For a genuine dialogue: the vanguard

[VenceremosRed]

Clearly there exists a number of different tendancies on RevLeft, and that's not a bad thing. But I've noticed when we get into real discussions with great topics, the debates usually go down hill, get emotional and we leave the real debating behind for personal insults.

Lets change this and be revolutionaries.

I am really interested in having a respectful and honest debate about the role of the vanguard in the revolutionary movement with thoughs who feel vanguards are negative things.

There seems to me, to be two sides to this:

1) There is a point that without an organic connection to the masses, vanguards can become disconnected and abuse their leadership role.

2) However, on the flipside, anarchism seems to compoletely miss the complex tapestry of class struggle for "scenesterism" of activism as usual is that it sets up a moral dichotomy between the "good activists" and the "apathetic people."

3) If we're breaking that pattern, we should take a cue from Mao Zedong and use the Mass Line. Go talk to people, see where they are at, what the divisions are, the hopes and fears -- and bring an analysis and line to people that the advance can embrace, the intermediate can support and that isolates the backward.

Vanguards emerge independantly of the will of the movement, they simply emerge. Dedicated people who at any given moment understand more clearly and deeply what to do and what direction to take. They're called leaders. They were in the Paris Commune, Paris '68, and even in Spain -- obviously without formalized leadership roles.

Now, I would unite with anyone who thinks the period of socialism needs the greatest and broadest mass democracy, and accountability (recallability of leaders) and rights of agency among the masses.

But that doesn't override the need for a vanguard force to steer the revolutionary movement. The problem is that not everyone is as dedicated, as farsighted or as competent as the rest. This doesn't mean that leaders should be leaders for life (in the case of Stalin) but that leaders should unleash new leaders, and find a way to push out the stale and bring in the fresh, while at all times encouraging mass participation and accountability (through elections, recalls, public debates etc. and other mechanisms) I even think there should be multiple parties and contested elections during the socialist transition to communism.

Certainly to get to this point, we build unity among our class, which includes our anarchist brother and sisters, and welcome and protect their opinions and participation in building a truly classless society.

[LSD]

I'm always open to a civil and rational debate! :)


I am really interested in having a respectful and honest debate about the role of the vanguard in the revolutionary movement with thoughs who feel vanguards are negative things.

I don't think anyone really rejects the existance of a "vanguard", certainly not in the strict Marxist meaning of the term.

After all, in strictly Marxist-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's the Leninist obsessions with self that'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's why the academic debate here is ultimately moot. I don'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's wrong to dismiss it out of hand out of some desire to "excize Leninism".

Even more so, though, I think that it'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'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's not always easy, but if we want to avoid the mistakes of 20th century "commmunism", it's essential.


1) There is a point that without an organic connection to the masses, vanguards can become disconnected and abuse their leadership role.

Except I would contend that not only can "vanguard parties" become diconnected from the proletariat, but that they must do so. Not because communist politicians are "evil" or "power hungry", but because that's the fundmantal nature of the political party itself.

Political parties, by design, centralize authority into the hands of the most "theoretically advanced". This is beneficial when the objective is to promote some ideological line. But working class revolution is not about ideology, it's about liberation.

The revolutionary process needs to be an emancipatory one. Workers need to learn to manage themselves and their work without "supervision" from anyone. Party-based action does not promote this.

On the contrary, while any worker can join a "revolutionary" party, very few will ever be anything more than rank-and-file card carriers. The leadership will be composed of those who have the time and energy to play the bullshit bureaucratic game nescessary to rise through the ranks.

Someone working an 8 hour shift in a automotive factory does not have the time to sit on a "central committee" or "politburo". For most of us, party politics is a decidedly spectator sport.

Now, for bourgeois parties this isn't a problem. Their fundamental purpose is to promote some political line. An inactive membership is irrelevent so long as the party stays ideologically on message.

When a bourgeois party takes power it aims to make changes, surely, but those changes are top-down in nature. Training average workers to be self-empowered is the last thing the bourgeoisie wants.

Political parties work for bourgeois changes to the bourgeois system. They do not work as an insurrectionary tool against the system itself. The proletariat []cannot[/b] look to the "capitalist example" when attacking the foundations of capitalism itself.

A proletarian revolution is the only kind of revolution in history that seeks to enfranchise the masses. Accordingly, no historical revolutionary "models" can possibly apply.


However, on the flipside, anarchism seems to compoletely miss the complex tapestry of class struggle for "scenesterism" of activism

Well, I suppose it depends on what kind of "anarchists" we're talking about. Obviously the hippy-type utopian "lifestylist" anarchists contribute very little to practical class politics. But, as I see it, a strong anarcho-syndicalist line is worth a hundred Leninist "leaders".


If we're breaking that pattern, we should take a cue from Mao Zedong and use the Mass Line

I'm not an expert in Maoism, but even a cursory glance at Chinese history makes one question the logic of taking anything Mao wrote without a very large grain of salt.

Mao, like Stalin and Lenin before him, attempted to take the bourgeois political model and paint it red.

Well the bourgeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation and so are all of their various political institutions. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

As workers, the political party is wholly alien to us. We do not have the time in our lives to go about politics as a businessman or aristocrat would. Our political institutions must come out of our work and out of our living class struggle.

Workers can join a "vanguard" party, but they will very rarely lead it. Most workers simply don't have the time to go through the hassle of rising throught the bureacratic ranks.

That's why it's nearly always petty-bourgeois academic types who end up "speaking for" the proletariat.

I know that recently some Marxist groups have begun establishing "worker only" membership rules and that's certainly a step in the right direction. But I don't think that it goes far enough in eliminating the fundmental inequality that is at the heart of the bourgeois "party".

Victorious revolutionary organizations will inevitably shape the structure of post-revolutionary society. You can try and seperate "pre" and "post" revolution as if they're divorced from eac other, but the reality is that once the old order falls, something needs to take its place.

In those situations, the leading proletarian organization is usually the only thing with enough support to fill the vacuum.

Accordingly, if that organization is structured along hiearchical anti-democratic lines, so will the emergent post-revolutionary society. That's what happened in Russia, that's what happened in China, that's what happened in Cuba.

Besides, there's something very odd about self-described "Leninists" establishing party rules that would have excluded Lenin. If petty-bourgeois theoreticians should not lead "vanguard parties" then wasn't Lenin's most fundamental belief, namely his own fitness to rule, completely in error?

How then can we take anything that he "theorized" without a great deal of skepticism?

It seems to me that its time for the proletariat to approach the question of its liberation from a proletarian perspective. We're not bourgeois politicians trying to push a "policy", we're the exploited masses of the world trying to gain our freedom.

It's time we started acting like it!


Vanguards emerge independantly of the will of the movement, they simply emerge. Dedicated people who at any given moment understand more clearly and deeply what to do and what direction to take. They're called leaders.


No, they're called activitsts. They only become "leaders" once they gain political power.

Look, I don't deny that many Marxist "leaders" throughout history have meant well and genuinly thought that they were part of a proletarian vanguard. I'm even willing to entertain the thought that Stalin seriously saw himself as "walking the road" towards socialism (although I'm dubious), but good intentions only get you so far.

"Vanguard parties" promise liberation once they've been placed in power; we are expected to "trust" that when they become the bosses, things will "get better".

The problem with this equation, however, is that it ignores the material basis of class relations. Once the "leadership" of a party is firmly in control, that leadership becomes the new ruling class.

Not the class that it supposedly "represents", but the party elite itself.

That's why every Leninist revolution has failed so spectacularly, that's why despite the dedication and best wishes of Communist leaders throughout history, the workers have yet to actually gain power anywhere.

For a proletarian revolution to actually succeed, it must be a liberating process in itself. It must begin and end with the workers on the ground and it must be predicated on worker self-managment and motility.

"Iron discipline" or "centralization" is fundamentally antithetical to this aim and so any revolution predicated on those principles cannot help but fail. "Military-like" party organization may prove useful at overthrowing weak governments, but if coup d'états were our aim, we'd all be social-democrats.

Communism is about more than a change in government, it's about a change in governance; it's about replacing top-down coercion with participatory democracy.

Syndicalism is therefore the only means pursuing a revolutionary proletarian agenda while remaining true to the actual proletariat. Political parties, no matter how they are organized, exist to service an ideology. Workers' syndicates, however, exist to service workers. In my judgment, revolution must come from the latter direction rather than the former.


Now, I would unite with anyone who thinks the period of socialism needs the greatest and broadest mass democracy, and accountability (recallability of leaders) and rights of agency among the masses.

What about those of us who deny the need for any "period of socialism" whatsoever?


The problem is that not everyone is as dedicated, as farsighted or as competent as the rest.

Which is precisely why education and information need to be our priorities.

The lack of political insight by the masses is a tragedy to be corrected, not a fact of nature to be "accepted". Obviously some people will obviously care more about politics than others, but there's an "action potential" of political understanding that's a basic prerequisite for revolution.

The proletariat cannot be "lead" to emancipation, it must free itself. Obviously that's a lot more complicated than the Leninist approach, but it also has a much greater chance of success.

[VenceremosRed]

Ace Ironbody: Wow Ace, I must admit I wasn't prepared for such a coherent and sober response. I would tend to agree with much of what has been said here.

Out of curiosity - what exactly do you mean when you say Mao, Stalin and Lenin all took the bourgeois political model and attempted to paint it red?

As someone who upholds Marx, Lenin and Mao (even Stalin, his correct side), I do think you have some really valid points. I think the whole purpose of leaders (we can call them committed activists) is to unleash new leaders, to bring about a situation where genuine self-management is possible.

But I don't think this is going to happen spontanously, or without the development of leaders.

Of course there needs to be extensive and ongoing proletarianization of the revolutionary party, and there needs to be extensive, meaningful democracy - but there also needs to be a correct line for these efforts -- otherwise we can end up like the Sandanistas. The Nicaraguan elections that deposed the Sandanistas are a perfect example of this. How could they have a vote under the gun of contra terrorism?

This reflects an error of line. If revolutionaries compete in elections the bourgeoisie, we will always lose. This goes straight back to Marx's term "the narrow horizon of bourgeois right" in Critique of the Gotha Program.

I found your emphasize on the liberation aspect and not the led aspect very profound, and very true. And something I've been struggling for a while, and a very deep contradiction.

[RNK]

I think personally, one of the biggest threats to a successful Socialist revolution and government (in the long run) is quite simply mankind's natural greed. There will almost always be a leader or a politician or an official somewhere along the line that perverts and corrupts the "good name" of Socialism for his own gain; and while the same is true in Capitalism, the main difference is Capitalism strives upon greed while Communism attempts to subdue it.

I have a question... when does the supposed authority of the vanguard take place? First and foremost after it has been granted that authority by the proletariat? Or does the vanguard act in a revolutionary way first without the authority of the proletariat, in order to gain that authority?

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:52 PM
I think personally, one of the biggest threats to a successful Socialist revolution and government (in the long run) is quite simply mankind's natural greed. There will almost always be a leader or a politician or an official somewhere along the line that perverts and corrupts the "good name" of Socialism for his own gain; and while the same is true in Capitalism, the main difference is Capitalism strives upon greed while Communism attempts to subdue it.

I have a question... when does the supposed authority of the vanguard take place? First and foremost after it has been granted that authority by the proletariat? Or does the vanguard act in a revolutionary way first without the authority of the proletariat, in order to gain that authority?
Marx didn't believe there was a "natural greed." Marx said that man's thinking was shaped largely by his social experience, which would mean he is taught to be greedy.

(I've heard people say "well even little kids can be greedy!" - this isn't actually true, studies show young children demonstrate selfish behavior as ways of empowering themselves as individuals in the young development, later on, selfishness is the norm in society.)

So "natural greed" isn't the problem.

Additionally, this analysis lacks a class perspective. Mao pointed out that class struggle continues under socialism, this means new possibly exploitive classes can emerge and make a socialist society a capitalist one.

when does the supposed authority of the vanguard take place? First and foremost after it has been granted that authority by the proletariat? Or does the vanguard act in a revolutionary way first without the authority of the proletariat, in order to gain that authority?

A vanguard doesn't just "appear" and announce itself as the vanguard. It develops with the revolutionary masses, and if you read about the mass line (I highly suggest you do) its a dialectical process, the vanguard doesn't act without the support of the broad masses, and they don't lag behind them either.

[rouchambeau]

The creation of communism isn't something that can by guided by a group of "enlightened" individulals who are part of some vanguard party. If we look to the most recent uprisings by proletarians (like Poland 1970 or Paris 1971) we can see that they were not guided by some party or program. Rather, they were spontaineous and anti-organizational.

The events in Poland and Paris unfolded out of a want to improve existing conditions in the face of a capitalism that could make no concessions to the proletarians. The proles were then forced to confront capitalism itself.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:51 PM
The creation of communism isn't something that can by guided by a group of "enlightened" individulals who are part of some vanguard party. If we look to the most recent uprisings by proletarians (like Poland 1970 or Paris 1971) we can see that they were not guided by some party or program. Rather, they were spontaineous and anti-organizational.

The events in Poland and Paris unfolded out of a want to improve existing conditions in the face of a capitalism that could make no concessions to the proletarians. The proles were then forced to confront capitalism itself.
That couldn't be further from the truth.

:lol:

[rouchambeau]

So much for respectful and insightful dialogue.

[Son of a Strummer]

As a libertarian socialist I tend to think that the word cadre may be more fitting than vanguard:

cadre- a group of trained or otherwise qualified personnel capable of forming, training, or leading an expanded organization, as a religious or political faction, or a skilled work force

So now let me waffle out a few points explicating some of the important principles.

There should be several points of emphasis:

1. The development of cadres in the plural. Acknowledgement of the fundamental value of diversity in a complex society. A successful revolution requires developing a broad network of cadres effectively representing the entire social body that excludes the right of no one to have a say in the matters which affect them. Thus leadership of the revolution by vanguards tending towards homogenity, ie: groups such as intellectuals, politicians, military leaders, or coalitions among them that nevertheless constitute a minority, would be illegitimate. Until such a broad network is achieved and its institutions have taken seed, then cadres should revoke leadership of the revolutionary body and concentrate on the diverse development of cadres and the institutional framework for uniting them.

2. Revolutionary cadres measure their success according to the development of the capabilities for self-management of others and therefore have a disposition towards voluntarily and generously devolving their own decision-making powerl inasmuch as it becomes a hindrance rather a benefit to the development of the capabilities of those in positions affording less decision-making power.

3. Revolutionary cadres are militantly anti-elitist in disposition. Although they make ethical judgements, they tend to refrain from invidious comparison based on status and factors beyond an individual's control, such as luck in the genetic lottery. If someone is morally wrong or incompetent they will look for means to help the individual develop their positive potentialities rather than employ the institutions of discipline and punishment.

4. Revolutionary cadres steadfastly uphold the right to free expression of everyone, even counter-revolutionaries. They militate for genuinely democratic institutions based on self-management and inclusiveness. In circumstances where they hold a minority viewpoint they nevertheless uphold the legitimacy of democratic institutions inasmuch they are provided effective access to them, by participating in them.

5. Despite being at the forefront of the revolution, cadres recognize that their knowledge necessarily has limits, and therefore practically all their views are fallible, and welcome revisions suggested by the results of rational scrutiny, changing circumstances, discovery, and experimentation.

6. Revolutionary cadres accept leadership willingly without requiring extra rewards or extra status.

[red_che]

Lenin on Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder has these to say:


The mere presentation of the question -- "dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders, or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?" -- testifies to the most incredible and hopeless confusion of mind. These people are straining to invent something quite out of the ordinary, and, in their effort to be clever, make themselves ridiculous. Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; that the masses can be contrasted to classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, to categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that usually, and in the majority of cases, at least in modern civilized countries, classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions and are called leaders. All this is elementary. All this is simple and clear. Why replace this by some rigmarole, by some new Volapük? On the one hand, these people apparently got confused when they found themselves in difficult straits, when the Party's abrupt change-over from legality to illegality disturbed the customary, normal and simple relations between leaders, parties and classes. In Germany, as in other European countries, people had become too accustomed to legality, to the free and proper election of "leaders" at regular party congresses, to the convenient method of testing the class composition of parties through parliamentary elections, mass meetings, the press, the sentiments of the trade unions and other organizations, etc. When, instead of this customary procedure, it became necessary, due to the stormy development of the revolution and the development of the civil war, to pass quickly from legality to illegality, to combine the two, and to adopt the "inconvenient" and "undemocratic" methods of singling out, or forming, or preserving "groups of leaders" -- people lost their heads and began to think up some supernatural nonsense. Probably, the Dutch Tribunists who had the misfortune to be born in a small country where traditions and conditions of legality were particularly privileged and particularly stable, and who had never witnessed the change-over from legality to illegality, became confused, lost their heads, and helped to create these absurd inventions.

On the other hand, we see a simply thoughtless and incoherent use of the now "fashionable" terms "masses" and "leaders." These people have heard and committed to memory a great many attacks on "leaders," in which they are contrasted to "the masses": but they were unable to think matters out and gain a clear understanding of what it was all about.

The divergence between "leaders" and "masses" was brought out with particular clarity and sharpness in all countries at the end of and after the imperialist war. The principal reason for this phenomenon was explained many times by Marx and Engels between the years 1852 and 1892 by the example of England. That country's monopoly position led to the separation from the "masses" of a semi-petty bourgeois, opportunist "labour aristocracy." The leaders of this labour aristocracy constantly deserted to the bourgeoisie, and were directly or indirectly in its pay. Marx earned the honour of incurring the hatred of these scoundrels by openly branding them as traitors. Modern (twentieth century) imperialism created a privileged, monopoly position for a few advanced countries, and this gave rise everywhere in the Second International to a certain type of traitor, opportunist, social-chauvinist leaders, who champion the interests of their own craft, their own section of the labour aristocracy. This divorced the opportunist parties from the "masses," that is, from the broadest strata of the working people, from their majority, from the lowest-paid workers. The victory of the revolutionary proletariat is impossible unless this evil is combated, unless the opportunist, social-traitor leaders are exposed, discredited and expelled. And that is the policy on which the Third International embarked.

To go so far in this connection as to contrast, in general, dictatorship of the masses to dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd and stupid. What is particularly curious is that actually, in place of the old leaders, who hold the common human views on ordinary matters, new leaders are put forth (under cover of the slogan: "Down with the leaders!") who talk unnatural stuff and nonsense. Such are Lauffenberg, Wolfheim, Horner, Karl Schröder, Friedrich Wendel and Karl Erler in Germany. Erler's attempts to render the question "more profound" and to proclaim that political parties are generally unnecessary and "bourgeois," represent such Herculean pillars of absurdity that one can only shrug one's shoulders. It goes to confirm the truth that a little mistake can always be turned into a monstrous one if it is persisted in, if profound justifications are sought for it, and if it is carried to its "logical conclusion."(italics are mine)

Lenin then went on to conclude:


There is therefore nothing surprising, nothing new, nothing terrible in the "infantile disorder" of "Left-wing Communism" among the Germans.

Therefore, I have to say this: That such questioning on the "vanguard" or "leaders" or "party leadership" is just an infantile disorder of the left-wing communists. That those who keep questioning the legitimacy or necessity or even existence of vanguards, leaders or the Party are those who, until now, has not matured politically.

[Leo]

And here's left-communist Gorter's reply to Lenin:


In the first place I must refute two of your arguments, that may mislead the judgment of comrades or readers. You scoff and sneer at the ridiculous and childish nonsense of the struggle in Germany, at the “dictatorship of the leaders or of the masses,” at “from above or below,” etc. We quite agree with you, that these should be no questions at all. But we do not agree with your scoffing. For that is the pity of it: in Western- Europe they still are questions. In Western Europe we still have, in many countries, leaders of the type of the Second International; here we are still seeking the right leaders, those that do not try to dominate the masses, that do not betray them; and as long as we do not find these leaders, we want to do all things from below, and through the dictatorship of the masses themselves. If I have a mountain-guide, and he should lead me into the abyss, I prefer to do without him. As soon as we have found the right guides, we will stop this searching. Then mass and leader will be really one. This, and nothing else, is what the German and English Left Wing, what we ourselves, mean by these words.

And the same holds good for your second remark, that the leader should form one united whole with class and mass. We quite agree with you. But the question is to find and rear leaders that are really one with the masses. This can only be accomplished by the masses, the political parties and the Trade Unions, by means of the most severe struggle, also inwardly. And the same holds good for iron discipline, and strong centralisation. We want them all right, but not until we have the right leaders. This severest of all struggles, which is now being fought most strenuously in Germany and England, the two countries where Communism is nearest to its realisation, can only be harmed by your scoffing. Your attitude panders to the opportunist elements in the Third International. By this scoffing, you abet the opportunist elements in the Third International.

For it is one of the means by which elements in the Spartakus League and in the BSP, and also in the Communist Parties in many other countries, imposes upon the workers, when they say that the entire question of masses and leader is absurd, is “nonsense and childishness.” Through this phrase they avoid, and wish to avoid, all criticism of themselves, the leaders. It is by means of this phrase of an iron discipline and centralisation, that they crush the opposition. And this opportunism is abetted by you.

And he continues by saying:


If only, as stipulations and statutes for the Third International, you had proposed and carried through economic organisation in industrial organisations and workers’ unions (into which, if need be, industrial unions on a shop floor basis might have been introduced), and political organisation in parties which reject parliamentarism!

Then you would in the first place have had, in all countries, absolutely firm kernels, parties that could really carry out the revolution, parties that would gradually have gathered the masses around them, through their own example, in their own country, and not through pressure from outside. Then you would have had economic organisations that would have annihilated the counter-revolutionary Trade Unions (syndicalist as well as free). And then with ONE stroke you would have cut off the way for all opportunists. For these can thrive only where there is plotting with the counter-revolution.

Then, likewise – and this is by far the most important point – you would have educated the workers into independent fighters to a very high degree, as far as it is possible in the present stage.

If you, Lenin, and you, Bukharin and Radek, had done this, had chosen these tactics, with your authority and experience, your strength and genius, and if you had helped us to eradicate the faults that cling to us as yet, and to our tactics, then we would have achieved a Third International that was perfectly firm internally, and unshakable externally, an International which would gradually have gathered the entire proletariat around it, through the force of its example, and which would have built Communism.

It is true that there are no tactics without defeat. But these would have suffered least defeat, and would most easily have recovered from it; they would have gone the quickest way, and would have won the quickest and surest victory. Yours lead to repeated defeat for the proletariat.

However, you have rejected this because, instead of conscious, steadfast fighters, you wanted partly or totally unconscious masses.

and finally he concludes:


The Left Wing chooses its tactics in such a way that in the first place the mind of the workers is liberated.

As the Third International does not found its tactics on freeing the mind, nor on the unity of all bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties, but on compromises and “rifts"; it leaves the old Trade Unions intact, trying to unite them with the Third International.

As the Left Wing strives above all for freeing the mind, and believes in the unity of the bourgeois parties, it realises that the Trade Unions must be destroyed, and that the proletariat needs better weapons.

The same motives induce the Third International to support parliamentarism.

The same motives also induce the Left Wing to abolish parliamentarism.

The Third International leaves the condition of slavery such as it was in the Second.

The Left Wing wishes to change it from below upward; it seizes the evil at the root.

This said, I will gladly be called a terrible left-wing communist infant.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by VenceremosRed+Oct 2 2006, 05:03 AM--> (VenceremosRed @ Oct 2 2006, 05:03 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 06:51 PM
The creation of communism isn't something that can by guided by a group of "enlightened" individulals who are part of some vanguard party. If we look to the most recent uprisings by proletarians (like Poland 1970 or Paris 1971) we can see that they were not guided by some party or program. Rather, they were spontaineous and anti-organizational.

The events in Poland and Paris unfolded out of a want to improve existing conditions in the face of a capitalism that could make no concessions to the proletarians. The proles were then forced to confront capitalism itself.
That couldn't be further from the truth.

:lol: [/b]
I have to agree! :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You gotta love people pointing to the anti-communist ,clerical-nationalist, U.S.-backed Solidarnosc "union" as a working class liberation movement.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Son of a [email protected] 3 2006, 12:32 AM
As a libertarian socialist I tend to think that the word cadre may be more fitting than vanguard:

cadre- a group of trained or otherwise qualified personnel capable of forming, training, or leading an expanded organization, as a religious or political faction, or a skilled work force

So now let me waffle out a few points explicating some of the important principles.

There should be several points of emphasis:

1. The development of cadres in the plural. Acknowledgement of the fundamental value of diversity in a complex society. A successful revolution requires developing a broad network of cadres effectively representing the entire social body that excludes the right of no one to have a say in the matters which affect them. Thus leadership of the revolution by vanguards tending towards homogeneity, ie: groups such as intellectuals, politicians, military leaders, or coalitions among them that nevertheless constitute a minority, would be illegitimate. Until such a broad network is achieved and its institutions have taken seed, then cadres should revoke leadership of the revolutionary body and concentrate on the diverse development of cadres and the institutional framework for uniting them.

2. Revolutionary cadres measure their success according to the development of the capabilities for self-management of others and therefore have a disposition towards voluntarily and generously devolving their own decision-making powerl inasmuch as it becomes a hindrance rather a benefit to the development of the capabilities of those in positions affording less decision-making power.

3. Revolutionary cadres are militantly anti-elitist in disposition. Although they make ethical judgements, they tend to refrain from invidious comparison based on status and factors beyond an individual's control, such as luck in the genetic lottery. If someone is morally wrong or incompetent they will look for means to help the individual develop their positive potentialities rather than employ the institutions of discipline and punishment.

4. Revolutionary cadres steadfastly uphold the right to free expression of everyone, even counter-revolutionaries. They militate for genuinely democratic institutions based on self-management and inclusiveness. In circumstances where they hold a minority viewpoint they nevertheless uphold the legitimacy of democratic institutions inasmuch they are provided effective access to them, by participating in them.

5. Despite being at the forefront of the revolution, cadres recognize that their knowledge necessarily has limits, and therefore practically all their views are fallible, and welcome revisions suggested by the results of rational scrutiny, changing circumstances, discovery, and experimentation.

6. Revolutionary cadres accept leadership willingly without requiring extra rewards or extra status.
You raise some good points here. It is a bit on the idealistic side though. Anyone who has ever participated in any political grouping knows there is at least a single leader who emerges - weather formally elected from below or appointed from above - who at any given moment is better experienced, better equipped and has demonstrated a high level of class consciousness then everyone else. Leaders emerge, and it would be foolish not to utilize them.

I completely agree with the thrust of your point though, comrade. That leaders and people in responsible positions in general should be held accountable, not just to cadres, but also to the masses of people. I would expand though, qualitively, from just formalized mechanisms like elections and recalls, which should be enshrined, but also encouraging self-management and mass participation. I don't see socialism as a bueracratic machine on the backs of the people, but as an organic and genuine thing that lives in tandem with the people; and responds to the well-being and initiatives of the masses.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:51 PM
The creation of communism isn't something that can by guided by a group of "enlightened" individulals who are part of some vanguard party. If we look to the most recent uprisings by proletarians (like Poland 1970 or Paris 1971) we can see that they were not guided by some party or program. Rather, they were spontaineous and anti-organizational.

The events in Poland and Paris unfolded out of a want to improve existing conditions in the face of a capitalism that could make no concessions to the proletarians. The proles were then forced to confront capitalism itself.
What basis do you believe Poland was a "Proletarian" revolution? I think it was entirely bourgeois liberal, at very best.

[Lenin's Law]

Venceremos - I appreciate the effort you are making here to increase the dialogue and encourage civil discourse between members here. I admit that at times my emotions can get the better of me but you seem to remain cool-headed despite provacative posts or those that are outright false and even with a hint of reactionary propaganda. I admire that, and hope I can learn to have "patience, patience and more patience" as Lenin once said and that you seem to have.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 4 2006, 03:49 AM
Venceremos - I appreciate the effort you are making here to increase the dialogue and encourage civil discourse between members here. I admit that at times my emotions can get the better of me but you seem to remain cool-headed despite provacative posts or those that are outright false and even with a hint of reactionary propaganda. I admire that, and hope I can learn to have "patience, patience and more patience" as Lenin once said and that you seem to have.
What I think is funny about all the high emotions is that these events are historical, and though we can study the line struggles and the various elements of class struggle at any given moment, we are in an entirely different epoch. The 21st century is starting off meager, not a bang like the 20th with the Russian Revolution -- we have Cuba (which is not in a good place, economically speaking), and Nepal, and intense battles in the Dominican Republic, India, Turkey and the Philipines, and class struggle in Paris (that took the form of Muslim versus French) -- while the U.S. imperialists are attempting to verge towards fascism, but haven't been able to fullfill their program, but have managed to dominate mid-east oil to ensure U.S. domination ----- and here we are getting our feelings hurt about someone criticizing Marx, Lenin, Mao or Trotsky or Gramsci or Castro or Chomsky or Bukarin, or whoever...!

We need new synthesis, not hurt feelings. ;)

[red_che]

Leo:

Two things:

First, that quote by Gorter (whoever he is) you posted actually accepted the fact that there must be a leader in the revolution. His only question is who. In this point, I can say that there is no question as to what class leads the revolution. And within that leading class (and I refer to the proletariat), I assume that that Gorter recognizes the fact that there is a section of the proletariat that comprises its most advanced section that is most equipped politically, organizationally and ideologically to lead the entire class. And they are the communists. But if that Gorter wants to have a specific name of a person, or his concept of leadership lies only to one person, then that is definitely an infantile disorder.

Second, that Gorter shows the left-wing communists' immaturity by just reacting on Lenin's "scoffing".

And also, you did not provide a reference to that quote. Where did it come from? And who is Gorter, by the way (pardon my not knowing who he is)?

rouchambeu:
The events in Poland and Paris unfolded out of a want to improve existing conditions in the face of a capitalism that could make no concessions to the proletarians. The proles were then forced to confront capitalism itself.

Well, is the Poland event here a communist revolution? What about the Paris event? Are you referring to the Paris Commune or the recent event that happened there?

[Leo]

First, that quote by Gorter (whoever he is) you posted actually accepted the fact that there must be a leader in the revolution.

Ah, yeah - so I've noticed. It kinda rebuttles Lenin's arguement about childishness doesn't it?


I assume that that Gorter recognizes the fact that there is a section of the proletariat that comprises its most advanced section that is most equipped politically, organizationally and ideologically to lead the entire class. And they are the communists.

Of course, that's the point.


But if that Gorter wants to have a specific name of a person, or his concept of leadership lies only to one person, then that is definitely an infantile disorder.

Of course he doesn't, he is opposed to social democratic leaders:


Originally posted by Gorter+--> (Gorter)In Western Europe we still have, in many countries, leaders of the type of the Second International; here we are still seeking the right leaders, those that do not try to dominate the masses, that do not betray them.[/b]


Second, that Gorter shows the left-wing communists' immaturity by just reacting on Lenin's "scoffing".

Is reacting against opportunism immature now?


Gorter
This severest of all struggles, which is now being fought most strenuously in Germany and England, the two countries where Communism is nearest to its realisation, can only be harmed by your scoffing. Your attitude panders to the opportunist elements in the Third International. By this scoffing, you abet the opportunist elements in the Third International.


And also, you did not provide a reference to that quote. Where did it come from? And who is Gorter, by the way (pardon my not knowing who he is)?

Gorter is a Dutch revolutionary coming from the communist left tradition. Quotes are coming from his "Open Letter to Comrade Lenin":

http://marx.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

[rouchambeau]

What basis do you believe Poland was a "Proletarian" revolution? I think it was entirely bourgeois liberal, at very best.

I don't. Where did you get that from? What reason do you have for calling it liberal and bourgeois?


Well, is the Poland event here a communist revolution? What about the Paris event? Are you referring to the Paris Commune or the recent event that happened there?
No, but I'm not talking about outright communist revolution. I'm talking about the nature of the most recent proletarian uprisings. I'm talking 1971, not 1968.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by rouchambeau+Oct 4 2006, 09:39 PM--> (rouchambeau @ Oct 4 2006, 09:39 PM)
What basis do you believe Poland was a "Proletarian" revolution? I think it was entirely bourgeois liberal, at very best.

I don't. Where did you get that from? [/b]
Maybe from this:


rouchambeau
If we look to the most recent uprisings by proletarians (like Poland 1970 or Paris 1971)

Emphasis added.

[rouchambeau]

That only works if you consider an uprising and a revolution the same thing.

[SPK]

Originally posted by VenceremosRed+Oct 3 2006, 09:31 PM--> (VenceremosRed @ Oct 3 2006, 09:31 PM)Anyone who has ever participated in any political grouping knows there is at least a single leader who emerges - weather formally elected from below or appointed from above - who at any given moment is better experienced, better equipped and has demonstrated a high level of class consciousness then everyone else. Leaders emerge, and it would be foolish not to utilize them.[/b]

[email protected] 4 2006, 12:18 AM
What I think is funny about all the high emotions is that these events are historical, and though we can study the line struggles and the various elements of class struggle at any given moment, we are in an entirely different epoch. The 21st century is starting off meager, not a bang like the 20th with the Russian Revolution -- we have Cuba (which is not in a good place, economically speaking), and Nepal, and intense battles in the Dominican Republic, India, Turkey and the Philipines, and class struggle in Paris (that took the form of Muslim versus French) -- while the U.S. imperialists are attempting to verge towards fascism, but haven't been able to fullfill their program, but have managed to dominate mid-east oil to ensure U.S. domination ----- and here we are getting our feelings hurt about someone criticizing Marx, Lenin, Mao or Trotsky or Gramsci or Castro or Chomsky or Bukarin, or whoever...!

We need new synthesis, not hurt feelings. ;)
VR, I don't quite get where you're coming from. Would your synthesis be yet another understanding of the historical, twentieth-century struggles of the proletariat and oppressed peoples (Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc.)? Or would it be primarily based on the more recent struggles that you noted, in places like Nepal and India? You seem to believe that leaders should, or have, emerged in such battles: what specific leaders are you talking about, at least in terms of the current revolutionary processes? (Not the historical ones -- we already know who those leaders were.)

You note that "a single leader emerges... who at any given moment is better experienced, better equipped", etc.: when someone says this to me, at least in the usa, it is my experience that they're going to start quoting some obscure, sectarian honcho that few have ever heard of. These kinds of discussions of leadership are for the most part not actually about real, existing leaders -- if they were real, little explanation would be required -- but are instead about convincing people to follow a particular person who hasn't exactly proved his or her worth. Such discussions are not designed to represent or describe a situation, but are instead attempts to produce and create a situation.

I'm more sympathetic to SOS's ideas. I don't think that leadership works at all in the way that you are describing, but most of my real-world experience is based on mass organizations and mass movements (and other things) I've been involved in -- not the kind of explicitly revolutionary organizations or Marxist-Leninist parties to which, I guess, you are sympathetic. So you may not be interested in that perspective -- are you looking at the so-called social movements as well, or just the conscious revolutionary struggles?

Confused... :blink:

[red_che]

Leo:
It kinda rebuttles Lenin's arguement about childishness doesn't it?

Well, not quite.


Of course, that's the point.

Can you elaborate further on that point?


Of course he doesn't, he is opposed to social democratic leaders:

Such as?


Is reacting against opportunism immature now?

What opportunism? By whom?


Gorter is a Dutch revolutionary coming from the communist left tradition. Quotes are coming from his "Open Letter to Comrade Lenin":

Thanks for that info.

rouchambeau:
No, but I'm not talking about outright communist revolution. I'm talking about the nature of the most recent proletarian uprisings. I'm talking 1971, not 1968.

Oh, is that a communist revolution? I don't think so.

SPK:
are you looking at the so-called social movements as well, or just the conscious revolutionary struggles?

Oh, in my view, social movements of today (even in the 19th or 20th century) are conscious revolutionary struggles. I can't see any reason to make a separation between the two. And, as far as I'm concerned, such revolutionary struggles need to be guided, directed or led by an organization of the advanced section of the proletariat (communist party). Perhaps, this is the point of distance between Leninists and other people (like yourself). And this has been one of the most argued points.


Would your synthesis be yet another understanding of the historical, twentieth-century struggles of the proletariat and oppressed peoples (Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc.)? Or would it be primarily based on the more recent struggles that you noted, in places like Nepal and India? You seem to believe that leaders should, or have, emerged in such battles: what specific leaders are you talking about, at least in terms of the current revolutionary processes? (Not the historical ones -- we already know who those leaders were.)
I don't think that leadership works at all in the way that you are describing, but most of my real-world experience is based on mass organizations and mass movements (and other things) I've been involved in -- not the kind of explicitly revolutionary organizations or Marxist-Leninist parties to which, I guess, you are sympathetic.

I don't quite get also what you are arriving to, here. You seem to dismiss VenceremosRed's ideas simply as historical (I take it as: obsolete) but you didn't provide any new or fresh examples. Can you please elaborate?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 30 2006, 11:47 PM
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.
That's because Marxists are materialists.

Has there ever been a revolution or mass-movement in modern times (even in feudal times this was mostly the case) which was not lead by a political party expressing the political demands of a section of society?

If you can give me an example (a working example, not a failure), then I will seriously start to doubt the "vanguard party" theory.

Did Marxists give an example of the contrary? Yes, they did. For example; the trade-unions.

Would trade-unions have developed throughout the world if it was not for the conscious actions of trade-unionists? Would the unions have "developed out of nowhere", just because "the material conditions were present"? Of course not, someone has to organize and fight for them. Organizations means forming a party. The trade-unionists of those times formed "labor" parties as the political expression of their demands.

And that's how trade-unions were formed, an economic demand for an organization came into expression politically through a party.

I could give countless examples like that one, if you could provide one that would be nice.

[sonofthedog]

Mao, like Stalin and Lenin before him, attempted to take the bourgeois political model and paint it red.

Well the bourgeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation and so are all of their various political institutions. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

There are many arguments that I would like to take up on this thread, but I will restrict myself to this point made by Rochambeau.

First, I think that for purposes of clarification and realism, we must distinguish between Stalin, Mao, and Lenin, they simply cannot be grouped together so arbitrarily, to do so is not only crude, but philistine. For the sake of argument, I will specifically deal with the accusation against Lenin, and more generally, the Leninist method of party building with relation to the class (I would actually argue that neither Mao nor Stalin were Leninists, but that is a separate argument), and Lenin's Theory of Revolution.

This position is actually couched in a question of the State as it relates to revolution, something that Lenin actually dealt with in "State & Revolution". I am basically paraphrasing the arguments made therein.

The existence of a State will always exist as long as there are class antagonisms, because with a class society comes the need for the ruling class to suppress the ambitions of all other classes within. (This is all fairly basic, but worth restating). The aim of Socialists is to advance the interests of the working class (the majority and the only class with the economic and social ability to transform society), with the recognition that this cannot happen short of a revolution that puts State power into the hands of the working class. In effect, society is re-organized so as the working class now becomes the ruling class.

Now, part of the process of a revolution is to smash the state and its protection of property relations, but this State does not instantly disappear - for a time (referred to as Socialism today, Marx called it the 1st Phase of Communism), the working class must suppress and marginalize the influence of the old capitalists, the ruling class, and their intellectual apologists, this supression cannot happen without the existence of a State, because that is what a State is and does.

Democracy today serves a small minority in the suppression of the majority, a revolution would create what is in effect a Worker's Republic in which Democracy as a form of government is used to suppress the minority (the old rulers). This form of government is effectively a "bourgeois political model", but materially and scientifically, in the transition from Socialism to Communism (classless society), there can be no other trajectory.

In fact, as Democracy broadens into the lives of the majority, it at the same time dilutes its relevancy and will eventually "wither away" (as Engels states). Simply put, as society moves away from the "Bourgeois Right" and towards a standard, "Right of Equality of Labor", as classes begin to break down, the State (and the necessity of a State) with "wither away", and with it, all corresponding bourgeois forms, such as "Democracy". Basically, when there aren't any classes left, there is no need for the suppression of one class over another, no need for a state, and no longer any need for the old political forms Rochambeau refers to.

It is not realistic nor scientifically accurate to assume that revolutions immediately destroy class society and with it, the State - a revolution is a step in that direction, but Socialism is that process, and so the working class adopts in its own name and power, the pre-existing forms of government, but this time, for a majority.

This is not Lenin painting the model Red, this is the working class for the first time organizing present society in its own interests.

Just another point of clarity on this statement:


Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

This is actually not accurate, the emergence of capitalism in most advanced countries (England, France, US...) came after a brief transitional period in which the old forms of government and economic relations under feudalism were combined with the emergence of commodities, this period is referred to Marxist economics as the "Simple Commodity Exchange" period. Bourgeois Revolutions, while rebelling against the former order, embraced its reliance on the State as a means of power. So will a worker's revolution.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:36 AM

Would your synthesis be yet another understanding of the historical, twentieth-century struggles of the proletariat and oppressed peoples (Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc.)? Or would it be primarily based on the more recent struggles that you noted, in places like Nepal and India? You seem to believe that leaders should, or have, emerged in such battles: what specific leaders are you talking about, at least in terms of the current revolutionary processes? (Not the historical ones -- we already know who those leaders were.) I don't quite get also what you are arriving to, here... Can you please elaborate?
I wanted to get a better understanding of VR's point-of-view. Does VR -- or other people on this thread who have a similar position on the question of leadership -- approach that question solely through the lens of the historical revolutions that they would view as genuinely communist (the big ones, like Russia in 1917 and China in 1949, for example)? Would they also take into account more recent revolutions that are more dubious in terms of their relationship to building socialism (Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua in the 1970's come to mind)? Would they also take into account the different mass movements or so-called "social" movements that have been active since the late 1960's?

I'm asking this, because I think that there is a lot that we can learn about leadership from struggles other than those of the classic communist revolutions of the early and mid twentieth century. Surely there are positive lessons from the movements of the past fifty years or so -- not just negative ones that would serve merely to revalidate the strategies of Mao, etc. VR explicitly states that this century has not exactly kicked off with a bang -- although I would be interested in people's summation of the few revolutionary processes that are currently underway, particularly in Nepal.

[SPK]

A few points on the leadership issue:


Originally posted by VenceremosRed+Oct 3 2006, 09:31 PM--> (VenceremosRed @ Oct 3 2006, 09:31 PM)Anyone who has ever participated in any political grouping knows there is at least a single leader who emerges - weather formally elected from below or appointed from above - who at any given moment is better experienced, better equipped and has demonstrated a high level of class consciousness then everyone else. Leaders emerge, and it would be foolish not to utilize them.

I completely agree with the thrust of your point though, comrade. That leaders and people in responsible positions in general should be held accountable, not just to cadres, but also to the masses of people. I would expand though, qualitively, from just formalized mechanisms like elections and recalls, which should be enshrined, but also encouraging self-management and mass participation. [/b]

No, I’ve never been involved in a political grouping where a single leader emerges in the way that you describe or in any other way. The largest, dynamic, and most creative organizations in my experience are the ones where you don’t have formal, leadership posts at all, irrespective of whether those people would be democratically elected or appointed from on-high. Leadership is contextual – it is an intervention in a specific political situation and requires the ability to democratically build a majority opinion or consensus around an ideological line, a plan of action, and so forth. A person or tendency may exercise effective leadership at one point or around one question, but if they – based on prior successes – are then elevated into an “abstracted” post or office, that leadership ability generally dies. That ability may dissipate, because they are no longer intimately or integrally connected to the day-by-day activities of the organizational base, or because they become too wrapped up in the administrative / bureaucratic machinations and politicking that characterize formal structures of that kind (or, even worse, they become attached to the material incentives or opportunities that come with that post or office).

For the most part, though, I think the key problem is that real leadership is limited and particular: one is addressing a specific, complex issue and is applying their knowledge and experience to that issue – that doesn’t mean at all that the same person or tendency has equivalent knowledge or experience on another, different issue or has something useful to say about it. Leadership is also historically transitory and ephemeral. Someone may effectively be a leader during one period, but time moves on, things change, and generally the ideas and understandings that people have concerning a question do not change as well – there is usually a lag or disconnect between the concrete, material situation and ideological line. That person or tendency will then have lost the effective ability to exercise leadership.

On a related note:

[email protected] 5 2006, 03:12 AM
Has there ever been a revolution or mass-movement in modern times (even in feudal times this was mostly the case) which was not lead by a political party expressing the political demands of a section of society?

Uh, yes. Three obvious examples are the ecological movements, second-wave feminism, and the queer movements, all of which came out of the sixties. Environmentalism was initially greeted by Leninists with derision, because of the middle-class nature of the movement’s base and also because of Marxism’s productivist bias, which uncritically stresses economic development and the human manipulation of the natural world. Second-wave feminism faced similar hostility, again because of the class character of the movement’s base and because of endless disputes over the ultimate source of women’s oppression – i.e. class versus gender. The queer movements were mostly alien to anything in the Marxist tradition, for different reasons, and were regarded with virulent homophobia.

The response by Leninists was wrong, and today these struggles are a commonly-accepted part of party programs, however unenthusiastic people may be. However, in the interim period, those movements basically developed independently and autonomously without any useful input from organized Marxism-Leninism: they generated a whole new set of ideas, created organizations, took action, and clearly had many successes (though they are ailing badly today). Currently, there is still very little such input from Leninists: what passes for political discourse around these questions, at least among the vanguardist parties, is not creative, innovative, or new. It is merely derivative of the political discourse that came out of those movements themselves -- specifically out of prior phases of those mass struggles, periods that have already come and gone. For example, most anything on RevLeft that is said about queer people – the ideas, the language, etc. – is a direct product of the last, major phase of the queer mass movements, which ran basically from 1987-1993.

(I’m focusing here on Marxism-Leninism, because anarchists are generally not the ones making outlandish claims to have an all-encompassing scientific understanding of the world in all of its complexity. Neither are they demanding to subsume existing political movements to the control of a vanguard.)

I think it is necessary for Leninists to critically support these kinds of struggles. I certainly think that the different movements that have arisen, or will arise, should strive to understand the relation between capitalism and whatever oppression they are dealing with, as well as the relation between that oppression and the necessity for the overthrow of the capitalist state and the building of communism. However, Leninists cannot by themselves develop any full, substantive understanding of the specificity and particularity of all of these struggles and the associated communities, and this has been demonstrated historically.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:27 PM
Uh, yes. Three obvious examples are the ecological movements, second-wave feminism, and the queer movements, all of which came out of the sixties.
All of these movements were not revolutionary, but reformist in nature, and all of them have yet to achieve their goals. The feminist and homosexual (or queer) movements will never achieve their goals, their goals are linked with the communist movement in that they can only be achieved when the current society is overthrown. The ecological movement has goals which can never be realized until technology is further advanced.

Besides, all these movements have non-political goals, i.e., their goals have to do with "changing minds of people on matters which are not political". The homosexual movements' goal is to change people's mind about homosexuality, and to fight homophobia, the same applies for the feminist movement in relation to sexism, and to the ecological movement in relation to the environment.

Also, even though these movements are not political, they are certainly centralized and have a hierarchy, so they function almost exactly as (maybe even exactly as) any political party.


The response by Leninists was wrong, and today these struggles are a commonly-accepted part of party programs, however unenthusiastic people may be. However, in the interim period, those movements basically developed independently and autonomously without any useful input from organized Marxism-Leninism: they generated a whole new set of ideas, created organizations, took action, and clearly had many successes (though they are ailing badly today).

Exactly, they are "ailing badly today", in other words they were failures.

Homophobia still exists, sexism still exists, and they are "ailing badly". Even though they had some successes in the past their goals were never achieved, so I conclude that they are failures, period. If they had formed political parties they would have probably achieved more, but they didn't really have the need to do so because their organizations infiltrated bourgeois political parties and affected them ideologically. Sure, they got some anti-sexism and anti-homophobia laws passed, but that didn't change much did it? At least, not in practice.

People like that have to realize that it is capitalist society which perpetuates sexism and homophobia by promoting ignorance amongst the masses.

As I said above, their goals can only be achieved when capitalist society is overthrown, so they are linked with the communist movement, you can't cite them as an example of non-political success stories, because they're not.

You're probably going to respond by saying that organized communism hasn't achieved their goals in the past either, of course this is not true; I cite the example of the USSR, where the organized Marxist movement took state-power, overthrew capitalism, and was able to realize their goals, whether they did or did not realize their eventual goals is irrelevant, the point is that they had the opportunity to do so, while the ecological, feminist, and homosexual movements never had this opportunity.


I think it is necessary for Leninists to critically support these kinds of struggles. I certainly think that the different movements that have arisen, or will arise, should strive to understand the relation between capitalism and whatever oppression they are dealing with, as well as the relation between that oppression and the necessity for the overthrow of the capitalist state and the building of communism. However, Leninists cannot by themselves develop any full, substantive understanding of the specificity and particularity of all of these struggles and the associated communities, and this has been demonstrated historically.

Of course every real Leninist (I prefer the term Marxist) supports these movements (perhaps not the ecological movement due to its anti-third world bias), that doesn't mean we don't realize that they are defunct in the long-run.

Either you believe sexism, homophobia, ecological ruin etc. can be ended while capitalism still exists or you don't, you obviously do, so I suggest you join Greenpeace and I wish you all the best with that.

[SPK]

Earlier, I posed the following question to VenceremosRed and other people on this thread:

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:33 PM
I wanted to get a better understanding of VR's point-of-view. Does VR -- or other people on this thread who have a similar position on the question of leadership -- approach that question solely through the lens of the historical revolutions that they would view as genuinely communist (the big ones, like Russia in 1917 and China in 1949, for example)? Would they also take into account more recent revolutions that are more dubious in terms of their relationship to building socialism (Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua in the 1970's come to mind)? Would they also take into account the different mass movements or so-called "social" movements that have been active since the late 1960's?
I asked this, because I didn't believe it was a productive use of my time to engage in a debate where the different developments of the past thirty years would essentially be ruled out-of-bounds and rendered invalid as historical evidence. And that is essentially what you have done, in dismissing the ecological, queer, and second-wave women's movements because they are reformist. If you are ignoring a particular struggle because it is reformist, then how far back do we have to go, historically speaking, before we find a revolutionary movement that you believe can legitimately inform a debate on vanguardism? Nicaragua in 1979? Vietnam, Laos, Angola, and Mozambique in 1975? Even further back? If you can't engage with the developments of the past three decades, and you propose to simply erase from your analysis the advances of that period because they – very inconveniently for you – were not at all the product of a wholly marginalized Marxist-Leninist current in the usa, then your position is absurd.

Of course, you might inform us that there is some platitudinous maximum leader, of some pipsqueak sectarian group, who has been genuinely leading the revolutionary developments during that time, while everyone else was somehow getting it all wrong. :lol:

As for the party question, I interpreted that question as being one about Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties. The three movements I noted were not at all built or driven in any fundamental way by such organizations. There was certainly leadership -- constituted by multiple, contending ideological formations which changed as time went along -- but they were not by any stretch of the imagination Leninist or vanguardist. For a description of one of the groups involved in the queer movements, see this thread, and then tell me whether or not you think that could be classified as a “party”: ACT UP (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57144&st=0&#entry1292187337)