DoP and Vanguard Party

[BobKKKindle$]

In recent weeks I have struggled to locate an exact form of socialism that represnts my personal beliefs. A concept that has always interested me is the period following the revolution known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the Proletariat acquires complete control of the means of the production and establishes a Social Hegemony to erase all traces of Bourgeois society. I gather that Marx brielf mentioned the concept, but it was Lenin who developed the DoP along with his emphasis upon the importance of the Vanguard party.

And thus said Marx:

What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes

Thus remarked Lenin:

Now the question is put somewhat differently: the transition from capitalist society--which is developing towards communism--to communist society is impossible without a "political transition period", and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat

In some ways I am a Leninist. I believe that following the Revolution, It will be necessary to a have a period of intense dominaiton and violence in order to defend the gains of the revolution and establish what might be described a 'Tabula Rasa' upon which one could begin to build a new socialist society. Any thought of Society turning at once into a Socialist utopia, is well, utopian.

However, I am also very fond of Council Communism, and above all, Worker's Democracy. I would be interested to hear on whether you believe a DoP (for I believe that one is necessary) can only be exercised through a Vanguard Party. I feel this is important because I have misgivings regaridng a Vanguard party will be willing to establsih social ownership of the MoP and Worker's democracy when the initial struggle has ended, and whether a select vanguard party might assume dictatorial and/or elitist tendencies. In Short: Can the Masses wield the DoP without a Vanguard?

Discuss :lol:

[Nachie]

The masses do not "wield" the DofP, they are it through their collective action. The only thing a vanguard party can do is institutionalize this dictatorship under its own control.

For Marx and Lenin, the DofP (like "the party") were fundamentally different concepts.

The reasons you give for being a "Leninist" are actually not Leninist at all, they're pretty much just objective common sense. Anarchists and Marxists are usually much more open in talking about unrestrained revolutionary violence by the proletariat against the capitalists. Where we find out if you're a Leninist or not is in the practical application of your views.

You will probably be interested in my essay, Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html)

Also be sure to check out the thread An Autonomist Conception of the DofP (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49167&hl=) as it is going to address your questions very directly.

[EusebioScrib]

Now is not the time to decide if we do or don't need a DoP. We don't know if we need such a period or not.

However to view the DoP as a "transition to communism" is very wrong. Communism begins with the process of self-valorization whereby workers seek to seperate themselves from capital and create dual-power.

The DoP may be necessary in certain areas, any maybe not some others. It all depends.

Don't fetishize a strategic concept.

[rebelworker]

In practice the Bolshevik party put in place a dictatorship of the party, this is what most anarchists and autonomist marxists are oposed to.

Its true that the DoP may be nessesary, but it is a tactic of self defence NOT a part of the struggle to build comunism.

Workers controll and management must be pushed from day one, if community and factory councils need to supress the oposition this must be something done by mass organisations, not a party or eliet. That path leads to real dictatorship and is at odds with the revolutionary potential of mass action.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I used to be scared of the DOP because like Lenin I took it literally. Unlike lenin I was against it, however if it is not laid on one person but councils on a central and decentralized level, and the DOP is a Democratic DOP than I would support it. However like Eusebio was edging on, it should really matter the scenario. Or maybe its time for a different approach?

[Ol' Dirty]

Firstly, there probably isn't any exact type of Socialism that you will completely agree with. As anindividual, you must find what you think would work best, and not try to base your self on one fixed ideology. Believe me, it never works.

Who want's to agree completely with Marx's ideas? Engels'? Lenin's? If one does that, you lose your individuality, and what makes you you.

Don't try to find that "g-spot."

Anything less is conformity. :)

Secondly, I think the Leninist Dictatorship of the Proletariat is far to millitant and, unfortunately, has too much tyranical potential. I think this mostly because of the "vanguard party" idea, which, along with the self proclaimed "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (which is anything but, in those circumstances), often leads to power hunger and corruption, wwhich is exactly what happened i the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Dictatorhip of the proletariat is a good idea, but I don't like he idea of a group of individuals with massive power (e.g. the Politburo of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union) leading the Revolution. Instead, it must be charged by the whole revolutionary proletariat. Leaders would be chosen from the commer, the ones that we are trying to help.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:16 PM
Don't fetishize a strategic concept.
Agreed.

But what has the history of working class revolutions taught us (by this I mean Paris Commune, Russia, Germany 1919-23, Spain)?

Revolutions which have not sought State Power in a direct, unambigious sense have failed.

I think the DotP arose not because Lenin and the Bolsheviks neccassarily thought "this" is how it has to be. It arose because the institutions of working class power (the Soviets) lended themselves to such a situation. A centralized, democratically run workers' state that can both organize the socialist economy and lead the battle against reaction.

If the Soviets hadn't existed and Lenin and the Bolsheviks simply "announced" socialism (as happened in other places, Cuba, China etc) then the degeneration into petty bourgeois state capitalism is immediate.

If we, on the other hand, choose either "dual power", with some sort of "constituent assembly", then the central divisions and struggles will never fully reveal themselves.

But the DotP allows for both an transitional state and a chance to, in a sense, see where we all stand.

In any case, I've never heard a convincing argument for any other method of "transition". The Anarchist ideas tend to be, at best, vague, or at worst, idealist.

[Comrade-Z]

In any case, I've never heard a convincing argument for any other method of "transition". The Anarchist ideas tend to be, at best, vague, or at worst, idealist.

I don't know what's vague about "All power to the soviets!" I fully support that statement of Lenin's. It's just too bad that he had no intention of allowing that to happen once in power.

In other words, "All power to the workers' councils!" This is what (serious class struggle) anarchists, council communists, and autonomists support.

And it will only seem idealist to you if you think that leadership is needed because the revolutionary proletariat isn't capable of self-directedly run the show. (See my comments on "leadership" here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50589)).

Instead, what I think is idealist is the notion that "revolutionary leaders" can play the role of boss without quickly coming to adopt the class consciousness of bosses. That's basic marxism. Being determines consciousness.

[KC]

The idea of a single "vanguard party" is complete and utter shit.

[pcb]

I believe the DOP was a transitional period that came out of the fact that the Bolshies found that the prolatariat was very small and for the revolution to survive they needed to enpower this small group. I believe that Lenin needed to do this to keep the counter revolutionaries from the door. With the country being invaded and white forces gathering this period (Dictatorship of the Prolitariat) was needed due to the historical background of other revolutions being utterly crushed. Not nice but revolutions tend to be nasty affairs. World revolution will only come about when all left parties come together under a united front, if only.

[YKTMX]

It's just too bad that he had no intention of allowing that to happen once in power.


You'd be wise not to flaunt your ignorance of history so openly. It makes you appear foolish.


And it will only seem idealist to you if you think that leadership is needed because the revolutionary proletariat isn't capable of self-directedly run the show.

It doesn't matter what I think. The "revolutionary proletariat" has always had people who represented their interests and were full time fighters for the cause. I do think the working class can "self-direct", indeed, that's the purpose of the excercise. But there's a difference about screaming about self-rule with no hope of either securing it or defending it and actually having a plan to create socialism.


Instead, what I think is idealist is the notion that "revolutionary leaders" can play the role of boss without quickly coming to adopt the class consciousness of bosses.

No one is suggesting that leaders "play the role of boss". All we're saying is that the working class should organize themselves to defend the revolution in the form of a democratic working class state. There is, of course, a need to protect against any abuses that might occur, but that's a problem of democracy and making sure the class stays central to the process, not with the "idea" itself.


That's basic marxism. Being determines consciousness.

Please, don't quote Marx at me.

[pcb]

The idea of the DOP was to ensure that the workers soviets could go about their business of forwarding the revolution, from these soviets delegates were dispatched to meetings to put forward their ideas, aspirations and hopes. they also knew that if they did not act jointly they would not be around for long. So the DOP was used to ensure that the revolution was not crushed within the first few days.
Why are people unsure about this period of revolutionary evolution, it will be needed unless all the capitalists are just going to hand of the world to us, NO CHANCE. Dont forget if the revolution fails then we will all fail, the reactionaries will not fail in their tasks or be unsure of their tasks.

[Rawthentic]

the agreed, PCB, sadly, those soviets were dismantled by the Bolsheviks and turned into shit, and there we have today, Russia only transcended to capitalism, nothing else, and I bet better than when the Party was in power. I just cant understand why there are so many apologists for Leninism, if it has pretty much not done anything revolutionary, unless if you call a party taking power revolutionary. Sure, these revolutions were fought by the people, but then what happened after? Leninists preach centralized deomcracy and organization, but thats more of a pretty veil for the truth which is hierarchy, proletarian alienation, state-capitalism, or in short, Leninism. It is what has given communism its bad name and instilled fear into people when the hear the word. Maybe in under-developed nations its somewhat applicable as an anti-imperialist agenda, but in advanced nations, its detrimental to revolution.

[Comrade-Z]

You'd be wise not to flaunt your ignorance of history so openly. It makes you appear foolish.

*Sigh*...We've been through this before (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46902&hl=Kronstadt). No reason to rehash this dispute a second time.


It doesn't matter what I think. The "revolutionary proletariat" has always had people who represented their interests and were full time fighters for the cause.

And the revolutionary proletariat has always been unsuccessful thus far. Just because the proletariat has always done something in some fashion doesn't mean it's a good idea to continue advocating that forever. We shouldn't be slaves to tradition.

And if you assert that it is "human nature" to value some sort of leadership, I'll puke. :lol:

I would argue that one of the reasons that they have been unsuccessful has been their reliance on leadership (which naturally arises out of primitive capitalist material conditions, so it was understandable back then. But now?)


But there's a difference about screaming about self-rule with no hope of either securing it or defending it and actually having a plan to create socialism.

But I do have a plan to create socialism (and, very soon thereafter, communism). It's called "workers' councils."

What I still can't understand is why you think there is "no hope of either securing [the revolution] or defending it" in this manner. Why don't you think it will work? Because the majority of the proletariat won't know what to do and need to be "led"? Because workers' militias won't know how to destroy the capitalist class? Do you think these militias need to be organized and commanded by a small group of individuals? Do you think these militias won't be able to coordinate their own attacks without deferring to a leadership? Just look at the Iraqi Resistance.


No one is suggesting that leaders "play the role of boss". All we're saying is that the working class should organize themselves to defend the revolution in the form of a democratic working class state.

But that's what a "head of state" is--a boss. Even if that person is democratically elected. Even if it's a council of individuals, or an entire party of individuals.

A state implies a professional military and police force that obeys the orders of the head of state.

Let's say the proletariat elects a Politburo of SWP members to the head administrative position of the State.

Now let's say the Politburo does something that the majority of the proletariat doesn't like. The proletariat clamors for new elections.

But as long as this Politburo is still in power, it has the loyalty of the professional armed forces. Isn't it obvious that this Politburo is going to use the military to crush the proletarian uprising? Or are you holding out on the "benevolence" and "good-will" of this Politburo?

That's playing with a fire that I don't want to ignite in the first place! :o Especially considering how many times we've been burned by that very same fire! You'd think we would have learned by now.


There is, of course, a need to protect against any abuses that might occur

The only way I can think of to protect against abuses would be to abolish the professional military and police forces and, in their place, create democratic workers' militias that are answerable not to the State, but to individual community districts.

But that would be too "chaotic" for your liking, eh?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

As opposed to anarchists who think everything will just fall into place. That we'll be fighting against an army of like 3 guys? Leninism has the ideas but they're not balanced. It allows totalitarianism to easily. If there was a balance that ensured the workers and the people stayed in charge, then I'd be a leninist. Anarchism is a nice fairy princess dream but c'mon. being decentralized and not hiarchial is suicide that cannot work outside a man's head. There will be no order because there is no plan, and that's only if by some miracle, the anarchists would win the revolution which could only happen if the capitalist fascists decided that using paper airplanes is more effective than guns. There is no plan, no organization, and thus it will fail.

[Nachie]

Thank you LeftyHenry, that was enlightening as usual.

[More Fire for the People]

I would like to qualify that the 'vanguard' and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' are not synomous, nor is the 'vanguard' and the 'party'. 21st Century Leninists advocate the building of a vanguard of class consciouss workers who are prepared for proletarian insurrection. The vanguard is not necessarily a party [and vice versa].

In 1917, the Bolsheviks faced the task of organizing Russia, with cities equatable to London alongside parishes barely out of serfdom, under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Well the Bolsheviks tried a few different methods — war communism NEP, soviet democracy — and they all failed. The task of the modern day vanguard is to organize workplace democracy beforehand and to establish an agricultural programme that incorporates poor peasants but does not lead to the leadership of the peasant class.

[Comrade-Z]

As opposed to anarchists who think everything will just fall into place.

No, it will take a period of violent, bloody, "no-holds barred" fighting with the capitalist class and counter-revolutionaries before we reach truly stateless communism.

In fact, I've even been called a "Stalinist" :o because of the violence that I advocate towards class enemies.


There will be no order because there is no plan

So individual groups of workers can't come up with their own plans and either implement them individually or collaborate with other workers' groups and implement the plans in parallel with these other groups?

Are workers not "smart enough" do to that?

And won't most workers be approximately "on the same page" by the time of revolution anyways? Obviously, they will all have a natural solidarity of interests which will naturally foster cooperation. In addition, we are assuming that religion, racism, and nationalism are not significant factors in society by this point, right? A divided proletariat won't be able to make the revolution in the first place. And a religious, racist, or nationalist proletariat would give rise to one really fucked up revolution anyways, so all of our debate about these issues would be moot.

[Comrade-Z]

21st Century Leninists advocate the building of a vanguard of class consciouss workers who are prepared for proletarian insurrection.

Now that's something I could embrace. Sort of a "shock troop brigade" of fired-up revolutionaries who try to lead by example (rather than command) and who try to ignite more revolutionary action.

Assuming that's what you are talking about.


The task of the modern day vanguard is to organize workplace democracy beforehand and to establish an agricultural programme that incorporates poor peasants but does not lead to the leadership of the peasant class.

Sounds good, assuming that this "vanguard" would propagate its workplace democracy programme and agricultural programme by persuasion and rational argument rather than by force or command.

[YKTMX]

No reason to rehash this dispute a second time.


You brought it up, Bub.


Just because the proletariat has always done something in some fashion doesn't mean it's a good idea to continue advocating that forever.

I agree. Also, you would agree, just because something has never been "tried" before doesn't neccessarily mean it will work out "any better" than the older alternative.

My adherence to the Vanguard and the DotP is not, as you seem to assume, "dogmatic". It's the product of my understanding of the working class and socialism.

I accept, absolutely, that the ONE TIME that "my" approach has been tried it, ultimately, failed. But the reasons for that failure, as we've discussed, are varied and unclear. It's not fair, I don't think, to attribute it wholly, or even partially, to the form of organization or the will of individuals - history doesn't work like that.

I accept we have to "learn" from the Russian experience. I've never claimed I'd do everything the same or that Lenin got everything right.

What I do hold to, however, is the broad approach. A collection of the most advanced sections of the class and others in a party (the vanguard) and democratic centralism. Independent organs of working class power and complete State Power.

"Leadership" is a vulgar term. Trotsky was elected head of the Petrograd Soviet and so, I suppose, becomes a leader. Lenin was the "leader" of the Vanguard, but not all his wishes got passed. It's not the case that the Bolsheviks just thought "what would the leadership do"? Bolshevik militants were deeply embedded activists and partisans of the class. It's THEM who make the revolution, not Lenin and Trotsky. So, I'm more interested in creating more rank and file militants than trying to ressurect Lenin.

[BobKKKindle$]

Thank you for the diverse viewpoints you have offerred Comrades. Some Interesting ideas! Leninism has always somewhat baffled me - I have traditionally found the ideas that the proletariat must be the 'engine' of its own Emancipation and the concept of the Vanguard party to direct the Revolution somewhat contradictory. But now it is becoming clearer. I have always been scared off lenin's works, but perhaps I will have another go soon.


vanguard of class consciouss workers

This idea appeals to me greatly! It seems to opt for something of a compromise between direct democracy and a mass uprising, and the Party Vanguard. However - is there an assurance that a vanguard of Proletarians would not give rise to a new elite following the revolution?


The only way I can think of to protect against abuses would be to abolish the professional military and police forces and, in their place, create democratic workers' militias that are answerable not to the State, but to individual community districts

Similairly, I find this to be a great idea. However - you say individual community districts - that raises the possibility of Factional infighting amongst different groups - a la Cultural Revolution. There would have to be close proletarian unity, surely?


I've never claimed I'd do everything the same or that Lenin got everything right.

Purely out of interest, what do you think the specific mistakes were in 1917-24? What would you have done differently? As you say, It is certainly important to learn from past revolutionary experiences.

[Janus]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule of the proletariat. Therefore, when you introduce a vanguard party, that party will become the ruling elite. Therefore, I would say that the two ideas are quite mutually exclusive. In order for the workers to make choices on their own, they can't have have a vanguard above them and deciding for them.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Thank you LeftyHenry, that was enlightening as usual.

:lol: I knew you'd love my tirade.


No, it will take a period of violent, bloody, "no-holds barred" fighting with the capitalist class and counter-revolutionaries before we reach truly stateless communism.

In fact, I've even been called a "Stalinist" because of the violence that I advocate towards class enemies.

Yeah every communist thinks it'll be bloody but only leninists have a thought out plan. By them thinking "everything will fall in place" I meant that there is no need for a vanguard, Dop, centralization, and etc... All that's needed is a bunch of guys who can put their fists in the air. Uh hello? that's nice but they have fucking tanks!


So individual groups of workers can't come up with their own plans and either implement them individually or collaborate with other workers' groups and implement the plans in parallel with these other groups?

Are workers not "smart enough" do to that?


Haha I knew someone would say that sooner or later. That's the catch phrase of anarchism on leninism. Workers are smart enough to organize but you can be fucking albert einstein and still not be able to beat a organized enemy with a bunch of autonomous fighters. Ever heard the phrase "there is power in a union"?, Ever thought about what the raised fist means? It means that five weak fingers come together to make one strong hand! That if we work as a union we will crush the opponent while if we work in small affinity groups we'll get crushed! Who will we call when we need reinforcements?Ammo?If we're outnumbered? Another affinity group who will be doing there own thing? or a HQ which can send a squad immediatly.


This idea appeals to me greatly! It seems to opt for something of a compromise between direct democracy and a mass uprising, and the Party Vanguard. However - is there an assurance that a vanguard of Proletarians would not give rise to a new elite following the revolution?


That's the kink in the leninist chain. Let's look for a second at revoltutions that have been generally successful at not becoming totalitarian. For example, the American revolution was able to perfectly execute its goals. How? By making the leading vanguard in the revolution a (elected) congress/council which shared the top seat in the whole operation among many people. This would be good to follow. Instead of having one leader we have 15 or 50. It's still a vanguard, but a better one.


Now that's something I could embrace. Sort of a "shock troop brigade" of fired-up revolutionaries who try to lead by example (rather than command) and who try to ignite more revolutionary action.

Assuming that's what you are talking about.

That's a must.

[Comrade-Z]

Similairly, I find this to be a great idea. However - you say individual community districts - that raises the possibility of Factional infighting amongst different groups - a la Cultural Revolution. There would have to be close proletarian unity, surely?

I addressed this concern somewhat because I knew it would come up.


Originally posted by Comrade-Z
And won't most workers be approximately "on the same page" by the time of revolution anyways? Obviously, they will all have a natural solidarity of interests which will naturally foster cooperation. In addition, we are assuming that religion, racism, and nationalism are not significant factors in society by this point, right? A divided proletariat won't be able to make the revolution in the first place. And a religious, racist, or nationalist proletariat would give rise to one really fucked up revolution anyways, so all of our debate about these issues would be moot.

I'm sure there will be disputes, but, in most cases, I doubt it would come to the point of exchanging gunfire.

Heck, even the anarchists and communists in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War held off on widespread bloodshed for almost a year--until May 3 of 1937, when street fighting erupted in Barcelona over control of a telephone exchange and other simmering issues. And those two groups hated each other.


Uh hello? that's nice but they have fucking tanks!

It sounds like you envision a revolution as being similar to a military campaign, which is not at all how most revolutions are, in fact.

For example, in February 1917 in Russia the military defected to the side of the revolutionaries within days. During this time there were only roughly 3,000 deaths. The bourgeois revolution was accomplished.

Technically, an army of 2 million well-equipped soldiers might be able to defeat 100 million unarmed proletarian revolutionaries. But the soldiers won't resort to killing 100 million people. They will defect before they have to do that. After all, what would they be left with afterwards? Just a ruined country, a bunch of slain countrymen and women, and endless nightmares.

Also remember: one of the first thing that rebelling Petrograd workers did was cut communications lines, seize supply depots, and halt transportation systems.

We often forget that the military relies on a country's workers to operate an entire infrastructure because we take the workers' compliance for granted. The fact is, the working class is capable of completely shutting down an entire country (and practically all of its military capabilities). The ruling class doesn't want people to realize this fact, of course.

In other words, what good are tanks when no fuel is being transported to army units?

This is not to say that the proletariat won't be armed (it will) and that there won't be coordinated action between militia groups (there will). These militia groups will coordinate action with each other as they see fit, thus giving rise to your "united fist" that you deem to be essential.


Who will we call when we need reinforcements?

The New York Soviet of Workers and Soldiers' Deputies, of course!


Ammo?

The Pittsburg Soviet of Munitions Manufacturing, of course! They'll contact the Pittsburg Soviet of Transportation Workers to arrange to get the ammo shipped to you.


If we're outnumbered?

The Baltimore Workers' Militia, perhaps.


or a HQ which can send a squad immediatly.

I don't see a problem with an HQ that just processes and relays information, relays requests, sends out bulletins, etc.

But you must also remember: we are living in the age of the internet now. Whatever tactics have been used in the past may be obsolete by the time revolution erupts. That "HQ" that we're talking about may just end up being a web server somewhere. We'll see.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by "Comrade-Z"+--> ("Comrade-Z")Now that's something I could embrace. Sort of a "shock troop brigade" of fired-up revolutionaries who try to lead by example (rather than command) and who try to ignite more revolutionary action.[/b]

In essence, yeah. The vanguard may command if those being command consent to such command. A good example of a modern ‘proto-vanguard’ is the EZLN.


"Comrade-Z"
Sounds good, assuming that this "vanguard" would propagate its workplace democracy programme and agricultural programme by persuasion and rational argument rather than by force or command.
Depends upon what you mean here. Of course factories, worked farmlands, etc. would have enforced workers’ councils but the content of these councils would be up to the workers themselves.

Perhaps through strike action and various movements we can bring about workers’ councils before the revolution thus easing the process.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Comrade Z,

When do you think we'll have a 100 million people supporting us? A militia of that size, even if that was possible needs command.

I think the HQ we talk about could be an web forum but I envisioned there being a main one where the vanguard would work plans. There would be smaller HQs which would be sort of Ammo depots and also a command post.

[Comrade-Z]

When do you think we'll have a 100 million people supporting us?

I don't think we'll have a militia of 100 million people supporting us. I think there will be a militia of 100 million people who will be fighting for self-emancipation. "Supporting someone" will seem backward, submissive, passive, and spectator-ish to them.

When will this come about? When 100 million people become conscious atheists, materialists, and revolutionary communists. When will this come about? When proletarian revolution becomes a real possibility. Maybe 2050 for Western Europe, although that might be optimistic.


A militia of that size, even if that was possible needs command.

No it doesn't. :lol:

To these conscious materialist communists, deferring to leadership of any sort, such as an unaccountable central command, will seem incredibly backward, submissive, and passive. People who do this will be looked upon as naive, insecure of their own rational capabilities, passive authority worshippers, and as people who are just waiting to get burned/screwed by authority.


I think the HQ we talk about could be an web forum but I envisioned there being a main one where the vanguard would work plans.

People simply won't tolerate being told what to do. (We've had enough of that shit already! What's the point of having a revolution if it's going to be just like the old society?)

This "vanguard" can make up all the plans it wants and propose them, but it will be up to individuals to decide whether it is a good idea to follow the plans. The plans may very well end up being used for toilet paper. :P

[Guest1]

Weird understanding of what revolution is, not based on historical evidence in any way.

If you've been keeping tabs on what's actually been happening in the past hundred years, it becomes clear that unless there's an organized call to push a revolution forward and do what needs to be done, your conditions don't really matter. The class will be defeated.

History gives you revolutionary opportunities, and the mass of people don't reach all of the conclusions just because of those opportunities. You have to actively organize those that have reached those revolutionary conclusions, and together set out to organize everyone else and be prepared to explain what needs to be done when the opportunity comes around.

So you either organize and accept that as your role, or pick up a copy of a documentary on May 68 and play it on loop. Cause I'd rather you be doing that at home than sinking us into it on the streets. Seriously, a revolution does not happen if you don't know what you want and how to get it.

[Comrade-Z]

Weird understanding of what revolution is, not based on historical evidence in any way.

Right, but having a revolution to overthrow the entirety of class society hasn't been done before in history either. All previous revolutions have been to replace one ruling class with another. This time, the revolting class faces the challenge of destroying the entirety of the old ruling class and creating a society without a ruling class at all. This revolution will be different from previous revolutions in a lot of ways and will face some different challenges.


If you've been keeping tabs on what's actually been happening in the past hundred years, it becomes clear that unless there's an organized call to push a revolution forward and do what needs to be done, your conditions don't really matter. The class will be defeated.

Actually, if you have been paying attention you'll notice that organized calls have very little, if any effect on revolutions. For instance, no single individual or organization issued a call for the February Russian Revolution, and yet that revolution was entirely successful at destroying the aristocracy and ushering in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


You have to actively organize those that have reached those revolutionary conclusions, and together set out to organize everyone else and be prepared to explain what needs to be done when the opportunity comes around.

As the revolting class must, this time, act as a class for itself, so must it also organize itself. This will be different than the rising bourgeoisie organizing bands of peasants or workers and doing all of the organizing and intellectual work for them in order to make a bourgeois revolution. It will have to be if the proletariat is to be advanced enough to rule itself during and after the revolution.


So you either organize and accept that as your role, or pick up a copy of a documentary on May 68 and play it on loop.

Through this ideological discussion, I hope to help others organize themselves.

I will take care of organizing myself with others as I see fit.


Seriously, a revolution does not happen if you don't know what you want and how to get it.

Correct. And I know what I want. The thing is, the 100 million militia proletarians must also know what they want, individually. That is, they must all be conscious materialist communists. If they have to rely on others to "tell them what they want" or do all the work of organizing them instead of being able to do it themselves, then clearly they are not ready to make proletarian revolution or create stateless classless society.