missed the point.

It doesn't have to be just made of white men for white men to be those who are dominant. Even in our white supremacist patriarchal societies, it's also not exclusively white men who weld positions in power.

I infact never used the word "exclusively" (or similar), and rather said "...made up of (at least some)"....

[Fourth Internationalist]

You have anarchism listed as your tendency though? Anarchism is directly opposed to vanguard parties.

The vanguard and the vanguard party are two different things.

[Sidagma]

The vanguard and the vanguard party are two different things.

Would you (or someone else) mind clarifying the difference?

[Rocky Rococo]

I dom't believe it's ever been the case that "vanguard parties" guiding every sparrow's fall, is the manner in which revolutionary movements develop in a nice, smooth linear fashion. I refer you to this old-timey chap Karl Marx, who wrote in his essay "The XVIII Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" that:


[P]roletarian revolutions ... constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Would you (or someone else) mind clarifying the difference?

In a situation where there is an actual working class movement then for the most part people will be fighting this struggle or that struggle but not necissarily for a totally new way of doing things let alone to put themselves (as a class) in the driver's seat of society. Some people will think that, anarchists, socialists, maybe other militants who in the course of rising struggle are drawn more leftward. This minority is the vanguard because they are part of the struggle but see it as a bigger struggle and they have some organic influence and connection with the broader movement.

The idea of a vanguard party is to try and organize all of the revolutionaries so that we aren't just doing work isloated in regional struggles or industry-based or specific social struggles, but can coordinate.

There are lots of self-proclaimed vangurad forces, but really just the movement itself sanctions what is actually the "vanguard" forces through trust and "voting with their feet" so to speak by identifying more with the revolutionaries than, say, reformist or liberal forces in a movement.


Good lord... this is why spontaneous uprisings mean nothing to me. They need the guidance of a vanguard party to make sure the movement develops correctly ideologically in all aspects. People need re-education... just changing the relationship to the means of production is not enough. And if any of you think that's horribly elitist, you can fuck yourself.All uprisings are spontanious to a degree, to be against spontanious uprisings means that nothing will ever change. To be upset with the direction which a seemingly spontanious struggle goes, is just frustration about lack of an independant movement, lack of organized vehicles, and a growing knowledge of how to fight... well that's just where things are at right now and it's the ups and downs of existing struggles that can help to build a vanguard which then might organize together.


In other words, the beginning of the revolutionary process is characterized by worker gravitation toward parties.Well in a way, though they don't have to be formal "parties" necissarily. In a big struggle, people who until then didn't have much say in important things and maybe never considered the questions now posed to them in a crisis or revolt, will listen to all sorts of ideas while trying to form their own. Some will make sense based on personal or class experiences, some forces might develop a sort of momentum and be able to pull people along by seeming to be the most "relistic" or inevitable option.

Most revolutionary periods come with a massive upsurge in organic democratic discussion in the streets, popular pamphelts and media and propaganda, public debates and working class salons and so on. This was true of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, May 68, and the North African uprisings in 2011.

[blake 3:17]

In other words, the beginning of the revolutionary process is characterized by worker gravitation toward parties.

Not really. It was a rejection of rotten dirty war and a rejection of rotten dirty work.

There were parties which had factions which held the same perspectives and at a crisis moment large numbers of young very militant workers and soldiers, who were either close to or part of the peasantry, were quickly integrated into these parties praxis. Or defined their parties praxes and gave them life.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Would you (or someone else) mind clarifying the difference?

I made the difference in my earlier posts that you can look at.

[evermilion]

Not really. It was a rejection of rotten dirty war and a rejection of rotten dirty work.

There were parties which had factions which held the same perspectives and at a crisis moment large numbers of young very militant workers and soldiers, who were either close to or part of the peasantry, were quickly integrated into these parties praxis. Or defined their parties praxes and gave them life.

That's great and all, but absolutely none of that contradicts what I said.

[L1NKS]

Good lord... this is why spontaneous uprisings mean nothing to me. They need the guidance of a vanguard party to make sure the movement develops correctly ideologically in all aspects. People need re-education... just changing the relationship to the means of production is not enough.
This argument is only valid if you presuppose that most people are too dumb to understand the world around them. Then you can go with Hitler and Stalin. Both loved the idea of "re-educating" dissenting elements in society.

We don't need some vanguard-morons telling us what to do. We already have a specialized class ruling the mass of people, and real social change means getting rid of oppressive specialized classes, not substituiting one for another.

[The Idler]

What if vanguards can't agree on who is going to be the vanguard?

[Fourth Internationalist]

What if vanguards can't agree on who is going to be the vanguard?

Then there are multiple vanguard parties.

"In the context of revolutionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution) struggle, vanguardism is a strategy whereby an organization attempts to place itself at the center of the movement, and steer it in a direction consistent with its ideology." - Wikipedia

Using this definition, all organizations, whether an anarchist federation or communist party, during a revolutionary situations are vanguard organizations. Unless these organizations don't want their ideology to "win" so to say.

[The Idler]

Which vanguard party should workers follow to achieve socialism? Or is each vanguard just going to say "us"?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Which vanguard party should workers follow to achieve socialism? Or is each vanguard just going to say "us"?

Pretty much. Which then leads to a situation where the most tactically astute and best organised party becomes the vanguard. This is true from the Bolsheviks to the Muslim Brotherhood and everything in between and beyond.

I find vanguardism utterly incompatible with democracy because, when you have such a large mass of people, it is impossible to consider genuine democratic interests (nevermind the interests of minorities) when there is such a focus on the ideology of the vanguard (i.e. 'ruling') party.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Which vanguard party should workers follow to achieve socialism? Or is each vanguard just going to say "us"?

Every organization is going to work to have its ideology become the dominant one after a revolution, from the anarchist federations, communist parties, and self declared anti-vanguardist organizations. I would try to have the workers follow whichever party I support. That's what vanguardism is- To try to get the people to accept your organization's ideology, whether its anarcho-communism, libertarian Marxism, or any ideology. Each vanguard, yes, will think its own ideology (ie Marxism or anarchism) is the correct way forward to which ever society they want. Why would they not? Individuals do so all the time. You do, I do, he does, and she does.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I find vanguardism utterly incompatible with democracy
Because people working in organizations want their organizations ideology (ie an anarchist federation wants anarchism) to "win" in the revolution, that's undemocratic?


because, when you have such a large mass of people, it is impossible to consider genuine democratic interests (nevermind the interests of minorities) when there is such a focus on the ideology of the vanguard (i.e. 'ruling') party.

What do you think the definition of 'vanguardism' is?

hint: it's completely compatible with democracy and all organizations such as anarchist federations, communist parties, and even anti-vanguardists practice it in both revolutionary and pre-revolutionary situations

[BIXX]

The vanguard (as I have come to understand it) is any communist or socialist or anarchist or member of an oppressed sector of humanity that is trying to work in favor of the oppressed sectors, as well as trying to educate them about social and economic issues.

The vanguard party is a group which assumes the oppressed sectors of humanity are too stupid to make their own decisions, and this imposes their decisions on the oppressed sectors "for their own good".

[Fourth Internationalist]

The vanguard (as I have come to understand it) is any communist or socialist or anarchist or member of an oppressed sector of humanity that is trying to work in favor of the oppressed sectors, as well as trying to educate them about social and economic issues.

Yes, the group of people like that would be the vanguard of the working class.


The vanguard party is a group which assumes the oppressed sectors of humanity are too stupid to make their own decisions, and this imposes their decisions on the oppressed sectors "for their own good"."In the context of revolutionary struggle, vanguardism is a strategy whereby an organization attempts to place itself at the center of the movement, and steer it in a direction consistent with its ideology." - Wikipedia

Therefore, the vanguard party is just one of those organizations that is a political party rather than another form of organization that is not in the form of a political party ie an anarchist federation. This means that, say, if an anarchist federation during a revolutionary time tries to make the revolution, they are practising vanguardism. If a communist party does that, it would also be practising vanguardism. If it is successful, like the Bolsheviks, it is a vanguard party, though it could technically not be a party, thus being a vanguard organization. After the revolution/during the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is no vanguard party.

[BIXX]

Yes, the group of people like that would be the vanguard of the working class.

"In the context of revolutionary struggle, vanguardism is a strategy whereby an organization attempts to place itself at the center of the movement, and steer it in a direction consistent with its ideology." - Wikipedia

Therefore, the vanguard party is just one of those organizations that is a political party rather than another form of organization that is not in the form of a political party ie an anarchist federation. This means that, say, if an anarchist federation during a revolutionary time tries to make the revolution, they are practising vanguardism. If a communist party does that, it would also be practising vanguardism. If it is successful, like the Bolsheviks, it is a vanguard party, though it could technically not be a party, thus being a vanguard organization. After the revolution/during the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is no vanguard party.

So you're saying that a vanguard party can practice vanguardism, and a vanguard organization can, but the VP is a political party as well?

So, the way I'd define a party stay the same: an elitist group that assumes people are to ignorant to make their own decisions, so they impose their decisions "for their own good". Now, whether they are actually doing it for the good of the people or not doesn't matter, as for the most part their solutions will not be based in an inside perspective, and this would not be as good as if it was decided by people whom it actually affected.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That's a pretty horrible definition.

[The Idler]

Why does registering as a party with the Electoral Commission imply condescension any more than standing for a trade union position or organising a demo?

[BIXX]

It's mainly party/union leadership that I tend to have a problem with, as they are not so much leaders as rulers. Just because they have good intentions (as I'm sure they do) doesn't mean shit. They will still try to maintain control of their party/union. Even if they do good shit, they still can't act as favorably for the working class as the working class can.


Organizing a demo is different entirely. It can have the same problems but for the most part I doubt it will. It's just the hierarchies that are the problem here, really. I feel like it makes it harder for well meaning people to do good.