Log in

View Full Version : The Vanguard Party



Subversive Pessimist
14th June 2004, 16:44
I've heard a lot about the Vanguard Party, or something like that... What is it?

Mike Fakelastname
14th June 2004, 16:52
"The vanguard party" is a Leninist term for the organization that protects and guides the revolution. I don't want to get really deep into it and why it doesn't really work out, but that's basically what it is.

redstar2000
14th June 2004, 17:13
Here is a post that will give you a few hints...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...ndpost&p=406479 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25599&view=findpost&p=406479)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

The Feral Underclass
14th June 2004, 17:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:44 PM
I've heard a lot about the Vanguard Party, or something like that... What is it?
The term vangaurd party is a term used to describe leninist parties.

Leninism asserts that the working class are unable to gain class consciousness under capitalism and that an organisation, or a vangaurd must lead them. The vangaurd is supposed to be made up of the most "conscious" elements of the working class. The majority of the time they are political parties which have an intellectual leadership who dictate orders to faithful followers.

Roses in the Hospital
14th June 2004, 17:26
The vanguard party" is a Leninist term

Wasn't it originally Marx who coined the term and Lenin simply developed it?

Mike Fakelastname
14th June 2004, 18:43
Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 14 2004, 12:26 PM

The vanguard party" is a Leninist term

Wasn't it originally Marx who coined the term and Lenin simply developed it?
Yes. These days it relates to Leninism though, which is why I said it was a Leninist term.

The Feral Underclass
14th June 2004, 19:13
Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 14 2004, 07:26 PM

The vanguard party" is a Leninist term

Wasn't it originally Marx who coined the term and Lenin simply developed it?
Marx never ever spoke of a vangaurd. If you can find a quote that suggests that a political party led by intellectuals should control the actions of the working class i'll give you my soul.

Kaan
14th June 2004, 20:43
I suggest a political party led by intellectuals should control the actions of the working class

-Karl Marx

one soul please :D

The Feral Underclass
14th June 2004, 21:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:43 PM

I suggest a political party led by intellectuals should control the actions of the working class

-Karl Marx


one soul please :D
Nice try :P

Don't Change Your Name
15th June 2004, 00:19
lol

Anyway, i think it was well explained above, but too keep it simple, let's say that leninists think that there's a need for a "vanguard", usually a party, which attemps to take power since the workers are still too "dumb" to rule themselves. So according to Leninists, they need a strong, centralized leadership that represents the people's interests and becomes the new government. The vanguard is usually made up by "advanced" workers, revolutionaries, party members, and various "educated" workers.
I won't give my view on this here.

Raisa
27th June 2004, 21:47
yo no one said nothing about being dumb..... <_<

Leninists do not think that the people are too dumb to lead themselves, but they believe that there needs to be a strong vanguard movement that can stand up to the current regime.

The reason most people dont bother with standing up is because they feel there is not enough of them,and so its intimidating. People often feel isolated in their struggles. And when you take a look at the way things are being done on the left, this contributes to their feeling. A vangaurd is a thing that unites all these isolated people under the same banner, as it leads the revolution. People are not "dumb" but every thing needs leadership. In alot of Leninist minds, to not have proper organization is to lead us all into our deaths. There is a strong enemy and there needs to be a solid opposition.

The vanguard is composed of the first people who realize whats going on and want a change, they can be any one who cares, and they are very dedicated.

Personally, I think there needs to be a common vangaurd movement and then after the revolution a communist democracy, because there are soooo many different ways to handle different things.

elijahcraig
27th June 2004, 21:58
Nice try

Good god you got your ass beat on this thread, ho.

T_SP
28th June 2004, 18:00
Marx&#39;s reference to the &#39;Dictatorship of the proletariat&#39;
I&#39;ll be having that soul thanx&#33;&#33; :P :P

The Feral Underclass
28th June 2004, 18:06
Since when was that a reference to a vangaurd? I want quotes, references to where he says, specifically, that an intellectual elite should lead the working class.

elijahcraig
28th June 2004, 19:14
Since when was that a reference to a vangaurd? I want quotes, references to where he says, specifically, that an intellectual elite should lead the working class.

You&#39;ve lost...just give up. It makes you look ridiculous to continue.

The bottom of the cliff awaits.

The Feral Underclass
28th June 2004, 19:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:14 PM

You&#39;ve lost...just give up. It makes you look ridiculous to continue.

The bottom of the cliff awaits.
so yeah....i&#39;ll be taking the the quotes and references now then?&#33;

elijahcraig
28th June 2004, 19:42
so yeah....i&#39;ll be taking the the quotes and references now then?&#33;

You&#39;re so pathetic.

The Feral Underclass
28th June 2004, 19:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:42 PM

You&#39;re so pathetic.
I hope everyone noticed that&#33; Once again EC proves that when he&#39;s unable to win an argument, he just resorts to attacking you&#33;

Whenever your ready....

elijahcraig
28th June 2004, 23:06
THIS IS THE FUCKING QUOTE WHICH HAS ALREADY PROVED YOU WRONG:


I suggest a political party led by intellectuals should control the actions of the working class

-Karl Marx

This is nothing if not the vanguard.

The Feral Underclass
28th June 2004, 23:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:06 AM
THIS IS THE FUCKING QUOTE WHICH HAS ALREADY PROVED YOU WRONG:



This is nothing if not the vanguard.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

He was joking you fucking prick&#33;...Notice what I said before that...and then how he replecates my very words for the purpose of creating a joke&#33;

You have really out done yourself this time&#33;

elijahcraig
28th June 2004, 23:21
*tssts....burn*

BuyOurEverything
2nd July 2004, 06:40
Mike F: That&#39;s a pretty Leninist cat in your avatar.

Anyways, a vanguard party is a group of people who attempt to incite and guide the revolution. If this sounds arogant, I suggest you walk into the middle of a ghetto or trailer park. Do you feel the revolutionary spirit in the air? No? Well I guess the working class won&#39;t just spontaneously revolt in unison creating one big world commune. Darn, and I just bought a new anarchy T-shirt.

The Feral Underclass
2nd July 2004, 07:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:40 AM
If this sounds arogant, I suggest you walk into the middle of a ghetto or trailer park. Do you feel the revolutionary spirit in the air? No?
This is not a reason for a vangaurd, it&#39;s an excuse.


Well I guess the working class won&#39;t just spontaneously revolt in unison creating one big world commune.

You&#39;re right, they wont and that&#39;s why there must be a movement that propogates the idea and organises where necessary.


Darn, and I just bought a new anarchy T-shirt.

You&#39;d better take it back then.

BuyOurEverything
2nd July 2004, 08:12
This is not a reason for a vangaurd, it&#39;s an excuse.

What&#39;s the difference?


You&#39;re right, they wont and that&#39;s why there must be a movement that propogates the idea and organises where necessary.

Hmm... If it walks like a vanguard and talks like a vanguard...


You&#39;d better take it back then.

Aw, but it looks so coooool&#33;

Kaan
3rd July 2004, 03:52
yeah, I thought it was a pretty good joke too, it pleased me.

elijahcraig
3rd July 2004, 04:00
yeah, I thought it was a pretty good joke too, it pleased me.

You gave me the only burn I&#39;ve ever received. Gold star.

The Feral Underclass
3rd July 2004, 10:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 10:12 AM
What&#39;s the difference?
rea·son

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

ex·cuse

1. To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood:
2. To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.
3. To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.
To make allowance for.


Hmm... If it walks like a vanguard and talks like a vanguard...

The difference between a Bakuninist vanguard and a Leninist one are vastly different.

Basic Bakunin (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/bakunbas.html)


Above all else, Bakunin the revolutionary, believed in the necessity of collective action to achieve anarchy. After his death there was a strong tendency within the anarchist movement towards the abandonment of organization in favor of small group and individual activity. This development, which culminated in individual acts of terror in the late nineteenth century France, isolating anarchism from the very source of the revolution, namely the workers.
Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state.

However, from Bakunin&#39;s standpoint, it was the spontaneous revolt against authority by the people which is of the greatest importance. The nature of purely spontaneous uprisings is that they are uneven and vary in intensity from time to time and place to place. The anarchist revolutionary organization must not attempt to take over and lead the uprising but has the responsibility of clarifying goals, putting forward revolutionary propaganda, and working out ideas in correspondence with the revolutionary instincts of the masses. To go beyond this would undermine the whole self-liberatory purpose of the revolution. Putchism has no place in Bakunin&#39;s thought.

Bakunin then, saw revolutionary organization in terms of offering assistance to the revolution, not as a substitute. It is in this context that we should interpret Bakunin&#39;s call for a "secret revolutionary vanguard" and "invisible dictatorship" of that vanguard. The vanguard it should be said, has nothing in common with that of the Leninist model which seeks actual, direct leadership over the working class. Bakunin was strongly opposed to such approaches and informed his followers that "no member... is permitted, even in the midst of full revolution, to take public office of any kind, nor is the (revolutionary) organization permitted to do so... it will at all times be on the alert, making it impossible for authorities, governments and states to be established." The vanguard was, however, to influence the revolutionary movement on an informal basis, relying on the talents of it&#39;s members to achieve results. Bakunin thought that it was the institutionalization of authority, not natural inequalities, that posed a threat to the revolution. The vanguard would act as a catalyst to the working classes&#39; own revolutionary activity and was expected to fully immerse itself in the movement. Bakunin&#39;s vanguard then, was concerned with education and propaganda, and unlike the Leninist vanguard party, was not to be a body separate from the class, but an active agent within it.

The other major task of the Bakuninist organization was that it would act as the watchdog for the working class. Then, as now, authoritarian groupings posed as leaders of the revolution and supplied their own members as "governments in waiting." The anarchist vanguard has to expose such movements in order that the revolution should not replace one representative state by another &#39;revolutionary&#39; one. After the initial victory, the political revolutionaries, those advocates of so-called workers&#39; governments and the dictatorship of the proletariat, would according to Bakunin try "to squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the course and the name of the revolution, seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries reconstitute the state. We on the other hand, must awaken and foment all the dynamic passions of the people."

Pedro Alonso Lopez
3rd July 2004, 13:19
&#39;Dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; = vanguard party of revolutionaries and the working class to suppress the inevitable uprising from the old ruling classes.

Look into some of Lenins work, objectivity and Leninism dont come together on this site, nor on E-G, find out for yourself.

The Feral Underclass
3rd July 2004, 15:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:19 PM
Look into some of Lenins work, objectivity and Leninism dont come together on this site, nor on E-G, find out for yourself.
What does this actually mean? Why is it that any refutation against leninism is branded dogmatic, stubborn or bias&#33; Why is not possible that the theory is just wrong&#33;

Pedro Alonso Lopez
3rd July 2004, 17:34
I&#39;m not a Leninist but everytime somebody asks a question here about Lenin he/she recieves a barrage of posts which simply dismiss Leninism off hand, I was suggesting since nobody else has that the user might be better off having a look for himself into the topic.

Raisa
6th July 2004, 09:02
Thats right geist. You want to learn about something, a thing I&#39;ve known pretty much my whole life is that you&#39;re going to have to look it up yourself.

"New to it all" shouldn&#39;t so much be for a debate, its for people to ask questions, and for those of you who know the answer to objectively answer the question.