What's a vanguard?

[More Fire for the People]

This article is perhaps one of the best ‘defenses’ of vanguard party, and more astonishingly a blog user wrote it. What's a vanguard? (http://orangepolyester.blogspot.com/2005/09/whats-vanguard.html)

What are your opinions after reading it? My biggest complaint is that the article did not cover the question of democratic centralism, but otherwise I consider his analysis quite Marxist and he mentions facts that I was not aware of, like Lenin threatening to leave the Bolshevik party.

[EusebioScrib]

I don't find anything particularly riviting about this article. It just seems like the guy is exploring his own thoughts on the issue.

He offers no real defintion of a vanguard nor does he offer any new ideas.

Although props to him for mentioning CLR James :P

[More Fire for the People]

Perhaps the article, Vanguard Revisited (http://orangepolyester.blogspot.com/2005/09/vanguard-revisited.html), may help explain the first article.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think it's an interesting article. i skimmed through his story on the October revolution. I personally think he doesn't really know much about anarchists as he claimed that they want to overthrow the state, but not organize rather than organize but not in a party with a single are couple of leaders that make all the decisions.

[cenv]

Good article. I agree that he should've said something about democratic centralism and how he thinks the vanguard should be organized.


I personally think he doesn't really know much about anarchists as he claimed that they want to overthrow the state, but not organize rather than organize but not in a party with a single are couple of leaders that make all the decisions.
I don't think he ever said anarchists dismiss organization as unnecessary, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Care to rephrase it using correct English?

[Fistful of Steel]

"A vanguard is a group of socialist workers, organized into a political party, for the purpose of overthrowing capitalism"

Why are these socialist workers organized into a political party? A political party seeks to gain power within a government. And we know what happens with that. Then why aren't these socialist workers content to work within the proletariat fighting the class-war how they see fit, without any need to set up a political party? If capitalism is overthrown it's necessary to have the full support of the working class, and an overthrowal by a minority will inevitably result in that minority taking the reins.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:55 PM



I don't think he ever said anarchists dismiss organization as unnecessary, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Care to rephrase it using correct English?

He said that anarchists are for the revolution without organization. What I said is that anarchists do support organization, but not in a dictator-like vanguard.

[Janus]

I think what people should note is that a vanguard does not always necessarily mean a dominating leadership. Yes, that is the connotation yet there are other defintions. I see the vanguard simply as the most advanced elements of the movement, but that does not mean that they dominate and take over the revolution. Rather, for example, the workers who are getting together right now and organizing could be considered as the vanguard while those who do not aren't part of it.