The "vanguard"

[robo]

I'm a bit confused about the whole vanguard idea, wondering if anyone could help me out a bit...

So this is a relatively small group of militant revolutionaries, correct?

Is it affiliated with the government, always?

Does believeing in a vanguard make someone a leninist, just for believing in the vanguard?

And if it is just a group of militant revolutionaries, then would everyone (militantly) taking part in the revolution be considered a part of the vanguard?

I've tried to look into it more in-depth but I really couldn't come up with much useful info. Thanks!

[LSD]

Aren't you a RAANite? And if so, wouldn't that make you quite familiar with the Leninist "vanguard" theory?

Let me guess, you&#39;re fishing... <_<

[afrikaNOW]

Maybe he is a member that isnt real knowledgable

[KC]

So this is a relatively small group of militant revolutionaries, correct?


No. The vanguard is simply the most advanced section of the proletariat (in terms of class consciousness, revolutionary activity, etc...). It is not a formal group of people; it is merely a classification of people based on their actions within the movement.



Does believeing in a vanguard make someone a leninist, just for believing in the vanguard?


Not at all. Recognizing that the vanguard exists is pretty much common sense, because no matter what group of people you study, you will always find that some are more active than others, some that are more revolutionary than others, and some that are more involved in the struggle than others. So the vanguard will inevitably exist; recognizing this as fact is simply a logical conclusion.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:52 AM
Maybe he is a member that isnt real knowledgable
Like a RAANite. :P


So this is a relatively small group of militant revolutionaries, correct?

No, the vanguard of the proletariat is the advanced and class conscious part of the proletariat class that leads the masses to revolution. The goal of the vanguard is to antagonize and "awaken the masses".


Is it affiliated with the government, always?
Hell no. The vanguard is just the way a revolutionary party is organized...it really has little if any affiliation with a post-revolutionary socialist state, since by then the proletariat will already be class conscious and exercising their dictatorship over the bourgeoisie.


Does believeing in a vanguard make someone a leninist, just for believing in the vanguard?

You don&#39;t "believe" in the vanguard as if it is some sort of savior, it is just an effective and realistic method of organizing a revolutionary communist party.

I strongly suggest you read some exerpts from State and Revolution, if not the entire thing. It&#39;s a really short read.

Anyway, "leninism" is a pretty meaningless term, considering most of Lenin&#39;s contribution to theory was a Marxist analysis of imperialism. Anarchists have this weird problem where they view Lenin&#39;s only contribution to theory as being the vanguard (which they usually grossly misunderstand) and completely dismiss his analysis of imperialism...which is really the whole fucking point of Marxism-Leninism.


And if it is just a group of militant revolutionaries, then would everyone (militantly) taking part in the revolution be considered a part of the vanguard?
The vanguard of the proletariat is the class conscious section of the proletariat that leads and organizes the masses into revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:56 AM

And if it is just a group of militant revolutionaries, then would everyone (militantly) taking part in the revolution be considered a part of the vanguard?
The vanguard of the proletariat is the class conscious section of the proletariat that leads and organizes the masses into revolution.
Bingo&#33;

This whole concept of the vanguard "leading the masses" is nothing more than an appendage to the authoritarian theories of Leninism. It&#39;s not a logical analysis of the ability and confidence of the working class in times of revolution.

What I mean is, you have no basis whatsoever to assume that the workers need or even want this vanguard to lead and organise them. It&#39;s arrogance meted down by 19th century middle class intellectuals and adopted by "radicals" as "divine law".

The working class don&#39;t need intellectuals to tell them what to do. History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution without ever having read the complete works of Karl Marx.

[KC]

What I mean is, you have no basis whatsoever to assume that the workers need or even want this vanguard to lead and organise them.

:huh:

So proletarians shouldn&#39;t organize?


It&#39;s arrogance meted down by 19th century middle class intellectuals and adopted by "radicals" as "divine law".

Actually, it&#39;s you misunderstanding what Lenin meant (I hope).


The working class don&#39;t need intellectuals to tell them what to do.

Who the hell said anything about intellectuals? And who said the vanguard would tell them what to do? Moreover, why can&#39;t working class people be intellectual?


History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution

That&#39;s the whole point of the vanguard... <_<

[Marion]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2006, 10:02 AM
The working class don&#39;t need intellectuals to tell them what to do. History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution without ever having read the complete works of Karl Marx.
Totally agree with you.

However, if working class people can organise and lead themselves then what exactly is our role or the role of anarchist organisations to be? To what extent does our rejection of vanguardism impact upon the way we relate to the rest of the working class (in terms of the truth claims we make for our positions) as opposed to our rejection of certain organisational forms? Is it simply that a rejection of any special knowledge and an acceptance of the self-activity of the working class rather than a vanguard means a need to be honest about the lack of knowledge we have and our inability to come up with finely-tuned blueprints for a future society? How do we think about or categorise our relation to the rest of the working class when our ideas are not accepted by the vast majority?

Sorry for chucking all these random thoughts at you - have had them at the back of my head for a while and need to get things sorted out&#33;

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2006, 10:02 AM
The working class don&#39;t need intellectuals to tell them what to do. History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution without ever having read the complete works of Karl Marx.
When was the last time a revolution occured without a revolutionary vanguard leading things forward?

[Marion]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13 2006, 12:24 PM
When was the last time a revolution occured without a revolutionary vanguard leading things forward?
I&#39;m not saying this to try and be smart, but it depends on what you mean by "revolution" and what you mean by "vanguard". How would you define them, or what example would you give to show your meaning?

[Honggweilo]

The working class don&#39;t need intellectuals to tell them what to do. History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution without ever having read the complete works of Karl Marx.

The people create a vangaurd, in what ever form it springs up. thats a the basis of a revolution. A revolutionairy movement without theory is useless, a theory without a revolutionairy movement is dead.. the vanguardist are created from the organising elements of the working class who work themselfs up to revolutionairy intellectuals. And that vanguard needs to ensure workers democracy.

A thousand peddles can eventually topple a statue, but wont bring anything new in its place. A angry working class mass with revolutionairy potential can storm a parlement, but wont change a system.


When was the last time a revolution occured without a revolutionary vanguard leading things forward

My point exactly

[Honggweilo]

btw, kudos to whoever put up the flash banner&#33; ;)

*edit: ow.. it disappeared :(

[Marion]

Hmmmm, not sure how much this debate is moving forward without people clarifying the terms they are using. Here&#39;s my attempt at some questions:

1) Is it fair to say the working-class has, within it, different levels of class consciousness? (Is class consciousness even a term we&#39;re happy with?)

2) Does a "vanguard" necessarily imply that a certain sector of the working class needs a different type of organisation or is differently organised to the rest of the working class?

3) When you talk about vanguards are you referring to vanguard parties?

4) What is the role of a "vanguard"? Is it acting on behalf of the working class or is it merely to project its ideas within the working class?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 13 2006, 12:30 PM

What I mean is, you have no basis whatsoever to assume that the workers need or even want this vanguard to lead and organise them.

:huh:

So proletarians shouldn&#39;t organize?
:lol:

Of course they should organise. The negation of a vanguard does not equal lack of organisation.



It&#39;s arrogance meted down by 19th century middle class intellectuals and adopted by "radicals" as "divine law".

Actually, it&#39;s you misunderstanding what Lenin meant (I hope).

Lenin was a 19th century middle class intellectual who meted down his "divine law" which "radicals" have adopted.

There is absolutely no basis for the use of a vanguard to "lead and organise" the working class. It&#39;s the prejudice of a middle class intellectual who could not possibly concieve that the "uneducated masses" could do it themselves.


Who the hell said anything about intellectuals?

Lenin.


And who said the vanguard would tell them what to do?

Leadership and organisation often requires telling people what to do.


Moreover, why can&#39;t working class people be intellectual?

I didn&#39;t say that they couldn&#39;t. What I said was that a vanguard (usually a minority) of intellectuals is not justifiable and is actually antithetical to workers democracy.



History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution

That&#39;s the whole point of the vanguard... <_<

So you&#39;re claiming that the entire working class organising themselves is a vanguard?

If you have some other defintion of "vanguard" that is not Leninism then tell me what it is because I&#39;m at a loss in regards to reading your mind.

In the reality of political struggle a vanguard is a political party controlled by a minority centralisd committee.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:48 PM
However, if working class people can organise and lead themselves then what exactly is our role or the role of anarchist organisations to be?
To propagadise and confront capitalism and the state.


To what extent does our rejection of vanguardism impact upon the way we relate to the rest of the working class

How do you relate to working class people now? What do you actually mean by relate?

I mean, if you&#39;re involved in work place and community struggles you argue a position. Sometimes it&#39;s successful, sometimes it isn&#39;t but you continue to debate your position nevertheless.


(in terms of the truth claims we make for our positions) as opposed to our rejection of certain organisational forms?

I don&#39;t understand what that means?


Is it simply that a rejection of any special knowledge and an acceptance of the self-activity of the working class rather than a vanguard means a need to be honest about the lack of knowledge we have and our inability to come up with finely-tuned blueprints for a future society

That&#39;s a complete abstraction. We simply get involved in struggle and use our own political tactics to fight and propagandise those struggles.

Marx said "debate is progress." That is all we can do&#33; Debate, propogandise and struggle where and when we can; while doing everything in our ability to show working class people that there are alternatives.


How do we think about or categorise our relation to the rest of the working class when our ideas are not accepted by the vast majority?

Again, I don&#39;t understand what you mean?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jul 13 2006, 01:24 PM--> (Red Heretic @ Jul 13 2006, 01:24 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2006, 10:02 AM
The working class don&#39;t need intellectuals to tell them what to do. History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution without ever having read the complete works of Karl Marx.
When was the last time a revolution occured without a revolutionary vanguard leading things forward? [/b]
Spain 1936.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:46 PM

The working class don&#39;t need intellectuals to tell them what to do. History has shown very clearly that working class people can organise and lead themselves into revolution without ever having read the complete works of Karl Marx.

The people create a vangaurd, in what ever form it springs up.
So would you describe decentralised committee&#39;s, groups and militias organising wihtin themselves and co-ordinating generally as a vanguard?


thats a the basis of a revolution.

How and why is it the basis of a revolution.


A revolutionairy movement without theory is useless, a theory without a revolutionairy movement is dead

And...?


A angry working class mass with revolutionairy potential can storm a parlement, but wont change a system.

Your post was full of "sound bites" and abstract quasi-assertions but I think this implies the cruz of your argument.

This is a metaphor for the need to political theory. That the working class can storm a parliament, but without the theory to back it up they won&#39;t change anything, right?

Perhaps, but you still have no explained why a vanguard is necessary in order to achieve any of that?

Simply asserting a statement does not make fact.

[KC]

Of course they should organise. The negation of a vanguard does not equal lack of organisation.


But if they are organizing, doesn&#39;t that make them the most class conscious and advanced section of the proletariat (i.e. the vanguard)?



Leadership and organisation often requires telling people what to do.


I think the term "Lead" is being misinterpreted. It isn&#39;t being used to say that the vanguard will dictate orders to proletarians that aren&#39;t members of the vanguard; it is being used in the sense that the vanguard is "leading the proletarit into battle", much like the front line in a battle would do.

Lead: To be first; be ahead.
Leader: The first or foremost position.

Those are the definitions being used.



I didn&#39;t say that they couldn&#39;t. What I said was that a vanguard (usually a minority) of intellectuals is not justifiable and is actually antithetical to workers democracy.

I agree; the vanguard will mostly be made up of proletarians.



So you&#39;re claiming that the entire working class organising themselves is a vanguard?


Not at all. The entire working class doesn&#39;t organize itself. Some workers only act in times of crisis, such as during a revolution, and they wish to take no part in the preceding or following actions. These aren&#39;t members of the vanguard.

What I meant when I said that that&#39;s the point of the vanguard is that the vanguard will be composed mostly of working class people, and will therefore be organizing and leading themselves to revolution.



If you have some other defintion of "vanguard" that is not Leninism then tell me what it is because I&#39;m at a loss in regards to reading your mind.

Well, I&#39;m using Lenin&#39;s definition of a vanguard. Here&#39;s the definition from marxists.org:



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.

So the proletariat as a whole will be led by a section within itself that is more advanced, better organized, more committed, etc...




In the reality of political struggle a vanguard is a political party controlled by a minority centralisd committee.


"In reality North Korea is communist."



So would you describe decentralised committee&#39;s, groups and militias organising wihtin themselves and co-ordinating generally as a vanguard?

No, that is organization performed by the vanguard. The vanguard isn&#39;t committees, groups or militias.

I will reply to the rest of this later.

[Marion]

OK, perhaps I was being too abstract. So, to clarify things:

1) You have to take my quote “to what extent does our rejection of vanguardism impact upon the way we relate to the rest of the working class (in terms of the truth claims we make for our positions) as opposed to our rejection of certain organisational forms?” as a whole. If you split it at the start of the bracket it doesn’t make any sense. Rephrasing it, the question was whether you see a rejection of vanguardism as a rejection of any particular grouping claiming to have a more advanced knowledge than another section of the class or more in terms of rejecting a certain organisational structure associated with vanguard parties. Given previous answer of yours it seems the latter.


Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2006, 01:30 PM

Is it simply that a rejection of any special knowledge and an acceptance of the self-activity of the working class rather than a vanguard means a need to be honest about the lack of knowledge we have and our inability to come up with finely-tuned blueprints for a future society

That&#39;s a complete abstraction. We simply get involved in struggle and use our own political tactics to fight and propagandise those struggles.


2) Not sure if you mean that my question was an abstraction (I’d argue that even it it is an abstraction its pretty relevant) or whether coming up with blueprints etc is an abstraction. If it’s the latter then we definitely agree. Particularly agree with your second sentence.

3) You said you didn’t understand what I meant by “How do we think about or categorise our relation to the rest of the working class when our ideas are not accepted by the vast majority?”

My fault. Basically I’m trying to look at the issue of what it is about anarchist organisations that means that you couldn’t call it a “vanguard” and was wondering what terminology you’d use instead. As I’m sure you’re aware, whenever this type of thing gets debated there always seems a tendency for various traditional Marxists to point to the fact there are anarchist organizations with specific remits and to suggest, as a result, that they too are vanguards. Hence, there is a need for us to explain why anarchist organizations are not vanguards (or have less tendency to be vanguards) despite both groups seeing themselves as, at least in some way, having a distinct position or knowledge within the working class from most other workers (otherwise we wouldn’t need to propagandise).

Hopefully that’s that cleared up&#33;

What is of interest is your statement that “in the reality of political struggle a vanguard is a political party controlled by a minority centralised committee.” I’d agree with you that if you’re a party controlled by a minority centralised committee then you’re a vanguard. However, is it possible to broaden the definition? Could a decentralised, even non-hierarchical organisation also act as a vanguard in certain circumstances? I’m not convinced that we can speak about vanguards solely in terms of organisational structures. What do you think?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 13 2006, 03:26 PM


Of course they should organise. The negation of a vanguard does not equal lack of organisation.


But if they are organizing, doesn&#39;t that make them the most class conscious and advanced section of the proletariat (i.e. the vanguard)?
For a left Marxist this abstract definition is all well and good and if you want to live within the realm of abstract then go ahead.

The reality of this definition however and the subsequent structuring of this "advanced section of the proletariat" (although in reality it&#39;s actually middle class intellectuals who make up this advanced section - SWP, RCP, SPUK etc etc) is what I and the anarchist movement are against.




Leadership and organisation often requires telling people what to do.


I think the term "Lead" is being misinterpreted. It isn&#39;t being used to say that the vanguard will dictate orders to proletarians that aren&#39;t members of the vanguard; it is being used in the sense that the vanguard is "leading the proletarit into battle", much like the front line in a battle would do.

That&#39;s how the vanguard has operated throughout history. In all of its models and in all the models, which exist today, this is precisely what the vanguard does.




I didn&#39;t say that they couldn&#39;t. What I said was that a vanguard (usually a minority) of intellectuals is not justifiable and is actually antithetical to workers democracy.

I agree; the vanguard will mostly be made up of proletarians.

How is this "vanguard" to organise themselves and relate to the rest of the working class?

How does this "vanguard" lead and organise the proletariat?




If you have some other definition of "vanguard" that is not Leninism then tell me what it is because I&#39;m at a loss in regards to reading your mind.

Well, I&#39;m using Lenin&#39;s definition of a vanguard. Here&#39;s the definition from marxists.org:

For a Marxist, you certainly love to live in the "abstract" don&#39;t you. The world does not function based on ideas and definitions, it operates on objective, material reality.

What Lenin said on paper was not what was achieved. In fact, this vanguard has always manifested itself into a centralised party structure controlled, almost invariably by middle class intellectuals.



In the reality of political struggle a vanguard is a political party controlled by a minority centralisd committee.


"In reality North Korea is communist."

Well, what reality do you live in?

I mean, this is the crux of this [semantic] argument. What you say, I don&#39;t necessarily disagree with, but I&#39;m not interested or think it&#39;s relevant to discuss semantics.

What I&#39;m interested in is disputing the reality of this [semantic] argument. The material manifestation of a vanguard has always been what Lenin created: A centralised, hierarchical structure of party devotion and line.

[robo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:26 AM
Aren&#39;t you a RAANite? And if so, wouldn&#39;t that make you quite familiar with the Leninist "vanguard" theory?

Let me guess, you&#39;re fishing... <_<
Fishing??



I was under the impression that the Leninist vanguard theory was a tool of the state to lead a revolution (with or against the mass&#39; will) into a direction that favors the vanguard, regardless of whether or not it favors the masses, which I do not support. I don&#39;t have a problem with full-time revolutionaries, as they can only help the cause, but I am anti-state, and believe that the majority of the working class should favor a revolution and when the time comes will stage that revolution with or without the help of a vanguard.

But then again, if the vanguard is, as some of you have said, " the class conscious section of the proletariat that leads and organizes the masses into revolution," then I feel that the "vanguard", as the most class consious section of the proletariat, should make it their first priority to educate and influence the rest of the class, and THEN fight capitalism (and for me,) heirarchy.

Basically, if the vanguard is just a group of revolutionaries, then I can&#39;t possibly oppose the vanguard, but as a political party and tool of the state, I can.

I&#39;m opposed to leninism because I&#39;m opposed to authoritarianism, and using lies to get a place in power.

[TC]

The vanguard is essentially an empty concept that a certain group of anti-marxist leftists (whether they want to call themselves marxist or not) reinvent (in a way totally different from how Lenin used the term) and then incorrectly attribute to Lenin and all mainline Communists, in an effort to create the false, sectarian and totally invalid distinction between Marxism and so called "leninism", while incorrectly defining both.

In fairness, some dumbass trotskyist groups (though not the largest ones) in the US and UK have also advanced this incorrect understanding of the &#39;vanguard&#39; and they&#39;ve mutilated Lenin&#39;s position in a similar way as the anarchists. "Vanguardism" is not the vanguard in Lenin&#39;s sense, which simply refered to the portion of classes actively engaged in class struggle, not some elitist undemocratic organization.
Marxism-Leninism is Marxist social analysis of capitalism and Marx&#39;s vision for a socialist future, updated to include Lenin&#39;s more advanced analysis of capitalism in the imperialist stage, nothing more or less.



I was under the impression that the Leninist vanguard theory was a tool of the state to lead a revolution (with or against the mass&#39; will) into a direction that favors the vanguard, regardless of whether or not it favors the masses, which I do not support.

Yah, well, you&#39;re wrong. :P

But i can see how people who accept anti-workers propaganda uncritically might think that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by TragicCl[email protected] 13 2006, 05:11 PM
But i can see how people who accept anti-workers propaganda uncritically might think that.
No, all they have to do is look at the disaster of 20th century Leninism.

[KC]

For a left Marxist this abstract definition is all well and good and if you want to live within the realm of abstract then go ahead.

I&#39;m not speaking of abstractions whatsoever.



The reality of this definition however and the subsequent structuring of this "advanced section of the proletariat"

[emphasis mine]

There&#39;s your problem right there. As I have repeatedly said, the vanguard isn&#39;t an organization. It is a classification. Organization and structure comes into play when we ask the question of how the proletariat should organize itself. It comes into play when we are talking about organizations and political parties. Since the vanguard is neither, and since the vanguard isn&#39;t a structure at all, your hostility towards it is misguided.


"advanced section of the proletariat" (although in reality it&#39;s actually middle class intellectuals who make up this advanced section - SWP, RCP, SPUK etc etc)

Actually, that&#39;s completely untrue and in fact goes against the very definition of the word. As I&#39;ve defined above, the vanguard for the proletarian movement will be made up of "the forefront of workers". Since middle class intellectuals aren&#39;t workers, then they can&#39;t be part of the proletarian vanguard.

Also, listing shitty political parties with fucked up interpretations of Lenin&#39;s theories doesn&#39;t invalidate his theories; in fact, it sounds like you&#39;re agreeing with me on the fact that the so-called "Leninists" of the left nowadays subscribe to a theory which is reactionary. This we agree on. The problem that you are having is seperating this pseudo-"Leninism" from Lenin&#39;s actual theories.



That&#39;s how the vanguard has operated throughout history. In all of its models and in all the models, which exist today, this is precisely what the vanguard does.

The vanguard isn&#39;t an organization and therefore doesn&#39;t have that authority.



How is this "vanguard" to organise themselves and relate to the rest of the working class?

How does this "vanguard" lead and organise the proletariat?

Well, that&#39;s really personal opinion. If you&#39;re asking me how these organizations should be structured, then my personal opinion would be how the League is currently structured.

But now we&#39;re straying from the subject of the vanguard. Because now you&#39;re asking me how they will lead the proletariat (and getting into organizational structure, which really is a matter of opinion) instead of whether or not they will.

How should organizations be structured? What is their role in the movement? Tell me what you think.


The world does not function based on ideas and definitions

This doesn&#39;t really make much sense. Of course the world doesn&#39;t function based on words and their meanings. Language is a tool used to interpret the world around us.



What Lenin said on paper was not what was achieved.

What happened in Russia in 1917 is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. The question we should be asking ourselves is "Is this possible?" Moreover, to blame the failure of the Russian revolution solely on Lenin and his theories isn&#39;t looking at the "objective, material reality."


In fact, this vanguard has always manifested itself into a centralised party structure controlled, almost invariably by middle class intellectuals.


What about the Commune? Did you forget about that?



I was under the impression that the Leninist vanguard theory was a tool of the state to lead a revolution (with or against the mass&#39; will) into a direction that favors the vanguard, regardless of whether or not it favors the masses, which I do not support.

This isn&#39;t Lenin&#39;s theory of the vanguard at all. I suggest you look into it a little more. I&#39;m guessing you were just misinformed by people who have demonized a version of Lenin&#39;s theories which has really turned out to be a straw man. The best thing you could do is to read Lenin yourself and come to your own conclusions.



But then again, if the vanguard is, as some of you have said, " the class conscious section of the proletariat that leads and organizes the masses into revolution," then I feel that the "vanguard", as the most class consious section of the proletariat, should make it their first priority to educate and influence the rest of the class, and THEN fight capitalism (and for me,) heirarchy.

Better yet, they can educate and influence the rest of the class while fighting capitalism&#33; ;)



Basically, if the vanguard is just a group of revolutionaries, then I can&#39;t possibly oppose the vanguard, but as a political party and tool of the state, I can.

The vanguard is never a political party or a state. Members of the vanguard can organize themselves into a political party, which means that the political party is composed of vanguard members, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the vanguard is a political party.



I&#39;m opposed to leninism because I&#39;m opposed to authoritarianism, and using lies to get a place in power.

I suggest you read some of Lenin&#39;s theories and learn about the Russian revolution and come to your own conclusions about why it failed. Blaming the failure of the Russian revolution on Lenin&#39;s theories is very simplistic.

The proletarian revolution is an international revolution. The Russian revolution failed because the proletarian revolution failed to take on an international character.


The vanguard is essentially an empty concept that a certain group of anti-marxist leftists (whether they want to call themselves marxist or not) reinvent (in a way totally different from how Lenin used the term) and then incorrectly attribute to Lenin and all mainline Communists, in an effort to create the false, sectarian and totally invalid distinction between Marxism and so called "leninism", while incorrectly defining both..."Vanguardism" is not the vanguard in Lenin&#39;s sense, which simply refered to the portion of classes actively engaged in class struggle, not some elitist undemocratic organization.

Couldn&#39;t have said it better myself.



No, all they have to do is look at the disaster of 20th century Leninism.


Which disaster was that? The perversion of Lenin&#39;s theories and the hijacking of the left by the petty-bourgeoisie? I don&#39;t see how you can blame Lenin for that.

[TC]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jul 13 2006, 04:26 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; Jul 13 2006, 04:26 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 05:11 PM
But i can see how people who accept anti-workers propaganda uncritically might think that.
No, all they have to do is look at the disaster of 20th century Leninism. [/b]
Oh yes, the "disaster of 20th century leninism", as told through the unbiased, impartial source that is the capitalist corporate media and the imperialist run school system.

You can&#39;t "look" at anything you&#39;ve not witnessed with your own eyes except through the interpretive lense of tertiary sources, sources that in the western popular are spun with a propagandistic flaire, poor sources, unsubstantiated empirical claims, and supplying government propaganda meant for popular, domestic consumption, as if true.


If you don&#39;t do real research into primary documents, evaluate the raw data, and approach it with an unbiased materialist perspective not enthralled to western prejudices and the cynicism for its own sake it produces, its almost automatic to make anti-Communist bullshit comments like that.



Westerners need to understand that nearly everything they&#39;ve ever read or heard about current events and history is distorted so heavily as to have little relation to material reality. Some people just can&#39;t handle that radical a paradigm shift so they have to look at it with disbelief and continue to maintain, at the core, capitalist informed values.

[Leo]

Khayembii Communique,


No. The vanguard is simply the most advanced section of the proletariat (in terms of class consciousness, revolutionary activity, etc...). It is not a formal group of people; it is merely a classification of people based on their actions within the movement.

It hasn&#39;t ever been anything like that in the past, in practice.

The term vanguard ment a group that become rulers, i.e oppressors of the proletariat. There hasn&#39;t been a single vanguard in human history that didn&#39;t get seperated from the masses. When things went tough, I saw many members of vanguards screwing lives of ordinary workers to save their own asses.


Not at all. Recognizing that the vanguard exists is pretty much common sense, because no matter what group of people you study, you will always find that some are more active than others, some that are more revolutionary than others, and some that are more involved in the struggle than others. So the vanguard will inevitably exist; recognizing this as fact is simply a logical conclusion.

As I said that is not vanguard in practice, when someone refers to the term vanguard, what is meant is an institution. That&#39;s how it has always been in the past.

Of course, vanguard in practice was way more different than vanguard in theory. Lenin was after all a sincere revolutionary, but the historical vanguard originated from his theories. The bureocratic collective-capitalist class was created from the middle cadres as a result of the seperation of the historical vanguard from the workers. Everything else followed...

Red Heretic,


When was the last time a revolution occured without a revolutionary vanguard leading things forward?

Lets see, the Paris Commune, Makhnovist Revolution, Spanish Revolution, Hungarian Revolution of 56, French Revolution of May 68, Prague Spring... All are valuable defeats, symptoms of the rising class consciosness. The proletariat&#39;s time is coming.

TragicClown,


The vanguard is essentially an empty concept that a certain group of anti-marxist leftists

True, vanguard was introduced by Bolsheviks who were a certain group of anti-marxist leftists (whether they want to call themselves marxist or not) :rolleyes:

The proper term is elite.


"Vanguardism" is not the vanguard in Lenin&#39;s sense, which simply refered to the portion of classes actively engaged in class struggle, not some elitist undemocratic organization.

Maybe in his rheotoric, but not in practice.


Marxism-Leninism is Marxist social analysis of capitalism and Marx&#39;s vision for a socialist future, updated to include Lenin&#39;s more advanced analysis of capitalism in the imperialist stage, nothing more or less.

Marxism-Leninism is a laughable term. Lenin was incredibly weak when it came to theory, his understanding of imperialism might have been radical in his day but today it proved out to be flawed because it was a petty analysis, and it wasn&#39;t original even when it was published. Lenin was incredibly weak on theory and his practice turned out to be catasthrophic, finally creating gangster capitalism in Russia. The term Marxism-Leninism not only implies that Lenin&#39;s petty theories can be some kind of an improvement on works of Marx but it also shows ones support for the current stage of Russia which was obviously a result of the practice started in 1917. It is a pathetic term which has nothing to do with Marxism.


Oh yes, the "disaster of 20th century leninism", as told through the unbiased, impartial source that is the capitalist corporate media and the imperialist run school system.

No, "disaster of 20th century leninism", gangster capitalist Russian Federation and China PR, cheap labor source of the world, right in front of our eyes&#33;

[KC]

The term vanguard ment a group that become rulers, i.e oppressors of the proletariat.

The term never meant that.


When things went tough, I saw many members of vanguards screwing lives of ordinary workers to save their own asses.

Sounds like you have a problem with the organizations and not the vanguard. Did you even read my previous posts?


when someone refers to the term vanguard, what is meant is an institution. That&#39;s how it has always been in the past.

It&#39;s never been that way. The vanguard isn&#39;t an "institution". It&#39;s a classification of people.




Lets see, the Paris Commune, Makhnovist Revolution, Spanish Revolution, Hungarian Revolution of 56, French Revolution of May 68, Prague Spring... All are valuable defeats, symptoms of the rising class consciosness. The proletariat&#39;s time is coming.

And I&#39;m sure all of those have a vanguard. What about the National Guard? Or the actual members of the Commune?



True, vanguard was introduced by Bolsheviks who were a certain group of anti-marxist leftists (whether they want to call themselves marxist or not)

Huh? :huh:

The "vanguard" has existed within every political movement throughout history. It was discussed by Lenin, but has existed since class society has.




Maybe in his rheotoric, but not in practice.

Again, you&#39;re talking about organizations here. We&#39;re not discussing organizations.


Lenin was incredibly weak when it came to theory, his understanding of imperialism might have been radical in his day but today it proved out to be flawed because it was a petty analysis, and it wasn&#39;t original even when it was published. Lenin was incredibly weak on theory and his practice turned out to be catasthrophic, finally creating gangster capitalism in Russia.

Yeah, it&#39;s all Lenin&#39;s fault&#33; Damn you Ilyich&#33; :lol:


The term Marxism-Leninism not only implies that Lenin&#39;s petty theories can be some kind of an improvement on works of Marx but it also shows ones support for the current stage of Russia which was obviously a result of the practice started in 1917.

Yeah, because everything that&#39;s happened in Russia since then is exactly how Lenin wanted it to go. Give me a fucking break.

When we are discussing the vanguard you bring up different forms of organization. Why can&#39;t you understand that they&#39;re two different things? Is it really that hard to understand? The vanguard isn&#39;t an organization. The vanguard isn&#39;t an organization. THE VANGUARD ISN&#39;T AN ORGANIZATION. Understand now, or do you need me to repeat myself again?

[nickdlc]

The vanguard isn&#39;t an organization. The vanguard isn&#39;t an organization. THE VANGUARD ISN&#39;T AN ORGANIZATION. From my understanding lenin&#39;s idea of the vangaurd was heavily influenced by sergey nechayev, a russian revolutionary in the late 19 century. Sergey wrote an interesting pamphlet called the revolutionary catechism in which he writes how revolutionaries should act to bring around revolution.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp000116.txt

Would lenninists agree?

[Leo]

The term never meant that.

Maybe in your ideological dream world it doesn&#39;t, but that&#39;s what it has always been in practice so that&#39;s what it is.


Again, you&#39;re talking about organizations here. We&#39;re not discussing organizations.


Sounds like you have a problem with the organizations and not the vanguard. Did you even read my previous posts?

I did, and I know that it is the material practice that matters, not what&#39;s written on the tag.


It&#39;s never been that way. The vanguard isn&#39;t an "institution". It&#39;s a classification of people.

People who had been claiming that they were vanguards had always been like that, an institution seperated from the actualy masses.


And I&#39;m sure all of those have a vanguard.

If you call &#39;people who had class consciousness earlier and who were more active before the revolution&#39; a vanguard, fine, but that is not a revolutionary elite. Every self-identified vanguard was or had became a revolutionary elite.


The "vanguard" has existed within every political movement throughout history. It was discussed by Lenin, but has existed since class society has.

I meant the term vanguard, not the concept ...


Yeah, it&#39;s all Lenin&#39;s fault&#33; Damn you Ilyich&#33;

It wasn&#39;t his personal fault, Russia&#39;s journey to ganster capitalism originated from the existence of and the policies of the revolutionary elite which Lenin was the leader of.


Yeah, because everything that&#39;s happened in Russia since then is exactly how Lenin wanted it to go. Give me a fucking break.

Do you actually think it would make any difference if Lenin actually wanted things to go differently (and he did want things to go differently but it was too late). Lets see what happened: the revolutionary elite placed itself on the top of the state, they needed middle cadres to get things working, the middle cadres created a leader who would serve their class interests, all of the revolutionary elite got killed... Lenin had no idea what they had done was going to result in, but nevertheless what happened happened because of the revolutionary elite, wether they wanted it to happen like that or not is irrelevant.


When we are discussing the vanguard you bring up different forms of organization. Why can&#39;t you understand that they&#39;re two different things? Is it really that hard to understand? The vanguard isn&#39;t an organization. The vanguard isn&#39;t an organization. THE VANGUARD ISN&#39;T AN ORGANIZATION. Understand now, or do you need me to repeat myself again?

Vanguard is the tag sticked on revolutionary elitism to make it sound better. The term vanguard wouldn&#39;t exist if there weren&#39;t group/organizations who called themselves &#39;vanguards&#39;. So in that sense &#39;vanguard was an organization&#39;. Why don&#39;t you understand that the rhetoric isn&#39;t the practice. Is it really that hard to understand? The rhetoric isn&#39;t the practice. The rhetoric isn&#39;t the practice. THE RHETORIC ISN&#39;T THE PRACTICE. Is that clear? It&#39;s time to stop reading the tags and start looking at the material reality.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by nickdlc
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp000116.txt

Would lenninists agree?

No, that link is complete trash. "A revolutionary has no emotions"? Fuck that.

[Janus]

If you call &#39;people who had class consciousness earlier and who were more active before the revolution&#39; a vanguard, fine, but that is not a revolutionary elite.
Yea, I think that&#39;s what KC is talking about.

The term vanguard has always had a certain connotation because of its practice just like the term leader. However, there are other definitions and alternatives to this elitist connotation of the word.

[KC]

Maybe in your ideological dream world it doesn&#39;t, but that&#39;s what it has always been in practice so that&#39;s what it is.


This is the most idiotic "argument" I&#39;ve ever seen. Your "argument" is so against common sense that I&#39;m not even going to bother responding to this.



I did, and I know that it is the material practice that matters, not what&#39;s written on the tag.


So the problem is organization then, as the vanguard is a classification of people. If you say that organizations are vanguards (which is exactly what you&#39;re doing) then your analysis is fucked up and you&#39;re not looking at the vanguard as it is explained by Lenin. You&#39;re changing the meaning of the word and then demonizing it according to your definition. That&#39;s called a straw man and it&#39;s a shit argument.



People who had been claiming that they were vanguards had always been like that

Actually they don&#39;t claim they&#39;re the vanguard. They claim they&#39;re the vanguard party. See the difference? One&#39;s a classification and one&#39;s a political party. Can you get this through your thick fucking skull or is it too complicated for you?




If you call &#39;people who had class consciousness earlier and who were more active before the revolution&#39; a vanguard, fine

That&#39;s how I&#39;ve been defining the vanguard. Are you sure you read my previous posts? Because it doesn&#39;t seem like you have. Also, this is only a partial definition. The vanguard exists both during and after the revolution.


but that is not a revolutionary elite.

So you finally understand my stance then.




I meant the term vanguard, not the concept ...

Actually I believe it was written on by Blanqui first.


It wasn&#39;t his personal fault

Then you can&#39;t say that it was Lenin&#39;s fault; you say it was the Bolsheviks&#39; as they were the ones that implemented his policies.


Russia&#39;s journey to ganster capitalism originated from the existence of and the policies of the revolutionary elite which Lenin was the leader of.


Actually the Russian revolution failed because it failed to take on an international character. Period. National proletarian revolutions are doomed to fail. So to blame everything that went wrong on Lenin really isn&#39;t a materialist outlook.



Do you actually think it would make any difference if Lenin actually wanted things to go differently (and he did want things to go differently but it was too late).

Of course I don&#39;t. You&#39;re contradicting yourself here. You blame the failure of the Russian revolution on Lenin and the implementation of his policies by the Bolsheviks, and now you are saying that it doesn&#39;t matter what Lenin did because it was going to fail inevitably. Care to explain yourself?


Vanguard is the tag sticked on revolutionary elitism to make it sound better.

Can you not understand my definition of vanguard? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?


The term vanguard wouldn&#39;t exist if there weren&#39;t group/organizations who called themselves &#39;vanguards&#39;.

Nobody calls themselves the vanguard. They call themselves vanguard parties.


So in that sense &#39;vanguard was an organization&#39;.

So in that sense the vanguard party was an organization. Fixed.


Why don&#39;t you understand that the rhetoric isn&#39;t the practice.

Why don&#39;t you understand anything I&#39;m saying at all? THE VANGUARD ISN&#39;T AN ORGANIZATION. Did Lenin ever say the vanguard was an organization? NO. Did petty-bourgeois infiltrators hijack the term "vanguard party" along with a misinterpretation of Lenin&#39;s theories? YES. Is the left in the sad state it&#39;s currently in because of so-called "Leninism"? NO. Is it in the state that it&#39;s in because of petty-bourgeois infiltration and their skewing of proletarian theory for their own interests? YES.

[Leo]

This is the most idiotic "argument" I&#39;ve ever seen. Your "argument" is so against common sense that I&#39;m not even going to bother responding to this.

Oh get back to you fucking senses&#33; What do you think will happen if a group of people recognizes themselves as the &#39;vanguard&#39; of the working class? As the group that has been the first and the best. As the group that is the most important part of the proletariat. (Hint: Look at Russia for the answer.)


So the problem is organization then, as the vanguard is a classification of people. If you say that organizations are vanguards (which is exactly what you&#39;re doing) then your analysis is fucked up and you&#39;re not looking at the vanguard as it is explained by Lenin.

I am looking at the vanguard as it is practiced by Lenin and more so post-Lenin Leninists. Those organizations think they are vanguards, that&#39;s what thinking you are the vanguard does to you.


Actually they don&#39;t claim they&#39;re the vanguard. They claim they&#39;re the vanguard party. See the difference? One&#39;s a classification and one&#39;s a political party.

No, they claim they are the &#39;vanguard&#39; as well. It sounds better on occasion then claiming to be the vanguard party. They are not that stupid.


Can you get this through your thick fucking skull or is it too complicated for you?

Insulting eh? Very mature of you...


Actually I believe it was written on by Blanqui first.

Also Bakunin and Nechayev wrote on that, and their ideas were very influencial on Lenin&#39;s ideas.


Then you can&#39;t say that it was Lenin&#39;s fault; you say it was the Bolsheviks&#39; as they were the ones that implemented his policies.

I am not saying it was his fault, I am not even really saying it was the Bolshevik&#39;s fault, I am saying it was the result of Bolsheviks actions and Lenin was their leader and most famous theorician after all.


Actually the Russian revolution failed because it failed to take on an international character. Period. National proletarian revolutions are doomed to fail. So to blame everything that went wrong on Lenin really isn&#39;t a materialist outlook.

That is not false, national proletarian revolutions are doomed to fail, but it is also very dogmatic. First of all Russian revolution did take an international character. It inspired many revolutions. Even the Soviet Union was sort of an international union and they did try to resist joining the League of Nations for example. In Stalin era, the &#39;Socialism in one country&#39; nonsense was also just written to become sort-of allies with the west and also maybe a little against Trotsky, but in practice USSR always tried to find ways to expand their system.

Russian revolution failed because of the internal problems, the bureaocracy that had been growing. Sincere members of the revolutionary elite like Lenin and Trotsky tried to stop the bureacracy from taking power (and they failed) while more ambitious members of the elite like Stalin saw and used the situation of the middle cadres. This is actually the accepted materialist analysis.

Now, I am not blaming Lenin so you don&#39;t have to be angry try to defend your idol or whatever, he was after all a sincere revolutionary (who was confused like a duck on ideological matters but still...), but he was wrong on many matters, especially matters that were distinctive between Marx and him.


Of course I don&#39;t. You&#39;re contradicting yourself here. You blame the failure of the Russian revolution on Lenin and the implementation of his policies by the Bolsheviks, and now you are saying that it doesn&#39;t matter what Lenin did because it was going to fail inevitably. Care to explain yourself?

I don&#39;t blame it on Lenin, did I ever say that I blame Lenin? I DON&#39;T BLAME LENIN&#33; He was just one fucking man&#33; Where the fuck did you get the impression that I blame Lenin? I say that when Bolsheviks, whom Lenin lead and was the main theoretician, become the new elite of the state and this situation created a new class of middle cadres to get things done and everything else followed. Is that clear now? I don&#39;t give a fuck about Lenin.


Can you not understand my definition of vanguard? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?

I can understand your definition, but I think it is pretty deceptive. I think calling what you chose to call a &#39;vanguard&#39; simply &#39;revolutionaries&#39; would be more accurate. The term vanguard implies superiority and arrogance.


Nobody calls themselves the vanguard. They call themselves vanguard parties.

No, they do call themselves vanguards. Ever heard of things such as &#39;People&#39;s Vanguard&#39; or stuff like that?


Did Lenin ever say the vanguard was an organization?

No, but what he called a vanguard was an organization, it was his organization.


Did petty-bourgeois infiltrators hijack the term "vanguard party" along with a misinterpretation of Lenin&#39;s theories? YES. Is the left in the sad state it&#39;s currently in because of so-called "Leninism"? NO. Is it in the state that it&#39;s in because of petty-bourgeois infiltration and their skewing of proletarian theory for their own interests? YES.

Rather than the fact that Lenin&#39;s theories were pretty suitable for hijacking, I wouldn&#39;t really disagree with you on this.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:14 PM
Hmmmm, not sure how much this debate is moving forward without people clarifying the terms they are using. Here&#39;s my attempt at some questions:

1) Is it fair to say the working-class has, within it, different levels of class consciousness? (Is class consciousness even a term we&#39;re happy with?)


Yes to the first bit, why not? to the second bit.



2) Does a "vanguard" necessarily imply that a certain sector of the working class needs a different type of organisation or is differently organised to the rest of the working class?

The vanguard is useless if it is separate from the class and its organisations; however it is neutered if it is not organised within a party that can act as a poll of attraction within the class.


3) When you talk about vanguards are you referring to vanguard parties?

Not necessarily. The vanguard is an organic layer of the working class. It is composed of bus drivers, assembly line workers, offcie workers, whatever. The vanguard party is its organisation.

The situation in the West is that we have a vanguard but it is disorganised - we do not have a vanguard party.


4) What is the role of a "vanguard"? Is it acting on behalf of the working class or is it merely to project its ideas within the working class?

The job of the vanguard is raise questions, suggest solutions, agitate, educate and organise the class.

In a successful socialist revolution, the general high level of class consciousness within the working class and its control over society will ensure the dissolution of the vanguard.

[KC]

Don&#39;t even bother trying to explain it, Zero, they can&#39;t understand the concept.

[Leo]

they can&#39;t understand the concept.

Wow, how persuasive <_<

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16 2006, 09:06 AM

they can&#39;t understand the concept.

Wow, how persuasive <_<
Historically, you have not been able to.

So, in this "perfect little pipe dream"...maybe anarchists would be able to understand the concept of the vanguard as being the class conscious and revolutionary leadership of the proletariat, but in history and in practice, anarchists have repeatadly failed to understand this seemingly simple idea.

That&#39;s the way it&#39;s always been in practice, so that&#39;s the way it is. ;)

[Leo]

Historically, you have not been able to.

So, in this "perfect little pipe dream"...maybe anarchists would be able to understand the concept of the vanguard as being the class conscious and revolutionary leadership of the proletariat, but in history and in practice, anarchists have repeatadly failed to understand this seemingly simple idea.

That&#39;s the way it&#39;s always been in practice, so that&#39;s the way it is.

The thing is, if the proletariat does not have class consciousness, then there won&#39;t be, there can&#39;t be a proletarian revolution. So even if we accept to call class conscious revolutionaries &#39;the vanguard&#39;, this &#39;vanguard&#39; won&#39;t be the vanguard any more during the revolution, set aside after the revolution so there is no point in calling it the vanguard. Just revolutionary intellectuals would be a much better, and also much accurate term.

A revolution that is not made by the class conscious proletariat is not a proletarian revolution. Every single revolution done by some kind of a vanguard ended up in capitalism. Thinking we will be &#39;leaders&#39; of the proletariat because we developed class consciousness first is just ridiculous and wrong. History showed us that this is not the way.

[rebelworker]

Firstly, Dont paint all anarchist with the same brush.

Secondly some of the time people are dealing with language issues (as in definitions)


I will have to agree with most of what KC has said in this forum, he seems to have the best grasp on things.

For me the consept of the Vanguard really only makes sence BEFORE a revolutionary upheaval.

At any time THERE IS a more politically concious level of workers that are on a regular basis organising and trying to analyse society.

The Vanguard Party is a very different thing. The idea that revolutionary minded workers (the vanguard) should try and organise ourselves makes alot of scense and in practice this is what most anarchist organisations are, its what mine is anyway.

Now do we see ourselves as a vanguard party? NO&#33;

We beleive that the revolution should be made by the mass, but before then conscious revolutionaries should organise and propaghandise, and during and after we should continue to push our position, BUT NOT assume leadership OVER the revolution.

Lenin disagreed with this position, and in practice, whatever he wrote, he and the Bolshevik party disarmed (both politically and physically) the factory comittees, the very bodies set up by the vanguard of the proletariate to bring about a communist sociaty, and dominated and disempowered the trade unions. Both in my opinion, and in the opinion of most anarchists, counter revolutuonary acts.

The problem with semantics I think we are having here is that,
1)the vanguard does infact exist,
2) but the Bolshevik model of the vanguard party, and thier justifications for their actions based on this politic, lead to the dictatorship of a class of intellectuals and burocratic party functionaries OVER the real vanguard of the Proletariate, many of whome were still in the party up to 1921 and even beyond.

These are two different things.

My position and I think miles stated this aswell, is that there is no level playing feild for workers, even during the revolution.
Intellectuals and burocrates, have a) skills and social networks thats puts them at an advantage in manipulating political organisations.
b)more free time and energy to participate in political organisations.

I think the very formation of a govt based on the supremacy of the Vanguard Party will enevitably lead to the domination of a new class made up mostly of these kinds of people.

When the Workers Oposition in 1921, waaaaaayyyy to late, tried to push a motion that all people active in the govt should work like an average person for atleast 3 months out of the year ( waaaaayyyy too little) they were shot down by lenin, trotsky and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership ( at this point even lenin was begining to distance himself from trotsky at this point, s the leadership was far from united).

This situation is absolutely insane. Clearly the govt by this point had nothing to do with workers power, it had been comepletely taken over by the intelegencia and party hacks.

The revolution can only be made by the mass, self proclaimed vanguards might want to organise togeather to push specific positions, but never to rule in the name of the mass.

[KC]

I think the very formation of a govt based on the supremacy of the Vanguard Party will enevitably lead to the domination of a new class made up mostly of these kinds of people.


The best way to solve this would be to make the organization workers-only. ;)



The revolution can only be made by the mass, self proclaimed vanguards might want to organise togeather to push specific positions, but never to rule in the name of the mass.

Also, I would like to add that "self-proclaimed vanguard parties" really aren&#39;t what they say they are, and are just advertising themselves that way to gain membership. This whole argument about "we&#39;re the vanguard party&#33; Not them&#33;" is a huge problem with today&#39;s left (not the only one, though), and really the question is completely irrelevant, because the organization that becomes the "vanguard party" will be chosen by the proletariat and will be a decision made by the proleteriat themselves.

[Connolly]

The problem I see with vanguard leadership is that they dont actually know what direction they are leading the revolution.

They just dont know what communism/socialism is - and therefore - cant lead jack all anywhere only to what they "think" is the next social system.

Can they see the future?................do they know how to get somewhere that has never existed?

Wanna try social experimentation?

Also, I do not think "we" on this board are class conscious - we have a false consciousness. We cant possibly be class conscious when the material conditions do not exist for the transformation of society. We only have class consciousness when we actually see direction about how to overturn capitalism and create something viable.

None of us know exactly the nature of revolution - nor the actual steps to achieve it.

We can guess though.

[KC]

The problem I see with vanguard leadership is that they dont actually know what direction they are leading the revolution.

They just dont know what communism/socialism is - and therefore - cant lead jack all anywhere only to what they "think" is the next social system.

Can they see the future?................do they know how to get somewhere that has never existed?

Wanna try social experimentation?

So the workers won&#39;t be able to lead themselves to socialism? Because that&#39;s what the vanguard is.


Also, I do not think "we" on this board are class conscious - we have a false consciousness. We cant possibly be class conscious when the material conditions do not exist for the transformation of society. We only have class consciousness when we actually see direction about how to overturn capitalism and create something viable.

Objective conditions don&#39;t create class consciousness, genius.



None of us know exactly the nature of revolution - nor the actual steps to achieve it.


I don&#39;t see why this means we can&#39;t be class conscious.

[Connolly]

So the workers won&#39;t be able to lead themselves to socialism? Because that&#39;s what the vanguard is.

No, the workers, IMO, will lead themselves to socialism without the need for a proletarian vanguard.

The vanguard implies a seperate "decision making" body for the proletariat does it not?

The actions of a few cannot decide the faith of the masses.



Objective conditions don&#39;t create class consciousness, genius.

Im afraid objective conditions do create class conscousness. Our analysis of historical processes might just be wrong, as they have been on many occasions, and, if they are, your class consciousness will be nothing but false.

Class consciousness suggests an awareness of mass direction and initial goals. We have no initial goals or any effective actions we can be sure of.

The capitalist system will bring about class consciousness without the need to "erouse" it. Anything else is false.

And since capitalism, quite simply, (although no doubt you will disagree), is not ready to be thrown to the scrap heap yet - our "class consciousness" is nothing but false.


I don&#39;t see why this means we can&#39;t be class conscious

Proletarian class consciousness specifically means that the proletariat develops and understanding of their own conditions and position within the capitalists system which drives them towards initial actions.

Since those material conditions have not come into being, and your position is not within a revolutionary present - you cant possibly be aware of your own classes revolutionary position within the capitalist system.

This is when speaking of actual, proletarian class consciousness.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+Jul 17 2006, 09:59 PM--> (Khayembii Communique &#064; Jul 17 2006, 09:59 PM)
The best way to solve this would be to make the organization workers-only. ;)


[/b]
I think that the problem with the formula of a workers only party (which I agree with but is almost impossible to practice) is as I have said it excludes newly radicalising workers.

There is now way for the Party to represent thw mass will of the working class, and only thorugh trial and error and the very fact that they have power over the decisions that effect their lives will workers ever be ready as a group to run the society.

Again organs like workplace and community committees must run the revolution, not a dictatorship of the Party.


Khayembii Communique


Also, I would like to add that "self-proclaimed vanguard parties" really aren&#39;t what they say they are, and are just advertising themselves that way to gain membership. This whole argument about "we&#39;re the vanguard party&#33; Not them&#33;" is a huge problem with today&#39;s left (not the only one, though), and really the question is completely irrelevant, because the organization that becomes the "vanguard party" will be chosen by the proletariat and will be a decision made by the proleteriat themselves.

I agree, I just meant that any revolutionary organisation is in essence a vanguard party. The vanguard is not always right about everything, or even most things, it just is more conscious and active than other elements of the class.

[LSD]

I think it&#39;s important to seperate the political concept of a "vanguard" from the political entity of a "vanguard party" because as many have already pointed out, the "vanguard" is a rather complex theoretical term and has an historical life far more complex than leninism.

Lenin may have spoke of the vanguard, but it was by no means his invention. Nor did he ever intend to propose that the Bolsheviks were "creating something new" in appealing to the proletarian "vanguard".

After all, in strictly Leninist terms, the vanguard is merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation.

As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

A "vanguard party" however is precisely the opposite. It does have an organizational manifestation and it does (or at least it intends to) excersize authority. As the "voice" of the "vanguard", and through it the entire working class, the "vanguard party" seeks to lead in the sense of control, rather than the sense of "position".

How that party is organized is, of course, quite controversial. Obviously Trotskyist and Stalinists would disagree quite sharply on the role of democracy, structural centralism, the role of the individual leader, etc...

What does not change between the various Leninist camps, however, is the sense of nescessity regarding the "vanguard party". In Leninist and Leninist-influenced politics, the party is not only helpful or "a good idea", it is essential to revolution.

Not the proletariat, not the vanguard, but the party.

It&#39;s the Leninist obsessions with self that&#39;s the real danger of the ideology, not some theoretical nonsense about "vanguards" and "leading roles". Leninist organizations have historically and consistantly viewed their own leadership and their own organization to be the "single key" to revolutionary success.

This narcisistic mypoia has lead to the implicit glorification of sectarian fracturization. Despite how much Leninist parties have appealed to "unity" and "solidarity", they have always placed their own "party role" above all other concerns.

This is not to say that Leninists are in any way "evil" or "not leftists". They are very much our political comrades. But unfortunately, their organizational formulation has a critical flaw, one which has, consistantly, lead to the corruption and de-proletarianization of every revolution that they have ever "lead".

That&#39;s why the academic debate here is ultimately moot. I don&#39;t know if the "vanguard" theory properly explains revolution; whether a specifically "advanced" section of the working class need develop before the rest can be "activated". There are some interesting aspects to that political thesis, and although personally I find it to be a tad oversimplistic, I think it&#39;s wrong to dismiss it out of hand out of some desire to "excize Leninism".

Even more so, though, I think that it&#39;s a waste of energy. Accepting the existance of a "vanguard" is politically irrelevent so long as no organizational "priniciples" are extended from it.

Believing that there&#39;s an especially advanced "vanguard" is harmless; believing oneself to be the "voice" of that "vanguard", however, is not.

Our job, as communists, and "interpreters" of revolutionary "lines" is to be able to tell the two apart. It&#39;s not always easy, but if we want to avoid the mistakes of 20th century "commmunism", it&#39;s essential.

[KC]

The vanguard implies a seperate "decision making" body for the proletariat does it not?


Actually it does not.



I think that the problem with the formula of a workers only party (which I agree with but is almost impossible to practice) is as I have said it excludes newly radicalising workers.

How is it almost impossible to practice? The League has had absolutely no problem with this issue. And how does it exclude newly radicalizing workers?



Again organs like workplace and community committees must run the revolution, not a dictatorship of the Party.


I agree somewhat, but the role of the organization is to unite proletarians under a common goal and to organize to achieve that goal. The party doesn&#39;t have to have a top-down structure (I highly suspect that your dislike of the idea of a "party" is due to the structure and not the concept of the party itself).


I think it&#39;s important to seperate the political concept of a "vanguard" from the political entity of a "vanguard party" because as many have already pointed out, the "vanguard" is a rather complex theoretical term and has an historical life far more complex than leninism.

Lenin may have spoke of the vanguard, but it was by no means his invention. Nor did he ever intend to propose that the Bolsheviks were "creating something new" in appealing to the proletarian "vanguard".

After all, in strictly Leninist terms, the vanguard is merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation.

As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

A "vanguard party" however is precisely the opposite. It does have an organizational manifestation and it does (or at least it intends to) excersize authority. As the "voice" of the "vanguard", and through it the entire working class, the "vanguard party" seeks to lead in the sense of control, rather than the sense of "position".

Exactly.



How that party is organized is, of course, quite controversial. Obviously Trotskyist and Stalinists would disagree quite sharply on the role of democracy, structural centralism, the role of the individual leader, etc...


Well, yes. How the organization is structured is a point of contention for any revolutionary leftist.



What does not change between the various Leninist camps, however, is the sense of nescessity regarding the "vanguard party". In Leninist and Leninist-influenced politics, the party is not only helpful or "a good idea", it is essential to revolution.

Not the proletariat, not the vanguard, but the party.

Well, sure. Obviously organization within the movement is necessary. I don&#39;t see how you could say it isn&#39;t (unless you&#39;re Redstar or Gent...wait..you are Redstar&#33; :P ).



It&#39;s the Leninist obsessions with self that&#39;s the real danger of the ideology, not some theoretical nonsense about "vanguards" and "leading roles". Leninist organizations have historically and consistantly viewed their own leadership and their own organization to be the "single key" to revolutionary success.


This is obviously one of the biggest problems with the left. This competition is really a joke, and it&#39;s really unfortunate that most of the left today has sunk to such low levels.



This narcisistic mypoia has lead to the implicit glorification of sectarian fracturization. Despite how much Leninist parties have appealed to "unity" and "solidarity", they have always placed their own "party role" above all other concerns.

Yep.


whether a specifically "advanced" section of the working class need develop before the rest can be "activated".

Huh? Well, either you believe that revolution will never happen (restrict&#33;), you believe that the entire proletariat will spontaneously become class conscious (impossible), or the class consciousness within the proletariat will develop unevenly, in which case the vanguard exists.

It has nothing to do with any particular proletarian being "smarter" than another; it has everything to do with the fact that class consciousness develops unevenly and that those proletarians that are class conscious organize and propagandize to help other proletarians become class conscious.



Even more so, though, I think that it&#39;s a waste of energy. Accepting the existance of a "vanguard" is politically irrelevent so long as no organizational "priniciples" are extended from it.

Eh. It&#39;s merely an analysis of how political movements evolve. It really isn&#39;t that big of a deal, and it&#39;s really easy to understand, but when people misunderstand it or disagree with it then they&#39;re disagreeing with fact (which is just as bad as disagreeing with 2+2=4). The proletariat will not become spontaneously class conscious. The proletariat will not overthrow the bourgeoisie without organizing.



Believing that there&#39;s an especially advanced "vanguard" is harmless; believing oneself to be the "voice" of that "vanguard", however, is not.

Actually, I don&#39;t think that "believing oneself to be the &#39;voice&#39; of that &#39;vanguard&#39;" is harmful at all. As communists, we are all voices of the vanguard, as we are members of the vanguard.

Of course, when parties start saying that they are the vanguard party (and no other organization is) is when we start to have problems. All members of the vanguard are voices of the vanguard, and saying that only one section of the vanguard is the voice of the whole vanguard and actually fighting other members of the vanguard over this issue is where we currently have huge problems.

[LSD]

Well, sure. Obviously organization within the movement is necessary.

Of course it is, but that&#39;s not what we&#39;re talking about.

There&#39;s a difference between proletarian organization from the ground up, and Leninist "vanguard party" authority from the top down. One represents the interests of the revolutionary class; while the other represents the interests of bureaucrats and professional "revolutionaries" who&#39;s only "class interest" is to get themselves into some sort of authority so they can start bossing people around.


Huh? Well, either you believe that revolution will never happen (restrict&#33;), you believe that the entire proletariat will spontaneously become class conscious (impossible), or the class consciousness within the proletariat will develop unevenly, in which case the vanguard exists.

Again, I agree with certain broad themse of the "vanguard" thesis, but I find it to be oversimplistic in its approach and potentialy dangerous in its implications.

I do not reject that class consciousness is a gradual and heterogenous force, I just question whether or not any segment of a class can ever really be called its "vanguard" or whether revolutionary identity develops in a far more decentralized manner.

In revolutionary times, it&#39;s historically been more accurate to speak of a counter-revolutionary "vanguard" than a revolutionary one. The bulk of the masses have always been on the side of progress.

Class "temperature" rreceding a revolution is, unfortunately, harder to gaugue because it&#39;s not like anyone was going around taking "class consiousness" readings. Still, I am retiscent to fully accept the Marx/Lenin "vanguard" hypothesis as seems to contradict certain observed facts and doesn&#39;t quite jive with my personal notion of social movement.

In any case, I would maintain that this is a rather insignificant question and that, perhaps more importantly, our positions on this issue are actually quite close. In the end, it may just be a semantic difference that seperates us.


Eh. It&#39;s merely an analysis of how political movements evolve.

And a relatively unimportant one at that.

As I said before, I really think that people are making too much of a deal about this "vanguard" dispute and are really using it as a mask for their general qualms with the Leninist paradigm.

Personally, I would suggest for all my Anarchist and left-communist comrades, forget about the "vanguard" debate, it really isn&#39;t where you should be spending your energies. You will only end up in this kind of circular mess because what you&#39;re thinking of as the "vanguard" is not what a Leninist means by that term.

The central conflict between the "old" Leninist and the "new" "ultra leftists" is not over the esoteric political science question of "vanguards" its over the flesh and blood political question of "vanguard parties".

It&#39;s important that we keep that distinction clear in our minds. We&#39;re never going to convince Leninsts that there "shouldn&#39;t be a vanguard". Such a notion is antithetical to their entire class understanding.

Occasionaly, though we might just be able to convince a couple that that vanguard does not need a "leading party" to rule it. Accordingly, that&#39;s where we should focus our efforts in such conversations.


Actually, I don&#39;t think that "believing oneself to be the &#39;voice&#39; of that &#39;vanguard&#39;" is harmful at all.

The problem with "speaking for" the vanguard of a class -- and especially with the typical corollary that one is also speaking for the class in its entirety -- is that there are no democratic measures in place to ensure that one is acually "speaking for" anybody but oneself.

Sure, in a technical sense, anyone in the vanguard speaks "for" the vanguard because they themselves are part of it. But they are not all of it. And while they may be capable of speaking for their own ideas and those of their immediate compatriots, historically speaking, revolutionary "vanguards" have always been ideologically conflicting entities.

The best revolutionary condition is when all members of the "vanguard" (insofar as it exists) speak for themselves and organize together so that no one voice has a monopoly on influence.

The danger of the traditional "leninist" party is that it does not facilitate this kind of broad-based dialogue, but rather promotes an authoritarian line of "democratic centralism" with its own "leadership" as the sole "voice of the vanguard".

As I said, those who accept the existance of the "vanguard" or even consider themselves among it are of no threat to the working class. Those who would proclaim themselves its "leader" or its "voice", however, have historically shown themselves to be among the greatest threats to proletarian victory.

There&#39;s nothing worse than a false "guide"&#33;

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 18 2006, 02:42 AM



I think that the problem with the formula of a workers only party (which I agree with but is almost impossible to practice) is as I have said it excludes newly radicalising workers.

How is it almost impossible to practice? The League has had absolutely no problem with this issue. And how does it exclude newly radicalizing workers?



Again organs like workplace and community committees must run the revolution, not a dictatorship of the Party.


I agree somewhat, but the role of the organization is to unite proletarians under a common goal and to organize to achieve that goal. The party doesn&#39;t have to have a top-down structure (I highly suspect that your dislike of the idea of a "party" is due to the structure and not the concept of the party itself).


What i mean by this is the first thing a radicalised working class person will and should be doing during a period of revolutionary upheaval is to focus on workplace and community democracy, not joining "the party". At a time of rebolutionary struggle, it may not be feasible for new people to sepend time and energy getting "integrated" into a Revolutionary org, that energy would be better spent actually making the revolution.

An revolutionary org can never represent the class, no matter how progressive or democratic. Only community and workplace bodies (above even the unions) can really begin to facilitate the full "will" of our class in struggle.

I agree with the usefulness of a revolutionary organisation to help "unite the struggles"
but this should be facilitated through federated community and workplace councils.

Party rule should never be encouraged, it only takes power out of the hands of the working masses that need to learn by doing, and sets up a new class of political and burocratic elite. And like in Russia the party will be flooded and become dominated by oportunists, while at the same time transforming the former revolutionary workers into functionaries.

[Janus]

Secondly some of the time people are dealing with language issues (as in definitions)
Bingo. This debate concentrates mainly on semantics and is therefore frustrating as it never gets anywhere.

What we are talking about here is a classification of people rather than an actual organization or party.