Vanguardism - yay or nay?

[G4b3n]

I have really put my Marxist reading on overdrive lately and I am wonder what other leftist think of vanguard movements. Personally, I identify as a libertarian socialist but sometimes I question how successful a non-vanguardist revolution can be at this point in history.

Why or why not?

[Althusser]

Without the correct revolutionary line at the forefront, you get something like the Arab Spring movements. A bunch of eclectic spontaneous rah rah rah until another section of the bourgeoisie takes power and the IMF funds them to serve foreign interests.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Are there any checks and balances which relate to vanguard parties?

[BIXX]

Without the correct revolutionary line at the forefront, you get something like the Arab Spring movements. A bunch of eclectic spontaneous rah rah rah until another section of the bourgeoisie takes power and maybe the IMF funds them to serve the interests of foreign interests.

By that I'm gonna assume you mean a vanguard, but if I am mistaken please let me know.


In saying that they have the answers (the ability to organize the proletariat) and that the proletariat do not have the answers, they are automatically creating a huge inequality and I believe that it would lead to another set of bourgeoisie.

Plus, what is to stop another section of bourgeoisie from taking power over the vanguard? This would be especially easy if the vanguard had already split off from the workers as some "enlightened" group, and as soon as they split from the workers, they will be working in their own self interests. So, if a member of the bourgeoisie decides to funnel money toward the vanguard for some favors, I doubt much (if anything) would stop them.

[BIXX]

Are there any checks and balances which relate to vanguard parties?

I feel that everyone will say "they will be directly accountable to the workers!" But the problem is, they'd probably be accountable to workers in the same way that politicians are held accountable by the citizens: not at all.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

On one hand, vanguardism leads to absurd ideas, such as the idea that the vanguard is established by a political line and that therefore by this conception, the Spartacus league is the vanguard even though most workers haven't heard of them.

On the otherhand, I haven't seen anything worthy while that has been accomplished without working class organization. The Occupy movement was a test of the revolutionary spontaneous democracy, and it failed on all accounts. Additionally, as we've seen in Brazil and the Middle east, Spontanous movements are quite easy to manipulate to the extent that the world might be better off without them.

Likewise, the efficiency of working class organization is another factor, the Bolsheviks had a highly effective organization and were able to overthrow the provisional government even with a proletarian minority and a lesser history of Marxism. Germany on the otherhand had a rich history of Marxism, a large and politicized proletariat, and their revolution still failed because even though they had working class origination, Luxemburg worshiped at the alter of spontaneity and nothing of value can ever come from that, except for riots and insurrections of course which are richly valuable.

So, I think the idea of vanguardism, in the abstract, is useless. However practically speaking, spontaneity is uncontrollable and can be positive or absolutely, devastatingly negative. What is needed now is a third course. The Left Communists have a decent idea of this and I think MLM answers these questions best. But the old conception of the almighty vanguard leading the people is dead, and rightfully so.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

In saying that they have the answers (the ability to organize the proletariat) and that the proletariat do not have the answers, they are automatically creating a huge inequality and I believe that it would lead to another set of bourgeoisie.

Plus, what is to stop another section of bourgeoisie from taking power over the vanguard? This would be especially easy if the vanguard had already split off from the workers as some "enlightened" group, and as soon as they split from the workers, they will be working in their own self interests. So, if a member of the bourgeoisie decides to funnel money toward the vanguard for some favors, I doubt much (if anything) would stop them.


Political lines are represented by class interests and therefore are subject to class struggle, any party that keeps the line inside of the party will most likely degenerate, therefore while to a certain extent the party must bring a line to the proletariat, the proletariat must also bring the line to the party. The relationship must therefore be dialectical with a balanced consideration of both elements, otherwise we might lapse into workerism or revisionism.

And the position of the party does not lead to the restoration of capitalism, the class struggle within society that manifests within the party leds to the restoration of capitalism. Therefore it is essential that debates within the party echo throughout society so class struggle can exist on a broader plain than in the closed halls of a party congress. Thus insitutions of democracy are key but more importantly than that, democracy must become the real movement of the working class in the construction of their society rather than the number of votes in a ballot box, which isn't democracy at all without the former element.

And lastly, the party must be seen as a tool of class struggle much like the gun and the strike, rather than the pinical of class struggle.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Germany on the other hand had a rich history of Marxism, a large and politicized proletariat, and their revolution still failed because even though they had working class origination, Luxemburg worshiped at the alter of spontaneity and nothing of value can ever come from that, except for riots and insurrections of course which are richly valuable.

Except that the SPD is probably more to blame, with their reformism, substitutionism and "anti-sectarianism"-fetish, laying the ground pretty much dead to build an actual worker's movement in time to cope with the German revolution

[Blake's Baby]

What do you think 'vanguard' means? If we're using the same word for different things, then the question is meaningless. If I answer 'yes' because I think there is inevitably a section of the working class that comes to communist consciousness before the rest of the working class, but then you read 'yes' as meaning that I support a minoritarian and self-selecting political elite establishing control over the proletariat, are we any closer to understanding anything?

[Fourth Internationalist]

There can't be a non vanguardist revolution. Even anarchists accept that there is a more advanced section of the working class that has a clear understanding that communism is what is needed. That is all the vanguard is. It is not a substitution for the working class nor a minority dictatorship.

[Zukunftsmusik]

What do you think 'vanguard' means? If we're using the same word for different things, then the question is meaningless. If I answer 'yes' because I think there is inevitably a section of the working class that comes to communist consciousness before the rest of the working class, but then you read 'yes' as meaning that I support a minoritarian and self-selecting political elite establishing control over the proletariat, are we any closer to understanding anything?

Exactly. Personally, I don't think the question is whether we support or want a vanguard - as it's a choice -, I think they develop during struggle. They're "necessary" in the way that they naturally develop through struggle - someone will necessarily be at the forefront, organizing, agitating etc. But if we're talking about the vanguard party in the sense it has been (mis)used by too many people up to now, it's a whole different matter.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Left Communists have a decent idea of this and I think MLM answers these questions best.

What are these conceptions?

[Althusser]

By that I'm gonna assume you mean a vanguard, but if I am mistaken please let me know.


In saying that they have the answers (the ability to organize the proletariat) and that the proletariat do not have the answers, they are automatically creating a huge inequality and I believe that it would lead to another set of bourgeoisie.

Plus, what is to stop another section of bourgeoisie from taking power over the vanguard? This would be especially easy if the vanguard had already split off from the workers as some "enlightened" group, and as soon as they split from the workers, they will be working in their own self interests. So, if a member of the bourgeoisie decides to funnel money toward the vanguard for some favors, I doubt much (if anything) would stop them.

Well a major role of the vanguard is to work hard educating the working class to be leaders of society and participate in real democracy to make sure nothing like that is able to happen.

[NGNM85]

That is all the vanguard is. It is not a substitution for the working class nor a minority dictatorship.

...except when it is.

[Fourth Internationalist]

...except when it is.

Except then it is not a vanguard but a dictatorship of a party. Same with "actual existing socialism". Socialism is control of production and society by all people, not state owned property. Now, a right-winger would reply "Except when it is..." Just because a totalitarian state/party claimed to be the vanguard as described by Lenin or Marx, it doesn't mean that's true. In the same way, just because a totalitarian, all-controlling state claims itself to be socialist, it wouldn't mean it is so. Do you see what I mean?

[human strike]

The idea that there could be a vanguard party today of any relevance is a fairytale. They have well and truly found their way to the dustbin of history - where they belong.

[d3crypt]

What ways of organization for a revolution are alternatives to a vanguard? It seems clear to me that a revolution must be organized for it to work. However vanguard parties in most cases become corrupt and turn into one party states, that are state capitalist in nature. What is there to prevent this?

[Fourth Internationalist]

What ways of organization for a revolution are alternatives to a vanguard? It seems clear to me that a revolution must be organized for it to work. However vanguard parties in most cases become corrupt and turn into one party states, that are state capitalist in nature. What is there to prevent this?

Have the vanguard stay a vanguard and be only a vanguard rather than a dictatorial power over the working class through democracy and all power in the hands of the workers directly, not through the vanguard (as that is not its role).

[Fourth Internationalist]

The idea that there could be a vanguard party today of any relevance is a fairytale. They have well and truly found their way to the dustbin of history - where they belong.

The vanguard party is simply the most advanced part of the working class, which includes all communists, such as you and I. The common misconception that a vanguard somehow is above the working class is completely made up. Any party that does that is not a vanguard but simply a dictatorial party.

[d3crypt]

The vanguard party is simply the most advanced part of the working class, which includes all communists, such as you and I. The common misconception that a vanguard somehow is above the working class is completely made up. Any party that does that is not a vanguard but simply a dictatorial party. i never really knew that before. i always thought it was supposed to have political power after a revolution.

[Fourth Internationalist]

i never really knew that before. i always thought it was supposed to have political power after a revolution.

I don't doubt there are a few messed-up, unknowledgeable, psuedo-commie tankies who think that it is separated from the working class and/or rules over it, but it has never been that. Otherwise, it is not a vanguard. In fact, the vanguard was even described by Marx.

The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

Even anarchists, thus, believe in some sort of non-party vanguard.

EDIT: Most anti-vanguardists criticize self-proclaimed vanguard parties and what they have done, rightfully so. Calling those authoritarian, centralized parties the result of vanguardism is like blaming Stalin as the result of socialism IE complete non-sense!

[liberlict]

If you want to put your faith in some gang of 'professional revolutionaries' who promise to deliver you a communist utopia, go right ahead.

Me: Nay!

[Fourth Internationalist]

If you want to put your faith in some gang of 'professional revolutionaries' who promise to deliver you a communist utopia, go right ahead.

Me: Nay!

That's not the role of the vanguard.

[blake 3:17]

In 2013, any self proclaimed 'vanguard' is not who you should be following.

[Akshay!]

Whoever voted "nay" has certainly never read Lenin.
I doubt if he has even read Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" and "On Authority" or Marx's debates with Bakunin, or his "Critique of Gotha Program" or "The Poverty of Philosophy" (response to Proudhon) etc.. etc..

So there's not much to debate really. It's, again, like arguing with those idiots who say "we can have a revolution without taking power" :laugh:

Seriously, I love AnarchoRev, oops I mean RevLeft. :laugh:

[blake 3:17]

Whoever voted "nay" has certainly never read Lenin.
I doubt if he has even read Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" and "On Authority" or Marx's debates with Bakunin, or his "Critique of Gotha Program" or "The Poverty of Philosophy" (response to Proudhon) etc.. etc..

So there's not much to debate really. It's, again, like arguing with those idiots who say "we can have a revolution without taking power" :laugh:

Seriously, I love AnarchoRev, oops I mean RevLeft. :laugh:


I voted 'nay'. I have read the pieces by Engels many times. I've read Lenin's main works two or three or four times over the past twenty years. I've read the Critique of the Gotha Program once.

I find it pretty insulting to read "It's, again, like arguing with those idiots who say "we can have a revolution without taking power" -- your big contribution to the discussion on Holloway was a Youtube clip of him and Callinicos. As I said at the time, it's a pretty easy choice these days. Callinicos is walking trash -- defending rapists in his circle in order to preserve to the group -- and that's the most generous interpretation I can come up with. I wouldn't let him in my house.

[Akshay!]

I find it pretty insulting to read "It's, again, like arguing with those idiots who say "we can have a revolution without taking power" -- your big contribution to the discussion on Holloway was a Youtube clip of him and Callinicos. As I said at the time, it's a pretty easy choice these days. Callinicos is walking trash -- defending rapists in his circle in order to preserve to the group -- and that's the most generous interpretation I can come up with. I wouldn't let him in my house.

And when did I say that I agree with any of them? Are you just making things up? :confused:


I voted 'nay'. I have read the pieces by Engels many times. I've read Lenin's main works two or three or four times over the past twenty years. I've read the Critique of the Gotha Program once.


What "pieces"?? What "main works"?? And where exactly do you disagree with Marx on the CoGP?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Whoever voted "nay" has certainly never read Lenin.
I doubt if he has even read Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" and "On Authority" or Marx's debates with Bakunin, or his "Critique of Gotha Program" or "The Poverty of Philosophy" (response to Proudhon) etc.. etc..

So there's not much to debate really. It's, again, like arguing with those idiots who say "we can have a revolution without taking power" :laugh:

Seriously, I love AnarchoRev, oops I mean RevLeft. :laugh:

I'm willing to engage this. Yes there are people who deny the need for organization, who oppose organization on the basis that it is "authoritarian". This is absurd, and no offense to those people, but I don't feel the need to combat this argument. That's not to say that I don't respect Tinqunist who have their own critique of organization, but these are grounded in reality rather than based in the teenage angst of some petty bourgeois children who do not want to do any hard work.

But on the otherhand........

These people:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/migration/img_up/up_3/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_37123_1.jpg
who claim to be the vanguard of the proletariat


..............are not my vanguard. At this juncture, what does it even mean for a class to be "led" by a party who most people don't even know exists. Yes, I am aware of Trotsky's concept of the crisis of leadership, in which the proletariat are ready for a revolution but only need the "correct" elements of the "conscious" part of the class to purge everyone else so we can have a revolution.

But isn't this absurd?

First of all, it assumes that the proletariat are literally doing nothing but waiting for revolution, that they spend their spare time anxiously awaiting orders from the Secret Trotskyist Moonbase to commence the revolution, and that somehow this order is impeded by a alliance of Space Anarchists under the leadership of Space Captain Stalin, in a battle that would look something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg

Clearly, there's something more going on here, there's something more fundamental that we're missing than just "correct" leadership".

And to be fair, most Trotskyist groups do not behave like this any more, the ISO, CWI, and even the IMT don't have any delusions about the position they are in. I'd say that this problem of Trotskyism has spread far beyond Trotskyism and infects the rest of the movement far worse than it infects Trotskyism (I won't name any names, but I think we all know of a few groups that are far worse than the trots on this one).

I could go on and on, but I'll just say this. Do you feel "led" by any party at this point? Do you feel the tremor of revolution shaking the earth yet? Do you see a new world over the horizon?

No?

Well then, let's stop acting delusional. No one leds the working class.

[Akshay!]

I'm willing to engage this.
But on the otherhand........

These people:

..............are not my vanguard.
I could go on and on, but I'll just say this. Do you feel "led" by any party at this point? Do you feel the tremor of revolution shaking the earth yet? Do you see a new world over the horizon?


I think our disagreement is about semantics like 'what does "vanguard" mean', etc.. etc.. It's not the kind of fundamental disagreement that every socialist must have with so called anti-authoritarians, mainly anarchists who oppose "vanguardism", for very different reasons.

If some random group which is totally unrelated to the real world says that they're the vanguard - of course, that can't be, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[liberlict]

That's not the role of the vanguard.

That's exactly what the role of a 'vanguard' is.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think our disagreement is about semantics like 'what does "vanguard" mean', etc.. etc.. It's not the kind of fundamental disagreement that every socialist must have with so called anti-authoritarians, mainly anarchists who oppose the vanguard, for very different reasons.

If some random group which is totally unrelated to the real world says that they're the vanguard - of course, that can't be, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

In a certain sense, I think this is correct. Anyone at this junction who claims to be the vanguard is delusional, period. I am sure some one can come in and tell me that *insert sect here* is the vanguard of the American proletariat, but I honestly don't feel the need to engage that. That isn't leftism, that's a religion, that's closer to Bin Laden than Lenin.

I think the idea of a vanguard is half correct, the proletariat, is not a homogeneous blob, it is not a singularity that is capable of acting as a coherent unit. It is a diverse body with competing and intersecting interests. So naturally, when we speak of class action, we can imagine that certain elements of the class will come into opposition of the action of other elements of the class, and that there are situations where one element of the class leads the rest.

I do not contest this. I think this is an accurate summation of the material reality of the modern proltariat After all, I do not see the white male construction workers of the world leading the civil rights movement of the 60's, nor do I see Malcolmn X rising from the dead to give guidence to the queer proletariat in their struggle. Likewise, in the struggle to abolish capitalism, it is only logical that the element of the class that has the most vested interest in seeing the end of capitalism would be at the forefront of the struggle to end it.

However....

At the present moment, or really most moments, is this element consisting of Communists?

I do not recall the red banner fluttering in the air as the proletariat of London rose up to smash the windows of their factories and workplaces, I do not recall Communists being at the forefront of the 2005 events of Paris when the sons of underprivledged migrant workers lite fire to the streets.

I recall the Communists of those days, hiding behind their mothers and telling the scary men wearing the facemasks and smashing the windows to go away, I recall Communists crying "Law! Order!" when the proletariat rose up.

Is there a vanguard of the proletariat? Yes, it is the poorest, most oppressed section, it is those men and women who have nothing to lose but their chains, while the section where communists find themselves comfortable involves themselves in rape scandals more often than class struggles.

So it is our duty as Communists to go to this section. And it will not be easy work, for these are the people that Communists walk by faster when they see them pass by on the streets, it is the people that Communists have classified as lumpen in order to make friends with all of the nice people at the Labour Party cocktail party. It is that strata of people who are not friendly to talk to, who have lived a long hard life and have become bitter as a result, it is the people whose faces have not seen the light of day, that Communists will look upon and look away in fear.

This is the "advanced section of the proletariat". And if the Communist movement ever wants to become anything other than a collection of petty-bourgeois dreamers, then they should learn to interact with them and to become them, rather than to make friendly with the war criminals and mass murders that attend your local labour party "social justice" march.

Only when Communists abandon the left, and go to the workers, will we ever see the vanguard of the proletariat form a party.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That's exactly what the role of a 'vanguard' is.

No it is not. Only anti-vanguardists claim such things, in a similar way that non-socialists claim socialists want to increase the power of the state away from working people.

[Skyhilist]

The question would be better if OP obviated what he/She means. I think what comes to mind for most people is a vanguard party that seizes a role of power during the revolutions (e.g. Bolsheviks), to which i voted no.

[liberlict]

No it is not. Only anti-vanguardists claim such things, in a similar way that non-socialists claim socialists want to increase the power of the state away from working people.

Only pro-vanguardists claim otherwise, because they believe in the right of a minority to speak for everybody.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Only pro-vanguardists claim otherwise, because they believe in the right of a minority to speak for everybody.

I do not believe that and I am a vanguardist. Nor does that notion have anything to do with actual vanguardism, but rather with a party dictatorship that uses vanguardism (and socialism and communism) to justify their rule. Most people on here including you are vanguardists, you just don't consider it vanguardism because you confuse it with party dictatorships.

[Akshay!]

I think the idea of a vanguard is half correct, the proletariat, is not a homogeneous blob, it is not a singularity that is capable of acting as a coherent unit. It is a diverse body with competing and intersecting interests. So naturally, when we speak of class action, we can imagine that certain elements of the class will come into opposition of the action of other elements of the class, and that there are situations where one element of the class leads the rest.


Which is exactly my definition of a vanguard.


it is only logical that the element of the class that has the most vested interest in seeing the end of capitalism would be at the forefront of the struggle to end it.
Is there a vanguard of the proletariat? Yes, it is the poorest, most oppressed section, it is those men and women who have nothing to lose but their chains, while the section where communists find themselves comfortable involves themselves in rape scandals more often than class struggles.

This is the "advanced section of the proletariat". And if the Communist movement ever wants to become anything other than a collection of petty-bourgeois dreamers, then they should learn to interact with them and to become them, rather than to make friendly with the war criminals and mass murders that attend your local labour party "social justice" march.

Only when Communists abandon the left, and go to the workers, will we ever see the vanguard of the proletariat form a party.

I totally agree with you (specially with the parts in bold).

[BIXX]

I will admit I voted no based off of the idea of the "vanguard party", not the vanguard in the sense that others have stated it (Marx stating that the vanguard is the "most advanced" section of the working class, YABM stating that the vanguard changes depending on the struggle, based on those who are most oppressed by an issue). I agree with what the others have stated.


It's, again, like arguing with those idiots who say "we can have a revolution without taking power" :laugh:

Seriously, I love AnarchoRev, oops I mean RevLeft. :laugh:

As for the bold: yes, we get it, you hate anarchists, blah blah blah.

As for the italics, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument that you are incorrectly deriving that from.

[Blake's Baby]

i never really knew that before. i always thought it was supposed to have political power after a revolution.

A lot of people think it does, including a lot of those who consider themselves part of that vanguard. But of others of us think it's the task of the working class to administer the dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of the vanguard is to be more like an advisory body inside the working class. Yes, communists will be in the councils arguing for the extension and deepening of the revolutionary assault on capitalism, but the organisation of revolutionaries doesn't 'take power', the working class takes power (and no handwavium about the party 'representing' the working class or the working class taking power 'through' the party).

[liberlict]

So you could basically say that 'revleft' and other communist revolutionary groups are the 'vanguard', then. If this is the case---that the vanguard is just the most organised and educated of the worker class, with no coercive power---there is no reason to call them the 'vanguard'. They are just like everybody else. It's a pointless distinction. Anybody not suffering from myopia can see that 'vanguard' is code for 'self appointed social engineers of a revolution'. It's no coincidence that Bolsheviks and other gangs of thuggish zealots have embraced this post whole-heatedly.

[MarxArchist]

Democratic leadership yes but during and just after a revolution how much direct democracy can we expect? Surrounded by capitalist states and with a huge reactionary population.

[liberlict]

Democratic leadership yes but during and just after a revolution how much direct democracy can we expect? Surrounded by capitalist states and with a huge reactionary population.

I really do wish America and the IMF would stop all these bullshit sanctions on Cuba and North Korea. I see no point in it, really.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So you could basically say that 'revleft' and other communist revolutionary groups are the 'vanguard', then. If this is the case---that the vanguard is just the most organised and educated of the worker class, with no coercive power---there is no reason to call them the 'vanguard'.

Why is there no reason to call them the vanguard? Your definition is correct, that's what they are. Why should we have to not have a word for it?


They are just like everybody else. It's a pointless distinction.
No, they are most organised and educated (in terms of socialism) of the working class. Their job is to essentially nudge forward and radicalise the rest of the working class. That's very important.


Anybody not suffering from myopia can see that 'vanguard' is code for 'self appointed social engineers of a revolution'. It's no coincidence that Bolsheviks and other gangs of thuggish zealots have embraced this post whole-heatedly.It is true that, yes, the Soviet government used the term 'vanguard party' to justify their dictatorship. Similarly, it did the same thing with the term 'socialism' too. Yet those two things are so different from what the Soviet government did.

[MarxArchist]

I really do wish America and the IMF would stop all these bullshit sanctions on Cuba and North Korea. I see no point in it, really.

Actual communism arising is a threat to capitalism because.... if a free and equal society existed where people could actually have a choice to not take part in capitalism, then, well, there would be no more work force for capitalism. There's other reasons for the policy of "containment" the one I mentioned is the most basic. Other reasons are because of the post Lenin approach to "spreading" communism into less developed nations that capitalism depends on for resources and labor. Capitalism has to have access to the worlds resources and labor force in order to maintain perpetually expanding profits or "growth".

Put simply communism and capitalism cannot co-exist. Capitalists will do everything in their power to prevent communism from manifesting - in large part why I think the state will be needed to abolish capital and defend any isolated socialist region until capital can be globally abolished but if the "workers a state" looks like north Korea it's not even worth it.

[liberlict]

Why is there no reason to call them the vanguard? Your definition is correct, that's what they are. Why should we have to not have a word for it?


OK, fair enough, you're right. I can accept that. I take back what I said.

[Akshay!]

So you could basically say that 'revleft' and other communist revolutionary groups are the 'vanguard', then. If this is the case---that the vanguard is just the most organised and educated of the worker class


lol what?? most of revleft is a bunch of anarchists trying to feel good.


It's no coincidence that Bolsheviks and other gangs of thuggish zealots have embraced this post whole-heatedly.

Are you even a leftist? I don't think even the craziest right wing people talk about Bolsheviks that way.

[MarxArchist]

Are you even a leftist? I don't think even the craziest right wing people talk about Bolsheviks that way.

No I don't think that poster is. You should see what he/she thinks about Marx. The views that poster put forth in threads concerning "anarcho" capitalism would indicate she/he's either new to socialism after being a right wing libertarian or is a right wing libertarian.

[liberlict]

lol what?? most of revleft is a bunch of anarchists trying to feel good.



Are you even a leftist? I don't think even the craziest right wing people talk about Bolsheviks that way.

Yeah I don't want to get involved in a factional war between leftists. :hammersickle: :reda: :cool:

[Rural Comrade]

It is necessary with the Marxist line. Imagine democratic centralism without a vanguard party.It would fall into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Allow the workers peasants and intellectuals to have a party.

[Fourth Internationalist]

lol what?? most of revleft is a bunch of anarchists trying to feel good.

Why do you always have to whine about anarchists?

[liberlict]

Actual communism arising is a threat to capitalism because.... if a free and equal society existed where people could actually have a choice to not take part in capitalism, then, well, there would be no more work force for capitalism. There's other reasons for the policy of "containment" the one I mentioned is the most basic. Other reasons are because of the post Lenin approach to "spreading" communism into less developed nations that capitalism depends on for resources and labor. Capitalism has to have access to the worlds resources and labor force in order to maintain perpetually expanding profits or "growth".

Put simply communism and capitalism cannot co-exist. Capitalists will do everything in their power to prevent communism from manifesting - in large part why I think the state will be needed to abolish capital and defend any isolated socialist region until capital can be globally abolished but if the "workers a state" looks like north Korea it's not even worth it.

Can you explain the bit in bold more? It's extremely vague. It's like saying *if* XYZ eventuated, there would be no reason for W, which I would be agreeable to in some circumstances.

What I think you mean is that if everybody was motivated to work voluntarily and goods and services were abundant, then people would rationally prefer to participate in a communist society as opposed to a capitalist one. Don't want to put words in your mouth though.

[liberlict]

lol what?? most of revleft is a bunch of anarchists trying to feel good.



Prob not my place to say, but I mean what's the point in being so contemptuous of your fellow leftists? After all, the whole goal of the movement is to raise class consciousness to the point where people are looking for an alternative to capitalism. If you are going to keep pettily putting each other down, why would anyone else want to join?

[Akshay!]

If you are going to keep pettily putting each other down, why would anyone else want to join?

Nobody wants you "to join". This is not some kind of popularity contest. If you don't agree with Marxism, you're not even anywhere near the left.


No I don't think that poster is. You should see what he/she thinks about Marx. The views that poster put forth in threads concerning "anarcho" capitalism would indicate she/he's either new to socialism after being a right wing libertarian or is a right wing libertarian.

I totally agree.

[MarxArchist]

Can you explain the bit in bold more? It's extremely vague. It's like saying *if* XYZ eventuated, there would be no reason for W, which I would be agreeable to in some circumstances.

What I think you mean is that if everybody was motivated to work voluntarily and goods and services were abundant, then people would rationally prefer to participate in a communist society as opposed to a capitalist one. Don't want to put words in your mouth though.

I think you should be restricted to the opposing ideologies forum. Thats what I think. I'll debate you when you admit you think "anarcho" capitalism and communism can coexist. Also, after you explain your adherence to absolutely reactionary critiques of Marx.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think you should be restricted to the opposing ideologies forum. Thats what I think. I'll debate you when you admit you think "anarcho" capitalism and communism can coexist. Also, after you explain your adherence to absolutely reactionary critiques of Marx.

.........Or zhe can stay in the main forum, when zhe can present hir views and have them be engaged on the level of content, and thus learn from the process of debate and critique while challenging our own views and allowing us to reassess their validity.

Or in otherwords, zhe can stay on the forum to put across their views because that is the point of a forum.

[MarxArchist]

.........Or zhe can stay in the main forum, when zhe can present hir views and have them be engaged on the level of content, and thus learn from the process of debate and critique while challenging our own views and allowing us to reassess their validity.

Or in otherwords, zhe can stay on the forum to put across their views because that is the point of a forum.

What's the point of the opposing ideologies forum? Also, have you read his/her posts in other threads? Maybe I'll enter the "I don't have a life" zone and go through all her/his posts and quote them for you. Or maybe the entire forum should be open to ALL points of view? Even Anarchists accept Marx's critique of capitalism and largely agree with historical materialism (as it's the basis of revolutionary communism). The poster in question has been, in a round about way most people haven't detected, criticizing actual socialism while upholding the merits of abject individualism while typing onto this forum reactionary views on "human nature", on the possibility of anarcho capitalism, on Marx and on private property. All your doing is extending your contrarian attitude you started in the thread on trans women in womens bathrooms.

[ZenTaoist]

If there is anything that has soiled the good name of communism for the working-class, it's power-grubbing vanguard parties. Every single revolution has claimed to represent the proletariat, and then it turns into a dictatorship of the party elite, who claim to represent workers and are usually paranoid and authoritarian. This is where people get the idea that communism is out to control people and take their freedoms away.

And I'm sorry Marxist-Leninists, but arguments like "material conditions" and "IT WAS NECESSARY" are simply no excuse. I don't understand what "material conditions" can provoke Joseph Stalin to murder thousands (possibly millions) of his own comrades. It makes no sense. Unless you conclude that this ideology leads to a dictatorship over the proletariat, then it makes perfect sense.

Communism is supposed to be for the worker and the peasant...not some fucking vanguard.

[MarxArchist]

And I'm sorry Marxist-Leninists, but arguments like "material conditions" and "IT WAS NECESSARY" are simply no excuse..

I'm nowhere near a Marxist-Leninist but i do understand the material conditions which led to such authoritarianism. Russia was economically and socially backwards. Most of the writtings on the subject of the Russian Bolsheviks I got from Kautsky's post 1917 writings on Russian Bolshivism in "Terrorism and Communism". You should check them out IN FULL. The last chapter if I can remember correctly.

[Skyhilist]

Here are some thoughts:

Some sections of the working class are going to be more "revolutionary" than others perhaps. What's important however, is that the working class consists of a class conscious majority for revolution to have any hopes of resulting in anything more than a futile bureaucracy. If this class class conscious majority is present, the worst thing that can be done is for the revolutionaries who see themselves as "leaders" to seize power as a party and make executive decisions without a consenting working class (even if they see them as "less advanced revolutionaries"). This will only lead to party bureaucracy and alienate much of the working class for the struggle. In a successful revolution, the working class as a whole must consent to the actions being performed. What better way to ensure that than by having a working class that as a whole actually has a say in things during the revolution? After all, it's a lot easier for revolution to be guided by the consent of the working class when it's structured bottom-up and all proletarians can contribute in their own way rather than facing some top-down (and therefore likely bureaucratic) "revolutionary" power structure that in reality usually ends up betraying working class interests anyways.

When you have some top-down vanguard party with centralized leadership, the well-being of the working class rests on highly unstable leadership. After all, what happens after the first great leader (Lenin, Mao, Tito, whatever) dies? Is there a chance someone who actually cares about working class interests will take their place? Sure, but more than likely you get someone who ends up commandeering governance without giving a shit about anyone. And even if you get lucky the first time around, good luck keeping that up after the first few leaders. It's such an obviously failed formula and frankly it's annoying that so many seemingly bright people aren't capable of seeing that. Any advanced revolutionaries may have valuable skills and/or advice. But their authority ought to be deferred to voluntarily, and not forced upon anyone via substitutionalist bureaucracy.

If you're good at fighting strategies, good. A class conscious working class will listen to you should your strategies be sound and carry out revolution in such a way. If they are incapable of doing so or not ready to do so, forcing such strategies on them via top-down organizing will solve nothing. Revolutionaries must collectively agree on how to carry out their revolution -- otherwise it is not truly their revolution.

[liberlict]

I think you should be restricted to the opposing ideologies forum. Thats what I think. I'll debate you when you admit you think "anarcho" capitalism and communism can coexist. Also, after you explain your adherence to absolutely reactionary critiques of Marx.

I never claimed to be a Marxist or leftist, as least not in the way this forum would accept. That's why I've only posted in the 'opposing ideologies' forum ..

[BIXX]

lol what?? most of revleft is a bunch of anarchists trying to feel good.

Just cause you tried to be some statist anarchist (Belinskyism at its finest) or some shot once and we pointed out how you CANNOT be an anarchist while believing in the usage of a state, you whine about is forever.


Why do you always have to whine about anarchists?

Remember that time we whipped him in an argument and her refused to understand our arguments? It's the same thing I'm referencing above with his "statist anarchist" crap.

[Brutus]

It would help if Akshay actually had any valid criticisms of anarchism, rather than just resorting to straw men. Most of his posts are laughable, as they either consist of insulting another tendency or wildly misunderstanding/misrepresenting socialism.

[Per Levy]

Vangaurdism yay or nay?

i have to say "nay" for the sole reason that most "communist" partys of today understand vanguard as building their shitty party and take power one day where they can rule over the proles. and to be honest there must be tenthouands of "vanguard partys" all over the world, yet we are farther away from anything like revolution or socialism/communism.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yay because when the revolt happens, and these people organized into something that the bourgeoise will attempt to deradicalize or destroy it no matter what happens. We have to ensure that reactionary won't take charge because otherwise the workers will suffers even more.

[G4b3n]

I am amazed at the 50-50 split.
It seems we are pretty well divided down the middle.

[Geiseric]

I would argue that a Soviet in and of itself constitutes a revolutionary vanguard in its embryonic form. As the dictatorship becomes more encompassing of resources held by the bourgeois, the vanguard could find the necessity to change its structure, which is the situation the Russian revolutionaries found themselves in with the counter revolution.

[blake 3:17]

And when did I say that I agree with any of them? Are you just making things up? :confused:

What "pieces"?? What "main works"?? And where exactly do you disagree with Marx on the CoGP?

You offered a Holloway v Callinicos video in a thread a while ago. I didn't bother watching it, because Callinicos is fucking trash.

The main works are What Is To Be Done?, Imperialism, State and Revolution and Leftwing Communism.

I've no idea where I disagree with Marx on the Gotha program. I don't care. It's a great piece of his writing, but it's nearly 150 years old!

[blake 3:17]

i have to say "nay" for the sole reason that most "communist" partys of today understand vanguard as building their shitty party and take power one day where they can rule over the proles. and to be honest there must be tenthouands of "vanguard partys" all over the world, yet we are farther away from anything like revolution or socialism/communism.

Having been in a few different Left groups over the past 20 years, I am sick to death of Left Bosses.

One of the "funny" (more strange than haha) is that some of the more anti authoritarian groups are more authoritarian than the others.

[Vostok17]

By our discussion and activity we are, in some connotation, a vanguard.

[Akshay!]

I don't care. It's a great piece of his writing, but it's nearly 150 years old!

Excellent argument. "It's nearly 150 years old!" I didn't expect anything better. :lol:

[Brutus]

Excellent argument. "It's nearly 150 years old!" I didn't expect anything better. :lol:

How dare he say a work from the 19th century is dated!

[Akshay!]

How dare he say a work from the 19th century in dated!

If you want to say that Marx is wrong about something, then say it and substantiate your claim with some evidence/arguments. Saying "this is 150 years old" doesn't prove anything about the text (positive or negative).

It does, however, tell something about the person making that "argument". :lol:

Illiteracy is not something to be proud about.

[dodger]

A Vanguard. Military Terminology. A Strike too(in English). An influential party with some credit to its name. An Octopus with tentacles reaching out through labour movement and society at large. They had dirty great suckers on....I felt no inclination to add myself. Nor did the overwhelming majority of workers. A common symptom was for the vanguard to be split between full timers and 'led'. Let's not be in denial. Experts. Gurus table thumpers fanatics. List is endless. People who are Do'ers and Thinkers(not mutually exclusive) would find no natural home in such an organization. A variation on an employers oft repeated phrase"Ahem ta one pait teh do teh tinkin', 'ere."

Good the subject is being aired. True we hail from the four corners. Conditions vary. Surely everyone should voice what sort of party is called for . What fits the bill. What will press forward our class.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Never. I believe that the revolution must be for the working class, by the working class. Vanguardism to me means several things - mostly negative. To me, it seems based in a mistrust or degree of contempt for the proletariat, a way of saying "they'd never get anywhere without educated people like us". I'm aware that the counter-argument is that they're simply being led by proper socialists who will sort everything out later - but again, i find that a very patronising stance to take when it comes to revolution.

[MarxArchist]

Never. I believe that the revolution must be for the working class, by the working class. Vanguardism to me means several things - mostly negative. To me, it seems based in a mistrust or degree of contempt for the proletariat, a way of saying "they'd never get anywhere without educated people like us". I'm aware that the counter-argument is that they're simply being led by proper socialists who will sort everything out later - but again, i find that a very patronising stance to take when it comes to revolution.
Do you think the bourgeois revolution, lets say, in America (1776) could have been led by a spontaneous gathering of the merchant class or did members of the merchant class have to lead the overall merchant class into organized resistance (while also fooling the poor into thinking the new system was in their best interest).

Is a worker at a job thinking "fuck my boss" enough to bring in socialism? Are people, lets say, at Occupy Wall st calling for reforms what we need? Wouldn't reformist methods be a result of improper class consciousness? Who is it that would criticize reforms if not a sort of "vanguard" who understand capitalism and what it will take to end it? The question, as far as I'm concerned, is what actually constitutes a vanguard, what sort of organizational tactics are employed and how much pure democracy would be possible in an attempt to end capitalism.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

For starters, who's to say a revolution of the proletariat is going to work like a bourgeois revolution? Indeed, one of the problems I have with vanguardism is that it adopts the trappings of bourgeois revolutions - with all the issues that brings.

I am not asking for reforms when i say I support unions. Indeed, you can find me saying stuff to the contrary in my (currently rather brief) posting history. Reformism is a dead end - I think that's been pretty empirically proven over the last seventy years. i support unions, however, because I believe they are a route towards organisation and class consciousness. Yes, many of the unions we have now are lead by class-quislings, often of the worst order, but i have enough belief in people that I think that with a bit of effort from people like us, with a willingness to sincerely answer questions and open dialogue within the proletariat, consciousness will evolve. I do not see the utility in treating the working class - our contemporaries, friends and families, in fact - like a dumb mass who won't get anywhere without people leading them. Those are the attitudes of our current rulers, and i doubt anyone here professes any love for them

[Sotionov]

Nay.

Socialism = democracy, whereas vanguardism = oligarchy - they're incompatible.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd like to change my answer to nay.

[blake 3:17]

...dontactlikeanassholedontbeajerk...

If you want to say that Marx is wrong about something, then say it and substantiate your claim with some evidence/arguments. Saying "this is 150 years old" doesn't prove anything about the text (positive or negative).

It does say something about its relevancy. My academic background is mostly in 18th, 19th and early 20th century literature and art history. Obviously I don't think a text a century and a half old is bad. But I would want to examine the social context. In a way different from Lukacs -- I disagree with him philosophically -- I would promote a Marxism of Marxism.


It does, however, tell something about the person making that "argument". :lol:

Illiteracy is not something to be proud about.

So I'm illiterate? Huh? Or somebody else? WTF?

[Akshay!]

It does say something about its relevancy.


"Since the text is 150 years old, it's irrelevant."
I'm glad that the oppressed people around the world don't agree with you.

btw, wouldn't (again, according to your idiotic theory) The Communist Manifesto be even More irrelevant - since it's much older than the Critique of Gotha Program?


In a way different from Lukacs -- I disagree with him philosophically -- I would promote a Marxism of Marxism.


What?? :laugh:

[BIXX]

btw, wouldn't (again, according to your idiotic theory) The Communist Manifesto be even More irrelevant - since it's much older than the Critique of Gotha Program?

Finally, an actual argument by Ashkay.

However, a good amount of people here. Seem to consider the Communist Manifesto as a shitty document. I haven't really read it in depth, but it seems fine to me. But for some reason a lot of people criticize it.


What?? :laugh:

I think what he was saying is that there should be a Marxist critique of Marxism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm glad that the oppressed people around the world don't agree with you.

I don't think the majority of the opressed people around the world care much about Marx or Marxism, let alone Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Anyway, I think all of Marx's texts are irrelevant to present forms of struggle and present ideological and strategical conflicts and disputes. His work is relevant in the case that he set the basis for Marxism and modern critique of capitalism. Yes, Marx is important, but when discussing the vanguard party, it's more relevant to discuss the theory and history/experience with such an institution than necrophilic masturbation

[Brutus]

I believe it was Mao who said "dogma is worse than dung". Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Mr Mao, but that statement is spot on. Remember that Akshay.

[Brutus]

"A good amount of people here" are stupid.
That's rich, coming from someone who labels themselves with a pejorative.

[Akshay!]

Finally, an actual argument by Ashkay.

Akshay*


However, a good amount of people here. Seem to consider the Communist Manifesto as a shitty document.

"A good amount of people here" are stupid.


I haven't really read it in depth
I know. That's the point!! :lol:


Anyway, I think all of Marx's texts are irrelevant to present forms of struggle and present ideological and strategical conflicts and disputes.
No, YOU are irrelevant.

Long Live Marxism!!

[Brutus]

Marx would want his work to be adapted an updated. Capitalism has evolved, and communism must do the same. Please don't post anymore- it lowers the IQ of the entire forum.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd like to change my answer to nay.

I am changing it back to yay.

[BIXX]

"A good amount of people here" are stupid.

I know. That's the point!!

As for the bold, I was actually saying I kinda agreed with you that it was a good document. So maybe...


Illiteracy is not something to be proud about.

...You should follow your own advice.

As for the italicized, ad hominem. Seriously, I thought you were about to contribute to this forum, not continue being a typical troll.

[blake 3:17]

I think what he was saying is that there should be a Marxist critique of Marxism.

Thank you! Michael Lowy puts forward this idea -- and others have too but as a really friggin tired worker I ain't gonna research it all for you -- in his fine book on Lukacs, From Romanticism to Bolshevism. He undertakes a Lukacsian study of Lukacs, I think quite successfully.

I'd really recommend Nettl's biography of Luxemburg, not as a theoretical document, but as a, in part, a study of how the German SPD was bureaucratized in 1902! The devil's in the details.

One of the most radical things I've ever read is the Book of Amos and that's 2500 years old!

I'm a bit annoyed by some of Akshay!'s comments because they are quite ignorant. I find it amusing and irritating that someone using a Che graphic discounts actually existing forms of Guavarism in action -- the Zapatista rebellion in particular. Much of the non-indigenous leadership were Guevarists and they actually applied the foco strategy to its logical end. And been successful at it!

[Zukunftsmusik]

No, YOU are irrelevant.

Long Live Marxism!!

Way to go dodging my whole point with a meaningless ad hominem.

[Brutus]

To paraphrase Marx:
If these people (Akshay) are Marxists, then I am not a Marxist.

[liberlict]

Akshay*


No, YOU are irrelevant.

Long Live Marxism!!

'Akshay!', has to be considered a 'reactionary', doesn't he, since he is / was so backward looking.?

[Buzzard]

I dig the way it's perfectly 50/50 right now :grin:

[liberlict]

"The God That Failed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SewlKDMFR4

I <3 Chomsky

[Red HalfGuard]

'Vanguard' is traced etymologically from medieval battle tactics. It was simply the first part of the army into battle. That's it.

And there are definitely more advanced sectors of the working class than others. Talk to most white working class americans and you'll hear the most reactionary racist horseshit (this is because of the white working class's historical role as the shock troops of colonialism). Only a tiny minority of them express an interest in revolutionary action.

Knowing that we live in a police state, of course the advanced sectors of the workign class are going to organize into secret groups, or they'll be jailed or wiped out. This is common sense. These groups must always be drawn from the oppressed classes of course.

The knee-jerk 'criticism' of anything but the squishiest, riot-porn heavy anarchism or council communism ignores that Cuba achieved almost all the goals of its revolution

[Brutus]

The methods of Castro and Co. are anti-Marxian, and it appears that yours are too. 'Secret groups' sounds very Blanquist...

[darkblues]

I voted nay. I am very pessimistic re: development of a conventionally, traditionally conceived of socialist state.


Marx would want his work to be adapted an updated. Capitalism has evolved, and communism must do the same. Please don't post anymore- it lowers the IQ of the entire forum.

Precisely what doctor Marx would have wanted. Otherwise the subject/object becomes immovable and dogmatic.

I would have liked to quote blake 3.17 re: the zapatista movement, but haven't worked out how to quote multiple posters...this is an empirical example of a movement successfully operating without and against the state.

[Sotionov]

I am adamantly against virtually all hierarchy, but vaguardist do have articulate arguments, like- workers today don't have the time to get well versed or participate in the coordinational matters, the any big size organization neccessitates hierarchy, etc. I think they are unsound arguments, but they do exist and need to be proved false. Appeal to authority of Marx or just calling someone reactionary doesn't do that.

[Red HalfGuard]

The methods of Castro and Co. are anti-Marxian, and it appears that yours are too. 'Secret groups' sounds very Blanquist...

First: Absolute horseshit. Read the article "20 Reasons To Support Cuba".

Second: Do you think the EZLN were 'Blanquist'?

[Brutus]

First: Absolute horseshit. Read the article "20 Reasons To Support Cuba".

Second: Do you think the EZLN were 'Blanquist'?

One: a small amount of guerillas seize power. No workers' councils, or factory committees; no workers emancipating themselves, but a few petit-bourgeois with guns!

Two: I don't know enough about the EZLN to answer properly.

[Le Socialiste]

I am adamantly against virtually all hierarchy, but vaguardist do have articulate arguments, like- workers today don't have the time to get well versed or participate in the coordinational matters, the any big size organization neccessitates hierarchy, etc. I think they are unsound arguments, but they do exist and need to be proved false. Appeal to authority of Marx or just calling someone reactionary doesn't do that.

The few who do say that workers haven't the time to be involved in an organization grounded in revolutionary principles should be proven wrong, yes. Those who maintain such lines or assessments regarding the 'passive state' of the working-class should be exposed for being incompatible with what Marx and others concluded when they first set about in analyzing the relationships between competing class interests and the subject of organization. It was Marx and Engels who identified the interrelationship(s) between issues of working-class fightback and organization. They, like others who continued after them, observed that it was essential for an organization to be not merely a party of the working-class in name, but in content and character as well. In fact, it was Lenin who argued for greater working-class involvement in "all the roles and functions of the party," for the purpose of evening and refining the uneven character of class consciousness and coordination.

Suffice it say, a vanguard isn't at its heart a conspiratorial intelligentsia intent on seizing state power at the expense of everything else (though like all things, this is subject to how things relate to conditions on the ground). What it is, however, makes for much less sensational reading. It is, after all, little more than the most advanced section of the working-class, that section capable of understanding the shape and contour of struggle as well as the state of its class. It reflects on the historical and inherent 'unevenness' evident amongst broad swathes of the population, but it also confronts the task of 'raising' the awareness of the working-class to similar heights of understanding. Never has the case been made that this unevenness necessarily indicates a more 'privileged' standing (by anyone steeped in the Marxist tradition, that is). The point isn't to conclude that workers are too busy to be bothered with matters of their own emancipation, but how to draw greater and greater numbers into the task of actively organizing for said liberation. That is the role of the vanguard, to play a leading role in this process so as to better understand the so-called "lines of march."

I wrote a blog post about all this and more, titled "A Defense of Leninism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18886)." I encourage anyone looking to learn more about this subject to take a look (if they so desire).

[NeonTrotski]

What was that Bolshevik slogan ... was it "all power to the Vanguard"?
hmm....

[darkblues]

db

[Sotionov]

In fact, it was Lenin who argued for greater working-class involvement in "all the roles and functions of the party," for the purpose of evening and refining the uneven character of class consciousness and coordination.Well, that turned out well. Actually, not only did Lenin oppose working classes' managment of production and society, he opposed ideas that the proletariat is to manage the economy and society, or that even the party membership as a whole is to do so. The Decist, Workers' Group, Worker Opposition were tendencies pretty much in line bolshevism, and they did not advocate what I (and libertarian socialists in general) consider socialism- the working people controling production (and politics), but were nevertheless banned for advocating only a mitigation of the the dictatorship of the party officials.


uffice it say, a vanguard isn't at its heart a conspiratorial intelligentsia intent on seizing state power at the expense of everything else (though like all things, this is subject to how things relate to conditions on the ground). What it is, however, makes for much less sensational reading. It is, after all, little more than the most advanced section of the working-classThere is no such thing. There's the working class and the ruling class. Anyone that is a part of the working people but supports the existence of any type of ruling class can be said to have "false counsciousness", or if he fights for it, he's a class traitor. Anyone who doesn't do that two, he is the "vanguard", or to use the correct term- he is a genuine socialist.


What was that Bolshevik slogan ... was it "all power to the Vanguard"?
hmm....
The Bolshevik slogans were "All power to the soviets", "Factory to the workers", "Land to the peasants", and "Peace to the people", of which they have fulfilled (formally at least) only the fourth one- by exiting the world war.

[electro_fan]

no and none of the self proclaimed "vanguards" represent the working class let alone are capable of "leading" it

[darkblues]

db

[electro_fan]

the idea of a vanguard died with the S.U

and we saw how well that turned out

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

"The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority" - The Communist Manifesto

that ought to answer your question. No matter how well-intentioned (and I am willing to believe that many such organisations were) a vanguard party advocating minority action will not succeed in creating socialism - that is, if it is even possible for them to successfully stand against the might of the modern state. At best, Vanguards represent impatience and a slightly patronising belief that they have the right to commence the revolution themselves because they know best. At worst it is outright elitist and relegates the working classes to mere followers. In either case, we see that the vanguard inherently requires a substitution - that is, the substitution of the conscious majority for themselves. The idea that "we'll make good socialists of them after the revolution" is really missing the point entirely. I leave you with the final verse of the Internationale:

No saviour from on high delivers,
No faith have we in prince or peer.
Our own right hand the chains must shiver,
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
E'er the thieves will out with their booty,
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do their duty,
And we'll strike the iron while it's hot.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.

[Brutus]

Comrade rousing chorus, those who support a vanguard party are most certainly not blanquists! We realise that the working class has to emancipate itself, that no one else can do it for it. Insofar, the majority of the proletariat has only reached trade union consciousness; what Lenin stated was that the advanced section of the proletariat (i.e. the vanguard) needed to educate the workers, to agitate among the workers and to organise the workers in order to raise their class consciousness to the required level that they will revolt.

[darkblues]

db

[D-A-C]

'...the genius of Marx consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism.

The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression.

It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.'

V.I. Lenin The Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism


It’s a historical fact that Marxism did not give rise to the worker's movements in the 19th century but was itself borne out of the material conditions of their existence prior to its formation. That is why that the revolutionary theory of Marxism must be imported back into the working class from without.

The workers movement was created as a direct response to the exploitative material conditions of capitalism, and indeed Marxism, the science of social change in the name of the working class, arose from those same conditions. But that science was not, and never has been created by the workers themselves. It has always been imported by a revolutionary Vanguard containing the best elements of the working class it represents and in whose name it struggles and fights for.

Why understanding the conditions that led to the birth of Marxism is so crucial is because as Lenin correctly proclaimed (and as Louis Althusser would later take up the mantle for):


"Without Revolutionary Theory there can be no Revolutionary Movement".

V.I.Lenin, What is To Be Done?


The fact is that without a proper revolutionary theory, it is impossible to have a proper revolution and so without a proper Vanguard to create that theory there can never be a proper revolution.

People who honestly think that the working class are going to magically rise up and organize themselves along socialist lines, are not only dreamers, but are full blown counter-revolutionaries.

The French Marxist theorist Louis Althusser spent the entirety of his career explaining, arguing and championing the fact that those engaged in the theorisation of revolution are just as important as those engaged in worker's struggles on the factory floor and are just as much 'manning the barricades' of the revolution as those who take to the streets.

The fact is, that the working class are fundamentally incapable of properly theorising a revolution within a revolutionary conjuncture whilst at the same time engaging in it. In the same way a truly revolutionary Socialist Party cannot materialise spontaneously in times of revolution, neither can a proper theory and course of action spontaneously materialise either. That is why the Paris Commune failed, that is why May 68 failed, and that is why Occupy Wall Street was a failure. A revolutionary Party with a revolutionary theory must exist prior to a revolutionary situation in order to ever have a chance of taking power and the only structure that such a Party can take is that of a Vanguard.

It takes a revolutionary Vanguard to theorise and understand a conjuncture and properly map out a correct plan of action. Then it takes a strong political organization to ruthlessly act out that same plan of action. A time for debate is an ideal, but in times of revolutionary upheaval sitting around bickering and chattering is a waste of time. As Isaac Deutscher correctly asserts in his analysis of the post-1917 situation in Russia in his biography of Stalin, if the people of Russia had been allowed a free vote they would have voted out the Revolutionary Bolsheviks and voted in a Party which, because of its lack of Revolutionary commitment, would have left itself open to becoming the tool of the Counter-Revolution. Listening to the wishes of the ‘people’ isn’t always the correct thing to do, as Deutscher (a Trotskyist non-Stalinist if there ever was one btw) correctly asserts through his example of the early creation of the Soviet Union.

Why a Vanguard Party is so important is that it is the Vanguard that are educated enough in revolutionary theory to be able to step outside of the ideologies of the conjuncture and map out a plan of action that isn't simply a spontaneous reaction to events that we must all 'pray' comes to pass, but is instead an educated and informed course of action that allows the workers to take charge of a given situation instead of simply being swept along by it.

A member of the Vanguard's life consists of revolution, and planning for it. The majority of worker's cannot be expected to somehow balance their own lives which involves providing for themselves and their families with a simultaneous rigorous, thorough and deep understanding of the finer points of Marxist theory ... only the revolutionary Vanguard can do that! The Vanguard Party contains the finest elements of the working class and so it is only correct that they are at the forefront of the revolution, taking the bull by the horns as it were, issuing correct and informed commands to their comrades.

What the so called anti-Vanguardists never explain, attempt to theorise or even themselves understand is that the kind of mass broad based democracy that they advocate is itself a form of tyranny; it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority, the tyranny of emotion over reason and finally and to its ultimate discredit the tyranny of passivity over revolution! Only Democratic Centralism as theorised by Lenin and the Bolsheviks is adequate to respond to the ebb and flow of a revolutionary situation. Only when orders are properly formulated at the top and then carried out quickly and efficiently all the way to the bottom can the workers ever seize power. Only a Vanguard Party can work under such a system.

Never in the history of mankind will a truly revolutionary Socialist Party by voted into office. In order to form the broadbased support needed it would have to enter into a Coalition and by default would have to compromise its revolutionary ideals before it has even spent one single moment in power.

A Vanguard Party doesn’t care about creating a broadbase of support or reaching the magic 51% electoral vote. It remains committed to revolution, it educates and agitates amongst the working class it represents and it waits for a revolutionary situation within which to strike out with all its might against the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and take control of the State.

Finally for all those anti-Vanguard counter-revolutionaries (yes that is indeed what you are!) I will leave you with this thought. The revolutionary Parties of the Vanguard have been responsible for subsuming fully 1/3 of the earth for Socialism … how many successful non-Vanguard Socialist Revolutions have there been?

[darkblues]

db

[electro_fan]

well given how the soviet union "degenerated" i don't think there have been many successful revolutions WITH a vanguard party either

[Fakeblock]

I'm for a vanguard party, but, of course, it would need the support of a large majority of the working class before taking power. The proletariat can't take power without organisation and, to me at least, the proletariat organised across industry lines is the vanguard. Naturally different kinds of organisation have different degrees of efficiency. However, I don't think a vanguard can be successful unless it takes the form of a working class party with a concrete, radical political line.

In addition, it needs to have cultural and social links to the ordinary person IMO. It needs to be a workers' party in more than just a rhetorical sense. I don't think it can be an entirely political organisation either, preferably it would work with (radical?) trade unions, food banks and other kinds of social projects.

Especially after seizing power, the party would have to continuously remain connected to other working class organisations (perhaps soviets), which would hopefully gradually grow enough for the party to be left redundant and die out, coinciding with the withering away of classes and the state.

[darkblues]

db

[Remus Bleys]

They need to be kept in place, they need a check.
Even from an anti-revisionist point of view, they don't make sense. Didn't every vanguard party get taken over by anti-revisionists? How does one prevent this?

[Tim Redd]

What ways of organization for a revolution are alternatives to a vanguard? It seems clear to me that a revolution must be organized for it to work. However vanguard parties in most cases become corrupt and turn into one party states, that are state capitalist in nature. What is there to prevent this?
There is nothing to guarantee it won't happen. However there are methods for doing the best we can to prevent it from happening. These include using the mass line for a vanguard to stay in tune with the masses, identifying to the masses that the key struggle during socialism is precisely fighting a capitalist restoration, identifying that the lead of the bourgeoisie is one or more erroneous lines right in party, engaging the masses to constantly revolutionize and socialize society and in the process of that mobilizing the masses to fight bourgeois policies, lines and practices in the party and throughout society.

[BIXX]

I have a slightly more nuanced, simple answer than previously:
I support the workers of the world.

Which is to say I'd only support a vanguard that was not considered an entity or a section of the workers, but rather, it is used to refer to ALL of the workers involved in their struggle, which, in a revolution, would be almost 100% of them.

So, to reiterate, I only support a vanguard that includes every worker, and is not an organization, but rather a definition. More of a renaming than anything else.

[darkblues]

db

[dodger]

A member of the Vanguard's life consists of revolution, and planning for it. The majority of worker's cannot be expected to somehow balance their own lives which involves providing for themselves and their families with a simultaneous rigorous, thorough and deep understanding of the finer points of Marxist theory ... only the revolutionary Vanguard can do that! The Vanguard Party contains the finest elements of the working class and so it is only correct that they are at the forefront of the revolution, taking the bull by the horns as it were, issuing correct and informed commands to their comrades.

Good job we have Comrade Delta then. or is it KUMMANDER DELTA? You all know who I mean, Man in Black. By the time we have 10,000 Comrade Deltas let loose on us, the vanguard, with their beautifully crafted symmetrical, bats in the belfry theory will have unglued. 100years or maybe 90 have passed, time enough to testbed any theory. Da fing don't work. Any bright people here got a clue what might work? Not sure DAC how the vanguard substituted for the class advances theory or practice. Frankly another band of full time politicos after the ones we have already, is of no interest. Any fool knows revolution in Britain will be protracted and exceedingly bloody. No intention of offering myself up as cannon fodder to any of the Comrade Deltas of this world.

[Red HalfGuard]

One: a small amount of guerillas seize power. No workers' councils, or factory committees; no workers emancipating themselves, but a few petit-bourgeois with guns!

Two: I don't know enough about the EZLN to answer properly.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
ratb.org.uk/130-news/ratb-writes/253-cubademocracy-community
cuba-solidarity.org.uk/resources/DemocracyinCuba.pdf

[darkblues]

db

[Tim Redd]

So, to reiterate, I only support a vanguard that includes every worker, and is not an organization, but rather a definition. I.e. you don't support a vanguard.

More of a renaming than anything else.That's not just a renaming. If the vanguard is the whole class that's no vanguard at all. Sad, given the need for leadership.

[BIXX]

I.e. you don't support a vanguard.

Not I'm the traditional sense, no.


That's not just a renaming. If the vanguard is the whole class that's no vanguard at all. Sad, given the need for leadership.

I wasn't arguing anti-leadership, I was just arguing anti-exclusion. Every part of the proletariat is gonna be it's own vanguard. They don't need others to lead them to their emancipation, they are able to do it themselves.

I know that my parents, and most of my friends would rather liberate themselves than be led to it. I know I would.

[Tim Redd]

I wasn't arguing anti-leadership, I was just arguing anti-exclusion. Every part of the proletariat is gonna be it's own vanguard. They don't need others to lead them to their emancipation, they are able to do it themselves. For a good read on why a vanguard is necessary that doesn't include every part of the proletariat read Lenin's What is to Be Done?

After communism is achieved there likely won't be a need for a vanguard.

[Comrade Alex]

As Mao put it
"if thier is to be revolution, then there Must be a revolutionary party"

[darkblues]

db

[MaximMK]

Even tho there is always the risk of bourgeois elements taking over the vanguard after the revolution and establishing a state capitalist dictatorship still a vanguard is needed exacly because of this:


Without the correct revolutionary line at the forefront, you get something like the Arab Spring movements. A bunch of eclectic spontaneous rah rah rah until another section of the bourgeoisie takes power and the IMF funds them to serve foreign interests.

Lots of protests, rebellions etc. in the capitalist states end up with another capitalist taking over the lead and promising to fix the economy and after a while everything is the same again just in a different color. The people must realize that real change will come when the system is changed not its leader. And for this they need someone to lead them to show them the way. All proletarian revolutions had these leaders a bunch of workers who are class conscious and spread that consciousness to the other workers. Rebellions must be channelized in the right direction so they dont go to waste like most of them do in capitalist states.

[dodger]

Many of us, old enough perhaps wish to be be ruled over 'in the old way.' Impossible. Can we simple ignore the putrefaction? Some days the stench wafts across from the Atlantic. Other days we hold our noses , it is coming over from Brussels. None can escape the stink. We can try. We look across at Westminster, universally held to contempt. Could we not simply 'kettle' them? The City too, the reek from there is pointing to contagion of biblical proportions. Yet Britain was the inspiration for communism, the natural home of Marxism. We have to think of Britain as a small component part of an eventual Communist world. Communism can only exist as a world system; the State cannot wither away in a single country surrounded by others armed to the teeth. Our own advance depends on the advance of workers everywhere. To use another military term 'advanced detachment' not vanguard covers what is needed. To expect a vanguard not to make errors whilst the rest of us are rich in error is not born out by our history. Good if a party could generate a few ideas, even discard some too. Above all else workers must take responsibility. Get back to the workplace. Many are. Conflict ? A breeding ground. Encourage defiance.

[darkblues]

db