Anarchism and the Vanguard

[BobKKKindle$]

I was reading this evening about the Mujeres Libres (Liberated women) organisation that existed in Spain during the civil war and which had an important role in the struggle for womens' emancipation in republican areas and sometimes within anarchist organisations which were, in some respects, sexist - for example, women had in some cases a less visible role in discussions and meetings. I found the statement of principles particularly interesting due to the inclusion of a word that is so often seen to signify repression and centralisation to Anarchists:


a. To create a conscious and responsible feminine force that will act as a vanguard of progress

I would just be interested to hear the opinions of Anarchists on this point. What do you think is meant by the term 'vanguard' in this context - does it imply something similar to the Leninist conception of a vanguard or is it an entirely different kind of organisation? Is the entire concept of a vanguard - a group seperated from the general mass of people to an extent - incompatible with Anarchism? What do you think of this quote and Mujeres Libres?

[The Grey Blur]

a group seperated from the general mass of people to an extent
The vanguard is never seperated from the masses, it is simply the most conscious and revolutionary element of them. Lenin was opposed to Left-Wing Communists because he believed there tactics would seperate the vanguard from the masses.

[BobKKKindle$]

The vanguard is never seperated from the masses, it is simply the most conscious and revolutionary element of them. Lenin was opposed to Left-Wing Communists because he believed there tactics would seperate the vanguard from the masses.

I know that is what a vanguard is in theory - what I meant by that comment was that Anarchists often percieve there to exist a danger of repression and authoritarianism if there exists a political party or other such organisation that exists to 'lead' the masses forward - whether this is a correct characterisation of the function of the vanguard party is a matter of debate of course.

[Janus]

The term vanguard is simpy a reference to the forefront of a movement or force helping to push and expand the way which is what probably the context of that passage. Of course, it has the same meaning in a theoretical sense as well though due to the theory of class consciousness, it has been taken to mean either an organized and rigidly structured force or as a diverse and dissipated one.

[Raúl Duke]

The vanguard is never seperated from the masses, it is simply the most conscious and revolutionary element of them.

I think las Mujeres Libres use the term in this sense. The group considered themselves to be the most liberated/revolutionary women in Spain and most likely what they meant (by progress) was to spread awareness, liberate women from patriachy, be a all-women force fighting for the revolution, etc.

The "Vanguard" is intended to mean the most "class conscious" and revolutionary elements of the general population (like permenent revolution mentioned). All the people in the revolutionary left could be considered a "vanguard."

What anarchists are against is a vanguard party organized by rigid "democratic" centralism with the intention of "leading" (i.e. ruling) the working class towards communism.

However, some leftists consider the real vanguard party role to be that of propaganda, guidence, and education instead of ruling the working class. I'm ok with that.

[Rawthentic]

Wow, thank you JohnnyDarko, you are one of the few anarchists who really understand the definition behind a "vanguard."

All the others are like, "oH, vANguArd, fUcK sHiT uP!", or "Boogeyman Lenin!"

[syndicat]

Anarchists historically also used the conept of a vanguard. In the 1930s there was an anarcho-communist magazine in New York called "Vanguard". Also, in the video "Durruti in the Spanish Revolution" there is vintage footage from a documentary made by the CNT-controlled film industry in which the FAI is called "the vanguard of the proletariat". Also, you will find passages in Emma Goldman where she refers to activists who are "in the avant guarde of social progress."

Where there is similarity in how some Leninists use the term is that it is based on the idea of "uneven consciousness", that not everyone at present has a vision of a life beyond capitalism, based on common ownership of the means of production, and a commitment to action building mass movements with a liberatory aim in mind. Anarchists and Leninists mostly probably agree about this as a description of the reality.

But i think it is not quite right to simply define "vanguard" as those with revolutionary ideas. I think it has to be understood in terms of the organic activist and publicist layer within the working class. But this layer at present is not necessarily revolutionary in its ideas, even if it may have criticisms of capitalism and want to make various changes. We have to allow that the "vanguard," in this sociological sense, can undergo an evolution or development in its ideas.

Moreover, there is a difference between anarchists and Leninists is in their views about what the role of the "vanguard" should be. I would say that, from a left libertarian point of view, the role of the vanguard should be to help to develop the active participation, capacity, knowledge, self-confidence, fighting spirit and organizational strength of ordinary working people. This is so that they can genuinely self-manage their own mass organizations of struggle such as unions.

Thus the aim is not the empowerment of the vanguard itself, but the empowerment of the working class. A libertarian Left vanguard does not aim to secure positions of management over the movement but works to ensure self-management of the movement by the masses of people who are affected by the struggles.

[Rawthentic]

And thus I agree with syndicat's conception of the vanguard.

The Bolshevik Party was of its time. In such adverse material conditions, backward proletariat (in the sense that it was small and many workers could not even read or handle machinery), a dedicated and centralized party was needed to carry the struggle forward and agitate for socialism in a highly repressive climate. Some of the principles are still applicable to today, but it is my opinion that a communist organization must reflect the type of society we want to build.