Post Revolution Ideologies

[NovelGentry]

Ooooppps... I've done it again, I wrote a paper explaining my current view on existing ideologies and other various things having to do with communism:

Post Revolutionary Society and Fragmentation (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/index.php?SITER=writing&TEXT=Post%20Revolutionary%20Society)

[STI]

Well, in part of your essay, it looks as though you've overlooked parts of both ideologies in what they believe to be necessary for revolution to occur.

Libertarian Marxists, Anarcho-communists, and Anarchist all pretty much assume that Leninism will have died off by the time the revolution comes - and - considering the track record of Leninists - the libertarian crew is probably right.

Leninists believe that revolution is impossible unless the party organizes the working class and "leads" the revolution. This isn't a viable option, because, as you pointed out in your essay, it will just lead to the party becoming the new ruling class.

Che may have been mistaken in his statement about legal legitimacy in a government. Any thinking person can see that the bourgeois parliamentary system cannot possibly be used to achieve socialism, and definately not communism. Once enough people start to realize this, revolution will seem like the only viable option once a crisis in capitalism occurs (an economic depression, for example).

I really don't know where to go from there. I'll wait for others to respond and then respond to their responses, i f I deem it necessary.

[NovelGentry]

Libertarian Marxists, Anarcho-communists, and Anarchist all pretty much assume that Leninism will have died off by the time the revolution comes - and - considering the track record of Leninists - the libertarian crew is probably right.

This is not ignored, it's addressed right here: It has become the argument of the passive revolutionary that the revolution will “occur when it's ready."

Anyone can argue that revolution will only occur when it's ready, it all comes down to your definition of "ready," and by the current definitions, we'll be waiting forever.


Leninists believe that revolution is impossible unless the party organizes the working class and "leads" the revolution. This isn't a viable option, because, as you pointed out in your essay, it will just lead to the party becoming the new ruling class.

I agree with Leninists on this point so why would I take issue with it? Where I disagree is that the party, post-revolution has to represent the proletariat in the form of a centralized state, and this is what I argue.

It's not a matter of me "overlooking" that fact, it's a matter of me not arguing anything to do with the revolution itself. Read the essay's title again it includes the terms "post" and "revolution" right next to each other....i.e AFTER the revolution.


Any thinking person can see that the bourgeois parliamentary system cannot possibly be used to achieve socialism, and definately not communism.

Then I guess we should just tell all the thinking proletarians that we're ready to do the revolution now.

This is complete bollocks and only requires you to go back as far as the early 1900s in the US to realize this. During that time the government made a number of socialist reforms which have "calmed the movement" so to speak.


Once enough people start to realize this, revolution will seem like the only viable option once a crisis in capitalism occurs (an economic depression, for example).

So what you're saying is... the revolution will "occur when it's ready"? :lol:

Funny the government seemed to jump back quite easily from The Great Depression. And don't give me all that WWII bullshit. The fact is FDR made a number of socially minded reforms... ever heard of this little thing called The New Deal... let's see what we can pull out of that shall we...

Social Security, 8 hour work day, a bundle of new child labor laws, FERA....

FERA alone created over 500,000 new jobs.

Now let's take into account programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority, which not only created jobs, it created government funded housing projects for the people working on it aswell as health benefits, and once completed cheap government funded electricity.

[Hate Is Art]

Leninists believe that revolution is impossible unless the party organizes the working class and "leads" the revolution. This isn't a viable option, because, as you pointed out in your essay, it will just lead to the party becoming the new ruling class.

How Exactly?

[NovelGentry]

I realize you're not responding to something I said, but what do you mean by "how"?

How is it not a viable option?

or

How is it impossible unless the party organizes the working class and "leads" the revolution?

or even further.

How will it lead to the party becoming the ruling class?

[VukBZ2005]

Hmm.. First, i want to begin this post by saying that socialist_tigre is mostly
right in my view, when it comes to leninism. But this is my view of Leninism.
I believe that Leninism has been tried over and over since Vladimir Ulyanov
and his boshlevik party overthrew the Krensky Provisional government - in
Russia - through a coup in 1917. Since then it has proven that that Leninism
will lead towards the restoration of capitalism - by not giving the workers re
-al power and only allowing those at the top in the "Communist Party" to m
-ake decisions. Eventually, it will be the children and grand-children of those
Leninist Leaders who will make up the new ruling class. It has happened in
The United "Socialist Soviet" Republics (Now the Russian [Capitalist] Feder
-ation), the "People's Republic" of China, Vietnam, and the Eastern Europe
-an sattellite governments of the Former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R). They ALL
claimed that they were proceeding towards communism when they were
REALLY going back to capitalism, However the leninists might say
now that they would give the working class the true power over decisions
through voting on them or allowing them to vote in polls of that manner
after the revolution or something along those lines. It won't matter bec
-ause the mode of production would be in the hands of the Socialist Minstry
of Economics instead of the workers and second - the leaders of the "Comm
-unist" Party would be ruling on behalf of the workers, instead of the workers
ruling themselves.

In terms of Material Reality - All leninism would achieve is the contol of
one party over all under the guise of "Socialism." A Leninist socialist so
-ciety would still maintain all the features of a capitalist economy, and
the people will still maintain a Bourgeois conciousness.

The Only solution is to abolish Capitalism, the State, and all social, eco
-nomic, and political authority. The working class is Better
off without bosses - Capitalist bosses and "Red" Bosses. They CAN
Manage themselves. They are not "Sheep."

[NovelGentry]

Thank you for failing to read my essay and responding as if I'm making some generic argument for/against Leninism.

[redstar2000]

What we as communists must realize from this belief is that the struggle against capitalism cannot be directly equated to the struggle for communism.

Why not?

More particularly, what else would people who unite in a struggle "against capitalism" be fighting "for"?

Ok, some might be simply fighting for "socialism" -- a more "humane" form of class society than capitalism.

But I find it difficult to conceive of anything as massive as a proletarian revolution limiting itself in advance to such a feeble aspiration.

It would be like an anti-bellum slave rebellion demanding shaded auction blocks and lighter, thinner chains.

Surely most workers will see the purpose of the revolution as emancipation from wage-slavery...if not, why bother?


The flaw of a stateless society is that the fragmentation of the proletariat into ideological classes creates a power struggle between those classes. Leninists will attack anarchists, Stalinists will attack Trotskyists, and so on and so on - not even taking into account working class people who support social democracy or socially minded capitalism. The obvious incompatibility of these varying ideologies would mean that in order for one to exist and progress even a portion of society as it sees fit, it would have to be segregated from the rest of society or destroy the elements of society that disagree.

Yes, I would expect furious controversies over the shape of post-revolutionary society...even between those who agree that there should be no centralized state apparatus (there are a number of ways communism could be implemented).

Especially since the arena of public discourse is no longer confined to a relatively small number of "intellectuals" but is now crowded with tens of millions of people who never had a public voice before...and will presumably have a great deal of pent-up thought to release.

If Russia during the summer of 1917 or China in the first years of the GPCR (1965-66) are relevant examples, ideological struggle will be wide-spread and at least occasionally violent.


Without a state recognized by the majority proletariat, each separate faction will resist one another until their post-revolution strategy is implemented or the whole of society will collapse leaving a singular nation vulnerable to external imperialist influences. If the revolution has a world wide scope, these factions will more than likely digress into separate nations focused on their own internal struggle towards communism - several of which would be likely to revert to capitalism.

Yes, those are some of the possible outcomes...there may be others as well.


It is, of course, extremely easy to critique pre-existing ideological resolutions for the post-revolutionary struggle. It is infinitely harder to create something which does not succumb to the same issues...One thing is certain, the search for a modern, practical, post-revolution theory is far from over.

I think you're probably right about that...and it occurs to me that such a theory may not emerge until the revolution itself is far closer in time -- more imminent -- than it is now.

We have no way of really telling what material conditions will be like in the EU in 2050 or North America in 2100...so it's really hard for us now to say, realistically, what will be possible.

There may well be things that we haven't even thought of yet that will appear, then, to be obvious common sense.

After all, a great deal of what appeared to be "obvious common sense" to revolutionaries of 1900 or 1950 now looks...hopelessly naive and ill-conceived, to say the least.

An "open mind" to the revolutionary possibilities of new developments may be the most important "talent" for communists to cultivate.

Who should be more aware than us that things change?

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

Why not?

More particularly, what else would people who unite in a struggle "against capitalism" be fighting "for"?

Ok, some might be simply fighting for "socialism" -- a more "humane" form of class society than capitalism.

You ask why not and go on to admit the possibility that it doesn't. Key words in my statement being "directly equated." We are assured that the people are revolting, for what end we cannot be sure of... we can pretend to be sure of it, we can also know for sure what some or even MOST people are revolting for, but we cannot be sure of all.

Even still, this point becomes meaningless when you consider all the fragmentation within the communists alone.


Surely most workers will see the purpose of the revolution as emancipation from wage-slavery...if not, why bother?

Most, yes, but those that do not still represent another interest and thus present the problems under the two ideologies I address in the essay.


Yes, I would expect furious controversies over the shape of post-revolutionary society...even between those who agree that there should be no centralized state apparatus (there are a number of ways communism could be implemented).

Especially since the arena of public discourse is no longer confined to a relatively small number of "intellectuals" but is now crowded with tens of millions of people who never had a public voice before...and will presumably have a great deal of pent-up thought to release.

If Russia during the summer of 1917 or China in the first years of the GPCR (1965-66) are relevant examples, ideological struggle will be wide-spread and at least occasionally violent.

Yes, and as such we are forced to deal with these problems as we try to progress and advance. My question is, why should we have to? Why can't we settle this with a state apparatus? *not to be confused with a centralized government or overpowering state apparatus* -- but the point is, as I argued using Che's quote... if we have something that at least provides the democratic alternative, people are not so quick to rush to a secondary revolution or civil war over issues which they can debate and win out by democratic means.


I think you're probably right about that...and it occurs to me that such a theory may not emerge until the revolution itself is far closer in time -- more imminent -- than it is now.

I hope to help this along at some point -- but that is for a much larger paper I'm working on.


We have no way of really telling what material conditions will be like in the EU in 2050 or North America in 2100...so it's really hard for us now to say, realistically, what will be possible.

Much like we have no way of really telling if it's actually going to take this long. I'm a firm believer that we won't see this in our lifetime, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try and help it be realized a lot sooner.

This is something of the passive approach I spoke of in the essay. Lots of people are willing to say that it'll happen when it's gonna happen, and that probably won't be for another few decades at the very least. I'm not so arrogant to assume that we can definitely make it happen now, or even within 20 years, but I'm not so passive to say we should not try our damndest to see otherwise. Not saying that you feel we shouldn't try either, just saying that it tends to go hand in hand with the passive approach that it will happen when it happens and there's nothing we can do to affect it. To those people who think we shouldn't try, thanks for your apathy, but I'll have no part in it.

[STI]

This is not ignored, it's addressed right here: It has become the argument of the passive revolutionary that the revolution will “occur when it's ready."

Anyone can argue that revolution will only occur when it's ready, it all comes down to your definition of "ready," and by the current definitions, we'll be waiting forever.

Maybe it was just the wording of that statement that threw me off, but I don't see how "The revolution will occur when it's ready" applies to my statement.


I agree with Leninists on this point so why would I take issue with it? Where I disagree is that the party, post-revolution has to represent the proletariat in the form of a centralized state, and this is what I argue.


Why would the working class be unable to organize itself before the revolution? Why would it need the help of "Vangaurd Supermen" to organize itself?

I agree with you that there should not be a centralized state after the revolution, though.


It's not a matter of me "overlooking" that fact, it's a matter of me not arguing anything to do with the revolution itself. Read the essay's title again it includes the terms "post" and "revolution" right next to each other....i.e AFTER the revolution.

The thing is that Leninists don't think anything is possible but themselves in control, because a class unable to organize itself is certainly not a class fit to rule.


Then I guess we should just tell all the thinking proletarians that we're ready to do the revolution now.

We're NOT. That has nothing to do with the bourgeois parliamentary system. That has to do with support through the working class for a revolution against capitalism.


This is complete bollocks and only requires you to go back as far as the early 1900s in the US to realize this. During that time the government made a number of socialist reforms which have "calmed the movement" so to speak.

And look at those reforms now. Where are they? Gone. Why? The days of reform and concession are over. Even the most radical of social democratic parties are fighting to maintain the reforms won by their anscestors.

Also, the working class wasn't fighting to do away with capitalism then, either. They were fighting for reforms.

And they didn't even get all the reforms they were fighting for.


So what you're saying is... the revolution will "occur when it's ready"?

No. The revolution will occur when the working class is ready.


Funny the government seemed to jump back quite easily from The Great Depression. And don't give me all that WWII bullshit. The fact is FDR made a number of socially minded reforms... ever heard of this little thing called The New Deal... let's see what we can pull out of that shall we...


Yes. The wonderful New Deal. Now gone. Guess why.


Now let's take into account programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority, which not only created jobs, it created government funded housing projects for the people working on it aswell as health benefits, and once completed cheap government funded electricity.

You seem to be confusing "social democracy" and "socialism". Again, communists aren't fighting for reforms (well, loser social demcrat reformosexuals are, but not real communists).

[NovelGentry]

Maybe it was just the wording of that statement that threw me off, but I don't see how "The revolution will occur when it's ready" applies to my statement.

It's like a rhetorical question, you suggest the issue at hand and answer it with the same exact words.

you say:

Once enough people start to realize that the bourgeois parliamentary system cannot possibly be used to achieve socialism, and definately not communism, revolution will seem like the only viable option once a crisis in capitalism occurs.

Let's simplify what you're saying:

Once enough people start to realize that revolution is the only way possible, revolution will seem like the only viable option.

Now do you see what I'm talking about? Sounds to me like you're playing captain obvious for lack of better argument on HOW to go about realizing this.


Why would the working class be unable to organize itself before the revolution?

In short, it CAN organize itself before the revolution, but only if by "organize itself" you mean can be organized by a vanguard.


Why would it need the help of "Vangaurd Supermen" to organize itself?

Why don't you explain "organize itself" first. The vanguard, once again is a portion of the proletariat, not a separate and alienated class. Thus it is in essence organizing itself. There is no way just magically get something to organize itself... there has to be something doing the organization. How would you propose it actually "organize itself," a giant meeting of the entire proletariat held in the worlds largest underground cave? Who organizes the meeting? Maybe they vote on the overall goal of their revolution... is that it? Who organizes the vote? Maybe they don't do any of this, maybe they just begin destroying the ruling class and attacking representative insitutions of it, that's fine, but what happens after that? People just return to their homes and automatically understand what must be done next? Everyone somehow magically agrees upon this and more importantly the way it should be done?

You're idea of the vanguard is far too focused on the Leninist idea of the vanguard -- you fail to see anything but this style of vanguard as a vanguard. Much like the idea that you are too incapable of seeing a state as anything other than centralized and in totalitarian control, you are unable to see a vanguard as anything but this. This is not a flaw in the vanguard model itself, but a flaw in a centralized vanguard model.


The thing is that Leninists don't think anything is possible but themselves in control, because a class unable to organize itself is certainly not a class fit to rule.

I understand this, but that doesn't change that your original statement was aimed at revolutionary activity, not post-revolutionary activity. I think I have made it quite clear that I do not support the Leninist ideal of post-revolutionary activity. So what exactly is your point in reiterating something I'm already aware of and have argued?


We're NOT. That has nothing to do with the bourgeois parliamentary system. That has to do with support through the working class for a revolution against capitalism.

If we're not ready then you state by your own admition that there are not enough thinking members of the working class. You said quite clearly that any thinking person can see that the bourgeois parliamentary system cannot possibly be used to achieve socialism, and definately not communism. So lack of support obviously means lack of thinking people. Let me just say I'm not sure you can educate someone who doesn't think, so I guess this is all just a lost cause eh?

Point being, if all it takes is the ability to "think" to realize revolution is the only way, then we should be ready now.



And look at those reforms now. Where are they? Gone. Why? The days of reform and concession are over. Even the most radical of social democratic parties are fighting to maintain the reforms won by their anscestors.

Also, the working class wasn't fighting to do away with capitalism then, either. They were fighting for reforms.

And they didn't even get all the reforms they were fighting for.

Yes, the reforms are gone now. And look at the AMAZING effects this loss of social compromise has had on our class consciousness. <_<

Let&#39;s get real for a minute. The reform has in one way or another been destroyed by the same bourgeois machine which made such compromises to begin with. Social Security is all but wiped out, the 8 hour work day has been supplanted with the necessity for 2 jobs thus creating a 12-16 hour workday, and the TVA has been sold out to corporate interests in various ways. AND NO ONE GIVES A DAMN EXCEPT FOR THE LIKEMINDED OF PEOPLE WHO GAVE A DAMN BEFORE&#33;

And the minute we start to gain anything that even remotely resembles strength the same compromises will be made and the people will once again settle to their normal every day lives, while the only people who will still care will be the same people who cared before.

Repeat process 800, or however many times you like, it&#39;s not going to change the fact that the majority of the working class who hears our message is going to stop at reform. Once again why I believe in a vanguard. The Bourgeoisie is NOT stupid, they will revert to socialist compromise before they face force, and I&#39;m sorry to burst your bubble, but social compromise is ENOUGH for the majority of the people.


No. The revolution will occur when the working class is ready.

I sure hope you got that kind of time, cause I don&#39;t... nor does the whole of human existence combined.


Yes. The wonderful New Deal. Now gone. Guess why.

I don&#39;t have to guess, I know why. It&#39;s so that the next time this kind of "crash" happens the government can institute the same reforms, yet again, and the majority of the working class will think they&#39;ve won and go back to bed. Goodnight.


You seem to be confusing "social democracy" and "socialism". Again, communists aren&#39;t fighting for reforms (well, loser social demcrat reformosexuals are, but not real communists).

You seem to have lost your ability to read. I never said that this had anything to do with the goals of communism or socialism. I said quite clearly that these were reforms that wer implemented by the government in order to calm the working class demand for socialism. Once again, these are the things that make the majority of the working class think they&#39;ve won and go back to bed.

[redstar2000]

You&#39;re idea of the vanguard is far too focused on the Leninist idea of the vanguard...This is not a flaw in the vanguard model itself, but a flaw in a centralized vanguard model.

Well, to be fair, the Leninist model of the "vanguard" is the only one thus far offered.

Are there "other kinds" of possible vanguards? What would be their characteristics? How would they operate?

To say they would "organize the proletariat to make revolution" is all well and good, but how would they do that without falling into the conceit that they are the "indispensable" leaders?

Don&#39;t misunderstand me; I&#39;m not at all opposed to conscious communists and anarchists organizing themselves into groups and even merging into a larger movement. Nor am I opposed to the idea of that movement organizing even larger numbers of workers to resist the capitalist class in every way possible.

Where I "draw the line" is at the assertion that "we are indispensable"...that "without us, nothing is possible". I think that&#39;s a very bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons...and I think it&#39;s an idea that&#39;s inherent in the concept of the "vanguard".

Even if we turned out to function as a de facto "vanguard", we should never embrace that idea, much less begin clinging to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

At best, it would be the road to ruin for us; at worst, we&#39;d fuck up the whole revolution itself.

It&#39;s the class that makes revolution, not us -- and we should never forget that, not even for a second.


And the minute we start to gain anything that even remotely resembles strength, the same compromises will be made and the people will once again settle to their normal every day lives, while the only people who will still care will be the same people who cared before.

I think this is wrong, because it assumes that capitalism is "infinitely flexible" -- that it&#39;s "always possible" to diffuse rebellion with reforms and later take them away again.

I think reform was something the capitalists could do once -- when the system was vigorous and had some "slack" available. I don&#39;t think that&#39;s any longer the case; they can&#39;t "afford" to be reformist again now...or ever.

Indeed, I expect things to steadily deteriorate for the working class in the advanced capitalist countries...in accordance with Marx&#39;s prediction of the "immiseration of the proletariat".


...it&#39;s not going to change the fact that the majority of the working class who hears our message is going to stop at reform.

They would if they could...but if Marx was right, then they won&#39;t be allowed to. The crises of capitalism itself will destroy the possibility of reform and therefore the credibility of the whole idea.

And, I might add, it is this objective process that renders the idea of a "vanguard" superfluous. It&#39;s something that will happen whether or not a "vanguard" happens to exist.

The point is not that we "should sit on our hands" and "wait for the revolution". The point is that the revolution itself is the product of changing material conditions and their effects on the consciousness of the whole working class.

Yes, we can "help things along". We can, in a small way, "speed things up a bit". In Marx&#39;s words, we can "ease the birth pangs of the new society". The more our ideas are wide-spread in a society (at least in a vague way), the better things are likely to go both during and after the revolution. The more serious resistance to capitalism that we can organize, the more likely the revolution will be "sooner" rather than "later".

But "sooner" and "later" are relative terms in the broad sweep of human history. For example, China nearly developed capitalism in the 1400s...instead of the late 1900s. That&#39;s a trivial difference...from the standpoint of the eight to ten thousand years of class society.

Clearly, revolution is the work of a lifetime...and even then you might see little results for all your labors. Human lifetimes are just too short.

So patience is, in this respect at least, a virtue.

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

Well, to be fair, the Leninist model of the "vanguard" is the only one thus far offered.

And this makes it the only possible one in existence?


Are there "other kinds" of possible vanguards? What would be their characteristics? How would they operate?

Something more decentralized. The vanguard is not something that is necessarily put in the position as the forefront of the revolution by it&#39;s own doing (that may be how Lenin would have it), but the vanguard can be put in that position by the people&#39;s doing aswell. There&#39;s two things that can make a vanguard, the first is if that vanguard assumes the position as the leader by it&#39;s own power, the second is if that vanguard assumes the position as the leader by the power of the people i.e their will to follow it.


To say they would "organize the proletariat to make revolution" is all well and good, but how would they do that without falling into the conceit that they are the "indispensable" leaders?

Very simply, by not pretending they are indispensible leaders. A vanguard that comes to power from the peoples will cannot be seen as indispensible, that vanguard could have been any group that the people were willing to follow. In short, the mistake of Leninists is that they believe the people of the vanguard are indispensible.... those people are NOT, it is the vanguard itself which is indispensible.


Where I "draw the line" is at the assertion that "we are indispensable"...that "without us, nothing is possible". I think that&#39;s a very bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons...and I think it&#39;s an idea that&#39;s inherent in the concept of the "vanguard".

If the vanguard does not already exist as even a loose-knit organization, the peoples struggle would naturally create one before the revolution -- without it, the peoples struggle would never be unified enough to amount to revolution.


Even if we turned out to function as a de facto "vanguard", we should never embrace that idea, much less begin clinging to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. We should embrace it, and we should understand what it means to be a vanguard and the purpose of that vanguard. If we understand the purpose of the vanguard, specifically that it&#39;s purpose is not the purpose of the state, and thus the state should not be lead by such a vanguard, then we can easily avoid that problem. The vanguard predates the state, if the state is designed to destroy social class antagonisms then the vanguard is designed to destroy ideological class antagonisms. And like the state, would dissolve when it no longer has to protect against those ideological class antagonisms.

This is the nature of the vanguard I&#39;m talking about. Trying to change the definition of vanguard will not suffice to make it something else.


It&#39;s the class that makes revolution, not us -- and we should never forget that, not even for a second.

I agree, the class does make the revolution, the problem is that without such organization they will refuse to agree on the recipe and what will be produced is something inedible.


I think this is wrong, because it assumes that capitalism is "infinitely flexible" -- that it&#39;s "always possible" to diffuse rebellion with reforms and later take them away again.

It assumes most certainly that capitalism will TRY to be infinitely flexible. It does not account, however, for the very real possiblity that these reforms will fail. But if this is the case then the people are pushed to revolution, what you have to understand, however, is that it is not just a "sudden" snap in which everyone jumps up and revolts. The revolution has been brewing since the last reform -- it can be seen as we speak. More and more people are upset with the way the system works, and more and more people who weren&#39;t talking about it before are talking about it, and where before you only had a few people chanting in the street, you now have hundreds to thousands.


I think reform was something the capitalists could do once -- when the system was vigorous and had some "slack" available. I don&#39;t think that&#39;s any longer the case; they can&#39;t "afford" to be reformist again now...or ever.

I think the idea that it can only happen "once" is a bit of an underestimation, however, I do agree it cannot work infinitely, but once again, the government will TRY to make it work infinitely.


Indeed, I expect things to steadily deteriorate for the working class in the advanced capitalist countries...in accordance with Marx&#39;s prediction of the "immiseration of the proletariat".

And as such the desire for revolution will steadily increase. But this does not account for whether or not someone jumps the gun, which is 100% a pure and real possibility. The problem we run into then of course is that the revolution has "not occured when it&#39;s ready," which if you ask me is perfectly fine, but if that is the case the revolution and post revolution has to be executed with the utmost precision and care in order to NOT collapse back to capitalism. Furthermore, in the event that it does collapse back into capitalism you&#39;re reintroducing a whole new cycle in which all those reforms can happen yet again&#33;

The way I see it revolution does not have a singular point at which it must happen to be successful. I think revolution could have been successful BEFORE the first set of reforms. It can be successful after and so on and so on and so on. There is of course a point where revolution is inevitable, and MUST be successful, however, this point I theorize will never be met, because there will always be people (majority or not) thinking and eventually executing revolution before we ever see that point. Whether or not they are successful is completely dependent on a number of things, far too many to list here.

What I will refuse to believe is the same ideas of the passive revolutionary. I believe the revolution will happen long before it&#39;s actually ready, and as such I don&#39;t believe that when it does happen and is successful that it is necessarily at that point of inevitability. I believe the people can make revolution for themselves, they do not have to wait for capitalisms catostrophic failure for it to happen, nor do they have to wait for that for it to be successful. If they did, why the hell are we even here arguing about it?


They would if they could...but if Marx was right, then they won&#39;t be allowed to. The crises of capitalism itself will destroy the possibility of reform and therefore the credibility of the whole idea.

As I said, this was all assuming the reform was successful. I should have clarified that earlier, but I figured you would read it as such, because if it&#39;s not successful, why would they settle for it?


And, I might add, it is this objective process that renders the idea of a "vanguard" superfluous. It&#39;s something that will happen whether or not a "vanguard" happens to exist.

Once again, we&#39;re going back to that point of inevitability. Which is fine, but once again I don&#39;t think we&#39;d ever actually see that point. Because there will be a movement before that point, there has been in the past and there will continue to be, and those movements will succeed or fail. What I am saying is that in order for that movement to succeed, the vanguard is needed.


The point is not that we "should sit on our hands" and "wait for the revolution". The point is that the revolution itself is the product of changing material conditions and their effects on the consciousness of the whole working class.

Key part being "on the consciousness of the whole working class." The problem is that the consciousness of certain individuals is raised before that of the whole working class. Furthermore, the consciousness of the majority of the working class will be raised before the WHOLE working class. Granted it would be BEST if revolution was postponed till the WHOLE working class reached that consciousness, but it won&#39;t be. It&#39;s OK to realize that revolution should be a product of the working class in it&#39;s entirety, but realistically you have to realize that it&#39;s unlikely ever to be. As such, revolution will most probably ALWAYS happen before that point of inevitability.


Yes, we can "help things along". We can, in a small way, "speed things up a bit". In Marx&#39;s words, we can "ease the birth pangs of the new society". The more our ideas are wide-spread in a society (at least in a vague way), the better things are likely to go both during and after the revolution. The more serious resistance to capitalism that we can organize, the more likely the revolution will be "sooner" rather than "later".

This contradicts what you said before. If you truly believe that the revolution is born as much out of material conditions which affect the class consciousness as it is born out of our effect on class consciousness then you cannot assume at all that we can "speed things up a bit." We have no control over the material conditions. This may be in part why reform actually works. If we do progress the class consciousness beyond that of where it should be based on material conditions then the bourgeoisie need only to fall back to enough reform which balances the material conditions in order to destroy what excess class consciousness we provide as "educators."


But "sooner" and "later" are relative terms in the broad sweep of human history. For example, China nearly developed capitalism in the 1400s...instead of the late 1900s. That&#39;s a trivial difference...from the standpoint of the eight to ten thousand years of class society.

Maybe so, but one entails that we haven&#39;t waited long enough to watch capitalism fail, the other entails that we&#39;ve waited too long. In the case of too long we see that theoretically, by the ideas that capitalism failure would inevitably be replaced by communism, becomes impossible.

The point of the inevitable demise of capitalism due to it&#39;s own collapse and the rise of communism is not soonor, nor later, it is the middle point. The point at which we haven&#39;t jumped the gun, and the point at which we haven&#39;t missed our opportunity to save humanity.


Clearly, revolution is the work of a lifetime...and even then you might see little results for all your labors. Human lifetimes are just too short.

So patience is, in this respect at least, a virtue.

I don&#39;t see revolution as a work, at least not the work of man, and thus, not the work of a lifetime. We will either be born into a time when revolution is ripe, or we will not. Our ability to "create" it depends first and foremost that we have the materials to create it with, and that is all too dependent on what period of time we exist in.

So, in conclusion, perception and observation are the revolutionary virtues which will trump all others.

[STI]

In short, it CAN organize itself before the revolution, but only if by "organize itself" you mean can be organized by a vanguard.

So... basically... you&#39;re just re-stating your point. WHY is a vanguard required for the working class to be organized?


Once enough people start to realize that revolution is the only way possible, revolution will seem like the only viable option.


No. I&#39;m saying that once everything but revolution is exposed as ineffective, revolution will be the only logical choice, which is why we should quit muddling around with reformist nonsense.


Sounds to me like you&#39;re playing captain obvious for lack of better argument on HOW to go about realizing this.

Here&#39;s how to go about realizing that revolution is the only viable option (off the top of my head):

-Consistently point out the futility of reforms
-Constantly oppose capitalism and all its "tagalongs" (ie: imperialism).
-Present evidence suggesting (if not totally proving) that the parliamentary system is entirely in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
-etc.


Why don&#39;t you explain "organize itself" first.

Sure: Unite in a common struggle against capitalism with a relatively clear view of what it wants afterward.


The vanguard, once again is a portion of the proletariat, not a separate and alienated class

True, the vanguard may be made up of members of the working class - as well as carreerists. We&#39;re talking pre-revolution, of course. After the revolution, that all changes.


Thus it is in essence organizing itself.

Organizing itself in a heirarchy which puts those on top who command and those below who obey - not conducive to a successful proletarian revolution.


There is no way just magically get something to organize itself...

You&#39;re speaking of the working class as if it is a series of inanimate objects.
A class can organize itself. People get together, mad as hell about the way things are now, and decide that the best way to fight it is together.


there has to be something doing the organization

The class itself, maybe?


How would you propose it actually "organize itself," a giant meeting of the entire proletariat held in the worlds largest underground cave?

Hmmm. I&#39;m going to see if you can answer this one yourself. It just seems so disgustingly obvious.

Seattle, anyone?


Who organizes the meeting?

Are you talking about "what individuals"? People chosen by united groups of workers. Seattle didn&#39;t have any formal "organizers". There was no "central command" or anything. It was a shitload of small groups all getting together, on their own, without the help of a vanguard, to stir up some real shit for the WTO.


Maybe they vote on the overall goal of their revolution... is that it?

Oh my fucking lord. Revolutions come as a result of a lot of discussion and one hell of a lot of agreement. A revolution won&#39;t happen unless a lot of people agree on the "main points" of what they want.


Maybe they don&#39;t do any of this, maybe they just begin destroying the ruling class and attacking representative insitutions of it, that&#39;s fine, but what happens after that?

Yes, because workers are just stupid ape-men who destroy anything and everything they don&#39;t like with no vision of its purpose. :rolleyes:


People just return to their homes and automatically understand what must be done next? Everyone somehow magically agrees upon this and more importantly the way it should be done?


-One hell of a lot of discussion
-One hell of a lot of education regarding the options and the possible consequences of said options.

I keep getting the feeling that you know the answers to the "problems" you&#39;re presenting, but you&#39;re just being a dick.


You&#39;re idea of the vanguard is far too focused on the Leninist idea of the vanguard -- you fail to see anything but this style of vanguard as a vanguard. Much like the idea that you are too incapable of seeing a state as anything other than centralized and in totalitarian control, you are unable to see a vanguard as anything but this.

When you start thinking that the working class isn&#39;t fit to organize itself, it follows pretty easily that they aren&#39;t fit to rule. What does this lead to? A new form of class society.

I really don&#39;t see WHY some heirarchal state is necessary. And there&#39;s not much point in muddling about with one if it&#39;s NOT necessary, as you run a pretty big risk of having said state become the new ruling class.


This is not a flaw in the vanguard model itself, but a flaw in a centralized vanguard model.


Since you&#39;re so keen on getting me to define things, why don&#39;t you go ahead and define "vanguard".

I&#39;ll do more responding later this afternoon. I have to go write other stuff for now, though.

[NovelGentry]

So... basically... you&#39;re just re-stating your point. WHY is a vanguard required for the working class to be organized?

Because no one group is going to concede that another group is right about the method of revolution, during or after. The same logic in my essay post-revolution applies during the revolution, the proletariat is NOT a single unified body, it is a number of individuals with different ideas, different goals, and different desires for what the revolution encompasses. Without some form of vanguard, the revolution would never be focused enough to succeed.

In short, you need someone to organize a means to organize. Even if half way through the revolution a bunch of people say "hey, wait a minute... we&#39;re all fighting here, but we&#39;re all doing different things and not really getting anything done, maybe we should organize" -- that bunch of people becomes the vanguard. The vanguard doesn&#39;t have to be small, it can be an overwhelming majority, but at some point some group of people has to say "let&#39;s organize this thing and get it done right." The ENTIRE proletariat does not just magically understand each other on a higher level.

Look at the situation in Iraq. You have dozens of groups all fighting for the same thing "kick the Americans out of our country." Precisely why when people say it&#39;s another Vietnam they are dead wrong. The Vietnamese had a vanguard, it was a war.... this is not war with Iraq, it is US occupation facing a disorganized revolution, and in the end the only way these individual groups will succeed in their ultimate goal is if someone takes the lead and organizes them all.


No. I&#39;m saying that once everything but revolution is exposed as ineffective, revolution will be the only logical choice, which is why we should quit muddling around with reformist nonsense.

"once everything but revolution is exposed as ineffective" -- you mean, once revolution is the only way possible? :lol:


Here&#39;s how to go about realizing that revolution is the only viable option (off the top of my head):

-Consistently point out the futility of reforms
-Constantly oppose capitalism and all its "tagalongs" (ie: imperialism).
-Present evidence suggesting (if not totally proving) that the parliamentary system is entirely in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
-etc.

I&#39;m not arguing that revolution isn&#39;t the only viable method, so you&#39;re telling this to the wrong guy.


Sure: Unite in a common struggle against capitalism with a relatively clear view of what it wants afterward.

Yes, and there is the magical impossibility if no vanguard is present. They all decide to unite at the exact same time? No one group convinces them to united... no one group says "This is pointless, let&#39;s unite"? The decision to unite is all inclusive and takes no persuasion other than what the groups have already learned individually? How do they define the "clear view" -- who&#39;s clear view do they accept, and why? What makes the Leninists accept the view of the anarchists and vice versa?


True, the vanguard may be made up of members of the working class - as well as carreerists. We&#39;re talking pre-revolution, of course. After the revolution, that all changes.

The vanguard is no longer necessary post revolution, except to organize the creation of the state. Which can and should be a completely democratic process.


Organizing itself in a heirarchy which puts those on top who command and those below who obey - not conducive to a successful proletarian revolution.

If I was talking about a Leninist style vanguard I would agree. But you&#39;re automatically assuming the vanguard has some absolute command over the rest of the proletariat, this does not have to and should not be the case. What makes them the vanguard is not absolute control, once again, this is a spot where you&#39;re not capable of seeing the vanguard for what it is. The vanguard is in essence little more than an unit to coordinate the revolution, not to demand how it is done.

Once again, go back to the original miltary sense of what a vanguard is. The vanguard is not composed of the command officers. It most certainly CAN be, but the vanguard in essence is nothing more than the group of soldiers that lead the rest into battle. In the military, THERE HAS TO BE A VANGUARD, without one the troops simply aren&#39;t going into battle, without one the troops are simply not moving or are moving in completely different directions. That doesn&#39;t mean the troops wouldn&#39;t be fighting, but they would be fighting with no coordination and would be easily wiped out. A revolutionary vanguard is in the same exact position


You&#39;re speaking of the working class as if it is a series of inanimate objects.
A class can organize itself. People get together, mad as hell about the way things are now, and decide that the best way to fight it is together.

You mean, the people form a Vanguard? *GASP*


The class itself, maybe?

Ahhh yes, once again the magical idea that the entire class does the same thing at the exact same time. The class as a whole cannot organize itself for the same reason not everyone in an army can be the first into battle someone always leads the way. Whether it be a commander telling everyone where to go and they go at exactly the same time, or the vanguard which was commanded to lead them in. Without a commander who tells the troops where to go? Or do the troops just automatically know where to go and all go at the same time? Consulting one another is fine, they can democratically figure out where to go, but someone (a vanguard) had to organize that democratic process.


Hmmm. I&#39;m going to see if you can answer this one yourself. It just seems so disgustingly obvious.

there is no need to answer it, because it&#39;s not the reality of the situation. The reality is there is always an initial organizer, and if there is not, then you simply aren&#39;t organized.


Seattle, anyone?

Seattle is a poor model because the enemy itself was not unified. Furthermore, the goal of the enemy was not the destruction of the opposition, it was a dispute among themselves in which the "revolution" decided to oppose so that they would not resolve it. In this case the "revolution"&#39;s goal was also not the destruction of the enemy, it was to stop them to coming to such a resolution.


Are you talking about "what individuals"? People chosen by united groups of workers. Seattle didn&#39;t have any formal "organizers". There was no "central command" or anything. It was a shitload of small groups all getting together, on their own, without the help of a vanguard, to stir up some real shit for the WTO.

Stirring up shit for the bourgeoisie so they can&#39;t get anything done amongst themselves is very different than destroying the bourgeoisie.


Oh my fucking lord. Revolutions come as a result of a lot of discussion and one hell of a lot of agreement. A revolution won&#39;t happen unless a lot of people agree on the "main points" of what they want.

Agreeing on what they want to do and agreeing on how they&#39;re going to do it is once again, two very different things. You make it sound as if revolution can only be conducted one way.


Yes, because workers are just stupid ape-men who destroy anything and everything they don&#39;t like with no vision of its purpose.

The purpose of the revolution IS destruction. It is the destruction of the ruling class as a ruling class. Thus, it is the only vision required to initiate revolution. If the goal of what is to happen after revolution is not in sight, then the revolution will destroy and that is it, it will never intend to replace what is destroyed with something better.


-One hell of a lot of discussion
-One hell of a lot of education regarding the options and the possible consequences of said options.

I keep getting the feeling that you know the answers to the "problems" you&#39;re presenting, but you&#39;re just being a dick.

Once again, look to Iraq. What will happen if the US DOES pull out? Who will come to power? They will all fight for it, and instead now they will be fighting one another. Everyone can understand the options and possible consequences of said options, but that does not mean they agree on what option is right.


When you start thinking that the working class isn&#39;t fit to organize itself, it follows pretty easily that they aren&#39;t fit to rule. What does this lead to? A new form of class society.

I really don&#39;t see WHY some heirarchal state is necessary. And there&#39;s not much point in muddling about with one if it&#39;s NOT necessary, as you run a pretty big risk of having said state become the new ruling class.

The working class IS fit to organize itself. It does so by following a singular ideology or a singular mix of these ideologies in order to finish what it started. In other words, it does so by following the ideas of one of it&#39;s groups i.e. the vanguard. The vanguard will dissolve when EVERYONE is following it, because it has no reason to exist anymore. Like I said, WHY does the vanguard have to be a minority that commands a majority? Why can&#39;t the vanguard be the majority? As I said in a previous post, if the state is designed to destroy social class antagonisms, the vanguard is designed to destroy ideological class antagonisms. You can&#39;t assume that the entire proletariat will decide to follow a single ideology, just like you can&#39;t assume the entire proletariat, or furthermore the entire population post-revolution will decide to follow a single social ideal. The majority can most certainly prevent minority ideals from taking power, through force of some sorts, but that simply implies that the majority is now the vanguard.

Until the social classes are destroy there HAS to exist a ruling social class, if there is no ruling social class then the minority social classes e.g bourgeoisie will continue to exist freely, and unlike your passive non-ruling proletariat, they will fight to become the ruling class once again.

Marx defines the post-revolutionary state as the proletariat organized as a ruling class. Thus, the proletariat rules over the bourgeoisie, this is a hierarchy in itself, it just so happens that the people at the top are the majority. If they are not a RULING class they are in no position to suppress the other classes.

In short, a hierarchical state is NOT necessary, but a state is.


Since you&#39;re so keen on getting me to define things, why don&#39;t you go ahead and define "vanguard".

I&#39;ll do more responding later this afternoon. I have to go write other stuff for now, though.

State: The proletariat organized as a ruling class.
Vanguard: A portion of the proletariat organized as a ruling ideology.

[redstar2000]

The vanguard is not something that is necessarily put in the position at the forefront of the revolution by its own doing (that may be how Lenin would have it), but the vanguard can be put in that position by the people&#39;s doing as well. There&#39;s two things that can make a vanguard: the first is if that vanguard assumes the position as the leader by its own power; the second is if that vanguard assumes the position as the leader by the power of the people, i.e., their will to follow it.

Very well, then that raises the question...

Should conscious communists/anarchists encourage working people to find or create a "vanguard" and follow it?

Or, in short, is "followership" something we should promote?

People may do it anyway -- no matter what we say -- but is it an "ideal" that we want to spread?

Obviously, I don&#39;t think so...I think the whole concept positively reeks of servility.

But what do you think?


A vanguard that comes to power from the people&#39;s will cannot be seen as indispensable, that vanguard could have been any group that the people were willing to follow. In short, the mistake of Leninists is that they believe the people of the vanguard are indispensable.... those people are NOT, it is the vanguard itself which is indispensable.

But what is to keep the "illusion of indispensability" from arising over the course of time?

If you or any communist find yourself "anointed" (even though you never sought such a position for yourself), how long does it take before you start believing in all that flattery that people are showering you with?

By contemporary accounts, Stalin was a rather modest fellow prior to the October 1917 coup and even during the civil war. It took another decade before his mug started showing up on big posters all over the place and every newspaper article had to praise the "great leadership of Comrade Stalin".

The fact that lots of people "support you" and express their willingness to "follow you" is, I think, somewhat addicting...and distorts your perception of reality in dangerous ways.

Look at Bob Avakian&#33; :o

And worse, look at his poor "followers"&#33; :o :o :o

Frankly, it&#39;s my wish to profoundly discourage that kind of crap as much as I can. I think our message to our class should be along the lines of "only you can emancipate yourselves"...no redeemer can do it for you.

Moses is a myth.


If the vanguard does not already exist as even a loose-knit organization, the people&#39;s struggle would naturally create one before the revolution -- without it, the people&#39;s struggle would never be unified enough to amount to revolution.

Well, we have one extraordinary example of a successful popular revolution in the near total absence of any vanguards...that of February 1917 in Petrograd and shortly thereafter throughout the Russian Empire.

With very little actual fighting and without any kind of overall "coordination" or "leadership", three centuries of feudal aristocracy were completely wiped out (along with quite a few aristocrats)...all within weeks and most of it within days.

Of course, the Leninists say that February "stopped short" of what was "possible" (socialism) precisely because a "vanguard" was lacking.

But that seems a poor argument to me; Russia was ripe for a bourgeois revolution and that&#39;s exactly what happened. As Lenin went on to admit with his "New Economic Policy", socialism was impossible in Russia at that point and the February revolutionaries stopped right where history told them to stop.

Perhaps I am excessively optimistic (an "occupational hazard" for revolutionaries), but it seems to me that proletarian revolution will have the same character...it will make such obvious sense that the vast majority of the working class will participate directly and only a very small minority will even have serious doubts.


We should embrace it, and we should understand what it means to be a vanguard and the purpose of that vanguard. If we understand the purpose of the vanguard, specifically that its purpose is not the purpose of the state, and thus the state should not be led by such a vanguard, then we can easily avoid that problem. The vanguard predates the state; if the state is designed to destroy social class antagonisms then the vanguard is designed to destroy ideological class antagonisms. And like the state, would dissolve when it no longer has to protect against those ideological class antagonisms. -- emphasis added.

I suppose that approach could be attempted -- for example, you could have a rule that if any member of the vanguard wants to hold an office in the state apparatus, then they&#39;d have to formally resign from the vanguard.

But I think reality would overtake formality fairly quickly. Leading members of the state apparatus would retain informal ties with current leaders of the vanguard; state policy decisions would be "worked out" over lunch or at the golf course, etc.

Further, I think it&#39;s misleading to speak of institutions "dissolving"...that usually doesn&#39;t happen. Once a social form becomes institutionalized, it tends to perpetuate itself...and often has to be forcibly abolished by some outside force.

I can&#39;t say, in good conscience, that a state or a vanguard would "never" dissolve itself...but I think the odds against it are rather large.


But this does not account for whether or not someone jumps the gun, which is 100% a pure and real possibility. The problem we run into then, of course, is that the revolution has "not occurred when it&#39;s ready," which, if you ask me, is perfectly fine, but if that is the case, the revolution and post revolution has to be executed with the utmost precision and care in order to NOT collapse back to capitalism. Furthermore, in the event that it does collapse back into capitalism you&#39;re reintroducing a whole new cycle in which all those reforms can happen yet again&#33; -- emphasis added.

This -- "utmost precision and care" -- does rather remind me of the Leninist claim to "expertise" in leading revolution to "victory".

Unfortunately, I know of no such "precision and care" that&#39;s readily available...or even possible in principle.

Consider the difficulties in forecasting the path and intensity of a hurricane. I believe the Tropical Prediction Center uses nine different "models" involving a large number of variables and formulas for weighing those variables.

They are good models...most of them usually cluster around a certain outcome and that outcome is remarkably accurate. (Hurricane Ivan was forecast to come ashore near or in Mobile Bay three days prior to impact...they nailed it&#33;)

Now consider the enormous complexity of a revolutionary situation and the immediate aftermath...something that makes hurricane prediction look like 2 + 2 = probably around 4.

Where is the "precision and care" to be found for this kind of problem? Whose supercomputer is going to run whose algorithms? In fact, given the wide variations in revolutionary situations and their results, how would one go about developing a useful algorithm in the first place?

My strong inclination is to expect post-revolutionary society to be the outcome of struggle over ideological principles plus a great deal of pragmatic experimentation plus a very large input of pure chance.

And, to the dismay of some, I don&#39;t know how it&#39;s going to turn out and am willing to admit that freely.

Communism is a hypothesis...and very far from a "certainty" at this point. I think it&#39;s a "good" hypothesis and well worth putting to the test...but until actual experience reveals a viable classless society that actually "works", we are "out on the edge".

Statements about "precision" at this point are not justified.


There is of course a point where revolution is inevitable, and MUST be successful, however, this point I theorize will never be met, because there will always be people (majority or not) thinking and eventually executing revolution before we ever see that point.

Well, you may be right about this -- the idea that all revolutions have a certain "premature" quality about them. History would seem to partially justify that view -- there&#39;ve been revolutions that inexplicably failed to take "obvious" steps (why did the Paris Commune halt before the doors of the vaults of the French National Bank???).

But on the other hand, the bourgeois revolution in Russia of February 1917 did take place at that "point" when success was "inevitable". To all intents and purposes, the old order was so utterly discredited that even its supporters almost universally refused to fight for it. The ones that could packed their bags and their jewelry and caught the next train to Helsinki and the west. The ones that didn&#39;t escape were lynched by mobs of very angry peasants...or went into hiding until Lenin offered them jobs after October.

So the question becomes: will the next wave of proletarian insurrections in the advanced capitalist countries have this "premature" character or will they take place at the point where victory is inevitable?

I don&#39;t know the answer to that one.


I believe the revolution will happen long before it&#39;s actually ready, and as such I don&#39;t believe that when it does happen and is successful, that it is necessarily at that point of inevitability. I believe the people can make revolution for themselves, they do not have to wait for capitalism&#39;s catastrophic failure for it to happen, nor do they have to wait for that for it to be successful. If they did, why the hell are we even here arguing about it?

Because the "argument" has practical consequences, of course.

Your thesis is that it is possible for proletarian revolution to win prior to "the point of inevitability" provided we create the "right kind" of "vanguard" (not Leninist) and the "right kind" of post-revolutionary state apparatus (not ultra-centralized or despotic).

I am very skeptical of your thesis; it seems to me that you are attempting to "square the circle" here.

Specifically, I do not think it&#39;s possible for any group that designates itself as a "vanguard" to avoid the "big head" that goes with that. I think embracing those kinds of ideas leads to arrogance, corruption, despotism...and the restoration of capitalism with a new ruling class.

Likewise, I think any post-revolutionary state apparatus -- no matter how "ultra-democratic" it may be at the beginning -- will attract hordes of despot-wannabes and will, sooner or later, devolve into an outright despotism.

Why should we want to replicate the wretched history of 20th century "communism"? We&#39;ve seen where it leads; why should we want to go there again?

Is it your view that, "like it or not", we "have" to do it that way?

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

...the proletariat is NOT a single unified body, it is a number of individuals with different ideas, different goals, and different desires for what the revolution encompasses. Without some form of vanguard, the revolution would never be focused enough to succeed.

Speculative. Why, after all, should the proletariat "become unified" simply because a particular self-appointed "vanguard" tells them to?

Each Leninist cult claims that they will come to the forefront on the basis of having "won the trust of the working class" through their "experiences of leading pre-revolutionary struggles".

Do you have the same idea in mind? And if so, how do you propose to avoid the trap of reformism that most of these "vanguards" sooner or later fall into?


The vanguard doesn&#39;t have to be small, it can be an overwhelming majority, but at some point some group of people has to say "let&#39;s organize this thing and get it done right." The ENTIRE proletariat does not just magically understand each other on a higher level.

I agree that there will be people who spontaneously take initiative. And I also agree that there is no such thing as "magical understanding".

But do those who take initiative do so because they perceive something useful that needs to be done? Or do they have a history of frustrated ambition to "lead something"?

There&#39;s a big difference there.


...this is not war with Iraq, it is US occupation facing a disorganized revolution, and in the end the only way these individual groups will succeed in their ultimate goal is if someone takes the lead and organizes them all.

Some months ago I posted a whine from one of the U.S. authorities in Iraq (originally from the Los Angeles Times)...he made the point that the strength of the Iraqi resistance was that it had no center.

No matter how many "leaders" were captured, the resistance continued unabated.

He sounded very...frustrated. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

Should conscious communists/anarchists encourage working people to find or create a "vanguard" and follow it?

Or, in short, is "followership" something we should promote?

It&#39;s not at all something that needs to be promoted. I don&#39;t promote the vanguard, more to the point I don&#39;t promote any particular group as having the possibility of being that vanguard, but I do not dismiss it as unnecessary. I believe that it will be created whether we actively promote it or not, the only difference the promotion of such an ideal would make is whether or not the vanguard is created pre-revolution or at the brink of revolution, one way or another it will come into existence.


But what is to keep the "illusion of indispensability" from arising over the course of time?

Once again, the vanguard in no way must be centralized, furthermore it should be democratically composed, as such it would more than likely not be the same people in the same positions for it&#39;s entire existence, thus the illusion of indispensability is destroyed quite simply when certain people are dispensed.


By contemporary accounts, Stalin was a rather modest fellow prior to the October 1917 coup and even during the civil war. It took another decade before his mug started showing up on big posters all over the place and every newspaper article had to praise the "great leadership of Comrade Stalin".

And this was because the vanguard extended post-revolution. The vanguard became the state, it didn&#39;t just organize and create the state, it filled it with the same people. The only way such a thing would happen with the type of vanguard I am presenting is by the will of the people.

Who would the anti-vanguard supporters be to argue that the people can organize themselves with their new found consciousness, but cannot possibly elect righteous "leaders" with that consciousness?


Look at Bob Avakian&#33;

A Leninist no doubt who would just as soon see people like myself shot for promoting the idea that the executive forces of the vanguard are not solidified in stone.


Frankly, it&#39;s my wish to profoundly discourage that kind of crap as much as I can. I think our message to our class should be along the lines of "only you can emancipate yourselves"...no redeemer can do it for you.

My message is exactly the same, and as such I would encourage all people to oppose any such "leader" who believes they are a redeemer.


Well, we have one extraordinary example of a successful popular revolution in the near total absence of any vanguards...that of February 1917 in Petrograd and shortly thereafter throughout the Russian Empire.

Only to be trumped by a Leninist vanguard months later -- Bravo to it&#39;s raging success&#33;


Of course, the Leninists say that February "stopped short" of what was "possible" (socialism) precisely because a "vanguard" was lacking.

Had this populare revolution had a vanguard it may have been able to oppose the less supported Leninist vanguard, who&#39;s support realistically was primary from it&#39;s own ranks.


But that seems a poor argument to me; Russia was ripe for a bourgeois revolution and that&#39;s exactly what happened. As Lenin went on to admit with his "New Economic Policy", socialism was impossible in Russia at that point and the February revolutionaries stopped right where history told them to stop.

I agree.


Perhaps I am excessively optimistic (an "occupational hazard" for revolutionaries), but it seems to me that proletarian revolution will have the same character...it will make such obvious sense that the vast majority of the working class will participate directly and only a very small minority will even have serious doubts.

Not only WILL it, but it is the way it SHOULD be. What I fail to see is how this proletariat cannot directly participate in the creation, support, and operation of the vanguard.


I suppose that approach could be attempted -- for example, you could have a rule that if any member of the vanguard wants to hold an office in the state apparatus, then they&#39;d have to formally resign from the vanguard.

The vanguard&#39;s final step is to create the state, when it has done this it is wiped out. Thus the Vanguard and the State should never exist at the same time, furthermore they have no need to.


Further, I think it&#39;s misleading to speak of institutions "dissolving"...that usually doesn&#39;t happen. Once a social form becomes institutionalized, it tends to perpetuate itself...and often has to be forcibly abolished by some outside force.

It is consequential that if you accept the form of vanguard which I speak of you accept it&#39;s eventual demise in the face of the newly formed state. If it fails to dissolve then very simply it is no the form of vanguard I speak of, and is either Leninist or some other ideology that promotes the existence of the vanguard beyond destroy ideological class antagonisms.


This -- "utmost precision and care" -- does rather remind me of the Leninist claim to "expertise" in leading revolution to "victory".

This is a conditional statement. Such precision and care is only necessary if the revolution is going to happen prior to it being inevitable. Furthermore it is conditional for success in such a circumstance. I have no doubt that this precision and care can be ignored for premature revolution, but in that event, it will once again fail and collapse more than likely back into capitalism.

Lenin only proved this.


Communism is a hypothesis...and very far from a "certainty" at this point. I think it&#39;s a "good" hypothesis and well worth putting to the test...but until actual experience reveals a viable classless society that actually "works", we are "out on the edge".

This directly contradicts Marx&#39;s point that communism is inevitable, a I believe you yourself argued earlier in this very same thread.

Once again, the text you&#39;re quoting is conditional on a revolution which is made prior to this point of inevitability.


But on the other hand, the bourgeois revolution in Russia of February 1917 did take place at that "point" when success was "inevitable"

As such, communism will have it&#39;s day of inevitability. But before that day we will see many more revolutions, we cannot exclude the possibility that one of these revolutions, despite being prematures, will succeed.


So the question becomes: will the next wave of proletarian insurrections in the advanced capitalist countries have this "premature" character or will they take place at the point where victory is inevitable?

My argument is that is that they will, based on my personal opinion that capitalism will not fail to that extent before humanity has destroyed humanity. If the ruling class deems it so, they will destroy the world before they witness their own self-induced collapse. I have no reason to believe they would not opt for this outcome.


Specifically, I do not think it&#39;s possible for any group that designates itself as a "vanguard" to avoid the "big head" that goes with that. I think embracing those kinds of ideas leads to arrogance, corruption, despotism...and the restoration of capitalism with a new ruling class.

Likewise, I think any post-revolutionary state apparatus -- no matter how "ultra-democratic" it may be at the beginning -- will attract hordes of despot-wannabes and will, sooner or later, devolve into an outright despotism.

Why should we want to replicate the wretched history of 20th century "communism"? We&#39;ve seen where it leads; why should we want to go there again?

The only people who can give it this big head is the proletariat that chooses to follow it (once again assuming a vanguard of the type my ideology presents).

I&#39;m not sure that my ideology is replicating it. If it was it would differ very little from Leninism, and I think that is hardly the case.


Speculative. Why, after all, should the proletariat "become unified" simply because a particular self-appointed "vanguard" tells them to?

It never should become unified by such means -- more to the point it never WILL. It can, should, and will become unified by it&#39;s own accord, and it will use the vanguard to ensure that.

You&#39;re still thinking of the vanguard as the all powerful being that tells the rest of the proletariat what to do. My ideology clearly expresses, or at least I thought it did, that the vanguard is merely a representation of the proletariat in their desire to organize, thus the command lies not in the vanguard itself, but in the proletariat, who creates or follows an existing vanguard for the sake of organization and unity.


Each Leninist cult claims that they will come to the forefront on the basis of having "won the trust of the working class" through their "experiences of leading pre-revolutionary struggles".

What better way to win the trust of the proletariat than to be created by them and work according to it&#39;s command?


Do you have the same idea in mind?

If in the event of a pre-existing vanguard, that is, one which follows my ideology, it will not be the position of the vanguard to look for this trust so that may execute it&#39;s own self-righteous action, it will be the position of the vanguard to seek the instruction of the proletariat as a whole to know what it&#39;s action should be.

It can go about this through completely democratic means. At this point the proletariat does not yet follow the vanguard, and in that sense the vanguard is not yet a vanguard, nevertheless the proletariat does command it. The point when the proletariat follows this pre-existing "vanguard" to actually make it a vanguard is the point which it comes to the realization it is in command of it. If this is, "winning trust," so be it, but in either case it will not be through the experience of pre-revolutionary struggle, but through the example of present revolutionary struggle.


But do those who take initiative do so because they perceive something useful that needs to be done? Or do they have a history of frustrated ambition to "lead something"?

Those who take initiatve without seeking what initiative to take are most certainly characteristic of this ambition. However, those who take initiative by first seeking what initiative to take and then taking it have not only perceived something useful that needs to be done, they have perceived that they are in no position to personally decide what needs to be done.


Some months ago I posted a whine from one of the U.S. authorities in Iraq (originally from the Los Angeles Times)...he made the point that the strength of the Iraqi resistance was that it had no center.

I think this US authority is poorly misguided. He apparently is making the assumption that the resistence is unified. The problem is quite simply that it is not a unified resistence, what he mistakes for a singular resistence is actually a vast number of smaller resistences, all of which have their own center.


No matter how many "leaders" were captured, the resistance continued unabated.

Yes, because capturing the leader of a single resistence does not destroy all the other separate resistences. Furthermore, when one "leader" is captured, the resistence to whom that leader belonged replaces that leader with yet another -- as would and SHOULD a unified resistence.

My question is, to what end? Each separate resitence will fight against the the US occupation, and when and if that occupation decides that the costs of the struggle are no longer worth the benefits of winning the struggle, they will fight amongst one another.

In the end there will only be one successful resistence/ideology and the whole of the nation will have been destroyed for it&#39;s success. Then it becomes the position of that severely weakened resistence to rebuild something which it does not have the resources to rebuild.


He sounded very...frustrated.

And amazingly unperceptive.

[STI]

I understand this, but that doesn&#39;t change that your original statement was aimed at revolutionary activity, not post-revolutionary activity. I think I have made it quite clear that I do not support the Leninist ideal of post-revolutionary activity. So what exactly is your point in reiterating something I&#39;m already aware of and have argued?


My point is that the vanguard as a whole is unnecessary. Both before and after the revolution.


If we&#39;re not ready then you state by your own admition that there are not enough thinking members of the working class. You said quite clearly that any thinking person can see that the bourgeois parliamentary system cannot possibly be used to achieve socialism, and definately not communism. So lack of support obviously means lack of thinking people. Let me just say I&#39;m not sure you can educate someone who doesn&#39;t think, so I guess this is all just a lost cause eh?


You seem more full of shit the more you keep going on. Don&#39;t twist my words. Right, it&#39;s clear that the parliamentary system can&#39;t be used to build communism. The problem is that there has never been a reason for the working class to see this point. There are plenty of thinkers in the working class, they&#39;re just not class-conscious yet.

Really. You shuold actually think about what I write before responding to the parts that you think are easy to attack me with.


Point being, if all it takes is the ability to "think" to realize revolution is the only way, then we should be ready now.


You also have to want revolution in order for it to make a difference to you. That&#39;s what&#39;s lacking.


Yes, the reforms are gone now. And look at the AMAZING effects this loss of social compromise has had on our class consciousness.

I don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;ve noticed a lot of increasing union activism within the parliamentary system as a result of the lost reforms. It&#39;ll be a small matter of time before the parliamentary system is exposed as garbage, at which point activism outside the system will pick up.

Since the age of conscessions is pretty much over, thanks to the tendancy for the rate of profit to decline over time, that&#39;ll just make EVERYONE more pissed...

...and you know the rest of the story.


Let&#39;s get real for a minute. The reform has in one way or another been destroyed by the same bourgeois machine which made such compromises to begin with. Social Security is all but wiped out, the 8 hour work day has been supplanted with the necessity for 2 jobs thus creating a 12-16 hour workday, and the TVA has been sold out to corporate interests in various ways. AND NO ONE GIVES A DAMN EXCEPT FOR THE LIKEMINDED OF PEOPLE WHO GAVE A DAMN BEFORE&#33;


Right. Everybody is SO happy right now. Capitalism is the cat&#39;s pajamas.

The problem isn&#39;t that nobody cares. The problem is that they aren&#39;t yet aware of any serious alternatives (so they take it out on Immigrants, minorities, single mothers, etc). Those days won&#39;t be around forever. Once people start seeing that those copouts are simply nonsense, the real enemies will be excused.


And the minute we start to gain anything that even remotely resembles strength the same compromises will be made and the people will once again settle to their normal every day lives, while the only people who will still care will be the same people who cared before.

That will simply not be possible. The days of concession are far over.


Repeat process 800, or however many times you like, it&#39;s not going to change the fact that the majority of the working class who hears our message is going to stop at reform. Once again why I believe in a vanguard. The Bourgeoisie is NOT stupid, they will revert to socialist compromise before they face force, and I&#39;m sorry to burst your bubble, but social compromise is ENOUGH for the majority of the people.


You clearly don&#39;t think enough of the working class. A working class unable to see what&#39;s really going on and organize themselves is definately NOT ABLE TO RULE. If this is truly what you believe, you&#39;re no communist.


I sure hope you got that kind of time, cause I don&#39;t... nor does the whole of human existence combined.


Wait until another crisis of capitalism occurs. The international economy is like a deck of cards, my friend. A deck of feckin&#39; cards.


I don&#39;t have to guess, I know why. It&#39;s so that the next time this kind of "crash" happens the government can institute the same reforms, yet again, and the majority of the working class will think they&#39;ve won and go back to bed. Goodnight.

It&#39;s gone because the ruling class can no longer afford consessions. Do you think the bourgeoisie is that stupid? Do you think they&#39;d risk the eruption that is possible by taking away the reforms they&#39;ve given if it wasn&#39;t totally necessary? Do you really think they&#39;re THAT stupid?


You seem to have lost your ability to read. I never said that this had anything to do with the goals of communism or socialism. I said quite clearly that these were reforms that wer implemented by the government in order to calm the working class demand for socialism. Once again, these are the things that make the majority of the working class think they&#39;ve won and go back to bed.

Seriously. You think very little of the working class. What makes you so fucking special, eh?

[NovelGentry]

My point is that the vanguard as a whole is unnecessary. Both before and after the revolution.

But you argued based on failings of a Leninist vanguard, not what I proposed.


Really. You shuold actually think about what I write before responding to the parts that you think are easy to attack me with.

This is not a problem with the reader, it&#39;s a problem with the writer. If you can&#39;t write what you mean then you can&#39;t expect someone to read it in accordance with what you thought you were saying.

You said what you said, and I argued that. You said it, not me.


You also have to want revolution in order for it to make a difference to you. That&#39;s what&#39;s lacking.

If you want change and realize revolution is the only way to exact change then you want revolution. So your point is moot because you&#39;ve already implied that these people want change, if they didn&#39;t want change they wouldn&#39;t be trying other methods.


I don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;ve noticed a lot of increasing union activism within the parliamentary system as a result of the lost reforms.

Really? that&#39;s amazing, because anyone who&#39;s ever heard of the Taft-Hartley act knows that it&#39;s just the opposite.


The problem is that they aren&#39;t yet aware of any serious alternatives (so they take it out on Immigrants, minorities, single mothers, etc).

If they cared enough they&#39;d be searching for serious alternatives.


That will simply not be possible. The days of concession are far over.

Do you base this on your worldly experience in government bodies? Your stunning experience as a political representative of the people must have given you this insight which allows you to so clearly say that the government has nothing else up their sleeve that can appease the people. Let me remind you of one thing, just because you want it, doesn&#39;t make it so. More importantly, just because you say it doesn&#39;t make it so. If you can show many any solid proof that the days of concession are far over then I&#39;ll be more willing to agree, but the fact is you can&#39;t show me proof, because we&#39;re not even near what we were at pre-great depression in terms of social injustice -- so the government still has a long way to go before they even try such concessions.


You clearly don&#39;t think enough of the working class. A working class unable to see what&#39;s really going on and organize themselves is definately NOT ABLE TO RULE. If this is truly what you believe, you&#39;re no communist.

It&#39;s not that the working class will never see these things, I&#39;m simply not willing to concede that they will see them within any realistic timeframe. You forget that the old concious working class dies and can breed a new unconscious working class -- furthermore, the bourgeoisie will see that it is such, and they will do so by spreading the "pop culture" love it or leave it attitude to today&#39;s youth. As I have said in many other posts in this thread, you will watch the capitalist destroy the world before the working class faces inevitable revolution.

Likewise, you&#39;re ignoring what I have been saying about the vanguard party from the start. The working class is able to see what&#39;s going on, but not all of the working class, only a portion of it, even if that portion is a majority. There is no way to guarantee that ALL of the working class will see what is going on, and as such their organization can give birth to the vanguard party without the need for one to pre-exist. It would be this very same vanguard party that ensures the organization of the working class as a whole. Once again, this is organization by "themselves," not all of them, but still possibly a majority of them.

Like others, you are still stuck behind the idea that Lenin&#39;s vanguard is the only form of vanguard. Start seeing the vanguard for what it is and not what people like Bob Avakian want it to be.


Wait until another crisis of capitalism occurs. The international economy is like a deck of cards, my friend. A deck of feckin&#39; cards.

Once again a point which must have taken you a long time to develop in your various positions that had you dealing with world economic issues. You can assert all you want as much as you want, that doesn&#39;t make it so. Now dont&#39; get me wrong, I&#39;m not saying that it isn&#39;t fragile, but I think you&#39;re underestimating it to a huge extent, furthermore you seem to be ruling out the possibility that an international economy doesn&#39;t have to exist. In fact, the international economy as we see it now is a fairly recent development -- it&#39;s growth can be directly related to modern technology, this, however, does not mean that the world could not fall back to something far more primitive if it needed to -- and if such a collapse was on the brink, I have no doubt that capitalists would already be aware of it and be figuring out how exactly to keep themselves in power.

And once again the "nor does the whole of human existence combined" part refers, very observantly I think, to the realistic possibility that capitalists would destroy the world before losing power in it. You forget they control our nuclear arms and the such.


It&#39;s gone because the ruling class can no longer afford consessions. Do you think the bourgeoisie is that stupid? Do you think they&#39;d risk the eruption that is possible by taking away the reforms they&#39;ve given if it wasn&#39;t totally necessary? Do you really think they&#39;re THAT stupid?

This is where me and you differe a great degree. I realize, more accurately I think that "eruption" is not a risk at the moment, it won&#39;t be a risk for most probably decades to come, unless maybe Bush gets elected again. The only person assuming that the bourgeoisie is stupid here is you... you assume they&#39;re too stupid to place their own bets. You assume that they&#39;re too stupid to take what they&#39;ve given just so that they can give it again when the time is really needed. You assume that some how, they&#39;ve gone ahead and fucked up their great bank account in the sky and no longer can "afford concessions." The US could afford concessions like you wouldn&#39;t believe by cutting their unnecessary military budget by as little as 5%. You haven&#39;t BEGUN to see all the concessions they can afford. I realize this, they realize this (and very much to their advantage).... the only people who don&#39;t realize it are people like you walking around talking about how the people are on the "brink of erruption" and "the great capitalist catastrophe is only a small matter of time away"

You sound like the cover of Weekly World News or something, give it a break.


Seriously. You think very little of the working class. What makes you so fucking special, eh?

It&#39;s not that I think very little of the working class, it&#39;s simply that I&#39;m not going to force feed myself the illusion that they are anywhere near class conscious just to boost my own desire to see revolution within my lifetime. You seem more than eager to take on revolution now, and apparently according to you it&#39;s not too far off -- so why don&#39;t you round up your class-conscious masses and start the party? Why? Because your class conscious members probably number about 1%.

It has nothing to do with LOOKING DOWN and everything to do with taking some time out of your revolutionary day dream to ACTUALLY LOOK.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

I haven&#39;t read most of this thread yet, so if the below is repetition -- well, the topic bears repeating a little, doesn&#39;t it?

I enjoyed reading this essay, right up to this point below; but I must stop here and ask the author to clarify what he is claiming:


The inverse of this ideology is of course the strict Leninist who is willing to not only distinguish communists from the rest of the proletariat, but is also willing to distinguish them as a ruling class. This is of course a flawed line of thought and can only be considered counter-revolutionary, assuming the revolutionary goal is to diminish and eventually destroy class antagonisms. It has proved time and time again only to alienate these “leaders” from the people they claim to represent and more often than not reverted such nations to their previous economic and social situations.
"Strict Leninist"? What is that?

Are you perhaps alluding to the bourgeois &#39;take&#39; on democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism)? Because as I understand Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) and Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism), democratic centralism is nothing of the sort of what you&#39;ve outlined here. Stalinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism) fits this straightjacket -- but you seem to have already ruled stalinism out -- so we&#39;re back to the question: what do you mean by Leninism here?

[NovelGentry]

Are you perhaps alluding to the bourgeois &#39;take&#39; on democratic centralism? Because as I understand Lenin and Leninism, democratic centralism is nothing of the sort of what you&#39;ve outlined here. Stalinism fits this straightjacket -- but you seem to have already ruled stalinism out -- so we&#39;re back to the question: what do you mean by Leninism here?

If what you are saying here is that Lenin and Leninism somehow maintains a centralized government but does so under "democracy," then I&#39;m going to question you on how Leninism was at all democratic. What I am referring to here is quite simply that Leninism falls into the place of promoting a ruling class. The vanguard that "leads the revolution" becomes the state, no questions asked. Furthermore, the people themselves are not given power in that state. It is a state which claims to represent them using an authority that was honored not by the people it claims to represent, but by the party which composes the state itself. This form of state is a ruling class from the start, let alone the fact that it can digress into an even more clearly defined ruling class. This is the flaw of having a dictatorship of the proletariat that doesn&#39;t keep the proletariat as an active part of it.

So how can a system that creates NEW class antagonisms be considered revolutionary when the point of the revolution is to lead to the destruction of class antagonisms?

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:23 AM


Are you perhaps alluding to the bourgeois &#39;take&#39; on democratic centralism? Because as I understand Lenin and Leninism, democratic centralism is nothing of the sort of what you&#39;ve outlined here. Stalinism fits this straightjacket -- but you seem to have already ruled stalinism out -- so we&#39;re back to the question: what do you mean by Leninism here?
If what you are saying here is that Lenin and Leninism somehow maintains a centralized government but does so under "democracy," then I&#39;m going to question you on how Leninism was at all democratic.
Well, no, that is nothing like what Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) and the Bolsheviki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) actually intended or did when they weren&#39;t under pressure (within reason; there was strife and stupidity in this party, like any other); but once we begin using the term "leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism)", we&#39;re already sliding down the slippery slope of stalinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) -- so we&#39;d better be careful with what we mean right there. Right away I see that you aren&#39;t separating what the Party was trying to do from what they actually had to do, or ended up doing, under exceedingly difficult circumstances.

Let me say right now that it seems to me you are actually claiming that the Bolsheviki set themselves up against the working-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) as some sort of "superior elite force" and nascent class formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class). This is simply not true; and it&#39;s actually one of the many enemy lies from the time, handed down to the present day -- and one which you apparently still believe, probably on account of the glaring failures of stalinism. The Bolsheviki -- and Lenin especially -- bent over backwards to involve the working-class (the most advanced sectors anyway) in the life of the Party in every possible way (you try getting some smug suburban unionized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union) asshole to support "fellow workers" he&#39;s never met -- even across a city, let alone across the world&#33;); and also made excrutiating efforts, as much as possible, to take into account the wishes of the working and peasant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant) classes; and to see, as much as possible, that these groups understood as much as possible, the intentions and policies of the "vanguard" party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_party)" working in their name.

It is typical bourgeois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie) discourse to only mean "centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralism)" when democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) is discussed. The "democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)" part funnily enuff usually gets put aside... Democratic centralism is a conscious dialectical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism) practice on the part of communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) -- but in the hands of bourgeois apologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) it necessarily collapses into some one-sided intellectual freakshow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakshow) or other. Fact of the matter is, "Leninism" as practiced by V.I. Lenin and the Bolsheviki was profoundly more democratic than in most any party you or I have ever had experience with. Certainly in the circumstances of clandestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy) illegality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal) under which they invariably operated.



What I am referring to here is quite simply that Leninism falls into the place of promoting a ruling class. The vanguard that "leads the revolution" becomes the state, no questions asked.
As I have stated above, your definition of "vanguard" is the crude, one-sided bourgeois one. That too many communists have also fallen into this trap, this way of thinking, is a sad, sad commentary on the present and past state of class-consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_consciousness). You keep saying "leninism" and I keep hearing "stalinism". You are not thinking dialectically here, and consistently, AFAI can see. For that matter, you don&#39;t appear to understand class society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_society) either, in a marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) sense; because then you would know that the Bolsheviki were acutely aware of the very dangers you are accusing them of ignoring, or being unconscious of. Frankly, they were certainly far more conscious of these issues, and understood them far better than you appear to. These people spent quite a few sleepless nights over these very issue&#33;



Furthermore, the people themselves are not given power in that state. It is a state which claims to represent them using an authority that was honored not by the people it claims to represent, but by the party which composes the state itself. This form of state is a ruling class from the start, let alone the fact that it can digress into an even more clearly defined ruling class. This is the flaw of having a dictatorship of the proletariat that doesn&#39;t keep the proletariat as an active part of it.
(Sorry to say): Do you even understand what happened in 1914-1926?
And the above are no proper marxist definition of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) or class either.



So how can a system that creates NEW class antagonisms be considered revolutionary when the point of the revolution is to lead to the destruction of class antagonisms?
In no way can a socialist revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_revolution) lead directly to classless society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class). That is pie-in-the-sky petit-bourgeois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petit_bourgeoisie) anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) thinking. I think you really need to study class, and the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/index.htm) in more detail (but don&#39;t we all).
;>

[NovelGentry]

Right away I see that you aren&#39;t separating what the Party was trying to do from what they actually had to do, or ended up doing, under exceedingly difficult circumstances.

You mean, what they SAID they would do, and what they actually did.


bent over backwards to involve the working-class (the most advanced sectors anyway) in the life of the Party in every possible way

This is my point, "the most advanced sectors," right there is implying the very same elitism you say doesn&#39;t exist. Then you go on to talk about the wishes of the peasants. It is not the job of the communist to represent the peasant (although many have tried in the past, Mao for example). Reality is peasants have nothing to do with the proletariat, very simply the problem Lenin faced was that he didn&#39;t have a very large proletariat, it was a country of peasants, but we&#39;ve discussed this elsewhere so there&#39;s no need to bring it up again.

The point is you can&#39;t say "some of these advanced working class people are gonna be good","here&#39;s a group of working class people who support us, let&#39;s use them","Let&#39;s bring in the working class people who have a lot of influence." -- etc..etc...

This is the wrong attitude, and you can say all you want that you want to widen the sphere, but until you actually do (no matter what the circumstances) you are acting COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY.



As I have stated above, your definition of "vanguard" is the crude, one-sided bourgeois one. That too many communists have also fallen into this trap, this way of thinking, is a sad, sad commentary on the present and past state of class-consciousness.

Apparently you&#39;ve not read the rest of the thread -- If anyone here has done more to fight the "crude" definition of the vanguard it is me.


the Bolsheviki were acutely aware of the very dangers you are accusing them of ignoring, or being unconscious of.

I&#39;m not accusing them of ignoring them or being unconscious of them. I&#39;m accusing them of being too stubborn to find a fix. It was their system that was flawed, not them. Leninism itself seems like a really grand thing that makes a lot of sense..... and it is, on paper. Then you fast foward almost 100 years and realize that so far every attempt of revolution using it has come CRASHING DOWN. The simple fact is that Leninism is not immune to this creation of new class, and to go one step further, it promotes it.

This is a case where they know the problem, they know what they have, they may even know how to solve the problem by changing what they have (maybe), but they refuse. They refuse to witness the flaws of their own system. Why? Arrogance maybe, but I don&#39;t think anyone can say for sure.


(Sorry to say): Do you even understand what happened in 1914-1926?
And the above are no proper marxist definition of state or class either.

This statement doesn&#39;t even warrant attention.


In no way can a socialist revolution lead directly to classless society. That is pie-in-the-sky petit-bourgeois anarchist thinking. I think you really need to study class, and the Russian Revolution in more detail (but don&#39;t we all).

You obviously didn&#39;t read the rest of my essay either.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let&#39;s get one thing clear here. This thread, thus far, has been filled with anarchists attacking me because I show in the essay why I don&#39;t think it will work... Leninists attacking me because I show in the essay why I don&#39;t think it will work... Anarchists attacking me, after I reply to their initial attack and say that a vanguard IS necessary. Leninists attacking me after I reply to their initial attack and say that a Leninist vanguard IS NOT necessary.

Leninists are labeling me anarchist, Anarchists are labeling me Leninist. It amazes me that with the EXCEPTION of Redstar2000 that you people cannot simply argue it for what it is. It comes down to personal attacks and labels which are long overdue for abolision.
If you&#39;re not going to bother reading and interpreting the entire essay, don&#39;t comment on it, furthermore if you&#39;re only going to read the stuff in there against Leninism and ignore everything I said about stateless post-revolutionary society, don&#39;t comment on it. You either read in full or keep your yap shut. Cause I&#39;m sick of all these flying accusations about what I am and what I believe in, you think that your half assed reading of a single essay can let you have any idea what I believe in?

If you want to know what I believe in, ask me, if you want to try and tell me what I believe in, bug off.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 02:48 PM

Right away I see that you aren&#39;t separating what the Party was trying to do from what they actually had to do, or ended up doing, under exceedingly difficult circumstances.
You mean, what they SAID they would do, and what they actually did.
What, am I talking to a wall here? Are you saying they were lying thru their teeth? That they were incompetent? I explained (as far as I know) what transpired. You respond with triteness.



This is my point, "the most advanced sectors," right there is implying the very same elitism you say doesn&#39;t exist.
No, this is just plain misunderstanding on your part. People are not all the same. Some can read and write. Others can&#39;t. It&#39;s not elitist to understand this and have a strategy for this. It is elitist to take advantage of it, most especially if the intention is to keep people at a disadvantage -- as is exactly the case with the present imperialist hysteria and brainwashing going on in the world.



Then you go on to talk about the wishes of the peasants. It is not the job of the communist to represent the peasant (although many have tried in the past, Mao for example). Reality is peasants have nothing to do with the proletariat, very simply the problem Lenin faced was that he didn&#39;t have a very large proletariat, it was a country of peasants, but we&#39;ve discussed this elsewhere so there&#39;s no need to bring it up again.
What? What is this guff? I&#39;m sorry -- you not only do not appear to understand marxism, communism and history -- you don&#39;t even appear to understand basic practical politix. The peasantry are not some "pose" or "fashion statement". They are real people -- citizens -- who need to be factored into the equation. THEY are going to do something, no matter what YOU decide. But at least the "Peasant Question" is a moot point in the West now. And I think this is going to be the end of this thread very soon. I&#39;m not going to go down this road where your ego appears to be more important than developing understanding.



The point is you can&#39;t say "some of these advanced working class people are gonna be good","here&#39;s a group of working class people who support us, let&#39;s use them","Let&#39;s bring in the working class people who have a lot of influence." -- etc..etc...

This is the wrong attitude, and you can say all you want that you want to widen the sphere, but until you actually do (no matter what the circumstances) you are acting COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY.
This is pure garbage. I can&#39;t and won&#39;t touch this distortion of how the Bolsheviki and other communists workerd/work. Your piece started off communist, but you&#39;re sounding like a libertarian anarchist here. And frankly I don&#39;t care to find out which you are.

My pocket analysis? You don&#39;t understand a damned thing about materialist dialectix -- nor do you care to find out.



Apparently you&#39;ve not read the rest of the thread -- If anyone here has done more to fight the "crude" definition of the vanguard it is me.
No -- I made it clear that I was stopping at the first big problem I noticed in your one piece. Apparently there is a bigger, meta-problem here, with the author. What you have done to fight "crudity" doesn&#39;t really interest me now. I think I&#39;m finished with this thread.

[NovelGentry]

What, am I talking to a wall here?

No, I&#39;m human.


Are you saying they were lying thru their teeth?

No


That they were incompetent?

Yes


You respond with triteness.

I respond by making a clear distinction between saying, trying, and doing. If you ask me, trying can be as good as doing. I&#39;ll give someone as much credit for doing if they truly try as hard as they can. But saying alone doesn&#39;t have this effect.


No, this is just plain misunderstanding on your part. People are not all the same. Some can read and write. Others can&#39;t.

You don&#39;t need to know how to read and write to listen to what people have to say and fight for it or vote on it. I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re suggesting here.... and I&#39;m not implying that you are, but what I&#39;m understanding from this is that you&#39;re suggesting that somehow these people who are at a disadvantage should be kept out of having any influence on the operations of the state, is that right?

If that is what you&#39;re saying, I simply cannot agree with it.


It&#39;s not elitist to understand this and have a strategy for this. It is elitist to take advantage of it, most especially if the intention is to keep people at a disadvantage -- as is exactly the case with the present imperialist hysteria and brainwashing going on in the world.

No, it&#39;s not elitist to understand it... but it CAN be elitist to have a "strategy" for it, if your strategy assumes you to have more rights and opportunities than other people. Furthermore, it&#39;s not elitist to take advantage of it, it&#39;s immoral and possibly criminal to do that... what makes it elitist is when you distinguish yourself as a better person for not having this disadvantage, and a such think you deserve better... this doesn&#39;t mean you have to get better, but elitism can be a THINKING procedure alone, and it is a procedure of thought LONG before it has to be procedure of action.


What? What is this guff? I&#39;m sorry -- you not only do not appear to understand marxism, communism and history -- you don&#39;t even appear to understand basic practical politix. The peasantry are not some "pose" or "fashion statement". They are real people -- citizens -- who need to be factored into the equation. THEY are going to do something, no matter what YOU decide. But at least the "Peasant Question" is a moot point in the West now. And I think this is going to be the end of this thread very soon. I&#39;m not going to go down this road where your ego appears to be more important than developing understanding.

Apparently it is YOU who doesn&#39;t understnad Marx. While I agree that they are real people and need to be factored in, they are not part of the revolution, nor do they have to be. Yes, they ARE going to do something, and as Marx points out they are going to do something inherently reactionary, as the peasants ARE reactionary.

You then go on to only prove my point on why the peasantry WILL NOT matter to a proletariat revolution. There is no "peasant question" in Marxism. There was a "peasant question" in Leninism because Leninism was not Marxism, nor did it adhere to what Marxism outlines, which is the progression from capitalism to communism. Once again, we&#39;ve discussed this in various threads before, but to keep it short, capitalism takes care of the "peasant question," it does so by incorporating the majority of the peasants under say, feudal socities, into the working class. This is precisely why the proletariat is a majority and not the peasantry, furthermore Marx points out the capitalist progression, he explains how it not only creates the proletariat as a majority but it also industrializes nations.... this is why communism is a natural progression from capitalism, not feudalism.

It has nothing to do with ego... it has very simply to do with the fact that it is a proletariat revolution, NOT a peasant revolution. If you want a peasant revolution go back to the 16th and 17th century.


This is pure garbage. I can&#39;t and won&#39;t touch this distortion of how the Bolsheviki and other communists workerd/work. Your piece started off communist, but you&#39;re sounding like a libertarian anarchist here. And frankly I don&#39;t care to find out which you are.

Here I am being labeled an Anarchist again by, yep, you guessed it, a Leninist.


My pocket analysis? You don&#39;t understand a damned thing about materialist dialectix -- nor do you care to find out.

As Redstar2000 would say, "here you go waving the magical dialectic wand again."


No -- I made it clear that I was stopping at the first big problem I noticed in your one piece. Apparently there is a bigger, meta-problem here, with the author. What you have done to fight "crudity" doesn&#39;t really interest me now. I think I&#39;m finished with this thread.

Well maybe you should stop criticizing my ideology if you&#39;re unable to even hear it out.