Anarchism, Vanguardism and Marxism

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

How exactly do anarchists intend to spark a revolution? It seems that many advocate insurrections using anarchist organisations and groups, but isn't this just using a vanguard in itself? I am conflicted quite heavily at the moment internally between the Anarchist ideology and the Marxist ideology; I do not disagree with historical or dialectical materialism, but I oppose the authoritarianism that developed under many communist governments and can empathise well with the the anarchist groups in Spain and of the Paris commune. Are there any anarchists that agree with dialectical and historical materialism?

I think what would be useful would be clear distinctions between Anarchism and Marxism; I fail to see many, unless you're comparing Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's not anarchists that spark revolutions. Revolutions occur when the working class have moved to abolish capitalism and the state.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Yes, but how does this occur exactly? I fail to see how the working class could suddenly become aware of their exploited nature and decide to mobilise immediately. If this could be explained to me, I could abandon Vanguardism, but this idea of spontaneous awareness of a whole class emerging radically ex nihilo seems to be a difficult concept to believe in.

[VivalaCuarta]

When anarchists lead things they aren't a vanguard because they said so n stuff and they are totally not communists because communism is bad like with dictators and totalitrarininsim.

[BIXX]

When anarchists lead things they aren't a vanguard because they said so n stuff and they are totally not communists because communism is bad like with dictators and totalitrarininsim.

You know nothing.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Again, the issue I have here is with the blurring of the two ideologies; what is the alternative to Vanguardism, excluding the idea of spontaneous class consciousness (however if there is someone who can explain what this really means in practice I could potentially accept it, but the idea itself sounds farcical and fanciful)?

[Aslan]

The vanguard is intended to be a group of ''professional'' revolutionaries who will lead the revolution. With the revolution done, the vanguard will act as the leadership of the proletarians in transitioning to communism.

The question is however, does this work? The vanguard is essentially a revolutionary oligarchy. This revolutionary oligarchy will instill it's own interests before the rest of the lower class, sure there could be elections to decide who the next set of party members will be. But republicanism is the system that we are fighting in the first place. The only way for the proletarians to transition to socialism is to install direct democracy. With that, there will be no need for a vanguard to defect the lower classes' interests.

[Blake's Baby]

I disagree that that is the 'vanguard' at all. If it is, I'm not a vanguardist.

But I am a vanguardidt, I think that those of us who have come to the understanding that capitalism needs to be overthrown need to try to work together to help the working class as a whole come to that realisation.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

What exactly is a "Vanguardidt"? I'm certain it's your own terminology, but I am unsure as to what you mean.

In regards to Redeagle; how do anarchists suggest installing direct democracy? Do you mean direct democracy needs to come in before socialism? And most importantly, I still fail to see the true difference in a group of anarchist collectives leading a revolution and a Vanguard party, unless the difference between them is the Vanguard party remains after the revolution and the Insurrectionary Anarchist group does not.

[ComradeAllende]

How exactly do anarchists intend to spark a revolution? It seems that many advocate insurrections using anarchist organisations and groups, but isn't this just using a vanguard in itself? I am conflicted quite heavily at the moment internally between the Anarchist ideology and the Marxist ideology; I do not disagree with historical or dialectical materialism, but I oppose the authoritarianism that developed under many communist governments and can empathise well with the the anarchist groups in Spain and of the Paris commune. Are there any anarchists that agree with dialectical and historical materialism?

In the interests of full discolure, I have to admit that I'm not an anarchist, and most of my understanding of anarchist theory and praxis is rudimentary at best. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a common tenet under most anarchist currents that the working class as a whole must rise up and immediately abolish the capitalist system and the state that protects it; a vanguard party that seizes power and establishes a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is, in their view, insufficient and a road to oligarchical totalitarianism. Many anarchists agree with the Marxist analysis of capitalism and the bourgeois society; Bakunin himself crediting Marx for his various theories. Yet anarchism is a diverse umbrella term; there are anarchists who support noncapitalist markets, a return to primitive modes of production, gift economies, etc. It's hard to say what "anarchism" believes in, given that there are many different tendencies within "anarchist" modes of revolutionary thought.

[QUOTE=Communist Mutant From Outer Space;2857821]I think what would be useful would be clear distinctions between Anarchism and Marxism; I fail to see many, unless you're comparing Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism.

Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists disagree on at least two counts when it comes to revolution. Anarchists argue that the entire working class must revolt against the capitalist system and lead a direct transition to communism, whereas Marxist-Leninists believe that a vanguard party is necessary to arouse class-consciousness and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat to transition towards communism. This is a drastic oversimplification, however; many anarchist principles, such as the "propaganda of the deed", imply the existence of some vanguardist group of militants to raise class consciousness and spread the revolutionary ideal.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, but how does this occur exactly?

For Marxists and anarchists alike, it's not really a question of how, but a question of when. There is a real antagonism between classes that seems intensify and de-intensity depending on the successes of capitalism (this is disputable).


I fail to see how the working class could suddenly become aware of their exploited nature and decide to mobilise immediately. If this could be explained to me, I could abandon Vanguardism, but this idea of spontaneous awareness of a whole class emerging radically ex nihilo seems to be a difficult concept to believe in.

The fundamental way you construct your argument is by seeing mind proceeding matter, rather than matter preceding mind. Marx showed very concretely that it was the productive forces of society, i.e. the material way humans produced their reality that determined how people think. When it comes to the question of class consciousness (people being aware of their exploitation), this means that the conditions that workers face will determine how they think, not the other way around.

In the Leninist sense, the vanguard is organised politically and practically in such a way that when this crisis in capitalism reaches a point where the conditions of society create a response by the class, there can be a coherent and well-organised socialist leadership.

There are of course a number of problems with all of these ideas. Does the class always respond to capitalist crisis? If not, what is the role of communists? Does the class require leadership? etc etc. These are other questions for other debates though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The history of vanguard-led revolutions is one of minorities who have different interests than the working class, one where their power as a vanguard is ultimately more important than the working class.

[ckaihatsu]

The vanguard is intended to be a group of ''professional'' revolutionaries who will lead the revolution. With the revolution done, the vanguard will act as the leadership of the proletarians in transitioning to communism.

The question is however, does this work? The vanguard is essentially a revolutionary oligarchy. This revolutionary oligarchy will instill it's own interests before the rest of the lower class, sure there could be elections to decide who the next set of party members will be. But republicanism is the system that we are fighting in the first place. The only way for the proletarians to transition to socialism is to install direct democracy. With that, there will be no need for a vanguard to defect the lower classes' interests.


Since an oligarchy is *to the right* of a (bourgeois) republic, your association of 'oligarchy' with far-left (revolutionary) political forces is *inappropriate* at best, and *disingenuous* at worst.





I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism


Really, just think of RevLeft as being the vehicle when all of world society and production goes into upheaval.

[Blake's Baby]

What exactly is a "Vanguardidt"? I'm certain it's your own terminology, but I am unsure as to what you mean...

It's called a typo.

*Vanguardist

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

That wasn't obvious, as the sentence before it said that you were "not a vanguardist"; I assumed "vanguardidt" was like what Marxian is to Marxism, or Trotskyite to Trotskyist.

[Blake's Baby]

IF 'vanguardist' means 'thinks the party should rule in post-revolutionary society' THEN 'I'm not a vanguardist'.

IF 'vanguardist' means 'thinks those who currently see that the working class needs to overthrow capitalism should work together' THEN 'I'm a vanguardist'.

[The Idler]

Again, the issue I have here is with the blurring of the two ideologies; what is the alternative to Vanguardism, excluding the idea of spontaneous class consciousness (however if there is someone who can explain what this really means in practice I could potentially accept it, but the idea itself sounds farcical and fanciful)?
The alternative to 'spontaneous class consciousness', or a vanguard, is an open democratic party aiming at political power. Not a popular idea among the left vanguards running fronts or vote-abstentionists crying about 'tyranny of the majority', but open democracy is the historic working class form.