Isolation of the Vanguard

[The Grey Blur]

Okay, so we as class conscious socialists/anarchists are the vanguard of the revolution, right? We are the most advanced sections of the working-class and are dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism.

But, by creating organisations which work outside the main working-class organisations (like unions, mass reformist political parties, community groups) are we in effect isolating the vanguard from the rest of the working-class?

It is detrimental to both, as the more class conscious workers will become disillusioned with the lack of success we will have and the less class conscious workers will be at the mercy of the reactionaries, reformists and others.

What do you guys think?

[blake 3:17]

This is a massive question for the revolutionary Left. My definition of a vanguard in North America anyways is the most active most conscious section of the working class -- the shop stewards, the picket captains, and grass roots feminist, ecological, antiracist activists.

I don't think think of our revolutionary threads as the vanguard -- more like points of connection, points of collective memory.

[Tower of Bebel]

That's why I keep shipping between council communism and Trotskyism.

Yet, let's not forget that's easier to bundle some revolutionaires together in a party or group of militant activist than to start a council and to seek for class conscious people in your local factory.

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:34 pm
That's why I keep shipping between council communism and Trotskyism.

Yet, let's not forget that's easier to bundle some revolutionaires together in a party or group of militant activist than to start a council and to seek for class conscious people in your local factory.
It may be harder but the the council guarantee no takeovers, treason and bureacracy.

[rouchambeau]

I'm really torn on this one. On one hand I am in great opposition to the notion of a group of professional revolutionaries. Such a group of people will only be--and have been--more likely to put themselves in positions of power over the working class.

On the other hand, I am against things like trying to radicalize existing organizations (i.e. unions). I think that new ground can only be gained through agitation outside of the kinds of workplace struggle that have gotten us little more than reforms.

[Rawthentic]

I think that it is not as hard as it seems.

Working class people need to form their independent organizations if class power. I may not be completely for radicalizing workers in unions, but there will come times that it will be necessary.

[KC]

But, by creating organisations which work outside the main working-class organisations (like unions, mass reformist political parties, community groups) are we in effect isolating the vanguard from the rest of the working-class?

That depends. Communist organizations can be great ways to organize and coordinate the work of communists, but turning these into proletarian political parties and separating it from the rest of the proletarian organizations is isolating ourselves from the rest of the proletariat.

Our job as communists is to work within the working class organizations to guide them towards class consciousness.

[Rawthentic]

Our job as communists is to work within the working class organizations to guide them towards class consciousness.
Most definitely. But more than anything, the workplace, where the workers are at.

[The Grey Blur]

My definition of a vanguard in North America anyways is the most active most conscious section of the working class
I agree. The vanguard is simply the most concious section of the working-class. World-wide, not just in N. America though.


I don't think think of our revolutionary threads as the vanguard -- more like points of connection, points of collective memory.
Doesn't this contradict what you said above?


That's why I keep shipping between council communism and Trotskyism.
Why do you feel that this brings in the question of council communism vs Trotskyism?


It may be harder but the the council guarantee no takeovers, treason and bureacracy.
No it doesn't, but that's a political discussion. Leave it outside this thread. I can't believe you didn't even address the thread topic but made a blatantly opportunistic and sectarian attempt to "score" one for your tendency.


On one hand I am in great opposition to the notion of a group of professional revolutionaries.
Why? Professional work is the most effective way to organise as it allows people to dedicate themselves full time to revolutionary work. We do not direct the working-class but seek to educate them while participating in their struggles.


Such a group of people will only be--and have been--more likely to put themselves in positions of power over the working class.
How? If there are democratic checks and balances (worker's wage, right of recall, election of all officials) I do not see this as being possible. We seek to empower the working-class, not lord over them. I think we all know the ancient arguments over the historical examples you would seek to provide so there's no point going into all that.


On the other hand, I am against things like trying to radicalize existing organizations (i.e. unions). I think that new ground can only be gained through agitation outside of the kinds of workplace struggle that have gotten us little more than reforms.
Unions may have bureaucracies but they are essentially working-class organisations, arising from the clash of the class struggle. We must win the support of the rank and file trade unionists if we are to eliminate this bureaucracy. Reforms are gains won by the working-class and must be defended, while we simultaeniously point out that these are only temporary and the full liberation of the working-class can come only through revolution.

You are in effect supportive of what I feel is a major error - seperating the class conscious elements of the working-class from the non-class conscious elements.

I'd agree with everything Zampano said.

My point is, we are the vanguard. But, in rejecting to work inside the mass organisations of the working-class, are we isolating this vanguard from the non-concious working-class?

Personally, I am in favour of Socialist/Communist parties, which are simply means to coordinate our actions. But I feel we should orientate the work of these parties towards the non-radicalised masses of the working-class, rather than remain "pure but isolated".

Hope that makes sense. This is not a jab at Anarchism btw, more a call to make people think about their current ideas and whether or not they will actually be effective.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:59 pm

Our job as communists is to work within the working class organizations to guide them towards class consciousness.
Most definitely. But more than anything, the workplace, where the workers are at.
Obviously. But not "more than anything", we should not have a fetish for where we intervene. We must participate equally in the workplace and in the political organisations I feel.

[Rawthentic]

Word.

[RedLenin]

Yes, this is an essential point. We communists must not isolate ourselves from our class. We must participate in, and be at the forefront of, all of their struggles. We need to orient ourselves to the traditional mass organizations of the working class; the trade unions and the labour parties where they exist. We still need to form our own independent marxist organizations, but the crux of our work must be inside these mass organizations.

[Rawthentic]

The "crux"? I disagree. It is an important part, but more importantly is in the workplace. I mean, it seems logical.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 09, 2007 09:18 pm
Okay, so we as class conscious socialists/anarchists are the vanguard of the revolution, right? We are the most advanced sections of the working-class and are dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism.

But, by creating organisations which work outside the main working-class organisations (like unions, mass reformist political parties, community groups) are we in effect isolating the vanguard from the rest of the working-class?

It is detrimental to both, as the more class conscious workers will become disillusioned with the lack of success we will have and the less class conscious workers will be at the mercy of the reactionaries, reformists and others.

What do you guys think?
This sectarianism you describe is a problem that, unfortunately, plagues 99.9% of the world's leftists.

We should not fear entering these organizations to win workers over, no matter how "bourgeoisified" they are. To do that is to leave workers behind to the influence of pro-bourgoeis elements withing those organizations!

[BobKKKindle$]

Even though the aim of the Vanguard is not to gain improvements within the framework of the existing system but to develop a revolutionary class consciousness, this does not mean that we cannot participate in existing political institutions more commonly associated with reformist politics, because this will help us engage with the working class and expose the flaws of Capitalism through making transitional demands - whether this involves joining existing political parties or creating formal communist organisations. If one chooses to participate in elections, however, it is of the highest importance never to lose one's revolutionary ideology.


We should not fear entering these organizations to win workers over, no matter how "bourgeoisified" they are. To do that is to leave workers behind to the influence of pro-bourgoeis elements withing those organizations!

In the event that these organisations, particuarly trade unions, no longer reflect the interests of the working class and work towards progressive goals, would it not be simpler, or at least an alternative possibility, to establish new organisations that still fulful the traditional functions of the trade union but also act as a radicalising influence on the working class?

[RNK]

Personally I feel vanguards must be as connected to the workers "on the ground" as possible for them to remain relevent and not isolated. Vanguards must reach to the people in all ways. However, I have my reservations about movements and "one-issue" organizations -- particularly because I work with activists who have spent decades in the labour and student union movements, and came to their own realization that those limited movements are simply not enough -- they needed a broader "umbrella" revolutionary vanguard movement to unite struggles and carry them forward in a more meaningful way. So they created such a vanguard.

[Rawthentic]

Yes, exactly, and that is the political struggle, that which fights the state that is organ of capitalist class rule.

Couldn't have said it better RNK.

[Boriznov]

Permanent Revolution - I gave my opinion to Raccoon and Raccoon only, i reconize that i didn't give my opinion on the thread topic itself. For that i apoligize :)

[Tower of Bebel]

Why do you feel that this brings in the question of council communism vs Trotskyism?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sometimes just find the council closer to a working class organisation than the vanguard party (?). Anyway, I see now I was wrong when I mentioned that I'm shipping between council comm. and trotskyism, it doesn't add anything to the thread.
My native tongue isn't English you see, so I had a false interpretation of what you were asking.

[rebelworker]

Good question,

I defenitly fear that this is one of the major problems facing the revolutionary left.

A few thoughts:

-most of what consists of Vanguard Parties today, is really self deluded intelectuals who have no real links to the working class.

-Revolutionary organisations are defenitly seseptible to becoming out of touch with what is going on in the communities and workplaces.

- Centralised leadership has the two fold problem (most especially when we are speaking of "professional revolutionaries") of being dobley out of touch. These groups tend to be very insular, they become not only out of touch with the working class, but often the grassroots memership of ther own organisation.

-If revolutioaries choose to build a revolutionary organisation ( I think we should) be very careful to not let this take up the majority of your "political time". The only way to stay in touch is to sped the majority of your time organising (or just hanging out with) regular folks.

[RNK]

-most of what consists of Vanguard Parties today, is really self deluded intelectuals who have no real links to the working class.

This is a misconception. And not to be overtly sectarian, but IMO this is largely an anarchist-driven misconception. There are high-profile intellectual-lead vanguards, but they are in the minority. They simply get more attention because of the viscious criticism surrounding them.

[rebelworker]

Give me one example of a NA or wester European "Vanguard Party" that has any real leading role among the working class.

In North America, the vast majority of groups calling themselves "the vanguard" are little more than university debate groups.

[Led Zeppelin]

The vanguard is rarely limited to a single party, actually, I can't think of a time when it was limited to a single party. You have to keep in mind that the vanguard isn't an entity which is united in theory and practice. There are many currents in the vanguard, and those weaken it from the inside.

As long as the vanguard is not united we're going to remain inefficient in our task of leading the proletariat.