Death to Vanguardism!

[lovebombanarchy]

I'm sick and tired of vanguardists claiming to be part of the left movement! If you think that socialism can be created by an elitist, anti-democratic organization, then you're quite simply a totalitarian who knows nothing about history. People need to do away with their historical illusions about the crimes of vanguardist "socialism": it is nearly as bad a fascism and led to tens of millions of deaths... see:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/museum1.cgi for more info on that.

Furthermore, there is no way that an anti-democratic, authoritarian organization could even create socialism!

"

The traditional antithesis of capitalism, Marxist socialism, has not proved effective in creating a better world. Many socialist movements struggling against capitalist hierarchy during the 20th Century ended up not abolishing hierarchy, but only creating new autocratic systems, as the industrial elite were replaced by economic planners, party leaders, and bureaucrats who had direct control over the allocation of the state’s wealth and thus were able to expropriate capital from laborers and peasants, just as the industrial mangers, feudal lords, and slave holders had done before them.

These vanguard Marxist movements failed primarily because of their intrinsic authoritarian nature. They generally assumed that material wealth was the basic source of social power, and the focal point of all class contention, but did not recognize that the root cause of economic inequality is power inequality. While it is quite obvious that human history has been comprised substantially of struggles over the resources essential for subsistence and prosperity, these resources cannot be consolidated by a minority unless the minority posses consolidated power in other realms of human life—particularly the military and ideological spheres. Authoritarian Marxists may have designed their programs to temporarily eliminate material inequality, but failed to realize that such inequality was created by authoritarian social structures, such as the very structures they were attempting to create or take control of.

There is no room for vanguadists of any kind in the anticapitalist movements of the 21st Century. The idea that a morally pure vanguard elite could take over the bastions of ideological, military, and political power and use these tools autocratically to advance the interest of their society as a whole is outrageous and absurd. No vanguard takeover will ever be able to address the fundamental injustices present in other hierarchical systems. The problem is not that absolute power is concentrated in the hands of the wrong group of elites; the problem is that power is centralized at all. Any group that consolidates absolute power will always abuse its privileges and exploit its subjects, as is obvious to anyone familiar with the “benign” dictatorships of history. The only free society is one in which all people are equally empowered to defend and advance their own self interest, their own material needs.

There is a fundamental philosophical flaw in both authoritarian Marxism and liberal capitalism; namely, both fail to understand that all people in a society cannot be equal unless they are all free from oppression, and that all people in a society cannot be free from oppression as long as there is material inequality and a hierarchical distribution of the tools of power. Freedom, for the purpose of this essay, will be defined as “the capacity to exercise the widest potential range of action without forceful physical restraint,” thus encompassing both positive freedom—freedom from material need—and negative freedom—freedom from violent human coercion. Social equality will be defined as “a state at which all members of a population have equal opportunity to enhance their own wellbeing,” not necessarily a state in which all members of a population experience material equality.

Social inequality—that is, arbitrarily enforced inequality of opportunity among people of different classes, as opposed to a natural inequality of ability—can be sustained only by oppression and coercion; so, any socio-political system which exhibits inequality is not free, if one sector of the population is more or less subject to institutional oppression as a consequence of exercising their own autonomy. Similarly, a socio-political system has not truly achieved equality among its citizens if power is highly centralized and its institutions can act coercively. Therefore, it would be a mistake to say that equality could ever be realized under a Stalinist regime in which an elite group of economic planners, party leaders, and bureaucrats wield absolute economic, military, and political power over the rest of society; or that freedom could ever be realized in a liberal capitalist country where those at the top of the hierarchy have more opportunity than those at the bottom and relatively greater license to exercise their autonomy.

For an example of the inequality of freedom present in a liberal capitalist society, consider the penal systems in these countries which are designed to severely punish members of the working class for petty theft or a single case of homicide, while members of the capitalist class are rewarded for expropriation that, in principle, is identical to working class theft, and will never be held accountable for the thousands of deaths their actions indirectly cause. The social apparatuses in these societies are designed to arbitrarily restrict the freedom of some and enhance the freedoms of others based upon their position in the economic hierarchy. Such a society, in which varying degrees of liberty exist, is not in the least bit freer than any feudal, monarchist, or otherwise dictatorial society; in every case, those at the top of the social system have always had complete freedom to act, while those at the bottom were subject to repression and coercion, and were often severely punished for acting on their own autonomy.

So, for a socio-political structure to truly realize the ideals of equality or liberty, it cannot only be only socialist, and it cannot only be libertarian; it must be libertarian-socialist, or Anarchist. In such a society, freedom would not be a commodity to be purchased, but would be inalienable for all citizens.

What exactly is Anarchism? Anarchism is commonly associated with terrorism, chaos, and irrationality, among other unpopular things, not because these things have anything to do with Anarchist ideology, but because Anarchism is a real threat to the class of people that holds ideological power in the world, and the easiest way to combat a threatening idea is to slander the idea and its proponents, to marginalize it in public discourse. Anarchy is, in reality, the safest, most rational, and least violent political system that has ever been conceived of; it is simply the union of free individuals against oppression and for the perpetuation of freedom in their society. Anarchists seek to abolish all hierarchical and coercive institutions, because these institutions diminish freedom and perpetuate economic inequality and violence, and to create a new, decentralized society in which every person has power over his or her own life.

"

If we really want to create socialism, we need to do away with all elitist strands in "socialist" thought, particullarly the Maoist/Stalinist strands.

[Stonewall]

I happen to believe a Vanguard of the working class could possibly yield results. However, history has shown that the models tried were not only not effective, they later become the primary enemies of Socialism. One must be willing to recognize that the “hangovers” of capitalism will remain after a revolution and those hangovers include racism, sexism, homophobia, religion, greed and corruption. As we’re products of our environment, capitalism has left an imprint on our minds and many of capitalism’s components are in each of us. The Vanguard, to be effective, would have to be highly open to the public, supportive of internal debate and discussion and open to Unorthodox points of view.

That said, I’m a Social Democrat and support transformation in the system through campaigning and winning elections + demonstrations/protests/mass strikes/etc. I’m highly libertarian and believe in decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, preserving a woman’s right to reproductive health care, turning Affirmative Action into a class based model, legalizing prostitution and gambling, removing the drinking and smoking age. In the political arena, I’d like to see Proportional Representation, strict campaign financing limits, public financing of campaigns, the abolishment of the Electoral College, appointment of Supreme Court Justices by newly established Parliament [no more Congress, a one chamber Parliament], a new Constitution that’s comprehensive and defines Social, Economic & Political rights, a reduction in the voting age to 16, equal air time for all candidates, etc.

[ComradeOm]

And people call us Leninists dogmatic and sectarian

Here we have another anarchist who doesn’t like authority and has reached the conclusion that the Soviet Union was bad. Shock horror :o

I’ll tell you what, why don’t you point out a few anarchist revolutions and we can go over why they failed. Just for a change. Or maybe you can explain what you would've done in Lenin's shoes? Apart from waiting patiently of course.

And if you want to back your point up with figures then please don’t link to an anti-communist site. It’s a credibility issue. Unless you really believe that "It would be a great tragedy if Communism disappeared from the earth without leaving behind an indelible memory of its horrors. Communism was not essentially about espionage, or power politics, or irreligion. Rather it was a grand theoretical synthesis of totalitarianism... a theory which millions of people experienced as the practice of murder and slavery." Bryan Caplan of the Museum of Communism (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm)

[lovebombanarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:11 AM
And people call us Leninists dogmatic and sectarian

Here we have another anarchist who doesn’t like authority and has reached the conclusion that the Soviet Union was bad. Shock horror :o

I’ll tell you what, why don’t you point out a few anarchist revolutions and we can go over why they failed. Just for a change. Or maybe you can explain what you would've done in Lenin's shoes? Apart from waiting patiently of course.

And if you want to back your point up with figures then please don’t link to an anti-communist site. It’s a credibility issue. Unless you really believe that "It would be a great tragedy if Communism disappeared from the earth without leaving behind an indelible memory of its horrors. Communism was not essentially about espionage, or power politics, or irreligion. Rather it was a grand theoretical synthesis of totalitarianism... a theory which millions of people experienced as the practice of murder and slavery." Bryan Caplan of the Museum of Communism (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm)
Obviously, the website is using the term Communist to refer to the anti-democratic elitists who called themselves Communist like Mao, Stalin, etc...not the actual communist system, which (even Marx, Lenin, et al agree) is inherently anarchist. I'm sorry, but you vanguardists need to come to terms with the fact that your system indesputably led to more deaths than Nazism during the last century. Why should we give it another chance?

As I said in the article, there is no such thing as libertarian capitalism or authoritarian socialism, the only way for a society to be free of equal is for it to be both...

but, to why Anarchism has not worked in the past... it's mostly because of vanguard leftists... The Russian Revolution--for example--was on course to creating a libertarian socialist society before the Bolshevik coup...see Daniel Gurrien's Anarchism: From theory to practice for more on that.


and no, I'm not trying to be sectarian, I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that equality can be established through dictatorship.

[Correa]

Who said a communist revolution MUST include a vanguard? Explain how Anarchism would be better than Communism then? :rolleyes:

[Black Dagger]

I'm sorry, but you vanguardists need to come to terms with the fact that your system indesputably led to more deaths than Nazism during the last century. Why should we give it another chance?

What are you basing this assertion (in terms of # of deaths) on?


Who said a communist revolution MUST include a vanguard?

Traditionally, Marxist-Leninists, as per the example of the Bolsheviks.



Explain how Anarchism would be better than Communism then?

This question is irrelevant, they are both stateless classless societies.

[anomaly]

I agree with the original author...who needs a vanguard?

Do you Leninists really believe that the proletarians are so incompetent as to need representation? I.e., do you really believe they can't do it themselves? And with this 'vanguard', the stated goal of Leninists, to reach communism, is further burdened, as the very existence of a 'vanguard' creates inequality, as the vanguard becomes an elite.

In thinking of this 'vanguard', we must remember one of history's greatest truths: those who obtain power want to sustain this power. This eliminates the possibility of communism if we stick with this nonsense of a 'vanguard' to 'lead' the working class. Unfortunately, when the working class wishes to rid itself of the 'vanguard', it will not be able to.

No,w this also can apply to the idea of 'socialism'. In socialism, we still have wage labor, we still have inequality, and we still have a State. Given such conditions, and the 'power principle', does anyone really believe that it will just magically turn to communism, that those with power will one day simply decide to relinquish it? Of course not.

[Stonewall]

Not necessarily true, if the Vanguard were to establish a Parliamentary Democracy following a revolution. This wouldn’t have the be “democratic” in the traditional since, it could simply involve term restrictions and any member from the Vanguard being able to run in a competitive campaign. Having term restrictions and open campaigning would prevent a single individual from capturing excessive authority and competitive campaigns would give voters a choice, though it would be strictly a socialist choice [one socialist vs. the competing socialist].

Lenin’s “Vanguard” wouldn’t have worked under the most benefiting of circumstances, as it allowed for too much control to be centralized in the hands of the few and created a bureaucratic class that replaced the bourgeoisie. However, the mistakes of the past don’t mean a Vanguard couldn’t work if constructed and structured properly.

[our_mutual_friend]

Would someone like to explain to me what vanguardism is as I havent come across it before and am pretty new to this
Thanks!

[TheComrade]

Vanguardism is a political strategy whereby someone/thing/party puts themselves at the heart of politics in order to steer a movement in a way that suits them and their ideology. They sieze state power and use it to reshape society - very authoritarian. An obvious example is the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

If you think that socialism can be created by an elitist, anti-democratic organization, then you're quite simply a totalitarian who knows nothing about history.

I completely agree.

But you are mistaken in the view that the vanguard is "elitist" and "anti-democratic", first of all; the vanguard is made by and for the proletariat, what people like you don't seem to grasp is that without the proletariat there can be no successful vanguard.

Secondly; if the proletariat is made by and for the proletariat, how can it be anti-democratic? Sure, this can be the case in a nation in which the proletariat is not the majority, like Russia for example, but in the end that "myth" was also destroyed, since the majority of peasants also supported them.

So the only argument you have is that the vanguard was able to "take over" a nation without the support of the majority, most pro-Capitalists hold that view.


People need to do away with their historical illusions about the crimes of vanguardist "socialism": it is nearly as bad a fascism and led to tens of millions of deaths... see:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/museum1.cgi for more info on that.


Solzhenitsyn (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node118.html#SECTION001034400000000000000)


Furthermore, there is no way that an anti-democratic, authoritarian organization could even create socialism!


They came the closest to "creating" Socialism. Instead of pissing on the entire theory like you we Marxists analyze history and learn from our mistakes, and make sure it doesn't happen again.

The rest of your post was too long and boring to even read.


Who said a communist revolution MUST include a vanguard?

Lenin; "The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness".


I agree with the original author...who needs a vanguard?

The proletariat.


Do you Leninists really believe that the proletarians are so incompetent as to need representation? I.e., do you really believe they can't do it themselves?

Yes, as Lenin said, the history of all countries shows this.


In thinking of this 'vanguard', we must remember one of history's greatest truths: those who obtain power want to sustain this power.

Yes, including the proletarian vanguard.

[our_mutual_friend]

So is that a political branch that became part of the Bolsheviks and Communism that has been twisted to people's own ideals? And how is that supposed to have anything to do with Communism except for corruption??

[Led Zeppelin]

Vanguard & Mass

In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass. On one side, the vanguard, are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organised and able to take a leading role in the struggle, and on the other side, the mass, are larger numbers of people who participate in the struggle or are involved simply by their social position, but are less committed or well-placed in relation to the struggle, and will participate only in the decisive moments, which in fact change history.

The Marxist theory of the vanguard, in relation to class struggle under capitalism, stipulates that the working class, the mass, needs to be militantly lead through revolutionary struggle against capitalism and in the building of Socialism. The Communist vanguard is theoretically made up of the forefront of workers who are engaged in direct struggles against the capitalist state, and who occupy an advanced position in constructively and creatively building the socalist movement.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard

[our_mutual_friend]

The theory of Communist Vanguardism appears to be very noble in the manner in whihc they are willing to put themselves forward to strugle for what they believe in. But TheComrade wrote about it reshaping society in their ideals. That cannot be good, not for the rest of the party, that is.

[kurt]

But you are mistaken in the view that the vanguard is "elitist" and "anti-democratic", first of all; the vanguard is made by and for the proletariat, what people like you don't seem to grasp is that without the proletariat there can be no successful vanguard.
A vanguard party over time develops it's own hierarchy, and this results in an "elitist" mentality. They look at workers without "class conscious" in contempt, and think that they are fit to make decisions for these "ignorant workers".


Secondly; if the proletariat is made by and for the proletariat, how can it be anti-democratic? Sure, this can be the case in a nation in which the proletariat is not the majority, like Russia for example, but in the end that "myth" was also destroyed, since the majority of peasants also supported them.
The vanguard is not made for and by the proletariat, that's the problem! Workers who aren't party cadre are looked at with contempt. They couldn't "handle" ruling themselves. We've seen what happens when the proletariat go on strike when a vanguard party has state power. It wasn't pretty.


They came the closest to "creating" Socialism.
Yea, they did. Too bad socialism sucks! It's simply another form of class society, with the same police, army, and a new ruling class. The "worker" has no power in your vanguardist "socialism".


Instead of pissing on the entire theory like you we Marxists analyze history and learn from our mistakes, and make sure it doesn't happen again.
When the theory has failed repeatidly, it's time to dismiss it, and try something new. Why should we put our "faith" in another vanguard party. We've seen what happens when we do that. Why should we "trust" that you won't let "revisionists" take over the party again?


Lenin; "The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness".
Of course someone who leads a vanguard party is going to say that. He'll say anything to justify ruling over the workers. Despots say anything to justify their rule.


Do you Leninists really believe that the proletarians are so incompetent as to need representation? I.e., do you really believe they can't do it themselves?

Yes, as Lenin said, the history of all countries shows this.

I contend that Lenin was wrong on this issue. The workers have, at times, shown that they have the potential and are indeed "fit to rule" themselves.

Either way, we really get down to the core of your ideology with this little tidbit. You believe proletarians are "incompetent". They need someone "better" to rule for them. Why don't you guys just come out and say it flat out? Everyone else knows this is what you're all about anyways.



In thinking of this 'vanguard', we must remember one of history's greatest truths: those who obtain power want to sustain this power.Yes, including the proletarian vanguard.
:D
Yes, the vanguard has on many occasions demonstrated this tenet of their ideology. When the material conditions are in your favour, why would you give up your power, right?

[ComradeOm]

Obviously, the website is using the term Communist to refer to the anti-democratic elitists who called themselves Communist like Mao, Stalin, etc...not the actual communist system, which (even Marx, Lenin, et al agree) is inherently anarchist. I'm sorry, but you vanguardists need to come to terms with the fact that your system indesputably led to more deaths than Nazism during the last century. Why should we give it another chance?
The author of the website didn’t have a clue of just what communism is. Or do I really have to point out that the term “communist state” is an oxymoron? This is just another site that slanders the Left.

Have there been any vanguard successes stories? If there were we’d have socialism by now. But Leninists have consistently proven to be the only segment of the left capable of even staging revolutions. Even those great bastardisations of Lenin’s theories, Stalinism and Maoism, have done far more to improve the lot of the proletariat than any capitalist stat could have.

But you would rather that we throw out a century of learning and go back to what we knew and practiced at the start of the previous century. Fine, I’ll abandon Leninism and return to democratic socialism as long as you anarchists go back to killing and blowing up who ever takes your fancy.


As I said in the article, there is no such thing as libertarian capitalism or authoritarian socialism, the only way for a society to be free of equal is for it to be both...
And that’s why you’re an anarchist. Personally I believe that a little thing called the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to make it to communism. Not that Soviet Russia was socialist.


but, to why Anarchism has not worked in the past... it's mostly because of vanguard leftists... The Russian Revolution--for example--was on course to creating a libertarian socialist society before the Bolshevik coup...see Daniel Gurrien's Anarchism: From theory to practice for more on that.
Of course… its all the fault of the big bad Bolsheviks. The reason that no other ideology has produced a revolution of note in the past century is that they believe that the material conditions must be perfect. Lenin rejected sitting around and waiting for those conditions to change. Instead he set about guiding what little proletariat there was to create their own conditions. Men make their own history.

And if you believe that Kerensky was creating a “libertarian socialist society”… well that’s simply ridiculous. The February Revolution was bourgeois through and through. Unless you really believe that there’s room for a monarch and capitalists in socialist society? While we’re on the subject I might as well note that Kerensky failed in that simple task. The Imperial army’s Democratic Offensive failed miserably and Kerensky was too much the puppet of the West to make peace. Meanwhile the Tsarist state was simply rotting away, if Lenin hadn’t seized power someone else would have. Either that or Russia would’ve simply imploded.


and no, I'm not trying to be sectarian, I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that equality can be established through dictatorship.
I try and restrain myself from continually pointing out the flaws in anarchism. Partly because I’d never stop but mostly because I respect the intelligence of most anarchists. They know where Leninists stand on their theories and I know where they stand on mine.



The theory of Communist Vanguardism appears to be very noble in the manner in whihc they are willing to put themselves forward to strugle for what they believe in. But TheComrade wrote about it reshaping society in their ideals. That cannot be good, not for the rest of the party, that is.
Naturally there are a few flaws to the vanguard theory, or rather vanguard practice. The fact that it hasn’t worked to date is an obvious one. But it remains the only possible way to force a socialist state without enduring at least another century of capitalism. If people put half the effort into solving its problems as they do deriding it we could’ve made some progress of fixing those flaws.

[Led Zeppelin]

A vanguard party over time develops it's own hierarchy, and this results in an "elitist" mentality. They look at workers without "class conscious" in contempt, and think that they are fit to make decisions for these "ignorant workers".


That's because they are "fit to make decisions", unless of course if you are saying that non-class conscious workers can "decide for themselves", in that case we all know what they will choose; Capitalism.


The vanguard is not made for and by the proletariat, that's the problem!

Yes it is, without the proletariat a Communist vanguard cannot be "successful", it's that simple.


Workers who aren't party cadre are looked at with contempt.

No they're not, the majority of workers were not party cadre pre-revolution, if they were looked at with contempt they wouldn't have supported the party.


We've seen what happens when the proletariat go on strike when a vanguard party has state power. It wasn't pretty.


Actually there were hardly ever strikes in such states.


Yea, they did. Too bad socialism sucks!

Wow, you got me there, it "sucks".


It's simply another form of class society, with the same police, army, and a new ruling class.

Yes, the new ruling class is called the proletariat.


The "worker" has no power in your vanguardist "socialism".


Why did you place the word worker in between quotation marks?

Anyway, the workers did have "power" in Socialist Russia, since the vanguard of the workers had state power.


When the theory has failed repeatidly, it's time to dismiss it, and try something new.

Then we should also "give up" on Anarchism.


Why should we put our "faith" in another vanguard party.

Because it's the only realistic road to successful Socialist revolution.


Why should we "trust" that you won't let "revisionists" take over the party again?

Because real democracy will be enacted after the material conditions for Socialism are attained.


Of course someone who leads a vanguard party is going to say that. He'll say anything to justify ruling over the workers. Despots say anything to justify their rule.


No, he said that because it's true, you can deny historical reality if you want, that's what Anarchists usually do.


I contend that Lenin was wrong on this issue. The workers have, at times, shown that they have the potential and are indeed "fit to rule" themselves.

No they haven't, at least not in the way you are talking about "self rule".

The workers rule themselve via the proletarian vanguard.


Either way, we really get down to the core of your ideology with this little tidbit. You believe proletarians are "incompetent". They need someone "better" to rule for them. Why don't you guys just come out and say it flat out? Everyone else knows this is what you're all about anyways.


Non-class conscious workers are not fit to "rule themselves", they don't even know they exist as a class!

[lovebombanarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:54 AM
Not necessarily true, if the Vanguard were to establish a Parliamentary Democracy following a revolution. This wouldn’t have the be “democratic” in the traditional since, it could simply involve term restrictions and any member from the Vanguard being able to run in a competitive campaign. Having term restrictions and open campaigning would prevent a single individual from capturing excessive authority and competitive campaigns would give voters a choice, though it would be strictly a socialist choice [one socialist vs. the competing socialist].

Lenin’s “Vanguard” wouldn’t have worked under the most benefiting of circumstances, as it allowed for too much control to be centralized in the hands of the few and created a bureaucratic class that replaced the bourgeoisie. However, the mistakes of the past don’t mean a Vanguard couldn’t work if constructed and structured properly.
If a vanguard doesn't have mass support before its coup, then how is it going to have enough support to win elections? And again, why is someone in power going to want to relenquish it?

Why not build up mass anti-capitalist support before attempting to take/destroy power? You also have to realize that vanguardism is necessarily rooted in violence, while democratic revolution isn't. I believe that anarchism/communism could be established without a single bullet being fired, because state-capitalism cannot survive without the support of its victims. What if all the proletarians in the army and police stopped fighting for the rich? What if all proletarians stopped going to work to make money for their bosses? The system would crumble with a minimum of blood-shed, because you can be sure that the 1 % of people who actually do benefit from capitalism aren't going to take up guns to fight the 99% of people who don't.

[lovebombanarchy]

Just a question to every Leninist who claims that because anarchist-communism (also known as "communism") has not been acheived it is a failure...

which is more of a historical failure? Taking power and establishing totalitarian states, and murdering millions of people.... as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other Maxist-Leninists did... or not taking/abolishing power at all (not for lack of will, but for lack of influence) except for a few instances such as Revolutionary Spain, as the Anarchists did? your road to communism has been tried,and it indisputably failed. our road has not been tried.

i think we need to give it a shot

[ComradeRed]

Yes it is, without the proletariat a Communist vanguard cannot be "successful", it's that simple. Yes, I agree totally. What a stupid thought to say the Vanguard in China or in Russia didn't succeed because the proletarian weren't an integral part.

Afterall, in both cases, it wasn't the proletariat who helped; it was the reactionary peasentry.

"But this is the majority of the country during those dark times!"

Yeah, that was their material conditions! Thus they were to become capitalists!

Guess what: they did!

Or Marx was wrong with historical materialism, and Lenin was right with the vanguard. But it doesn't seem so; Lenin wrote as a bourgeois revolutionary. He was trying to get Russia to become a capitalism (albeit state capitalism).

Marx wrote in a capitalism and sought it to be overthrown.

Lenin was just a tool of the material conditions he was in. He was a tool of the capitalists.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:11 AM


I’ll tell you what, why don’t you point out a few anarchist revolutions and we can go over why they failed.
What is the point. Why support something you do not belive in because what you believe in has failed in the past? If everyone thought this way the human race would still be living in caves. Try and try again. Keep the dream alive. It may not happen in your life time but your childens or grandchildrens. Learn from others failures and keep going in the right direction. Humanity has got to break the chains of rule by the elite regardless of what the elite may call themselves.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+Nov 20 2005, 05:38 PM--> (Atlas Swallowed @ Nov 20 2005, 05:38 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 02:11 AM


I’ll tell you what, why don’t you point out a few anarchist revolutions and we can go over why they failed.
What is the point. Why support something you do not belive in because what you believe in has failed in the past? If everyone thought this way the human race would still be living in caves. Try and try again. Keep the dream alive. It may not happen in your life time but your childens or grandchildrens. Learn from others failures and keep going in the right direction. Humanity has got to break the chains of rule by the elite regardless of what the elite may call themselves. [/b]
My point there was actually to do with the lack of such revolutions.

Though I fully agree with your point. Humanity progresses by trying something, adapting it when it fails and trying again. Hence the madness behind simply disregarding Lenin and his theories because they have not yet succeeded. Adapt and try again.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

I find it strange that many so called "communists" (who I would call Left anticommunists) keep referring to the big bad reds who want power for power's sake. In every "totalitarian" "authoritarian" regime , in country after country worldwide these reds take the side of the poor and powerless with great risk to themselves, rather than sticking with the well-placed and getting the rewards.

Why does nobody have anything positive to say about any communist society? People keep going on about power-hungry Leninists seeking pwer, not the means to fight injustice. This view of "pure socialism" is ahistorical and has nothing to back it up. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality. People like this have no better solution of their own about how the society would funciotn. Hence why they support every revolution except the ones that actually succeed

What's witht this vanguard/leadership bashing?

[celticfire]

Comrade Yastrebkov I agree with you comrade.

I think a lot of you anarchists spend too much time b*tching about us that you could be concentrating on our similiarities and working together with us to build a classless society.

Another problem as I see it, is that every conflict between us is a victory for the bourgeoisie!

We can disagree and argue, but I honestly wouldn't want to be a part of any socialism that didn't have a place for radical anarchists ... and I am a Maoist! ;)

[FreePalestine-SmashIsrael]

someone care to rid ourselves of this idealist dribble?

[TheLiberal]

It would appear to me that vanguardism is somewhat inevitable in the context of a revolution and yet is inherently undesirable. The interests of an organisation or person are often very different from the interests of the majority; this has been the case throughout history with the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell, the French Revolution and Napoleon and countless others in the 20th Century. You could say that another example is the Labour Party and Tony Blair.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:32 PM
It would appear to me that vanguardism is somewhat inevitable in the context of a revolution and yet is inherently undesirable. The interests of an organisation or person are often very different from the interests of the majority; this has been the case throughout history with the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell, the French Revolution and Napoleon and countless others in the 20th Century. You could say that another example is the Labour Party and Tony Blair.


It may be inevitable in third world countries, where the conditions for communism don't exist. But when it comes to the first world, the only place where communism is possible, it remains to be seen.

[Mr Brightside]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:45 PM
If a vanguard doesn't have mass support before its coup, then how is it going to have enough support to win elections?

Why not build up mass anti-capitalist support before attempting to take/destroy power?
I agree with the view that class conciousness and political ideas such as anarchism/communism should be introduced to the proletariat before and throughout any revolution. The idea of a minority of politically aware individuals leading the proletariat is more like a fascist strategy. If the proletariat are aware of, or made aware of, the system that is in place and the alternatives that exist than as the movement grows and awareness spreads then the revolution will not need guidance from an elite. A rising of millions of workers who are aware of what they are fighting against and for, will en masse will rid themsleves of corrupt leaders with ease and little or no blood spilled during the revolution.

:)

[anomaly]

The vanguard are leaders, representers, of the proletariat. And Leninsists constantly make the point that the proletariat somehow need this leadership, the proletariat can't change things themselves. But in truth, historically, the vanguard has had little worker involvement, and has thus sought its own interests, not those of the working class. The state gains power in these wonderful Leninist regimes, and this state is not ruled by workers but rather the vanguard. And like I said, once a group gains power, they do not want rid of it. The realization that the proletariat and the vanguard are inevitably separate entities should disillusion most any Leninist, but of course this will not happen. Leninists seem to hold their faith in the vanguard idea, they say that 'things will be different this time'. Might it be of use to note that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it? Perhaps this little truth will rid the left of more Leninist disappointment in the future.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by The original post
"They generally assumed that material wealth was the basic source of social power, and the focal point of all class contention, but did not recognize that the root cause of economic inequality is power inequality . . ."

While I'm not a Marxist-Lenninist, and strongly oppose the way their idea of leadership has historically manifested itself, I have to take issue with this quote in particular from the original post.
"Power inequality" is abstract - it describes the conditions caused by other, active, concrete factors*. As long as anarchist conceptions of revolution and society (and I think the anglo-North American anarchist movement is particularly guilty of this) are rooted in the simple idealism of opposition to "power" they will remain marginal incapable of providing meaningful leadership for the working class.

*Economic factors are certainly among these, but the class stuggle can not be reduced simply to "the economy". While there are Marxists, doubtless, guilty of economism, this is a dangerous oversimplification when talking about Marxism as a whole.

[lovebombanarchy]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+Nov 21 2005, 06:53 AM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ Nov 21 2005, 06:53 AM)
The original post
"They generally assumed that material wealth was the basic source of social power, and the focal point of all class contention, but did not recognize that the root cause of economic inequality is power inequality . . ."

While I'm not a Marxist-Lenninist, and strongly oppose the way their idea of leadership has historically manifested itself, I have to take issue with this quote in particular from the original post.
"Power inequality" is abstract - it describes the conditions caused by other, active, concrete factors*. As long as anarchist conceptions of revolution and society (and I think the anglo-North American anarchist movement is particularly guilty of this) are rooted in the simple idealism of opposition to "power" they will remain marginal incapable of providing meaningful leadership for the working class.

*Economic factors are certainly among these, but the class stuggle can not be reduced simply to "the economy". While there are Marxists, doubtless, guilty of economism, this is a dangerous oversimplification when talking about Marxism as a whole. [/b]
I don't think that the idea of power is an abstraction at all... a few sentences later in the article, I clarify that power manifests itself in two principle forms: ideological and military.

I don't see how that is so abstract.

[TheComrade]

Isn't it often nessecary to undermine something from within. It results in less chance of violence and makes the system look as if its failed - rather then it being brought down?


You could say that another example is the Labour Party and Tony Blair.

Could say that? It is very clear it is an example of vanguardism! He doesn't listen to his party - instead uses it to forge out his own, entirley selfish, 'legacy' (insane is the word that comes to mind!)