Constant Revolution and the Vanguard

[Le People]

Constant revolution is the theory that in order for a government to function, there must be constant changes, and the vanguard party is the party that leads the workers. In every instant of proletairn revolution, the revolutionary government became corrupt. So why don't we mix the two theroies? Look, where ever their is absolute political power, there will always be some force of corrpution. (example: Stalin) So in order to counter this, there must be constant leadership and policy change. We must look at this like a ball, the party will not move until there is an out side force to move it. We must have multiple parties. The people can listen to many views and in prolitarian democracy, truly express their own. This will cause the party to change in order to listen to the people, because there will be a theart of loss. If the party is of the people, it will never lose.

[Paradox]

So in order to counter this, there must be constant leadership and policy change.

Decentralized control would be better in my opinion. As far as leadership, anyone in a "power" position should be rotated out frequently, yes. I see the Zapatista model as promising in this regard. Their communities are run by councils which constantly rotate people out and bring new people in from the communities so that as many people as possible know what is going on, how decisions are made, and participate in the decision making progress. For more on this read my article "Todos Somos Marcos" by clicking the link to my blog in my signature.


We must look at this like a ball, the party will not move until there is an out side force to move it. We must have multiple parties. The people can listen to many views and in prolitarian democracy, truly express their own.

This is where I see some complications. I don't see the need for such parties. Yes the people need to be organized, but I don't think a vanguard is necessary. And I don't think they need to listen to the views of "other parties" if those parties are "made up from the people." If the parties are the people, then why not get rid of the parties and just have the people discuss and decide matters on their own?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 7 2005, 10:02 PM
Constant revolution is the theory that in order for a government to function, there must be constant changes, and the vanguard party is the party that leads the workers. In every instant of proletairn revolution, the revolutionary government became corrupt. So why don't we mix the two theroies? Look, where ever their is absolute political power, there will always be some force of corrpution. (example: Stalin) So in order to counter this, there must be constant leadership and policy change. We must look at this like a ball, the party will not move until there is an out side force to move it. We must have multiple parties. The people can listen to many views and in prolitarian democracy, truly express their own. This will cause the party to change in order to listen to the people, because there will be a theart of loss. If the party is of the people, it will never lose.
hmmm, if theres always corruption in vanguard leadership, then is it not logical to just eliminate the vanguard. elminate government too.

[Paradox]

hmmm, if theres always corruption in vanguard leadership, then is it not logical to just eliminate the vanguard.

Indeed.


elminate government too.

I'm sorry? And how will decisions be made and carried out? You mean eliminate the state. Government will exist... but it will be the people governing themselves.

[Clarksist]

We must have multiple parties.


You've eliminated the vanguard. Thus, there is just permanent revolution, and you have no vanguard.

The idea of the one "party" basically gets so that you have only one "party chariman". I.E. its just a euphemism for DICTATOR.

The vanguard is a very underhanded attempt for complete rule for someone. And that shouldn't be tolerated.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:49 PM



elminate government too.

I'm sorry? And how will decisions be made and carried out? You mean eliminate the state. Government will exist... but it will be the people governing themselves.
by government i was referring to the state.

[Decolonize The Left]

In my opinion:
From what I have read here, the Vanguard is a terrible idea that will only result in corruption and then oppression.

As for the government, it most certainly should be rotated or changed as too minimize a consolidation of power over time, and therefore eliminates lasting interests which will results in greed.

This ever-changing government should further be broken down by region, as that is where resources and homes are found, and these regions should govern themeselves with a larger assembly to decide on matters which affect everyone.

Paradox: you make an interesting point which I agree with, the fact that the people should make decisions for themselves, without party affiliation. I think this is correct, but I must point out that people with similar interests will most certainly try and consolodate their interests with others, thereby forming parties, perhaps merely without the name.

Clarxist: I don't understand your point. What constant revolution? With no state, there is nothing to revolt against, if you make your own decisions, you have but yourself to blame. Refer to my point above on the notion of the vanguard, I think we agree.

-- August

[Donnie]

The revolution should be carried out through local and regional organisation’s that are federated into one organisation. The organisation must consist of workers and peasants and it must be directed by them not by a leader or government. Only until anarchist communism is achieved will the federal organisation become looser and eventually disappear.

[Forward Union]

Government will exist... but it will be the people governing themselves.

That's not goverment then, because if everyone is a member of the goverment, the term becomes obsolete.

[Paradox]

That's not goverment then, because if everyone is a member of the goverment, the term becomes obsolete.

They are making decisions as to what should be carried out, what should be produced, etc., etc.. That's governing. It's direct democracy. The state becomes obsolete.

[Le People]

You know, the vanguard is the party in which the wishes of the people can be materilized. In the direct democracy arguement, I believe it's great, yet if their is no form of punishment for breaking of laws, it will never happen. Please, tell me, is there a police force?

[Paradox]

In the direct democracy arguement, I believe it's great, yet if their is no form of punishment for breaking of laws, it will never happen. Please, tell me, is there a police force?

What the hell??? What are you talking about building here? Some kind of "Socialist" state, or Communism?


You know, the vanguard is the party in which the wishes of the people can be materilized.

Yeah, I know that's what they say. I just don't see the necessity for it. :P

[Le People]

You your self said government will never be abolished! So tell me, will there be a police force!?! I may be an idot, but not your average one! :lol:

[Paradox]

You your self said government will never be abolished! So tell me, will there be a police force!?! I may be an idot, but not your average one!

Just because there is government (direct democracy), does not mean there will be police. The police are a tool of the state, and it is the state that will be abolished.

Rehabilitation should be the response to "crimes" involving drugs, and I don't see a problem with theft as why the hell would one steal when they can take freely from what is produced? I also don't think murder would be much of a problem, except for crimes of "passion." Still, I hardly think that constitutes a "need" for police or prisons.

EDIT: What makes you think you are an idiot? No one has called you that, that I have seen, and I don't intend to either, so why do you think that? It's a debate. We're bound to have disagreements, but no need to feel you are "stupid." Unless it was just a joke. If so, ignore this edit.

[Decolonize The Left]

The vanguard should not be instituted. Vanguard purely wishes to 'make men into machines'.

As for a police force of some other type, I agree with Paradox and think he put it well:


Rehabilitation should be the response to "crimes" involving drugs, and I don't see a problem with theft as why the hell would one steal when they can take freely from what is produced? I also don't think murder would be much of a problem, except for crimes of "passion." Still, I hardly think that constitutes a "need" for police or prisons.

-- August

[Le People]

I do believe that stealing, crimes for profit and that type of thing will be abolished, but how does rehabilitation work? Obviouslu there are some form of laws, so it must be enforced for rehabilitaion. Does a worker's militia take an enforceing task? I hardly think they can be called a state?

[Paradox]

but how does rehabilitation work? Obviously there are some form of laws, so it must be enforced for rehabilitation. Does a worker's militia take an enforceing task? I hardly think they can be called a state?

I'd think if someone had drug related problems, their family and friends would talk to them, tell them how important rehabilitation is, you know, pressure them to get treatment. I don't think they'd have to be forced to do it by some militia.

A workers' militia is more a means of defending the revolution against reactionary attacks. I don't see it being used against the workers themselves in cases such as the rehabilitation of people with drug or alcohol problems. I think if it were used in that way, it would run the risk of becoming a "police force."