Vanguard Parties?

[The-Spark]

I was wondering why certain groups or people would think a vanguard party a bad thing? What your guys opinons on it?

Thanks

Spark

[Rawthentic]

Certain groups like anarchists consider vanguard parties a bad thing because they believe that is presupposes that the masses are too stupid to liberate themselves from capitalism.

Vanguard parties are political organizations of the most advanced and resolute members of the proletariat as well as of the intelligentsia. The purpose of them is to prepare for and execute revolution. Of course, this is far too simplistic, and you should research the subject more yourself.

In my opinion, proletarian revolution is impossible without a vanguard party that can unite the working class of all races and nationalities into one revolutionary movement that sets its sights on the seizure of power. Famous revolutionary political parties in the US have been Eugene Debs' Socialist Party USA, the Communist Party USA, and the Black Panther Party.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 20, 2007 10:03 pm
Certain groups like anarchists consider vanguard parties a bad thing because they believe that is presupposes that the masses are too stupid to liberate themselves from capitalism.

Vanguard parties are political organizations of the most advanced and resolute members of the proletariat as well as of the intelligentsia. The purpose of them is to prepare for and execute revolution. Of course, this is far too simplistic, and you should research the subject more yourself.

In my opinion, proletarian revolution is impossible without a vanguard party that can unite the working class of all races and nationalities into one revolutionary movement that sets its sights on the seizure of power. Famous revolutionary political parties in the US have been Eugene Debs' Socialist Party USA, the Communist Party USA, and the Black Panther Party.
Well i do agree with that definately when the system alienates us from eachother in such a way. How would the masses create revolution by themselves? Possibly if there was a serious event which angered the majority in such a way, but than wouldn't it be better if there was a vanguard party that knew what it was doing to head it?

[Rawthentic]

Basically a vanguard party that can unite the workers and prepare and organize them in the event of a revolutionary situation.

The reality is that the masses do create revolution by themselves. Those who say that a vanguard party negates self-emancipation are simply narrow-minded and don't understand one bit what it takes to make revolution.

The party is the vehicle by which the working class organizes and emancipates itself in the road to communism.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 20, 2007 05:47 pm
I was wondering why certain groups or people would think a vanguard party a bad thing? What your guys opinons on it?

Thanks

Spark
I would say that most leftist that are opposed to the vanguard party are because of 2 things. like live for the people said, it has the potential to alienate people but the more promonant concern is because they believe that giving them the power to "lead" the revoultion would corrupt them and basically make them bourgeosie themselves.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 20, 2007 10:17 pm
Basically a vanguard party that can unite the workers and prepare and organize them in the event of a revolutionary situation.

The reality is that the masses do create revolution by themselves. Those who say that a vanguard party negates self-emancipation are simply narrow-minded and don't understand one bit what it takes to make revolution.

The party is the vehicle by which the working class organizes and emancipates itself in the road to communism.
thanks

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by RedStaredRevolution+September 20, 2007 10:29 pm--> (RedStaredRevolution @ September 20, 2007 10:29 pm)
The-[email protected] 20, 2007 05:47 pm
I was wondering why certain groups or people would think a vanguard party a bad thing? What your guys opinons on it?

Thanks

Spark
I would say that most leftist that are opposed to the vanguard party are because of 2 things. like live for the people said, it has the potential to alienate people but the more promonant concern is because they believe that giving them the power to "lead" the revoultion would corrupt them and basically make them bourgeosie themselves. [/b]
How would we stop the possibility of that happening?

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by The-Spark+September 20, 2007 06:30 pm--> (The-Spark @ September 20, 2007 06:30 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:29 pm

The-[email protected] 20, 2007 05:47 pm
I was wondering why certain groups or people would think a vanguard party a bad thing? What your guys opinons on it?

Thanks

Spark
I would say that most leftist that are opposed to the vanguard party are because of 2 things. like live for the people said, it has the potential to alienate people but the more promonant concern is because they believe that giving them the power to "lead" the revoultion would corrupt them and basically make them bourgeosie themselves.
How would we stop the possibility of that happening? [/b]
most people would say that you cant. i mean it might be possible if you greatly limit the powers of them and had some kind of system that could throw people out of the party if they started getting a little too power hungry. unfortunatly its not always that easy however. i would personally say that theyre more trouble than their worth.

[Rawthentic]

With the understanding that we need a revolutionary worker's party, a few things would have to happen. First of all, the party would need to be in constant contact with the working class in all its struggles.

Under socialism, there will need to be cultural revolutions similar to socialist China that constantly shakes the party leadership and struggles to throw out the bourgeoisie and its ideas the will inevitably seek into the revolutionary party.

A party can be the most powerful vehicle of the working class, or its class enemy.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 20, 2007 10:36 pm
With the understanding that we need a revolutionary worker's party, a few things would have to happen. First of all, the party would need to be in constant contact with the working class in all its struggles.

Under socialism, there will need to be cultural revolutions similar to socialist China that constantly shakes the party leadership and struggles to throw out the bourgeoisie and its ideas the will inevitably seek into the revolutionary party.

A party can be the most powerful vehicle of the working class, or its class enemy.
How would we identify the bougeosie in our party? Should we put him or her on some kind of trial and have a vote?

[Rawthentic]

The ideas of the bourgeoisie would become manifested, as well as policies that some party leaders might carry out or attempt to carry out - policies that directly contradict the socialist transformation and have the possibility of bringing back capitalism.

The bourgeoisie, or party leaders with bourgeois ideas, would have to kept in check. If they persist, they can be exiled, jailed, but not executed unless they commit a crime that calls for such punishment.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 20, 2007 11:00 pm
The ideas of the bourgeoisie would become manifested, as well as policies that some party leaders might carry out or attempt to carry out - policies that directly contradict the socialist transformation and have the possibility of bringing back capitalism.

The bourgeoisie, or party leaders with bourgeois ideas, would have to kept in check. If they persist, they can be exiled, jailed, but not executed unless they commit a crime that calls for such punishment.
Makes sense.

[Random Precision]

The "bourgeoisie in the party" idea was just Mao's Stalinist justification to purge political opponents and place himself in full control.

As long as the vanguard's base is the proletariat, and its leadership and organs are directly controlled by and responsible to them, there won't be any problems.

[Rawthentic]

Whatever you say. :)

Its no wonder that the Cultural Revolution was a grass roots movement that empowered peasants and workers to stand up and proclaim their support for the socialist road.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 21, 2007 12:36 am
Its no wonder that the Cultural Revolution was a grass roots movement that empowered peasants and workers to stand up and proclaim their support for the socialist road.
Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[redcannon]

so the real problem with a vanguard party is that it will merely replace bourgeois'? Are there any anarchists here that can explain how a revolution can be lead without a vanguard party?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:33 am
so the real problem with a vanguard party is that it will merely replace bourgeois'? Are there any anarchists here that can explain how a revolution can be lead without a vanguard party?
And there you have it.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 21, 2007 08:55 am
How would we stop the possibility of that happening?
By ensuring that the party constantly listens to the demands of the working class and, if party leaders fail to do this, that they are removed from their position, and a new person is elected into said position.

[Red Scare]

vanguard parties are used to control the people, not liberate them

[lombas]

What's the point of having 'a' party for a start?

Does it serve the people? If so: how, to what extent, to what cost, &c.?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21, 2007 01:56 pm
vanguard parties are used to control the people, not liberate them
No, they're not.

Just because something doesn't fit into your myopic anarchist mindset doesn't mean it's false. In this case, the necessity of a vanguard of the proletariat to lead the masses to liberation.


What's the point of having 'a' party for a start?

To have a cohesive organization of revolutionary communists capable of leading the masses to insurrection against capitalism and imperialism.


so the real problem with a vanguard party is that it will merely replace bourgeois'?

No. That isn't a real problem. It's one made up by people who misunderstand Marx and Lenin, and spread by anarchists.

There does exist the problem of "capitalist roaders" within a communist party. This is dealt with by continuing proletarian revolution throughout the entire period of socialism.

Class struggle continues (and is, in fact, sharpened) during socialism, and it is a matter of life or death for us to recognize this.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:32 pm


[QUOTE] so the real problem with a vanguard party is that it will merely replace bourgeois'?

No. That isn't a real problem. It's one made up by people who misunderstand Marx and Lenin, and spread by anarchists.

There does exist the problem of "capitalist roaders" within a communist party. This is dealt with by continuing proletarian revolution throughout the entire period of socialism.

Class struggle continues (and is, in fact, sharpened) during socialism, and it is a matter of life or death for us to recognize this.
I'm sorry, how can you make the claim that it isn't a real problem and is made up by anarchists, yet on the other hand admit to capitalist roaders within the communist Party.

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by SovietPants+September 21, 2007 01:32 pm--> (SovietPants @ September 21, 2007 01:32 pm)
Red [email protected] 21, 2007 01:56 pm
vanguard parties are used to control the people, not liberate them
No, they're not.

Just because something doesn't fit into your myopic anarchist mindset doesn't mean it's false. In this case, the necessity of a vanguard of the proletariat to lead the masses to liberation.
[/b]
I am against a vangaurd party because a one or two party system ultimately leads to corruption, as it did in the Soviet Union, and the United States

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:32 pm
your myopic anarchist mindset
I am not specifically an anarchist and I am not myopic, I have experimented with many kinds of communism/anarchism, such as leninism, trotskyism, and even maoism

[bezdomni]

I'm sorry, how can you make the claim that it isn't a real problem and is made up by anarchists, yet on the other hand admit to capitalist roaders within the communist Party.

The "problem" of a vanguard party, in the mind of the anarchist, is that it will inevitably replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class.

We do run the risk of capitalist roaders turning the entire state into a tool of exploitation, but if we rely on the masses and rid the party of reactionary weeds - this risk doesn't innately become a problem.


I am against a vangaurd party because a one or two party system ultimately leads to corruption, as it did in the Soviet Union, and the United States

Do you understand what a vanguard party is?

What is the material basis for corruption? Is it dependent solely on the number of parties that exist, or class society? If we have five parties does there exist no chance for corruption? How about ten?

Anyway, just because some corruption exists that hasn't been addressed doesn't mean a state can't be a socialist state (just as corruption in a capitalist state doesn't make it any less capitalist).

It's a matter of what class, fundamentally, is in power?


I am not specifically an anarchist and I am not myopic,

Well color me refuted!

:rolleyes:



have experimented with many kinds of communism/anarchism, such as leninism, trotskyism, and even maoism

Revolution isn't acid. How do you "experiment" with an ideology?

Being a revolutionary communist means more than just saying "oh I am a ___ist...here are a lot of rhetorical things I can say to make you believe it".

Revolutionary ideology manifests itself in act. We can sit around and call ourselves thisists or thatists all day, but we're talking with a corpse in our mouth until we act on what we say we believe.

[lombas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:32 pm

What's the point of having 'a' party for a start?

To have a cohesive organization of revolutionary communists capable of leading the masses to insurrection against capitalism and imperialism.

I'm not revolutionary, communist, capable of leading the masses (what an arrogance that would be) or willing to consider violence as a mean and force something upon other people.

Thus, the remark remains: "Does it serve the people? If so: how, to what extent, to what cost, &c.?"

[catch]

Well let's look at the situations where the 'vanguard parties' have crushed or sabotaged workers movements:

Russia 1917-21 - and onwards - nearly all of you will accept a date that this started if not those particular ones.
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936-39
East Germany 1953
Poland 1956
Hungary 1956
Czechoslovakia 1968
France 1968
Portugal 1974-1976

For just a short list. Not to mention the Trotskyists supporting just about every war since WWII, telling people to vote for the bourgeios Labour Party, and countless other measures. Then we have the WRP selling information about Iraqi reovlutionaries to Saddam Hussein and countless other anti-working class actions carried out by these 'vanguards of the working class'.

We don't need to look at some hypothetical future situation, we can see quite clearly the actions of the various Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist and Maoist groups during the high points of class struggle in the last century, and in their day-to-day operations.

Organisation is necessary, but the formalism displayed in these discussions completely ignores any political content.

[Random Precision]

Well let's look at the situations where the 'vanguard parties' have crushed or sabotaged workers movements:

Russia 1917-21 - and onwards - nearly all of you will accept a date that this started if not those particular ones.
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936-39
East Germany 1953
Poland 1956
Hungary 1956
Czechoslovakia 1968
France 1968
Portugal 1974-1976

The Hungarian revolution was crushed by the Soviet military. The others, exempting Russia, were under the control of the counter-revolutionary Moscow bureaucrats. They do not, therefore, fit the definition of a proletarian vanguard.

[Rawthentic]

"Does it serve the people? If so: how, to what extent, to what cost, &c.?"
It serves the people not in some "charity" sense, but in the sense that it leads the masses towards liberation, in that it organizes the forces coherently in an attempt to create a better world.

[Bilan]

We do run the risk of capitalist roaders turning the entire state into a tool of exploitation, but if we rely on the masses and rid the party of reactionary weeds - this risk doesn't innately become a problem.

I was discussing this with a Trot today.

It seems this is all theoretical bullshit, but when in practice, the party doesn't want to get rid of the weeds, and when people try too, they get murdered.

[Rawthentic]

Its an objective fact that class struggles sharpens under socialism, and the leadership of the party must be held accountable by the masses in order to continue the revolution. This is the purpose of a cultural revolution.

Don't Trots shrug off the fact that class struggle sharpens under socialism?

[autocritique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:03 pm
Well let's look at the situations where the 'vanguard parties' have crushed or sabotaged workers movements:

Russia 1917-21 - and onwards - nearly all of you will accept a date that this started if not those particular ones.
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936-39
East Germany 1953
Poland 1956
Hungary 1956
Czechoslovakia 1968
France 1968
Portugal 1974-1976

For just a short list. Not to mention the Trotskyists supporting just about every war since WWII, telling people to vote for the bourgeios Labour Party, and countless other measures. Then we have the WRP selling information about Iraqi reovlutionaries to Saddam Hussein and countless other anti-working class actions carried out by these 'vanguards of the working class'.

We don't need to look at some hypothetical future situation, we can see quite clearly the actions of the various Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist and Maoist groups during the high points of class struggle in the last century, and in their day-to-day operations.

Organisation is necessary, but the formalism displayed in these discussions completely ignores any political content.
It's interesting that you point to "formalism" and "ignor political content" after presenting a contradictory list of both revolutionary and revisionist parties, which you group together into one big category ("vanguard parties"), as if the mere fact that these parties styled themselves "vanguards" objectively made it so. If you want to have a serious discussion, try analyzing the particular political content of these organizations rather than just pretending they're all one in the same simply by virtue of what they call themselves.

It's also interesting to see you point to France 1968. Presumably you are referring to the actions of the revisionist PCF. But you fail to take into account the positive revolutionary contributions of the small Marxist-Leninist and Maoist trends who were very much in motion [i]against the PCF. And you also don't seem to draw any conclusions about the failure of anarchism's loose organizational forms (and even looser politics) to overthrow the highly-organized French bourgeois state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 22, 2007 09:04 am
Its an objective fact that class struggles sharpens under socialism, and the leadership of the party must be held accountable by the masses in order to continue the revolution. This is the purpose of a cultural revolution.

Don't Trots shrug off the fact that class struggle sharpens under socialism?
Not exactly (surprisingly you're taking Stalin's line on this :huh: ). Per my sig, class struggles sharpen under the DOTP only (a separate stage from socialism itself), then level down under socialism.

[bezdomni]

I'm not revolutionary, communist, capable of leading the masses (what an arrogance that would be) or willing to consider violence as a mean and force something upon other people.

Your ideological and practical shortcomings are no problem of mine.


Thus, the remark remains: "Does it serve the people? If so: how, to what extent, to what cost, &c.?"

The task of a communist party is to lead the struggle for socialism and liberation. If liberation isn't serving the people then I don't know what is.


class struggles sharpen under the DOTP only (a separate stage from socialism itself), then level down under socialism.
That's actually a Maoist line.


I was discussing this with a Trot today.

lol were they a spartacist?



It seems this is all theoretical bullshit, but when in practice, the party doesn't want to get rid of the weeds, and when people try too, they get murdered.

Check out the Cultural Revolution.

The truth about the cultural revolution - Revolutionary Worker 2004 (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:19 am

Well let's look at the situations where the 'vanguard parties' have crushed or sabotaged workers movements:

Russia 1917-21 - and onwards - nearly all of you will accept a date that this started if not those particular ones.
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936-39
East Germany 1953
Poland 1956
Hungary 1956
Czechoslovakia 1968
France 1968
Portugal 1974-1976

The Hungarian revolution was crushed by the Soviet military. The others, exempting Russia, were under the control of the counter-revolutionary Moscow bureaucrats. They do not, therefore, fit the definition of a proletarian vanguard.
Well there were self-proclaimed vanguard parties involved in all these, Portugal 1974-76 had about 25 of them.

Perhaps you'd like to point out an event in the past 90 years where a 'vanguard party' has played a positive role in a major class struggle. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one. For every one you can find, I guarantee a minimum of two counter examples.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:06 pm

It's interesting that you point to "formalism" and "ignor political content" after presenting a contradictory list of both revolutionary and revisionist parties, which you group together into one big category ("vanguard parties"), as if the mere fact that these parties styled themselves "vanguards" objectively made it so. If you want to have a serious discussion, try analyzing the particular political content of these organizations rather than just pretending they're all one in the same simply by virtue of what they call themselves.
OK well let's look at one 'vanguard party' in particular then - the Trotskyist Workers' Revolutionary Party (http://libcom.org/library/revolution-betrayed-wrp-iraq). They're still around today, in fact they used to paper sell outside my workplace several times a year.

They were funded by Gaddafi, sold information on Saudi dissidents to Saddam, and their leader Gerry Healy was the subject of widespread rape allegations of young female cadre.

Or we could equally look at Militant's support for the Falklands, or their sacking of hundreds of council workers whilst in power in Liverpool city council. Obviously there are many, many more examples of course but I don't have all night.





It's also interesting to see you point to France 1968. Presumably you are referring to the actions of the revisionist PCF. But you fail to take into account the positive revolutionary contributions of the small Marxist-Leninist and Maoist trends who were very much in motion [i]against the PCF.
The in-fighting of those factions doesn't interest me much - I'm more concerned with the workers' councils that sprung up, and to an extent the contributions made by the situs, the Bendits, Dauvé etc.



And you also don't seem to draw any conclusions about the failure of anarchism's loose organizational forms (and even looser politics) to overthrow the highly-organized French bourgeois state.
Those three groups I mentioned above weren't anarchist. If you look at the 'neo-anarchism' thread you'll see I'm no great defender of anarchism - but this thread is about vanguard parties so I'll see you over there if you're genuinely interested.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:56 pm
Well there were self-proclaimed vanguard parties involved in all these, Portugal 1974-76 had about 25 of them.

Perhaps you'd like to point out an event in the past 90 years where a 'vanguard party' has played a positive role in a major class struggle. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one. For every one you can find, I guarantee a minimum of two counter examples.
Self-proclaimed being the key word. A proletarian vanguard is the workers' tool to establish socialism. Once it ceases to fight for socialism or the working class loses its hold on it, it ceases to be a proletarian vanguard.

Yes, the material circumstances were such that the "vanguards" you named acted in a counter-revolutionary fashion. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the theory behind it.

I'm interested to know how you would recommend the working class seize power without a vanguard of some sort. Should it happen spontaneously?

[OrderedAnarchy]

[QUOTE]I'm not revolutionary, communist, capable of leading the masses (what an arrogance that would be) or willing to consider violence as a mean and force something upon other people.


Your ideological and practical shortcomings are no problem of mine.[QUOTE] It is not the shortcoming of any one person that men are simply not, as a rule, fit to lead one another. You have shit for brains if you think that you, or people just like you, will dominate a vanguard party through the entirety of socialist existence. You will inevitably die, to be replaced perhaps by a Stalinist, or by a proto-capitalist like Xiaoping. Over the course of multiple generations, ideology changes and no agenda, be it of America in the mid-east or of the Soviet Union towards nomads in Siberia, will remain unaltered. The fate of the Soviets was sealed with Lenin's demise, just as the fate of any socialist society would be changed with the alteration of a vanguard party.

What we need is some way to keep the party in line until the completion of communism. James Madison (anticipating objects to be thrown) had it, I think, pretty close with the constitution. There need be some way to keep the party in line when the founders are dead.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The fate of the Soviets was sealed with Lenin's demise

Could you elaborate?

[Rawthentic]

Yes, and that is continual cultural revolution and revolutionary education.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Whereas Lenin was a revolutionary, he was succeeded by tyranny. For the vanguard, after the death of the founders, to continue to represent the people, we must plan for after we are gone. Educating the masses is a great idea, but why would a party, after the original revolutionaries are gone, maintain such an institution?

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the People+September 22, 2007 10:10 pm--> (Live for the People @ September 22, 2007 10:10 pm) Yes, and that is continual cultural revolution and revolutionary education. [/b]
That sounds good on paper. But in what forms would these take shape?

I say that to say this.

There was a thread in history called, How informed of Communism were people in..., Socialist states?
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70287



Originally posted by Edric O+--> (Edric O)

I will speak from the perspective of Romania, but I believe the same is true for most of Eastern Europe.

The average citizen did not have a good education in Marxism and did not know very much beyond the basics you just mentioned. Marxism-Leninism was taught as a required class at high school level and higher, but the methods by which it was taught made the subject unappealing and boring to most students. Basically, students were required to memorize and regurgitate various Marxist or Leninist texts, with no effort being made to ensure that they actually understood the content or gave it any thought.

In Romania, during the later years of Ceausescu's presidency (late 70s and throughout the 80s), things got even worse, as classical Marxist texts were played down and students were increasingly required to memorize Ceausescu's speeches instead.

The only good thing that can be said about education in Eastern Europe is that Marxist texts were widely available for anyone who wanted to read them, but the education system seemed to be almost intentionally designed to make sure most people found Marxism boring and not worth their time.


Juan Sin [email protected]
The bigger question is, did they get a good enough grasp to come to the conclusion that the socities they lived in didn't match up with their studies?
Yes, many people did. However, most of them came to the conclusion that if reality does not match up with Marxist principles, then Marxism itself must be somehow flawed (though they could not tell you exactly what the flaws are).

This happened because the authorities went to great lengths to stress the idea that the society we lived in was the only possible result of Marxism. Any interpretations of Marxism that diverged from the party line were edited out of history. For example, most people in Eastern Europe have never even heard of Trotsky.

And this is also the reason why revolutionary politics has not experienced any kind of revival in Eastern Europe since 1989. From 1948 to 1989, governments made every effort to convince people that the existing system was the only possible kind of non-capitalist society, and that the only available choice was between stalinism and capitalism. After 1989, the new capitalist governments have of course made similar efforts to preserve the same myth.


RavenBlade
Ironically, the greatest academic study of Marxism-Leninism doesn't happen in the communist world; rather, it happens here, in the capitalist world. Back in the days when those countries studied and yearned for communism, they were capitalist too. Maybe you have to go without socialism to appreciate it.
First of all, there was never such a thing as the "communist world." A correct description would be "those countries that followed the Soviet model of development and called themselves socialist."

It is actually true that more academic study of Marxism took place outside those countries than within them. But the reason for that is because the countries in question taught Marxism-Leninism as dogma rather than science; you were not encouraged to understand anything, but rather to quote Marxist texts to support whatever point you were trying to make. [/b]

I'm not saying let's right this instant create the curriculum for all students of a communist society, but I do want to know what do you mean by revolutionary education. Because there's alot of comrades here, who are learned in alot of areas of Leftist theory, but after a few years will switch their political stance.

So what is exactly revolutionary education and a cultural revolution and can these two tactics transform petty-bourgeois and former bourgeois forces into less reactionary and more revolutionary ones?

[autocritique]

Originally posted by catch+September 22, 2007 12:56 pm--> (catch @ September 22, 2007 12:56 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 12:19 am

Well let's look at the situations where the 'vanguard parties' have crushed or sabotaged workers movements:

Russia 1917-21 - and onwards - nearly all of you will accept a date that this started if not those particular ones.
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936-39
East Germany 1953
Poland 1956
Hungary 1956
Czechoslovakia 1968
France 1968
Portugal 1974-1976

The Hungarian revolution was crushed by the Soviet military. The others, exempting Russia, were under the control of the counter-revolutionary Moscow bureaucrats. They do not, therefore, fit the definition of a proletarian vanguard.
Well there were self-proclaimed vanguard parties involved in all these, Portugal 1974-76 had about 25 of them.

Perhaps you'd like to point out an event in the past 90 years where a 'vanguard party' has played a positive role in a major class struggle. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one. For every one you can find, I guarantee a minimum of two counter examples.[/b]
Again, you're completely ignoring political content. And, again, this is somewhat "ironic" given the fact that you're the first to raise this charge.

According to your logic, simply saying you're a/the "vanguard" makes it so, and therefore whatever such a "vanguard" does is to be held up as an example of the "Leninist" political organizing strategy in practice. For some reason, these organizations' claim to "vanguard" status (arguably one of their more important claims!) is the only one which catch is willing to uncritically accept at face value. But why?

[autocritique]

Originally posted by catch+September 22, 2007 01:04 pm--> (catch @ September 22, 2007 01:04 pm)
OK well let's look at one 'vanguard party' in particular then - the Trotskyist Workers' Revolutionary Party (http://libcom.org/library/revolution-betrayed-wrp-iraq). They're still around today, in fact they used to paper sell outside my workplace several times a year.

They were funded by Gaddafi, sold information on Saudi dissidents to Saddam, and their leader Gerry Healy was the subject of widespread rape allegations of young female cadre.[/b]

I will not deny anything you've said about the WRP. To be honest, although I've heard those claims, I really don't know too much about that particular trend.

The thing that interests me about your example is that, according to your own claims about them, they would seem to be very, very far from any sort of a real proletarian vanguard. Right? So, then, why do you continue to insist that they are some sort of a "vanguard," even if only in quotes? Are you not simply focusing on their apparent form while ignoring their political content?


Originally posted by catch+September 22, 2007 01:04 pm--> (catch @ September 22, 2007 01:04 pm)
Or we could equally look at Militant's support for the Falklands, or their sacking of hundreds of council workers whilst in power in Liverpool city council. Obviously there are many, many more examples of course but I don't have all night.
[/b]

And I do not doubt that you could come up with many more "examples," but only by ignoring or downplaying the political content of these various organizations claiming to be a/the "vanguard." By the way, I'm not even sure the CWI's American comrades, Socialist Alternative, even use the "v-word" in public anymore. That's how far to the right some of these fake "Leninist" groups have moved. Yet there are still some who hold them up as "proof" that Leninism is this or that...

But it's not an honest method of argument.


Originally posted by catch+September 22, 2007 01:04 pm--> (catch @ September 22, 2007 01:04 pm)

autocritique

It's also interesting to see you point to France 1968. Presumably you are referring to the actions of the revisionist PCF. But you fail to take into account the positive revolutionary contributions of the small Marxist-Leninist and Maoist trends who were very much in motion against the PCF.
The in-fighting of those factions doesn't interest me much - I'm more concerned with the workers' councils that sprung up, and to an extent the contributions made by the situs, the Bendits, Dauvé etc.[/b]

But it should interest you, seeing as how these "factions" were on entirely different sides of the barricades. (The pro-Soviet PCF more or less completely sided with French imperialism while the more Marxist-Leninist and Maoist-oriented trends were more or less on the same side as those you uphold.) It will be very easy to you to write off all of "Leninism" altogether if you continue to refuse to seriously study it.


[email protected] 22, 2007 01:04 pm


autocritique

And you also don't seem to draw any conclusions about the failure of anarchism's loose organizational forms (and even looser politics) to overthrow the highly-organized French bourgeois state.
Those three groups I mentioned above weren't anarchist. If you look at the 'neo-anarchism' thread you'll see I'm no great defender of anarchism - but this thread is about vanguard parties so I'll see you over there if you're genuinely interested.

For the purposes of discussion, I'll concede this point.

Maybe you'll see me over there a little bit later but, like you probably, I'm pretty bogged down with some other things at the moment.

[RGacky3]

It really does'nt matter what anyone says the Vanguard party is, or is supposed to be, because really what the Vanguard party is, is completely up to the Leaders in the party, and thats the problem.

[Rawthentic]

Don't troll.

The vanguard party is, (for the millionth time) a political organization of the most conscious, far-seeing, and dedicated communists. Period.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:19 pm
It really does'nt matter what anyone says the Vanguard party is...
In your case, this is especially true.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 26, 2007 02:08 am
Don't troll.

The vanguard party is, (for the millionth time) a political organization of the most conscious, far-seeing, and dedicated communists. Period.
I agree, and consider the vanguard party to be indispensible to working class rule. The vanguard party will be accountable to the working class as a whole, and practice extreme democracy.

[RGacky3]

The vanguard party is, (for the millionth time) a political organization of the most conscious, far-seeing, and dedicated communists. Period.

They are Self Apointed, they say "hey were are the most conscious, far-seeing and dedicated communists, so we should make a vanguard party, and workers should support and listen to us because we are the most conscious, far-seeing and dedicataed communists." Only problem is its them that are saying it, and thats the case with pretty much any organization of that sort.


The vanguard party will be accountable to the working class as a whole, and practice extreme democracy.

Thats not the way its worked in the past.

[The-Spark]

Now wait, the vanguard theory has worked though has it not? It worked for the soviet union, though i think OrderedAnarchy has a point. When the leaders are dead and gone, how can we make sure the vanguard are still for the people?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:19 pm

The vanguard party is, (for the millionth time) a political organization of the most conscious, far-seeing, and dedicated communists. Period.

They are Self Apointed, they say "hey were are the most conscious, far-seeing and dedicated communists, so we should make a vanguard party, and workers should support and listen to us because we are the most conscious, far-seeing and dedicataed communists." Only problem is its them that are saying it, and thats the case with pretty much any organization of that sort.
They are the people putting their lives on the line to further the cause of working class revolution, they are the people who spread revolutionary ideas and organize a cohesive force against the bourgeoisie. They are not simply "self appointed", their actions and programs make them the vanguard.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by manic expression+September 28, 2007 04:00 pm--> (manic expression @ September 28, 2007 04:00 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 09:19 pm

The vanguard party is, (for the millionth time) a political organization of the most conscious, far-seeing, and dedicated communists. Period.

They are Self Apointed, they say "hey were are the most conscious, far-seeing and dedicated communists, so we should make a vanguard party, and workers should support and listen to us because we are the most conscious, far-seeing and dedicataed communists." Only problem is its them that are saying it, and thats the case with pretty much any organization of that sort.
They are the people putting their lives on the line to further the cause of working class revolution, they are the people who spread revolutionary ideas and organize a cohesive force against the bourgeoisie. They are not simply "self appointed", their actions and programs make them the vanguard. [/b]
So would you be saying that merely a person's actions to progress the revolution would make him or her "vanguard". Or does this person have to be in a vanguard party to become "vanguard"

[manic expression]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 28, 2007 04:02 pm
So would you be saying that merely a person's actions to progress the revolution would make him or her "vanguard". Or does this person have to be in a vanguard party to become "vanguard"
The vanguard party is the vanguard because it is engaged in class struggle. If a group is not fully invested in the day-to-day battles of the working class, then it is not the vanguard, regardless of its claims. My point is that the Bolsheviks and other vanguard parties throughout history didn't just say that they were the vanguard; their actions made them the vanguard.

More to your question: Theoretically, a working class vanguard does not HAVE to be a party, but in the reality of class struggle (especially since the dawn of imperialism), disciplined organization becomes necessary. It is practically impossible to be part of the "vanguard" on your own, but when you enter into an organization with other communists, you then become part of a potent vanguard. In other words, being a part of the vanguard party is essential in being able to further the cause of revolution.

[The-Spark]

How do we make sure another Stalin doesnt happen though? Maybe through votes, and the ability of the people to kick someone out of the leadership through votes?

[RGacky3]

As far as I can see, it seams like you guys are saying that the Vanguard are just very class consious, active communists, if thats the case then theres no point in talking about them because thats all they are. Now, if they are given a special authoratative role, thats a different story, THAT is what I am against.


The vanguard party is the vanguard because it is engaged in class struggle. If a group is not fully invested in the day-to-day battles of the working class, then it is not the vanguard, regardless of its claims. My point is that the Bolsheviks and other vanguard parties throughout history didn't just say that they were the vanguard; their actions made them the vanguard.

The thing is their claim to Vanguardism is as valid as yours, because its subjective.

[La Comédie Noire]

The vanguard party should be a rallying point for the workers, not an authorative power. It's that simple.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:15 pm
As far as I can see, it seams like you guys are saying that the Vanguard are just very class consious, active communists, if thats the case then theres no point in talking about them because thats all they are. Now, if they are given a special authoratative role, thats a different story, THAT is what I am against.
Due to the realities of overturning a bourgeois government, a mere grouping of class conscious and active communists is simply not enough in most cases. Discipline, cohesion, training and other virtues are needed in the fight. The vanguard party must take these issues very seriously, lest they stray from their advantages.

And on "special authoritative roles", the idea of authority must be analyzed properly. Define "authority" and why you are against it. Too many people are so slavishly blind on this point that their self-styled "anti-authoritarianism" becomes a self-defeating and counterproductive mindset (to say the least).


The thing is their claim to Vanguardism is as valid as yours, because its subjective.

Sure, why not? It doesn't diminish my point.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 28, 2007 04:14 pm
How do we make sure another Stalin doesnt happen though? Maybe through votes, and the ability of the people to kick someone out of the leadership through votes?
Stalin "happened" because of many factors, factors which did not include the existence of a vanguard party. First, the Soviet Union became increasingly isolated, largely due to the failure of the German revolution. This contributed to the second factor, the backwardness of Russia. Russia had very little industry, and much of that was destroyed during the Civil War. Bureaucracies got into power because they were needed at this point to shore up the teetering Soviet structure. This is where Stalin comes in: Stalin based his power in the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy supported him and he supported them in turn. Many Bolsheviks gradually became opposed to the rising power of the bureaucrats, and so the bureaucrats, using their figurehead in Stalin, ended this threat by killing them or neutralizing them (and gutting the democratic organs of the Soviet Union in the process).

There are many opinions on this issue, and it is very divisive within our movement. Whenever you come into contact with this question, think about what you hear and read very critically and try to form your own opinion on it.

[The-Spark]

Would you say that the Communist League was the first real vanguard party?

[Rawthentic]

I'm not so sure if it would be correct to say so, I suppose you could.

It is generally known that the Bolshevik Party that led the world's first proletarian revolution was the first vanguard party.

[catch]

Originally posted by catbert836+September 22, 2007 08:39 pm--> (catbert836 @ September 22, 2007 08:39 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 06:56 pm
Well there were self-proclaimed vanguard parties involved in all these, Portugal 1974-76 had about 25 of them.

Perhaps you'd like to point out an event in the past 90 years where a 'vanguard party' has played a positive role in a major class struggle. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one. For every one you can find, I guarantee a minimum of two counter examples.
Self-proclaimed being the key word. A proletarian vanguard is the workers' tool to establish socialism. Once it ceases to fight for socialism or the working class loses its hold on it, it ceases to be a proletarian vanguard.

Yes, the material circumstances were such that the "vanguards" you named acted in a counter-revolutionary fashion. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the theory behind it.

I'm interested to know how you would recommend the working class seize power without a vanguard of some sort. Should it happen spontaneously? [/b]
Well there's always going to be people 'at the front' if we de-anglicise vanguard back towards avant guarde. This is very different from a 'vanguard party' in the sense that ti's commonly known and understood - those following a Leninist, Trotskyist or Maoist model. They've had universally negative effects in the past and this is the best test of any theory - it's practical application.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:18 pm
[QUOTE=catch,September 22, 2007 12:56 pm]
According to your logic, simply saying you're a/the "vanguard" makes it so, and therefore whatever such a "vanguard" does is to be held up as an example of the "Leninist" political organizing strategy in practice. For some reason, these organizations' claim to "vanguard" status (arguably one of their more important claims!) is the only one which catch is willing to uncritically accept at face value. But why?
Generally I think it's best to judge political ideas on their actually existing manifestations in reality - this means groups that have been Leninist and considered themselves the vanguard of the working class (which is all Leninist parties, otherwise they'd have to call it a day).

Generally the most forward looking elements of the working class have emerged from outside either Leninist or Anarchist groups in the past during heightened periods of class struggle. These may be 'at the front'. but they aren't 'vanguard parties' unless you're going to reduce that term to a meaningless label attached to any advanced grouping of workers.

Counterposing some non-existent Leninist party that might avoid the pitfalls that thousands of others haven't before seems to me to be a very weak line of argument. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what party you consider to be the vanguard of the working class today?

[catch]

Originally posted by autocritique+September 25, 2007 06:40 pm--> (autocritique @ September 25, 2007 06:40 pm) I will not deny anything you've said about the WRP. To be honest, although I've heard those claims, I really don't know too much about that particular trend.
[/b]
I think these very, very worst examples of political degeneration are worth a look, the WRP had/has a lot of money (as we see from that article), and used to to recruit a lot of working class youths (a fairly high contingent of black youths iirc as well). They also continue to leaflet and promote their front groups outside inner city sixth form colleges in London (I hope unsuccessfully). So this isn't just about the implosion of a few leading members, they suck people who might've had potential into their orbit, and either burn them out or fuck them up completely.


The thing that interests me about your example is that, according to your own claims about them, they would seem to be very, very far from any sort of a real proletarian vanguard. Right? So, then, why do you continue to insist that they are some sort of a "vanguard," even if only in quotes? Are you not simply focusing on their apparent form while ignoring their political content?
Their political content was simply an extreme version of the antics of many Trotskyist groups (supporting third world bourgeoisie in the name of 'anti-imperialism', cultist organisational behaviour. I'm not aware of any Trotskyist groups which haven't in one way or another taken sides in bourgeois wars, propped up the union bureaucracies or the Labour Party or similar political activity against the working class. There are some interesting groups that broke with Trotskyism - Johnson Forest, S ou B etc. - but their interestingness is usually in direct correlation to how much of a break they made.


[email protected] 22, 2007 01:04 pm

And I do not doubt that you could come up with many more "examples," but only by ignoring or downplaying the political content of these various organizations claiming to be a/the "vanguard."
I referred only to political content - I wasn't banging on about them being 'authowitawian' - that's obviously true in some cases but isn't central to a critique of Leninism.


That's how far to the right some of these fake "Leninist" groups have moved. Yet there are still some who hold them up as "proof" that Leninism is this or that...
Well the existence of many dozens of Leninist groups which fall this pattern - national liberation, trade unionist, supporting bourgeois parties in elections (or setting them up) - yes I think we can take the actions of actually existing Leninist groups and say 'this is the result of Leninism'. I think this was implicit in Lenin's own ideas as well, and recently had a big discussion around this particular question on my site (http://libcom.org/forums/history/russian-revolution-october-1917-19092007) - you may or may not be interested but I don't have time to re-run it here.



But it should interest you, seeing as how these "factions" were on entirely different sides of the barricades. (The pro-Soviet PCF more or less completely sided with French imperialism while the more Marxist-Leninist and Maoist-oriented trends were more or less on the same side as those you uphold.) It will be very easy to you to write off all of "Leninism" altogether if you continue to refuse to seriously study it.
Again, I'd refer you to the thread I posted for a more considered line on Lenin himself. As regards the Leninist and Maoist groups - I don't think everyone in those groups has bad intentions or anything - clearly people join them initially with quite good ones (same as I wouldn't write off every single Bolshevik party member in 1917 off-hand either), however the role of those groups structurally is to divert self-organised struggles into dead ends. I'll admit to not knowing the details of their involvement in France '68 though.

[Janus]

The concept of the vanguard is one that has been discussed many times before.
Vanguard (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68856&hl=vanguard)
2 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56754&hl=vanguard), 3 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51050&hl=vanguard),
4 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48902&hl=vanguard), 5 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44038&hl=vanguard)


Would you say that the Communist League was the first real vanguard party?
No, it was Lenin who developed the model of the vanguard party not Marx. The Communist League was organized as a union of different revolutionary groups focused on agitation and organization among the working class. The Communist League could be considered a part of the vanguard rather than an actual vanguard party. The latter places much more focus on a dedicated core of professional revolutionary leaders and much less reliance on the abilities of the proletariat.

[RGacky3]

Due to the realities of overturning a bourgeois government, a mere grouping of class conscious and active communists is simply not enough in most cases. Discipline, cohesion, training and other virtues are needed in the fight. The vanguard party must take these issues very seriously, lest they stray from their advantages.

And on "special authoritative roles", the idea of authority must be analyzed properly. Define "authority" and why you are against it. Too many people are so slavishly blind on this point that their self-styled "anti-authoritarianism" becomes a self-defeating and counterproductive mindset (to say the least).


Heres what I mean by Authority, a person being able to make desicions for other people without their consent, and voting for a person who makes a desicion for you later on that you don't want to go along with but still must because you voted for him, or he was elected is'nt consent.

I am against it, because I don't have this idealistic viewpoint that People who may be (or appear to be) Principled and Selfless now won't change based on cercumstaces later on, and make desicions to keep that authority, rather than for the benefit of those he has authority over.

The goal is'nt simply overthrowing the bourgeois government, its replacing it with something free and equal, and overthrowing the government with a Vanguard party that has authority is'nt going to do that, simply because of the fact that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I hav'nt heard any attempts made to make the Vanguard Party completely accountable to the people, so far people just assume that the Vanguard Party will neccessarily act correctly because of its nature, which is naive to say the least.

[blackstone]

Concept of the vanguard

I would argue that it was Bakunin, not Lenin, who developed the idea of the vanguard party. Lenin, developed it further.


Originally posted by Mikhail Bakunin



“The Alliance is the necessary complement to the International. But the International and the Alliance, while having the same ultimate aims, perform different functions. The International endeavours to unify the working masses, the millions of workers, regardless of nationality and national boundaries or religious and political beliefs, into one compact body; the Alliance, on the other hand, tries to give these masses a really revolutionary direction. The programmes of one and the other, without being in any way opposed, differ only in the degree of their revolutionary development. The International contains in germ, but only in germ, the whole programme of the Alliance. The programme of the Alliance represents the fullest unfolding of the International.”

The Leninist Party and Tendency

Leninism promotes the creation of a party that represents the interests of the working class. However, we must be critical of those parties and individuals who describe themselves as representing the exploited classes and the oppressed, and who create hopes of emancipation in them through elections and parliaments, are instead only reinforcing the bourgeois political institutions and thereby (logically and effectively) also despotism, exploitation and tyranny, just as we are critical of bourgeois parties who claim to represent workers or the oppressed in general.

The Leninist tendency wants the vanguard party to take control of the State once the revolution has been won, as its members are supposed to be the most conscious, the most intelligent, the best able to represent perfectly the interests of the proletariat. The function of a communist /anarchist Political Organisation, instead, is not to conquer State power. Unlike the Leninists, we want the destruction of the State, as we know that political and military power in the hands of a minority in the name of the revolution is exactly what can damage the revolution most.

The taking of political power, or rather the fact that a minority turns itself into a nucleus of professional politicians with the right to take decisions and impose these on the masses, signifies creating the seeds for bureaucratization and counter-revolution. It lays the basis for a return to a society divided into a privileged minority and a huge oppressed and dominated majority.

Revolutionary and Anarchist Organizations

The aims of Leninist organizations and other communist/anarchist organizations are different in that respect. The goal of a communist or anarchist Organisation should not be political power but the building of proletarian popular power from the bottom up, in other words all the power based on the working people collectively through their assemblies and horizontal decision-making bodies.

I hope that was clear.

[Rawthentic]

The Leninist tendency wants the vanguard party to take control of the State once the revolution has been won, as its members are supposed to be the most conscious, the most intelligent, the best able to represent perfectly the interests of the proletariat. The function of a communist /anarchist Political Organisation, instead, is not to conquer State power. Unlike the Leninists, we want the destruction of the State, as we know that political and military power in the hands of a minority in the name of the revolution is exactly what can damage the revolution most.

The taking of political power, or rather the fact that a minority turns itself into a nucleus of professional politicians with the right to take decisions and impose these on the masses, signifies creating the seeds for bureaucratization and counter-revolution. It lays the basis for a return to a society divided into a privileged minority and a huge oppressed and dominated majority.
And allow me to prove how this is a hopeless straw man.

The Marxist tendency (there is no such thing as "libertarian Marxists" or any of that bullshit) sees the need for a political vanguard party that can unite the revolutionary forces around a revolutionary program to make revolution. In a time when the masses are spontaneously protesting and struggling against the system, the party sews together these struggles into one while always pointing towards the necessity of seizure of power and the ultimate transformation to communism. True vanguard parties are the ones that develop their, theory, action, and line, from the masses (or in applying the mass line in other words) where the party brings together these scattered and unsystematic ideas and transforms them into systematic ideas which are then given back to the masses to take up.

Different experiences in ones life lead to different developments and levels in struggle. I mean, such leaders like Huey P. Newton or Eugene Debs became hugely adored people because of what the put forward, because they were serving the basic interests of working people. This is how great leaders come into being, and they are the greatest asset of a revolutionary movement, along with the vanguard party.

The purpose of the vanguard party is to prepare for, and execute revolution, not become a new clique of exploiters. This is best exemplified by the victory of the Russian Socialist Revolution, where the workers and peasants rallied around "land, bread, and piece" thus uniting a force that ultimately led to the seizure of power by the masses under the leadership of the communist party.

The leadership of the communist party does not mean that there is a new class of exploiters, it means that such leadership is crucial in the transformation of social relation, production relations, ideas, etc., as well as giving way to the masses' complete takeover and running of society. When there is a successful revolution, the masses will always express sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology, and this is something very real that has to be fought against because it is a mentality bore out from capitalism. The communist party reaches into the masses, teaches them how to take control of society in the transformation to communism. If the bourgeoisie all of a sudden disappeared off the face of the earth would working people understand how to take control of all the things society calls for? No.

All these things show why such a communist vanguard is pivotal and essential to revolution, and why there ultimately cannot be a revolution without such an organization.

The fact of the matter is that if there is not communist proletarian leadership to lead the way forward, that void will be filled by other reactionary, bourgeois forces that will lead back to the old society.

Blackstone speaks of bureaucracy and counter-revolution as if it was the product of ideas, not material conditions.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Great post Lftp.

It is, as the last poster made it clear, an integral part of historical materialist understanding that whenever power is exercised by a class, it is always political power, organized in a state. The question of this power in relation to the working class was that in order to successfully wield it, they must have genuine leadership. They can not afford to sit around under the pretext of political abstention and loathing about the abstract. Marx once said, "if the workers are to be able to forcibly oppose the democratic petty bourgeois it is essential above all for them to be independently organized and centralized in clubs." Since the working class is not full of geniuses, there will always be a minority of them that will take on the role of leadership, and in order to use that leadership successfully, they must be organized politically.

[RGacky3]

where the workers and peasants rallied around "land, bread, and piece" thus uniting a force that ultimately led to the seizure of power by the masses under the leadership of the communist party.

Thats the proble, they seized power, under the leadership of the communist party, which in real terms means, the communist party seized power, not the masses, obviously they claimed to represent them, which you can argue either way, but the fact is that it was the communist party ultimately in control.


True vanguard parties are the ones that develop their, theory, action, and line, from the masses (or in applying the mass line in other words) where the party brings together these scattered and unsystematic ideas and transforms them into systematic ideas which are then given back to the masses to take up.

If that were the case, a Vanguard party in the United States would be very christian, seeing as thats very popular here, and the masses, believe in it.

This very quote seams to show that the Vanguard knows better than the 'masses', i.e. the 'masses' are just pissed, but the vanguard can organize their thoughts and tell them what to do. What ends up happening is the Vanguard takes up the authority of policy making because of that idea.


Blackstone speaks of bureaucracy and counter-revolution as if it was the product of ideas, not material conditions.

Bureaucracy is'nt the porblem, its the concentration of Power and Authority, and the lack of freedom. Leninists blaiming the bureaucracy is a very bad cop out, the bureaucracy can be blaimed for somethings, but not the lack of democracy or freedom or the concentration of power, and thats the issue I and many other Anarchists have with things like the USSR, and the natural outcome of the Vanguard party idea.


power is exercised by a class, it is always political power, organized in a state.

what if power is exercised by a guy, or a group of guys?


if the workers are to be able to forcibly oppose the democratic petty bourgeois it is essential above all for them to be independently organized and centralized in clubs."

Like the IWW :P


Since the working class is not full of geniuses, there will always be a minority of them that will take on the role of leadership, and in order to use that leadership successfully, they must be organized politically.

Those who take the role of leadership arn't generally the geniuses, they are the ones that like authority and power.

Historical Materialism, at least the way some of you Leninists apply it is very very narrow, taking points and comming to conclusions, ignoring other points and not looking at the big picture. Its like saying "Oranges are round and Orange, Basketballs are round and Orange, an Orange is a fruit, therefore a Basketball is a fruit.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:53 pm
Thats the proble, they seized power, under the leadership of the communist party, which in real terms means, the communist party seized power, not the masses, obviously they claimed to represent them, which you can argue either way, but the fact is that it was the communist party ultimately in control.


True vanguard parties are the ones that develop their, theory, action, and line, from the masses (or in applying the mass line in other words) where the party brings together these scattered and unsystematic ideas and transforms them into systematic ideas which are then given back to the masses to take up.

If that were the case, a Vanguard party in the United States would be very christian, seeing as thats very popular here, and the masses, believe in it.

This very quote seams to show that the Vanguard knows better than the 'masses', i.e. the 'masses' are just pissed, but the vanguard can organize their thoughts and tell them what to do. What ends up happening is the Vanguard takes up the authority of policy making because of that idea.


Blackstone speaks of bureaucracy and counter-revolution as if it was the product of ideas, not material conditions.

Bureaucracy is'nt the porblem, its the concentration of Power and Authority, and the lack of freedom. Leninists blaiming the bureaucracy is a very bad cop out, the bureaucracy can be blaimed for somethings, but not the lack of democracy or freedom or the concentration of power, and thats the issue I and many other Anarchists have with things like the USSR, and the natural outcome of the Vanguard party idea.


power is exercised by a class, it is always political power, organized in a state.

what if power is exercised by a guy, or a group of guys?


if the workers are to be able to forcibly oppose the democratic petty bourgeois it is essential above all for them to be independently organized and centralized in clubs."

Like the IWW :P


Since the working class is not full of geniuses, there will always be a minority of them that will take on the role of leadership, and in order to use that leadership successfully, they must be organized politically.

Those who take the role of leadership arn't generally the geniuses, they are the ones that like authority and power.

Historical Materialism, at least the way some of you Leninists apply it is very very narrow, taking points and comming to conclusions, ignoring other points and not looking at the big picture. Its like saying "Oranges are round and Orange, Basketballs are round and Orange, an Orange is a fruit, therefore a Basketball is a fruit.
RGacky, you are just living evidence of how 'anti-vanguardists' have no idea what the vanguard is.

The Bolshevik Party represented the militant working class; it's social base was concentrated in the industrial worker which aligned it's interests with that of the party as a whole. The Bolshevik “tendency” was nothing other than the Marxist “tendency” of the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereby the working class becomes the ruling class, until classes, owing to and only to an extremely advanced development of the productive forces, are abolished. Even Berkman admitted that they “understood and were closest to the spirit of the masses,” and to say that a party can not represent a class as a whole, is to take an entire a historical, unmaterialist position that is undeserving of anything that is deemed 'revolutionary'.

My favorite line of what you typed was "bureaucracy is'nt the porblem, its the concentration of Power and Authority, and the lack of freedom." This is a classless distraction, a moralistic argument that throws together all of history into a conspiracy of leaders and their followers. The darkness in a human being's heart once they are recognized as being apart of 'the leadership' does not determine whether a revolution will be successful or not, it is the actual material and historical forces involved that determine if it is successful or not. It is not a "few guys," that have a "desire" to concentrate all power into their own hands, but the dispossessed bourgeoisie who infiltrated the state and wielded it to silence the remnants of the revolutionary leadership. Also, on 'freedom,' if we followed your fantastic idea, we could expect death at the hands of the White Army or to an imperialist fire-squad.

Also, the Industrial Workers of the World are an economic organization, not a political organization. Any strike, or any trade union activity for that matter, is a defensive mechanism, rather than an offensive one. The 'general strike' is incapable of overthrowing the capitalist state, since it does not alone seize the political power. It can shove it into a corner, and force it to beg for mercy, but it can not terminate it altogether. A decisive blow is needed; an organization with a level of centralization that is capable of seizing control of the political power would be necessitated.

And, of course, as you conclude, they are the ones that "like authority and power," a liberal notion that is seperate from class society. I recommend that you go play with your toys and leave the revolution to the big kids.

[Rawthentic]

I recommend that you go play with your toys and leave the revolution to the big kids.
Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself.

RGacky, your arguments are shit, and they don't even deserve response, more so than Labor Shall Rule already refuted them. You have shown in the past to be little more than a troll and a bot.

[RGacky3]

The Bolshevik Party represented the militant working class; it's social base was concentrated in the industrial worker which aligned it's interests with that of the party as a whole.

So they said, any one can say they represent the militant working class.


The Bolshevik “tendency” was nothing other than the Marxist “tendency” of the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereby the working class becomes the ruling class, until classes, owing to and only to an extremely advanced development of the productive forces, are abolished. Even Berkman admitted that they “understood and were closest to the spirit of the masses,” and to say that a party can not represent a class as a whole, is to take an entire a historical, unmaterialist position that is undeserving of anything that is deemed 'revolutionary'.

The working class became the ruling class? Ok, so far I've never been told in practical terms how they actually ruled (the working class as a whole), because historically it seams that the Bolshevik party more specifically the politburo had the last say, and ultimate authority.


Also, on 'freedom,' if we followed your fantastic idea, we could expect death at the hands of the White Army or to an imperialist fire-squad.

Instead what we got was red tyranny, and Gulags, and what you say is not at all the case, you don't need to suppress freedom to fight a war, unless its an unpopular war, or unless the war is about consolidating power, now I"m not saying it was in the USSR's case, what I am saying is that suppressing freedom had nothing to do with the war, it has to do with consolidating power, thats almost always the case.


It is not a "few guys," that have a "desire" to concentrate all power into their own hands, but the dispossessed bourgeoisie who infiltrated the state and wielded it to silence the remnants of the revolutionary leadership.

I don't know of any evidence to support this, that actuall disposses bourgeoisie, joined the communist party, and became high enough in the leadership to amke a difference, and then ruined the revolutoin. So according to you, the suppression of freedom, the Gulags, the destruction of freedom of speach, the monopoly of authority, was the doing of "dispossessed bourgeoisie" who snuck in, got up in power and ruined everything. I don't buy that at all.


Any strike, or any trade union activity for that matter, is a defensive mechanism, rather than an offensive one. The 'general strike' is incapable of overthrowing the capitalist state, since it does not alone seize the political power. It can shove it into a corner, and force it to beg for mercy, but it can not terminate it altogether. A decisive blow is needed; an organization with a level of centralization that is capable of seizing control of the political power would be necessitated.

Thats your opinion, and I absolutely disagree, I think a Mass syndicalist Union can first undermine, and then eliminate state power, which is the goal.


And, of course, as you conclude, they are the ones that "like authority and power," a liberal notion that is seperate from class society.

Authority and Power have everything to do with Class Society, thats what makes class Society, and if your ok with getting rid of Capitalism, but still having a society run by a few people, then fine, but I'm just as against that as I am against capitalism, because in practical terms, whats the difference?


I recommend that you go play with your toys and leave the revolution to the big kids.

I sure as hell will not :P, because the 'big kids' turned revolutions into coups in the past, and I sure as hell would not like that to happen again.

[Labor Shall Rule]

They did represent the working class. The Duma elections and Constituent Assembly elections showed that they held the industrial centers, over fifty-thousand worker associations and trade unions had adopted resolutions that supported the party, they held a majority in the Soviets, and they sold more of their publications than any other organization in the entire country at the time.

You, once again, take the ahistorical position that a "few individuals" can take control of the state and wield for their own selfish purposes. This, of course, ignores that a government is a product of a certain time, a certain place, and that it is always controlled by a certain class. Even if they did have 'ultimate authority,' that is not something that is bad within itself. It is abstract babble to label 'authority' as some sort of negative force without considering who is using this authority, and what group will benefit from it.

As for 'consolidating power,' you are lost. I guess you have to be in a country where twenty-three armies and fourteen-foreign expenditionary groups are encircling your capital city, where kulaks are withholding grain supplies, and where industrial production is basically dead in order to understand that the situation is not a matter of political purity; whether you are more 'radical' than I am, but of living or dying under terrible conditions that are beyond your control. There were many factions formed within the party that fought against the bureaucracy, so you have no valid argument here.

You don't buy that? Well, over one-third of Petrograd left for the villages, industrial output declined by 20%, and factories and railways were down. The entire social base of the party was wiped out. This is how the middle functionaries, small proprietors, and managers entered the party, and how they used the weakness of the proletarian class to their benefit. To reject this and demote it to a struggle between 'leaders and their people' is to take a grave, unmaterialist interpretation of the revolutionary events.

Yeah, and when did a 'mass syndicalist union' ever take complete control over society and hold longer than a few months, or not sell-out to the capitalists?

What makes class society is an antagonistic difference between classes, rather than 'individuals with authority' and their subservient masses.

The 'big kids' conquered and wielded the state power, while were so wrapped up in their bullshit talk about being 'anti-authoritarian' that they never took it for themselves when they could of in many occasions.

[Rawthentic]

Dali, thats a great post and refutation of RGacky, but I recommend that you stop replying to his posts. Its clear to see that he is very lost and up in the clouds in his anarkiddie shit that he cant see. I'm not bothering with that shit anymore. Respond when people bring up actual arguments.

[RGacky3]

They did represent the working class. The Duma elections and Constituent Assembly elections showed that they held the industrial centers, over fifty-thousand worker associations and trade unions had adopted resolutions that supported the party, they held a majority in the Soviets, and they sold more of their publications than any other organization in the entire country at the time.

There were many elections, and they were not the majority in all of them, also many soviet elections where the Bolshevics did'nt win were considered invalid, and there was a lot of strong arming. Also this question comes up, if they really did have a solid majority, and they really did represent the working class, why were other Socialist Organizations and independant organizations violently repressed?


You, once again, take the ahistorical position that a "few individuals" can take control of the state and wield for their own selfish purposes. This, of course, ignores that a government is a product of a certain time, a certain place, and that it is always controlled by a certain class.

Many Many times througout history have few individuals taken control of the state, I'm not saying they wield it entirely for their own selfish purposes, I never said that, I'm saying that their own authority and power takes presidence, that comes first.


Even if they did have 'ultimate authority,' that is not something that is bad within itself. It is abstract babble to label 'authority' as some sort of negative force without considering who is using this authority, and what group will benefit from it.


Of caorse ultimate authority is bad within itself, no matter who wields it, ultimately they will wield it with their own authority in mind, whatever group benefits from it will generally be secondary, ultimate authority in my book is always bad because I don't have this idealistic notion that 'good people' won't be corrupted, they almost always do become corrupted, or at least 'pragmatic' (meaning they'll give up some of the're principles to stay on top). You can't say a class is in control when a small elite group has ultimate authority, it makes no sense.


I guess you have to be in a country where twenty-three armies and fourteen-foreign expenditionary groups are encircling your capital city, where kulaks are withholding grain supplies, and where industrial production is basically dead in order to understand that the situation is not a matter of political purity; whether you are more 'radical' than I am, but of living or dying under terrible conditions that are beyond your control. There were many factions formed within the party that fought against the bureaucracy, so you have no valid argument here.

The thing is, that lot of the policies Lenin and is people set up had nothing to do with the civil war, they were about suppressing other parties and the like. There are examples of rebels and revolutions that were under extreme threat, but did'nt have to restrict free speach, or really any freedoms, so that does'nt exactly explain everything.


You don't buy that? Well, over one-third of Petrograd left for the villages, industrial output declined by 20%, and factories and railways were down. The entire social base of the party was wiped out. This is how the middle functionaries, small proprietors, and managers entered the party, and how they used the weakness of the proletarian class to their benefit. To reject this and demote it to a struggle between 'leaders and their people' is to take a grave, unmaterialist interpretation of the revolutionary events.

But ultimately Lenin and his people had ultimate authority, so whatever the petit-bourgeousie accomplished did'nt mean much because the Bolshevik high power never lost any ground to them, and the high power were the ones that had the authority to suppress. I'll have to go back and read more about what your talking about though, the petit-bourgeousie infiltrating the power, but I do know this, they did'nt infiltrate far enough to have the authority to repress freedoms, set up secret poliece forces, repress non bolshevik organizations and so forth, that was Lenin and the higher ups.


Yeah, and when did a 'mass syndicalist union' ever take complete control over society and hold longer than a few months, or not sell-out to the capitalists?

I know this may sound cliche too you, but I'd have to say during the Spanish Civil war, and they did a much better job of creating a real free Socialist society than the bolsheviks did, who wanted a Socialist Society, but under their control. They may have sold out later on to the republican state out of fear, but the Bolsheviks sold out to Totalitarianism to stay on top much faster and with more ease.


What makes class society is an antagonistic difference between classes, rather than 'individuals with authority' and their subservient masses.

I think we could make that a top it right in it self, you take this Marxist notion that everything is always class based, which ignores the basic notion that people can become detached from their class very very easily, and can become detached from the people they origionally were all about, and become more concerned about keeping and consolidating their gains. Class can explain many things, but not everything.


The 'big kids' conquered and wielded the state power, while were so wrapped up in their bullshit talk about being 'anti-authoritarian' that they never took it for themselves when they could of in many occasions.

I think the big kids conquering and wielding state power is a nagative thing, so thats great for you, but its nothing I would would to support. Because as far as I'm concerned authoritarian Socialism is no better than Capitalism, its not what I'm fighting for.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:06 pm
I know this may sound cliche too you, but I'd have to say during the Spanish Civil war, and they did a much better job of creating a real free Socialist society than the bolsheviks did, who wanted a Socialist Society, but under their control. They may have sold out later on to the republican state out of fear, but the Bolsheviks sold out to Totalitarianism to stay on top much faster and with more ease.
So according to you, it's better to actually sell out the revolution than accept temporary limits on freedom to defend it?

[blackstone]

Originally posted by catbert836+October 05, 2007 07:57 pm--> (catbert836 @ October 05, 2007 07:57 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 06:06 pm
I know this may sound cliche too you, but I'd have to say during the Spanish Civil war, and they did a much better job of creating a real free Socialist society than the bolsheviks did, who wanted a Socialist Society, but under their control. They may have sold out later on to the republican state out of fear, but the Bolsheviks sold out to Totalitarianism to stay on top much faster and with more ease.
So according to you, it's better to actually sell out the revolution than accept temporary limits on freedom to defend it? [/b]
How long did these "temporary" limitations last? Just curious. And wanted to ask you since your in a vanguard party, thus constitute the most knowledgeable in the left.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

A vanguard party is a good idea, there cannot be a problem if its interests are the interests of the proletariat and not of itself. As long as the party members who are selfinterested (ex. like Stalin) are eliminated there is no problem, and it is a good idea.

Now for the question of why you need a vanguard party- well the concept is pretty grounded in the argument that you need the proletariat to become aware that they are oppressed and subordinate to the bourgeoisie and the vanguard party will create awareness of so that revolution is possible. Then, yes, the proletariat can be liberated. It is a tool in reversing the position of the bourgeoisie. So through a vanguard party governmental power is in favor of the proletariat instead of the former ruling class (the bourgeoisie).

[Rawthentic]

Nobody ever responded to this post of mine:



The Marxist tendency (there is no such thing as "libertarian Marxists" or any of that bullshit) sees the need for a political vanguard party that can unite the revolutionary forces around a revolutionary program to make revolution. In a time when the masses are spontaneously protesting and struggling against the system, the party sews together these struggles into one while always pointing towards the necessity of seizure of power and the ultimate transformation to communism. True vanguard parties are the ones that develop their, theory, action, and line, from the masses (or in applying the mass line in other words) where the party brings together these scattered and unsystematic ideas and transforms them into systematic ideas which are then given back to the masses to take up. The more tight-knit and organized, the more creative and conscious will be the revolutionary movement of the masses.

Different experiences in ones life lead to different developments and levels in struggle. I mean, such leaders like Huey P. Newton or Eugene Debs became hugely adored people because of what the put forward, because they were serving the basic interests of working people. Such leaders become concentrations of all the contradictions we face in a revolutionary movement. This is how great leaders come into being, and they are the greatest asset of a revolutionary movement, along with the vanguard party.

The purpose of the vanguard party is to prepare for, and execute revolution, not become a new clique of exploiters. This is best exemplified by the victory of the Russian Socialist Revolution, where the workers and peasants rallied around "land, bread, and piece" thus uniting a force that ultimately led to the seizure of power by the masses under the leadership of the communist party.

The leadership of the communist party does not mean that there is a new class of exploiters, it means that such leadership is crucial in the transformation of social relation, production relations, ideas, etc., as well as giving way to the masses' complete takeover and running of society. When there is a successful revolution, the masses will always express sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology, and this is something very real that has to be fought against because it is a mentality bore out from capitalism. The communist party reaches into the masses, teaches them how to take control of society in the transformation to communism. If the bourgeoisie all of a sudden disappeared off the face of the earth would working people understand how to take control of all the things society calls for? No.

All these things show why such a communist vanguard is pivotal and essential to revolution, and why there ultimately cannot be a revolution without such an organization.

The fact of the matter is that if there is not communist proletarian leadership to lead the way forward, that void will be filled by other reactionary, bourgeois forces that will lead back to the old society.

Those who oppose vanguard parties or leadership in the correct revolutionary communist sense do so from a petty-bourgeois, intellectualist perspective, more abstract than anything else. The complain about being "led" and really don't want to be led by anybody, ignoring of course that they are always being led by different strata and class forces. It is the proletariat, and most notably the lower tier of the proletariat that does not come *****ing about leadership, but cherishes it and upholds it as really necessary in what they are trying to do and putting forward.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:08 pm
How long did these "temporary" limitations last? Just curious. And wanted to ask you since your in a vanguard party, thus constitute the most knowledgeable in the left.
Things didn't work out as planned in Russia. You should at least know that.

As for my own position, I do not accept the idea that going forward, there should be a single vanguard party, but rather several at least that can keep each other in check.

[RGacky3]

Things didn't work out as planned in Russia. You should at least know that.

Yeah they did :P, Lenin and Stalin got what they wanted.


The purpose of the vanguard party is to prepare for, and execute revolution, not become a new clique of exploiters.

But thats what inevitably ends up happening.


The more tight-knit and organized, the more creative and conscious will be the revolutionary movement of the masses.


How so?


The communist party reaches into the masses, teaches them how to take control of society in the transformation to communism. If the bourgeoisie all of a sudden disappeared off the face of the earth would working people understand how to take control of all the things society calls for? No.

How would the Communist party know? the working people having been running Society for centuries, why would'nt the working people know how to handle themselves?


The complain about being "led" and really don't want to be led by anybody, ignoring of course that they are always being led by different strata and class forces. It is the proletariat, and most notably the lower tier of the proletariat that does not come *****ing about leadership, but cherishes it and upholds it as really necessary in what they are trying to do and putting forward.

The reason for that is that the people in desperation are more desperate, and are willing to give someone a chance, which is why many dictators in the past have had lower class support.

Also you have to remember the Working class movement to begin with had a lot to do with being 'led' by the Capitalists, i.e. the Capitalists having control of the workplace and the economy and not the workers themselves.

Also there what evidence do you have that the people who are against being led are mostly middle class people? And that most working class people ahve no problem with being told what to do?

Also you post does'nt bring up how the communist party is to be kept in check by the workers and their authority limited.


A vanguard party is a good idea, there cannot be a problem if its interests are the interests of the proletariat and not of itself. As long as the party members who are selfinterested (ex. like Stalin) are eliminated there is no problem, and it is a good idea.

How are they going to do that!?? What happens is people want power within the party, and the party wants to extend its power, its simply the nature of power, when you have it you want more, and you want to keep it.

[RNK]

Is.. is that a violin I hear playing in the distance?

Waah waah waah, power is evil! Fine. But so is ignorance in the fact of reality.

Spain failed, buddy.

[autocritique]

Originally posted by catch+September 29, 2007 05:39 pm--> (catch @ September 29, 2007 05:39 pm)
Generally I think it's best to judge political ideas on their actually existing manifestations in reality - this means groups that have been Leninist and considered themselves the vanguard of the working class (which is all Leninist parties, otherwise they'd have to call it a day).[/b]

Simply claiming to be a Leninist does not a Leninist make. All sorts of people have claimed to be Leninist, Marxist, revolutionary, communist and all sorts of other things. Gorbachev was a "socialist" and apparently so is the British Labour Party...no? Obviously we can't simply accept such claims at face value.


Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:39 pm

Generally the most forward looking elements of the working class have emerged from outside either Leninist or Anarchist groups in the past during heightened periods of class struggle. These may be 'at the front'. but they aren't 'vanguard parties' unless you're going to reduce that term to a meaningless label attached to any advanced grouping of workers.

This is a pretty broad "generally." By "elements" do you mean a small handful of individuals or a fairly sizable section of society? And what organizational forms, if any, did they use to put their ideas into practice? And how successful were they at this?


[email protected] 29, 2007 05:39 pm

Counterposing some non-existent Leninist party that might avoid the pitfalls that thousands of others haven't before seems to me to be a very weak line of argument. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what party you consider to be the vanguard of the working class today?

I am not a member of this organization, I don't agree with them 100%, and they're not even a party, but I am in agreement with the Communist Voice Organization (http://www.communistvoice.org) more than any other self-described Marxist group in the U.S.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:59 pm
Simply claiming to be a Leninist does not a Leninist make. All sorts of people have claimed to be Leninist, Marxist, revolutionary, communist and all sorts of other things. Gorbachev was a "socialist" and apparently so is the British Labour Party...no?
No, the labour party doesn't claim to be socialist. It removed the word "socialism" from the manifesto at the start of Blairs ellection campaign in the 90s.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It didn't 'work out' in Russia because of material and historical limitations, don't be an idiot. (directed to the anarchist)

[RGacky3]

It didn't 'work out' in Russia because of material and historical limitations, don't be an idiot. (directed to the anarchist)

What the hell did Material and Historical Limitations have anything to do with Stalin and Lenin suppressing freedom of speach from everyone, including other Socialists, most people at that time were pro Socialist, and Anarchists, what did it have to do with secret poliece cracking down on any dissidents? Or what did it have to do with Prison Camps, or any of that? That had nothing to do with Historical and Material Limitations, it had to do with Lenin and Stalins Concsious Choices to consolidate power through any means nessesary.


Is.. is that a violin I hear playing in the distance?

Waah waah waah, power is evil! Fine. But so is ignorance in the fact of reality.

Spain failed, buddy.

Yeah, the USSR did'nt fail, but what it achieved was an undemocratic Police State, so what?

The fact of reality is that centralized power will destroy Democracy and thus true Socialism, and if those are gone what have you achieved?
I could just as easily say, "Waah Wahh waah, Capitalism is evil, fine, but so is ignorance in the fact of reality, the world is unfair deal with it." But I don't becuase I believe we can get rid of Power and Capitalism, thats kind of the point is'nt it :P.

[catch]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 05, 2007 09:15 pm
Nobody ever responded to this post of mine:

The Marxist tendency (there is no such thing as "libertarian Marxists" or any of that bullshit) sees the need for a political vanguard party that can unite the revolutionary forces around a revolutionary program to make revolution.
Could you explain the existence of the KAPD, Dutch and German councilists, the APCF, Johnson-Forest Tendency, autonomia, Gilles Dauvé, Solidarity UK, Aufheben etc. etc. - now not all of these were 'libertarian' but they had very different conceptions of the Party to the one you're putting forward.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by catch+October 08, 2007 07:12 pm--> (catch @ October 08, 2007 07:12 pm)
Live for the [email protected] 05, 2007 09:15 pm
Nobody ever responded to this post of mine:

The Marxist tendency (there is no such thing as "libertarian Marxists" or any of that bullshit) sees the need for a political vanguard party that can unite the revolutionary forces around a revolutionary program to make revolution.
Could you explain the existence of the KAPD, Dutch and German councilists, the APCF, Johnson-Forest Tendency, autonomia, Gilles Dauvé, Solidarity UK, Aufheben etc. etc. - now not all of these were 'libertarian' but they had very different conceptions of the Party to the one you're putting forward. [/b]
Could you explain the remote significance of these groups?

[catch]

Originally posted by autocritique+October 06, 2007 04:59 pm--> (autocritique @ October 06, 2007 04:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:39 pm

Generally I think it's best to judge political ideas on their actually existing manifestations in reality - this means groups that have been Leninist and considered themselves the vanguard of the working class (which is all Leninist parties, otherwise they'd have to call it a day).

Simply claiming to be a Leninist does not a Leninist make. All sorts of people have claimed to be Leninist, Marxist, revolutionary, communist and all sorts of other things. Gorbachev was a "socialist" and apparently so is the British Labour Party...no? Obviously we can't simply accept such claims at face value.
[/b]
OK. I've stolen this from Devrim, but still. Every Trotskyist party has supported one side or the other in capitalist wars since WWII - this was very much a direct result of Lenin's half-baked ideas about 'self-determination' which first showed their ugly results at Brest Litovsk.





Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:39 pm

Generally the most forward looking elements of the working class have emerged from outside either Leninist or Anarchist groups in the past during heightened periods of class struggle. These may be 'at the front'. but they aren't 'vanguard parties' unless you're going to reduce that term to a meaningless label attached to any advanced grouping of workers.

This is a pretty broad "generally." By "elements" do you mean a small handful of individuals or a fairly sizable section of society? And what organizational forms, if any, did they use to put their ideas into practice? And how successful were they at this?
The factory committees (and the mass assemblies they sprang from) in Russia which were instigated by workers before either the Bolsheviks or the Anarchists had any influence at all. The resistance to Stalinism through the '20s and '30s (strikes, full blown insurrections) when nearly all oppositional groups had been suppressed. Hungary '56, Paris '68, Portugal '74 - neither anarchist nor Marxist groups had much of a role in these events (except for obvious negative ones).


[email protected] 29, 2007 05:39 pm

Counterposing some non-existent Leninist party that might avoid the pitfalls that thousands of others haven't before seems to me to be a very weak line of argument. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what party you consider to be the vanguard of the working class today?



I am not a member of this organization, I don't agree with them 100%, and they're not even a party, but I am in agreement with the Communist Voice Organization (http://www.communistvoice.org) more than any other self-described Marxist group in the U.S.
They seem like a mixture of a few different things from my quick reading.

I'd disagree entirely with their conception of imperialism, and it seems like they've got a fairly standard "rank and filism" approach to the unions
(although I only read the text directed against "Neil" and I also disagree with the ICC's line on the unions which that's broadly responding to), alongside some latent Maoism. Either way I don't see anything there suggesting they're remotely the vanguard of the working class.

[RNK]

Yeah, the USSR did'nt fail, but what it achieved was an undemocratic Police State, so what?

Hey, we're perfecting the ingredients. You're still staring at the directions.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 08, 2007 07:30 pm--> (manic expression @ October 08, 2007 07:30 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:12 pm

Live for the [email protected] 05, 2007 09:15 pm
Nobody ever responded to this post of mine:

The Marxist tendency (there is no such thing as "libertarian Marxists" or any of that bullshit) sees the need for a political vanguard party that can unite the revolutionary forces around a revolutionary program to make revolution.
Could you explain the existence of the KAPD, Dutch and German councilists, the APCF, Johnson-Forest Tendency, autonomia, Gilles Dauvé, Solidarity UK, Aufheben etc. etc. - now not all of these were 'libertarian' but they had very different conceptions of the Party to the one you're putting forward.
Could you explain the remote significance of these groups? [/b]
If you don't know what the KAPD was, I don't see how you can call yourself any kind of Marxist. Now they weren't 'libertarian', but neither did they have the mechanistic attitude to the party put forward by so many on here, and Otto Ruhle and others developed some of the better analysis of the failures of the revolutionary wave during the'10s and '20s.

http://libcom.org/tags/german-revolution-1918

Ruhle is as good a person to start with as any: http://libcom.org/tags/otto-ruhle

As for the rest, their significance is the fact that they broke with Social Democracy and Leninism (to varying extents), whilst not rejecting Marx's work in it's entirety (like some but not all anarchists did), and fought against the mystifications of the USSR, Trotskyism etc. Judging by your attitude on the other thread, I doubt you'd be interested though.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:34 am
If you don't know what the KAPD was, I don't see how you can call yourself any kind of Marxist. Now they weren't 'libertarian', but neither did they have the mechanistic attitude to the party put forward by so many on here, and Otto Ruhle and others developed some of the better analysis of the failures of the revolutionary wave during the'10s and '20s.

http://libcom.org/tags/german-revolution-1918

Ruhle is as good a person to start with as any: http://libcom.org/tags/otto-ruhle

As for the rest, their significance is the fact that they broke with Social Democracy and Leninism (to varying extents), whilst not rejecting Marx's work in it's entirety (like some but not all anarchists did), and fought against the mystifications of the USSR, Trotskyism etc. Judging by your attitude on the other thread, I doubt you'd be interested though.
And this is your most significant organization? Figures. If you're calling the KAPD a significant organization that must be well known to "any kind of Marxist", you're crazy.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 09, 2007 12:40 am--> (manic expression @ October 09, 2007 12:40 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 12:34 am
If you don't know what the KAPD was, I don't see how you can call yourself any kind of Marxist. Now they weren't 'libertarian', but neither did they have the mechanistic attitude to the party put forward by so many on here, and Otto Ruhle and others developed some of the better analysis of the failures of the revolutionary wave during the'10s and '20s.

http://libcom.org/tags/german-revolution-1918

Ruhle is as good a person to start with as any: http://libcom.org/tags/otto-ruhle

As for the rest, their significance is the fact that they broke with Social Democracy and Leninism (to varying extents), whilst not rejecting Marx's work in it's entirety (like some but not all anarchists did), and fought against the mystifications of the USSR, Trotskyism etc. Judging by your attitude on the other thread, I doubt you'd be interested though.
And this is your most significant organization? Figures. If you're calling the KAPD a significant organization that must be well known to "any kind of Marxist", you're crazy. [/b]
No I think your simply showing your ignorance here. After Russia, Germany experienced the most advanced revolutionary situation between 1917-1921 (Italy not far behind), if you ignore all attempts at revolution apart from Russia (and Cuba apparently), then you can't have much interest in revolution at all.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:19 am
Is.. is that a violin I hear playing in the distance?

Waah waah waah, power is evil! Fine. But so is ignorance in the fact of reality.

Spain failed, buddy.
You know you've lost an argument when you turn into a patronising twat.

"Spain failed, buddy", so what? No one said Spain was perfect. And to be so simplistic is just silly. Were the odds in favor of the anarchists in Spain at that point, or were they in favor of the fascists?
It wasn't a fault of theory; it was the conditions of the situation dictating it's direction and its inevitable outcome.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:50 pm
What the hell did Material and Historical Limitations have anything to do with Stalin and Lenin suppressing freedom of speach from everyone, including other Socialists, most people at that time were pro Socialist, and Anarchists, what did it have to do with secret poliece cracking down on any dissidents? Or what did it have to do with Prison Camps, or any of that? That had nothing to do with Historical and Material Limitations, it had to do with Lenin and Stalins Concsious Choices to consolidate power through any means nessesary.
It had everything to do with it. If you are surrounded by twenty-two armies and fourteen imperialist forces, then desperate war-time measures are necessitated to ensure victory over the enemy. It wouldn't matter if the ruling party were anarchists or Bolsheviks, the actions that they enacted were needed to defeat a bloodthirsty, well-supplied, massive army that was willing to "burn and destroy two-thirds of Russia to cleanse it of the Bolsheviki." In that situation, discipline and mechanical traversing would need to be mandated, not because the shadowy leaders want to "consolidate power," but because winning would be a mirage without it.

You are also holding a double-standard. In Makhno's "free" territory, they “threatened punishment to all who did not keep their places clean” in medical facilities to have better health standards. To “prevent those hostile to our political ideas from establishing themselves,” they regulated the press and shut down periodicals. Malet reported "there exists in the army a counter-espionage service which engages in arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik Cheka. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported" with the intention of purging "opponents within or outwith the movement." I am sure that Makhno also wanted to "consolidate power," right? If we were not to deny facts, then we would have to come to the conclusion that in order to win you need to have what it takes, and that is a state.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 09, 2007 07:26 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 09, 2007 07:26 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 11:19 am
Is.. is that a violin I hear playing in the distance?

Waah waah waah, power is evil! Fine. But so is ignorance in the fact of reality.

Spain failed, buddy.
You know you've lost an argument when you turn into a patronising twat.

"Spain failed, buddy", so what? No one said Spain was perfect. And to be so simplistic is just silly. Were the odds in favor of the anarchists in Spain at that point, or were they in favor of the fascists?
It wasn't a fault of theory; it was the conditions of the situation dictating it's direction and its inevitable outcome. [/b]
They chose not to seize power when they could of. Their fear of "states" and "power" lead to the failure of the leadership to demand political control by the working class as a whole.

Even Syndicat admitted that. The Friends of Durruti admitted that too.

[RGacky3]

Hey, we're perfecting the ingredients. You're still staring at the directions.

I like that analogy :). But if you follow your directions and you get a poop salad, maybe throw the directions away and get a better cookbook, sure you can make a tastier poop salad, but its still a poop salad.


Their fear of "states" and "power" lead to the failure of the leadership to demand political control by the working class as a whole.

And the lack of fear of unchecked state power and centralized authority led to a horrific totalitarian police state. Better in my book to loose, than to win and be a poop salad.


It wouldn't matter if the ruling party were anarchists or Bolsheviks, the actions that they enacted were needed to defeat a bloodthirsty, well-supplied, massive army that was willing to "burn and destroy two-thirds of Russia to cleanse it of the Bolsheviki." In that situation, discipline and mechanical traversing would need to be mandated, not because the shadowy leaders want to "consolidate power," but because winning would be a mirage without it.


You keep going back to that, but I don't see how banning other Socialist Organizations has anything to do with civil war? Or strong arming other communists, or putting dissidents (Not white army people) in prison, secret police, centralizing power completely, I don't see how that stuff has anything to do with the Civil War. Also this stuff kept going way way after the civil war, way after the USSR was established.


"Spain failed, buddy", so what? No one said Spain was perfect. And to be so simplistic is just silly. Were the odds in favor of the anarchists in Spain at that point, or were they in favor of the fascists?

I'd also have to say the idea that the Anarchists had no foreign support, whereas teh fascists did, as did the communists, and both of them were against the anarchists, I'd say the Anarchists surviving and thriving as much as they did is really noteworthy, considering what they had stacked against them.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:09 pm

Hey, we're perfecting the ingredients. You're still staring at the directions.

I like that analogy :). But if you follow your directions and you get a poop salad, maybe throw the directions away and get a better cookbook, sure you can make a tastier poop salad, but its still a poop salad.
MMmm... poop salad.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by catbert836+October 05, 2007 09:26 pm--> (catbert836 @ October 05, 2007 09:26 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 08:08 pm
How long did these "temporary" limitations last? Just curious. And wanted to ask you since your in a vanguard party, thus constitute the most knowledgeable in the left.
Things didn't work out as planned in Russia. You should at least know that.

As for my own position, I do not accept the idea that going forward, there should be a single vanguard party, but rather several at least that can keep each other in check. [/b]
I think this is an amazing idea. But how would we go about creating more than one vanguard party? Will it happen before or after the revolution. Personally i believe that more vanguard parties should be created after the revolution.

[Rawthentic]

I think this is an amazing idea. But how would we go about creating more than one vanguard party? Will it happen before or after the revolution. Personally i believe that more vanguard parties should be created after the revolution.
More than one party? That would be brutal.

Considering that there will be, and needs to be, a single vanguard party that can lead the proletariat in making revolution, it is that party that needs to have (and will if it makes revolution) the support of the masses.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Having more than one vanguard party would only result in chaos, especially in regards to power. I don't see there being any benefit of having multiple vanguard parties- in that situation there will automatically be instability, which will ultimately make it easier for the revolution to be secured - such instability between vanguard parties cannot be avoided- and it leaves room for counterrevolutionary tactics to be employed - bringing with it a lot of unnecessary threats. sounds like chaos to me.

in order for the revolution to be secured you cannot have such instability which will be impossible to avoid with multiple vanguard parties. what you need is a single vanguard party so that such threats don't surface under the new "state".

[RGacky3]

What keeps the Vanguard in check, if not direct control by the General public, or another Vanguard Party?

[blackstone]

I can answer that!

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:50 pm
What keeps the Vanguard in check, if not direct control by the General public, or another Vanguard Party?
What reason do you have to check the vanguard party? It's made up of proletarians who fight in the interests of the working classes.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 16, 2007 05:00 pm--> (manic expression @ October 16, 2007 05:00 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:50 pm
What keeps the Vanguard in check, if not direct control by the General public, or another Vanguard Party?
What reason do you have to check the vanguard party? It's made up of proletarians who fight in the interests of the working classes. [/b]
yes, exactly. there is no necessity for it. regardless, having more than one vanguard party is chaotic and ultimately results in instability. aside from that, i don't consider a vanguard party to be some elite group like some may suggest- and certainly Lenin did not see it that way himself. therefore, it is unnecessary to attempt to keep it in check by having multiple vanguard parties- and even if there were multiple vanguard parties- it would be more chaotic than actually keep things in check- there would be argument over a lot of issues, not to mention power - and it would become very easily for counterrevolutionary movements to take advantage of that, not to mention for chaos to occur between members of these vanguard parties. i cant imagine it being any good in any way.

[blackstone]

aside from that, i don't consider a vanguard party to be some elite group like some may suggest- and certainly Lenin did not see it that way himself.

Well, let's see what Lenin had to say about that.



Unfortunately, many of those who judge our Party are outsiders, who do not know the subject, who do not realise that today the idea of an organisation of professional revolutionaries has already scored a complete victory. That victory would have been impossible if this idea had not been pushed to the forefront at the time
-Preface to the Collection Twelve Years

It seems to me that here Lenin recognizes that his Party was an organization of "professional revolutionaries". In other words...an elite group.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:39 am

aside from that, i don't consider a vanguard party to be some elite group like some may suggest- and certainly Lenin did not see it that way himself.

Well, let's see what Lenin had to say about that.



Unfortunately, many of those who judge our Party are outsiders, who do not know the subject, who do not realise that today the idea of an organisation of professional revolutionaries has already scored a complete victory. That victory would have been impossible if this idea had not been pushed to the forefront at the time
-Preface to the Collection Twelve Years

It seems to me that here Lenin recognizes that his Party was an organization of "professional revolutionaries". In other words...an elite group.
yes, but he saw the vanguard party as being an organization for the benefit of the working class- a tool to bring about class-consciousness - awareness of the exploitation and subordinate forces existent under the bourgeois state. regardless of whether or not it was an elite group, it was working in the favor of the working class, not against it. it was also a way of securing the revolution and "new" state after power was seized. it also helps eliminate counterrevolutionary threats - whether or not it was an "elite" group is not the point- but that its interests are the interests of the working class- of the proletariat.

[bezdomni]

It seems to me that here Lenin recognizes that his Party was an organization of "professional revolutionaries". In other words...an elite group.

Yeah. A party made up of communist revolutionaries who are dedicated to actively fighting for the overthrow of capitalism is naturally going to be made up of a relatively small group of people.

I recommend that you read What is To Be Done, Part IV - The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm#v05fl61h-440-GUESS) where Lenin explains why this is so.


What was the source of our disagreement [with the economists]? It was the fact that on questions both of organisation and of politics the Economists are forever lapsing from Social-Democracy into trade-unionism. The political struggle of Social-Democracy is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government. Similarly (indeed for that reason), the organisation of the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party must inevitably be of a kind different from the organisation of the workers designed for this struggle. The workers’ organisation must in the first place be a trade union organisation; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow (here, and further on, of course, I refer only to absolutist Russia). On the other hand, the organisation of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organisation of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced. Such an organisation must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible. [my emphasis]


The question as to whether it is easier to wipe out “a dozen wisemen” or “a hundred fools” reduces itself to the question, above considered, whether it is possible to have a mass organisation when the maintenance of strict secrecy is essential. We can never give a mass organisation that degree of secrecy without which there can be no question of persistent and continuous struggle against the government. To concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean that the latter will “do the thinking for all” and that the rank and file will not take an active part in the movement. On the contrary, the membership will promote increasing numbers of the professional revolutionaries from its ranks; for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and for a few working men waging the economic struggle to gather in order to form a “committee”, but that it takes years to train oneself to be a professional revolutionary; and the rank and file will “think”, not only of amateurish methods, but of such training. Centralisation of the secret functions of the organisation by no means implies centralisation of all the functions of the movement. Active participation of the widest masses in the illegal press will not diminish because a “dozen” professional revolutionaries centralise the secret functions connected with this work; on the contrary, it will increase tenfold. In this way, and in this way alone, shall we ensure that reading the illegal press, writing for it, and to some extent even distributing it, will almost cease to be secret work, for the police will soon come to realise the folly and impossibility of judicial and administrative red-tape procedure over every copy of a publication that is being distributed in the thousands. This holds not only for the press, but for every function of the movement, even for demonstrations. The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a “dozen” experienced revolutionaries, trained professionally no less than the police, will centralise all the secret aspects of the work – the drawing up of leaflets, the working out of approximate plans; and the appointing of bodies of leaders for each urban district, for each institution, etc. (I know that exception will be taken to my “undemocratic” views, but I shall reply below fully to this anything but intelligent objection.) Centralisation of the most secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and enhance the quality of the activity of a large number of other organisations that are intended for a broad public and are therefore as loose and as non-secret as possible, such as workers’ trade unions; workers’ self-education circles and circles for reading illegal literature; and socialist, as well as democratic, circles among all other sections of the population; etc., etc. We must have such circles, trade unions, and organisations everywhere in as large a number as possible and with the widest variety of functions; but it would be absurd and harmful to confound them with the organisation of revolutionaries, to efface the border-line between them, to make still more hazy the all too faint recognition of the fact that in order to “serve” the mass movement we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social-Democratic activities, and that such people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 16, 2007 10:00 pm--> (manic expression @ October 16, 2007 10:00 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:50 pm
What keeps the Vanguard in check, if not direct control by the General public, or another Vanguard Party?
What reason do you have to check the vanguard party? It's made up of proletarians who fight in the interests of the working classes. [/b]
That is one of the most Utopian ideas I've heard. Your pretty much saying:

"Why would you need to have the Vanguard in Check? They would NEVER abuse their power, they would NEVER put their own interests above the class they are supposed to represent, they are pure souls with out a selfish thought in their mind, just by the fact that they are made up of proletarians (unlike Lenin) they MUST by NESSESITY fight in the interests of the working class, even with their newfound authority, they can never be corrupted by power, it just can't happen."

Kind of like people who completely trust priests with their kids, because they are priests. :P. Flowers and Cookies and love :P.

[The-Spark]

So how would a vanguard party go about creating democracy? What needs to be done before we could create the new democracy?

[RGacky3]

So how would a vanguard party go about creating democracy? What needs to be done before we could create the new democracy?

The real question is, what would insure that they would?

[KC]

Yeah. A party made up of communist revolutionaries who are dedicated to actively fighting for the overthrow of capitalism is naturally going to be made up of a relatively small group of people.

I recommend that you read What is To Be Done, Part IV - The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries where Lenin explains why this is so.

Or the Manifesto:

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."


"Why would you need to have the Vanguard in Check? They would NEVER abuse their power, they would NEVER put their own interests above the class they are supposed to represent, they are pure souls with out a selfish thought in their mind, just by the fact that they are made up of proletarians (unlike Lenin) they MUST by NESSESITY fight in the interests of the working class, even with their newfound authority, they can never be corrupted by power, it just can't happen."

The vanguard party is put "in check" by the very fact that it is the party of the proletariat; the proletariat isn't going to go against its own aims. The only time that the party degenerates is when proletarian class-consciousness degenerates. It is an effect of reaction, not a cause.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The vanguard party is put "in check" by the very fact that it is the party of the proletariat; the proletariat isn't going to go against its own aims. The only time that the party degenerates is when proletarian class-consciousness degenerates. It is an effect of reaction, not a cause.
exactly my argument. that's why I don't consider it necessary for there to be multiple vanguard parties- not to mention it wouldn't be of benefit in any way.

[RGacky3]

The vanguard party is put "in check" by the very fact that it is the party of the proletariat; the proletariat isn't going to go against its own aims. The only time that the party degenerates is when proletarian class-consciousness degenerates. It is an effect of reaction, not a cause.

I think your missing the whole idea of class, its not absolute, if the Vanguard is a group of Proletarians, once they gain power their relationship to the rest of the working class changes, because now they have authority, since they're not working in the factories, or the farms any more, and rather are doing the job of the State, they are no longer really proletarians in the true sense of the word. You have to remember the Vanguard Party is made of of Individuals, Individuals just like any one else, just because it is the party of the proletariat, there is nothing to ensure that it stays that way other than the idea that it is.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:45 pm
That is one of the most Utopian ideas I've heard. Your pretty much saying:

"Why would you need to have the Vanguard in Check? They would NEVER abuse their power, they would NEVER put their own interests above the class they are supposed to represent, they are pure souls with out a selfish thought in their mind, just by the fact that they are made up of proletarians (unlike Lenin) they MUST by NESSESITY fight in the interests of the working class, even with their newfound authority, they can never be corrupted by power, it just can't happen."
People have explained this to you countless times, and yet you seem incapable of learning this basic concept.

The vanguard party doesn't "represent" the proletariat, it IS fully proletarian! It fights in the interests of its class; why would it betray its own interests?

Lenin was a revolutionary. His interests were no different from that of the workers. If you think he lived a luxurious life, you're clueless.

The vanguard puts political power in the hands of the workers, which is precisely what happened in Russia, Cuba and other places. They seized power, as proletarians, for the proletariat. Is it that hard to understand?

Your fallacy is the continual refusal to recognize the FACT that the vanguard is made up of proletarians. Revolutionaries who fight capitalism itself can only benefit from its overthrow.


I think your missing the whole idea of class, its not absolute, if the Vanguard is a group of Proletarians, once they gain power their relationship to the rest of the working class changes, because now they have authority, since they're not working in the factories, or the farms any more, and rather are doing the job of the State, they are no longer really proletarians in the true sense of the word. You have to remember the Vanguard Party is made of of Individuals, Individuals just like any one else, just because it is the party of the proletariat, there is nothing to ensure that it stays that way other than the idea that it is.

If workers take power, does their class change? Does their relationship to the means of production change? No, they have simply taken control of society. Revolutionaries who begin the process of building socialism do not see their relationship to the means of production shift when they take power, for that power is then given to the working classes (for instance, the Soviets were the central governmental structure).

Every single post of yours, RGacky3, is just another strawman. I don't really think you want to make an attempt to understand what anyone's saying.

[Dimentio]

In what essence is a vanguard party by definition a part of the working class?

Most vanguard parties have statistically mostly been composed of low-level functionaries and other petite bourgeoisie elements in term of their leadership. Hence, one could assume that these elements would not really act in service of the proletariat.

It could be different if for example trade unions dictated to the vanguard what to do, but according to leninism, workers have not developed their class-conciousness.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:39 pm
In what essence is a vanguard party by definition a part of the working class?

Most vanguard parties have statistically mostly been composed of low-level functionaries and other petite bourgeoisie elements in term of their leadership. Hence, one could assume that these elements would not really act in service of the proletariat.

It could be different if for example trade unions dictated to the vanguard what to do, but according to leninism, workers have not developed their class-conciousness.
Well, for starters, vanguard parties are composed almost fully of people from the working classes. You didn't see small businessmen in the Bolsheviks for a very good reason.

The elements of the party are in service of the proletariat because they struggle for working class revolution. How is that not in service of the proletariat's interests?

Tell me, just how revolutionary are trade unions today? The vanguard must work within the trade unions and radicalize them toward revolution; Lenin was adamant on this point:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch06.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm)

One excerpt I always thought was very interesting (although perhaps a bit tangential):

"However, when Zubatov, agent of the secret police, organised Black-Hundred workers’ assemblies and workingmen’s societies for the purpose of trapping revolutionaries and combating them, we sent members of our Party to these assemblies and into these societies (I personally remember one of them, Comrade Babushkin, a leading St. Petersburg factory worker, shot by order of the tsar’s generals in 1906). They established contacts with the masses, were able to carry on their agitation, and succeeded in wresting workers from the influence of Zubatov’s agents."

[RGacky3]

The vanguard party doesn't "represent" the proletariat, it IS fully proletarian! It fights in the interests of its class; why would it betray its own interests?

It would not betray its interests, but they would betray the interests of non vanguard proletariat, why? Because individual power interests could easily come before class interests. The only way that statement could be true is if the "vanguard party" was made up of the General working class as a whole, but if that was the case it would'nt be called the Vanguard Party, it would be called, the people in General.


Lenin was a revolutionary. His interests were no different from that of the workers. If you think he lived a luxurious life, you're clueless.

When anyone (Proletarian, revolutoinary, or whatever), gains power and authority, their interests change, because their situation changes.


The vanguard puts political power in the hands of the workers, which is precisely what happened in Russia, Cuba and other places. They seized power, as proletarians, for the proletariat. Is it that hard to understand?

No, its not hard to understand, but its not true. If the Vanguard put the workers in power, it would be the Workers putting limitations on the Vanguard rather than the other way around.

Anyone can seize power as proletarians for the proletarians, but all of that is meaningless, everyone rules "for the people" :P, what matters is the actualy situation.


If workers take power, does their class change? Does their relationship to the means of production change? No, they have simply taken control of society. Revolutionaries who begin the process of building socialism do not see their relationship to the means of production shift when they take power, for that power is then given to the working classes (for instance, the Soviets were the central governmental structure).


Yes it does, if a small amount of workers take State power as a Vanguard Party their relationsihp to the other workers and the means of productions changes, its not they "have simply taken control of society" taking control of Society changes everything. Those who take State control are now those commanding, making rules, using power, and making State Desicions that effect people in the Nation, so yeah, things change.

You say they give power to the working classes, now I'm going to assume that, thats true (which it is'nt, the Soviets actual authority was very very limited by Lenin), the fact that its the Vanguard giving power to the working classes, they also have the authority to take it away, when things don't go their way, which they do, which means the power they give to the working class is meaningless. Its like saying you get to vote, but if you don't vote our way, you don't get to vote anymore :P.

[Dimentio]

Was Lenin or Trotsky proletarian?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:16 pm
Was Lenin or Trotsky proletarian?
Stalin was.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:16 pm
Was Lenin or Trotsky proletarian?
Just as much as pigs are reptiles!

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Lenin was seeking the interests of the working-class- of the proletariat. Lenin did not have bourgeois interests- and regardless of whether or not Stalin was proletarian or not his interests were definitely not the interests of the proletariat. Stalin was self-interested and much more interested in accumulating power and doing whatever necessary in that regard- even if it meant betraying the party, betraying his fellow comrades, and betraying the members of the proletariat- and in that regard the things he did was just excessive- completely unnecessary.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:12 pm
It would not betray its interests, but they would betray the interests of non vanguard proletariat, why? Because individual power interests could easily come before class interests. The only way that statement could be true is if the "vanguard party" was made up of the General working class as a whole, but if that was the case it would'nt be called the Vanguard Party, it would be called, the people in General.
Now you're just making stuff up (and resorting to Bakuninite fallacies). If the vanguard is a group of workers, why would they betray the interests of the working classes? In this lies the failure of your argument: it comes down to class, something you obviously have no grasp of.

They wouldn't be called "the people in General", because the "people in General" are not all dedicated communists who are ready to give everything to the revolution. If they WERE, then they'd be part of the vanguard.

And who the hell is "the people in General", anyway? Your use of the term only betrays your lack of interest in recognizing class dynamics.


When anyone (Proletarian, revolutoinary, or whatever), gains power and authority, their interests change, because their situation changes.

If they have the same relationship to the means of production, how do their interests change? Tell me that much. You might want to stop playing games and just admit that you believe in the Bakuninite conception of society: powerful and powerless, which flies in the face of any sort of scientific analysis of the world.


No, its not hard to understand, but its not true. If the Vanguard put the workers in power, it would be the Workers putting limitations on the Vanguard rather than the other way around.

What are you talking about? The vanguard has always fought for the workers' interests because their interests are the same.


Anyone can seize power as proletarians for the proletarians, but all of that is meaningless, everyone rules "for the people" :P, what matters is the actualy situation.

Then what is "the actualy situation", RGacky3? You're hiding behind ambiguity. Try to specify "the actualy situation" for us.


Yes it does, if a small amount of workers take State power as a Vanguard Party their relationsihp to the other workers and the means of productions changes, its not they "have simply taken control of society" taking control of Society changes everything. Those who take State control are now those commanding, making rules, using power, and making State Desicions that effect people in the Nation, so yeah, things change.

Good job, you can mention the means of production, but you still didn't answer my question. Are you saying that class interests are tied to individuals in power? Using that logic, George Bush and Bill Gate's class interests are different, because one is in power and one is not. The fact is that all members of the bourgeoisie have the same interests because their class is the same; one being in office and the other not holding office makes no difference whatsoever.


You say they give power to the working classes, now I'm going to assume that, thats true (which it is'nt, the Soviets actual authority was very very limited by Lenin), the fact that its the Vanguard giving power to the working classes, they also have the authority to take it away, when things don't go their way, which they do, which means the power they give to the working class is meaningless. Its like saying you get to vote, but if you don't vote our way, you don't get to vote anymore :P.

No, it is true, read some history once in awhile. The Bolsheviks made the Soviets the central organ of government, effectively making worker councils the system of power. And no, RGacky3, the Bolsheviks only had "the authority" because the workers voted for them overwhelmingly. The Left-SR's also had "the authority" for a time before they revolted against the Soviets.

By the way, you failed to provide a single real example. Again, you're hiding behind ambiguity to mask your lack of support.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 20, 2007 05:36 pm
With the understanding that we need a revolutionary worker's party, a few things would have to happen. First of all, the party would need to be in constant contact with the working class in all its struggles.

Under socialism, there will need to be cultural revolutions similar to socialist China that constantly shakes the party leadership and struggles to throw out the bourgeoisie and its ideas the will inevitably seek into the revolutionary party.

A party can be the most powerful vehicle of the working class, or its class enemy.

Well, for starters, vanguard parties are composed almost fully of people from the working classes. You didn't see small businessmen in the Bolsheviks for a very good reason.
Manic, if vanguard parties are composed almost fully of people from the working class. Does that mean the Chinese Communist Party was not the true vanguard?

Because if so, why would there be a need for "cultural revolutions" or "great purges" to shake party leadership and rid itself of bourgeoisie, if as you say the vanguard party is made up only of the proletariat?

And if the bourgeoisie forces were not in the party pre-revolution, how might i add, did they get there post-revolution?

Could it be that forces within the party class changed once their relation to the production changed? :wub:

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Stalin did not act to eliminate party members that were bourgeois- he eliminated comrades- and their interests were the interests of the proletariat- Stalin was not seeking the interests of the proletariat - he was simply seeking the interests of himself - Stalin wasn't concerned about anything but his own power and position in the party.

[Rawthentic]

Could it be that forces within the party class changed once their relation to the production changed?
No, thats stupid. Commodity production (of which there is in socialism) constantly regenerates capitalism and the capitalist class, as Marx proved. This requires constant cultural revolution that can keep society on the socialist road through the revolutionizing of all sectors of society, mainly the social relations, relations of production, and people's thinking.

This is how the bourgeoisie emerges in the communist vanguard, and cultural revolution is its only solution (in fact without it, we will never get to communism).

[RGacky3]

If the vanguard is a group of workers, why would they betray the interests of the working classes? In this lies the failure of your argument: it comes down to class, something you obviously have no grasp of.


Because, THEIR PERSONAL INTERESTS, SUCH AS POWER, PRESTIGE, AUTHORITY AND SO ON, COMES FIRST, AND ALWAYS WILL. There is such a thing as personal interests seperated from class interests.


They wouldn't be called "the people in General", because the "people in General" are not all dedicated communists who are ready to give everything to the revolution. If they WERE, then they'd be part of the vanguard.

And who the hell is "the people in General", anyway? Your use of the term only betrays your lack of interest in recognizing class dynamics.

Your claim is that simply because the vanguard are a group of workers (supposedly), they must by neccessity act in the interest of all workers. I'm saying the only way, that would be true, would be if the vanguard was actually ALL the Workers :P.

If they have the same relationship to the means of production, how do their interests change? Tell me that much. You might want to stop playing games and just admit that you believe in the Bakuninite conception of society: powerful and powerless, which flies in the face of any sort of scientific analysis of the world.


The fact is they don't have the same relationship to the means of production, the Vanguard after the revolution has to take over control of the state, their relationship changes segnificantly, rather than working the machines and the farms, they are running them from above, thats a huge change. Also the relationship to the means of production is not the only thing that motivates interests.

Its not as simple as Powerful and Powerless, but thats a huge part of it, and I guess you'd have to admit, that you don't believe power and authority are relevant at all, they don't change a thing right?


Then what is "the actualy situation", RGacky3? You're hiding behind ambiguity. Try to specify "the actualy situation" for us.

The actualy situation after a vanguardist revolution is that the Vanguard has direct State power, whereas workers have it only in name and theory, thats the situation, and there is nothing that insures the vanguardists are accountable to the workers, other than the fact that they say they'll be good, or they come from the same class, which is a crappy insurance.


power? Using that logic, George Bush and Bill Gate's class interests are different, because one is in power and one is not. The fact is that all members of the bourgeoisie have the same interests because their class is the same; one being in office and the other not holding office makes no difference whatsoever.


Yes it does, because George Bush can put Bill Gates in prison. However the reason George Bush must bow to the interests of the Capitalists in America as a whole is because the Capitalists control the economy. In a post Vanguardist revolution (all the ones that have happend), The Vanguard controls the economy through the State, so really they don't have to bow to the workers, they take the role of controling the State, and the Economy.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 18, 2007 04:39 pm


No, thats stupid. Commodity production (of which there is in socialism) constantly regenerates capitalism and the capitalist class, as Marx proved. This requires constant cultural revolution that can keep society on the socialist road through the revolutionizing of all sectors of society, mainly the social relations, relations of production, and people's thinking.

This is how the bourgeoisie emerges in the communist vanguard, and cultural revolution is its only solution (in fact without it, we will never get to communism).
Not even. Your throwing Marxist class relations out of the window and replacing it with something not based on material reality.


If what you are proposing is true, you have stumbled upon an amazing discovery. Proof of the negation of the negation. Rosa, watch out! According to Live for the People, in socialism you will randomly change into your opposite. One day your proletariat , next day bourgeoisie! But don't get too comfortable! Because in a few hours you'll become proletariat again. The the cycle continues. Class struggle with yourself!

Why do i find that hard to believe?

And obviously you do not suggest that, right?

So how can a factory worker in a socialist society suddenly become bourgeoisie if he remains assembling parts on the assembly line and never invests in a business? Even is elected a rep in the factory's council, he still will not be bourgeoisie.

No, the bourgeoisie, LFP, emerges in the communist vanguard party because of their new relation to the means of production post revolution.

Socialism, as we witnessed over the last century, is a form of class society in which all or most of the important means of production are owned and managed by the state. The people that control the state make up the "ruling class" of such a society.

And guess which people control the state?

You guessed it, the vanguard party.

Remember, this is what Soviet Pants said earlier


A party made up of communist revolutionaries who are dedicated to actively fighting for the overthrow of capitalism is naturally going to be made up of a relatively small group of people.

Coupled with the fact that most socialist states ran by a single party have been centrally planned economies and now it becomes clear just how bourgeoisie forces appear in vanguard parties post revolution.

Cultural revolution isn't the solution, but a real proletarian revolution is!

[Rawthentic]

lol, you ARE stupid.


And obviously you do not suggest that, right?
No, that is not what I suggest.

I am talking about line and its decisiveness. There were those in the Chinese CP that advocated material incentive for production, rather than ideological ones. In other words, to promote production and advance, the revisionists sought material and financial rewards for the proletariat and peasantry, while the Maoists sought ideological ones (such as the continuation of socialism, political debate, the road to communism, etc.) that put the rest of society and the advance of socialism above individual financial interests. The revisionists also wanted for the masses to be unquestioning of authority, they thought that all officials who called themselves "communists" should be followed blindly. Mao fought this. He said that it was the wrong way to go, that workers and peasants should always form their own organizations of power (which they did) and always question the line and program of those officials to determine whether it was advancing the revolution, or taking it back to the old system. Some CCP cadres felt that they no longer needed to consult the masses, etc.

But here's the rub. There are forces in high positions of leadership in the party and state that push and fight for a bourgeois line. By bourgeois line, I mean an outlook and policies that seek to expand the kinds of inequalities that characterize capitalism. I mean an outlook and policies that seek to restrict the initiative of the masses. And these forces in high leadership who push a bourgeois line will be strategically positioned to implement their program: to institute policies and to restructure economic and social relations in a capitalist direction.

Thats all there is to it, and cultural revolution certainly is the solution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

RGacky3, do you realize that individuals play little to no role in determining the actions of the state? You are holding onto a liberal, classless abstraction, rather than examing the actual social forces involved in conflict with each other.

It doesn't matter if a party is 'hierarchal,' it can not do anything unless there is a class behind it, and normally if you spend decades working within workers' struggles, you are pitted against the fundamental interests of the upper tier of the bourgeoisie, you will be regarded as their enemy since you have what it takes to truly overthrow them. The party is the only organization capable of overthrowing a social order, simply because a union serves as a defensive mechanism that is structurally limited to the economic theater.

[KC]

Your claim is that simply because the vanguard are a group of workers (supposedly), they must by neccessity act in the interest of all workers.

The vanguard is by its very definition a group of workers consciously acting in the interests of the working class. One can't consciously act against the working class while they work in its interests.


the Vanguard after the revolution has to take over control of the state

This is completely untrue. The working class abolishes the bourgeois state through revolution and implements a proletarian state in its place in order to maintain its position as "ruling class". The aims and actions of the vanguard are outlined in the Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm).


their relationship changes segnificantly, rather than working the machines and the farms, they are running them from above, thats a huge change.

You are making some very big assumptions that are leading you to fallacious conclusions. If you are going to discuss Marxist theory then I suggest you understand what the word "state" means to Marxists. Surely you support some form of commune-type direct democracy after the revolution? In Marxist terms this is a state.


Its not as simple as Powerful and Powerless, but thats a huge part of it, and I guess you'd have to admit, that you don't believe power and authority are relevant at all, they don't change a thing right?

Slippery slope. You are implying that it must be completely one way or the other, without any middle ground. Marxists believe that class relations are based on both the relationship to the means of production and relations to one another.


The actualy situation after a vanguardist revolution

What is a vanguardist revolution? And could you please give me an example? Also, how do you define "vanguard"? How do you define "vanguard party"? What is a "vanguardist"?

[RGacky3]

RGacky3, do you realize that individuals play little to no role in determining the actions of the state? You are holding onto a liberal, classless abstraction, rather than examing the actual social forces involved in conflict with each other.

Depends on the nature of the State, Depends on the authority structure of the state, also class power depends on how much of the Economy they control, in the Capitalist state the reason the Capitalist has so much power is because they control virtually the whole economy. in Almost almost all Leninist inspired revolutoins the Capitalist state was dismantled and because it was a small Vanguard party that took the lead in dismantling it, it took over the State, and since the Capitalist class was no longer there, the Vanguard took over the control of the economy as well. Which Means that it replaced the Capitalist himself and the State.


The vanguard is by its very definition a group of workers consciously acting in the interests of the working class.

Then its just an argument of difinition, but in action it can be whatever it wants to be. Every dictator will call himself a benevolent dictator, I don't think "the Vanguard party will work in the interests of the working class, and if it does'nt then its not a real Vanguard party." Because definition does'nt really matter.


The working class abolishes the bourgeois state through revolution and implements a proletarian state in its place in order to maintain its position as "ruling class".

Whos the subordinate class? Also if it a small amound of people controling the state without being directly accountable to the working class as a whole, the working class is not the ruling class, other than in name.


Surely you support some form of commune-type direct democracy after the revolution? In Marxist terms this is a state.

I'm not a Marxist, and thats a matter of definition and irrelivent.


What is a vanguardist revolution? And could you please give me an example? Also, how do you define "vanguard"? How do you define "vanguard party"? What is a "vanguardist"?

I use that term Vanguardist to describe Socialists that follow the Leninist idiology, also I suppose it could be used for Democratic Socialists, I use it for any Socialist that believes that a small group or a centralized body should run Society in the Social interests.


It doesn't matter if a party is 'hierarchal,' it can not do anything unless there is a class behind it

Like I said before, the reason the Capitalist class has so much power now is because it controls the economy, in most Socialist revolutoins the economy was controlled by the State controlled by a party, which means the working class had'nt really gained any tangable power. A class is only important if it has power. Which now the Capitalist class has.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Depends on the nature of the State, Depends on the authority structure of the state, also class power depends on how much of the Economy they control, in the Capitalist state the reason the Capitalist has so much power is because they control virtually the whole economy. in Almost almost all Leninist inspired revolutoins the Capitalist state was dismantled and because it was a small Vanguard party that took the lead in dismantling it, it took over the State, and since the Capitalist class was no longer there, the Vanguard took over the control of the economy as well. Which Means that it replaced the Capitalist himself and the State.
No, the vanguard is a tool in creating a worker's state - the vanguard is made up of the working-class.


Then its just an argument of difinition, but in action it can be whatever it wants to be. Every dictator will call himself a benevolent dictator, I don't think "the Vanguard party will work in the interests of the working class, and if it does'nt then its not a real Vanguard party." Because definition does'nt really matter.
A vanguard party seeks the interests of the working-class - of the proletariat- not its own- at least by what Lenin argued.


Whos the subordinate class? Also if it a small amound of people controling the state without being directly accountable to the working class as a whole, the working class is not the ruling class, other than in name.
- The subordinate class in capitalist society is the proletariat.
- The proletariat cannot become the ruling class until the bourgeois state is overthrown, state power is seized and it becomes the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then, the proletariat is the ruling class.


I'm not a Marxist, and thats a matter of definition and irrelivent.
Obviously.


I use that term Vanguardist to describe Socialists that follow the Leninist idiology, also I suppose it could be used for Democratic Socialists, I use it for any Socialist that believes that a small group or a centralized body should run Society in the Social interests.
Lenin advocated for a vanguard not because of his personal interests but because it is then possible to achieve class consciousness with a vanguard - therefore making the vanguard in the interest of the proletariat- of the working-class--- not in its personal interest(s).


Like I said before, the reason the Capitalist class has so much power now is because it controls the economy, in most Socialist revolutoins the economy was controlled by the State controlled by a party, which means the working class had'nt really gained any tangable power. A class is only important if it has power. Which now the Capitalist class has.
The vanguard does not prevent the working-class from having power-- it gives them power-- the vanguard is ultimately seeking the interests of the working-class- giving them power -- not exploiting them. the bourgeois state in capitalist society is elite simply because it is rules in the interests of bourgeois pigs-- of its own class- the bourgeois state is self-interested - it rules in the interests of its own class- of the bourgeoisie. that is not even comparable to the vanguard because the vanguard is set up in the proletariat's interest-- not to exploit them the way the bourgeois state does.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:09 pm


Revolutionary ideology manifests itself in act. We can sit around and call ourselves thisists or thatists all day, but we're talking with a corpse in our mouth until we act on what we say we believe.
well said...

[RGacky3]

No, the vanguard is a tool in creating a worker's state - the vanguard is made up of the working-class.

If the Vanguard is a tool of the working class, how does the workers as a whole wield it, how does the working class have control over the Vanguard, the fact that the Vanguard is made up of members of the working class does'nt give the working class as a whole control over it.


A vanguard party seeks the interests of the working-class - of the proletariat- not its own- at least by what Lenin argued.

Yeah thats just the theory, but how is that guaranteed? The American Democratic State seeks the interests of the American Public, thats the theory, but it does'nt work that way, the only way it would, would be if it is under direct control in all aspects by the American Public.


The proletariat cannot become the ruling class until the bourgeois state is overthrown, state power is seized and it becomes the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then, the proletariat is the ruling class.

Yes, but under the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", who is the subordinate class? Also how is the proletariat as a whole the ruling class, when Society is controlled by that Vanguard Party which as far as I know is'nt accountable to the proletariat as a whole.


Lenin advocated for a vanguard not because of his personal interests but because it is then possible to achieve class consciousness with a vanguard - therefore making the vanguard in the interest of the proletariat- of the working-class--- not in its personal interest(s).

I agree, I don't think at all Lenin had personal interests in mind, nor am I against a gruop trying to raise class consciousness, what I am against is innate authority given to that group, and as soon as that happens, the interest of keeping and wielding that authority neccessarily comes in.


The vanguard does not prevent the working-class from having power-- it gives them power-- the vanguard is ultimately seeking the interests of the working-class- giving them power -- not exploiting them.

So the Vanguard, after gaining power, gives up its own power to the working class? What guarantees that? Other than the goodwill of the Vanguard.


the bourgeois state in capitalist society is elite simply because it is rules in the interests of bourgeois pigs-- of its own class- the bourgeois state is self-interested - it rules in the interests of its own class- of the bourgeoisie. that is not even comparable to the vanguard because the vanguard is set up in the proletariat's interest-- not to exploit them the way the bourgeois state does.

Even if the entire Senate and Congress and Executive branch were made up of Proletariat, they would STILL need to bow to Capitalist power why? Because Capitalist power controls the economy, the Capitalists have control over the State now, not because the State officials come form the Capitalist class, its because the State is dependant on the economy, and the economy is controlled by the Capitalists, it does'nt matter what class those in power come from, what matters is who controls what.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:49 pm
If the Vanguard is a tool of the working class, how does the workers as a whole wield it, how does the working class have control over the Vanguard, the fact that the Vanguard is made up of members of the working class does'nt give the working class as a whole control over it.
The vanguard IS MADE UP OF THE WORKING CLASS. Why would the working class have to control something that is a.) made up of workers and b.) fighting in the interests of the workers?


Yeah thats just the theory, but how is that guaranteed? The American Democratic State seeks the interests of the American Public, thats the theory, but it does'nt work that way, the only way it would, would be if it is under direct control in all aspects by the American Public.

It's not just the theory, it's the reality. Vanguard parties have sought the interests of the working class. What do you think happened in Russia?

And no, the American state seeks the interests of the bourgeoisie. Again, you're resorting to liberal terms like "the public", when in fact it has to do with class.


Yes, but under the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", who is the subordinate class? Also how is the proletariat as a whole the ruling class, when Society is controlled by that Vanguard Party which as far as I know is'nt accountable to the proletariat as a whole.

The bourgeoisie is the subordinate class.

The proletariat is the ruling class because they own the means of production and have conquered political power. This is what a revolution establishes, this is what the vanguard establishes.


I agree, I don't think at all Lenin had personal interests in mind, nor am I against a gruop trying to raise class consciousness, what I am against is innate authority given to that group, and as soon as that happens, the interest of keeping and wielding that authority neccessarily comes in.

Interests come down to class, not being in office. Like I said before, it's like saying that Bill Gates is shaking in fear because other capitalists are "in power". They are of the same class, and so they have the same interests, regardless of what individual is in office at the time. Democratic processes are necessary to put the workers in government, and that comes with the socialist territory (like the Soviet system).


So the Vanguard, after gaining power, gives up its own power to the working class? What guarantees that? Other than the goodwill of the Vanguard.

It doesn't give up power at all, it conquers it as workers. Their interests are in setting up the dictatorship of the proletariat, because they are of the working classes.


Even if the entire Senate and Congress and Executive branch were made up of Proletariat, they would STILL need to bow to Capitalist power why? Because Capitalist power controls the economy, the Capitalists have control over the State now, not because the State officials come form the Capitalist class, its because the State is dependant on the economy, and the economy is controlled by the Capitalists, it does'nt matter what class those in power come from, what matters is who controls what.

The point is to break capitalist power: economically and politically. The state protects the economic interests of the bourgeoisie, and is the product of class conflict. State officials DO come from the capitalist class in bourgeois society; their interests are one in the same.

[RGacky3]

The vanguard IS MADE UP OF THE WORKING CLASS. Why would the working class have to control something that is a.) made up of workers and b.) fighting in the interests of the workers?

The same reason the Capitalists need control over the Capitalist State, because simply because someone is from a class does not mean that his desicions once in power will be primarily for the interests of that class. and they would need control to insure that the vanguard continues and actually does fight in the interests of the workers.


And no, the American state seeks the interests of the bourgeoisie. Again, you're resorting to liberal terms like "the public", when in fact it has to do with class.

I was talking about in theory, in theory it works for the interests of the public when infact it does'nt, and whats more cannot.


The bourgeoisie is the subordinate class.

The proletariat is the ruling class because they own the means of production and have conquered political power. This is what a revolution establishes, this is what the vanguard establishes.

If the Bourgeoisie no longer controls the means of production its no longer a class, and no longer needs to be subordinated, because if they want to be a part of the new society, they'll have to work, thus they become the working class.

If the proletariat owns the means of production can they make decisions contrary to the Vanguard party? If the vanguard "who has the political and economic power" Is not under the direct control of the working class, then the working class by definition is not at in power, its only in power nominally.


Interests come down to class, not being in office. Like I said before, it's like saying that Bill Gates is shaking in fear because other capitalists are "in power". They are of the same class, and so they have the same interests, regardless of what individual is in office at the time. Democratic processes are necessary to put the workers in government, and that comes with the socialist territory (like the Soviet system).

Let me put it too you this way, if Bill gates did'nt have direct economic power, he would be shaking in fear, if the individual in office is a proletariat of Capitalist is irrelivent to Bill Gates, because the fact is he controls the money, and the Government (no matter who's in office) has to appease him. In a State Socialist Society, the proletariat DOES NOT directly control the economy, thus the State DOES NOT need to appease them, in the same way the Capitalist state has to appease the workers. It has nothing to do with what Class you come from, it has to do with what control and/or power you have.


It doesn't give up power at all, it conquers it as workers. Their interests are in setting up the dictatorship of the proletariat, because they are of the working classes.

Yes but before they are workers they are individuals, and just because they are workers does'nt mean they will neccessarily put the interests of their class as a whole ahead of interests of authority and power.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:07 pm
The same reason the Capitalists need control over the Capitalist State, because simply because someone is from a class does not mean that his desicions once in power will be primarily for the interests of that class. and they would need control to insure that the vanguard continues and actually does fight in the interests of the workers.
So you're saying that a capitalist state can work for the interests of the workers?


I was talking about in theory, in theory it works for the interests of the public when infact it does'nt, and whats more cannot.

What theory? Theoretically and practically, the capitalist state does NOT work for "the public". What the hell is "the public", anyway?


If the Bourgeoisie no longer controls the means of production its no longer a class, and no longer needs to be subordinated, because if they want to be a part of the new society, they'll have to work, thus they become the working class.

They may not own the means of production after the revolution, but it still exists and attempts to roll back working class gains. Do you really think that the bourgeoisie disappears overnight?


If the proletariat owns the means of production can they make decisions contrary to the Vanguard party? If the vanguard "who has the political and economic power" Is not under the direct control of the working class, then the working class by definition is not at in power, its only in power nominally.

Now you're just deliberately misunderstanding me and everyone else here. The workers have political and economic power. That's the point.


Let me put it too you this way, if Bill gates did'nt have direct economic power, he would be shaking in fear,

Then he wouldn't be bourgeois, RGacky3, and the point would be moot.


if the individual in office is a proletariat of Capitalist is irrelivent to Bill Gates, because the fact is he controls the money, and the Government (no matter who's in office) has to appease him. In a State Socialist Society, the proletariat DOES NOT directly control the economy, thus the State DOES NOT need to appease them, in the same way the Capitalist state has to appease the workers. It has nothing to do with what Class you come from, it has to do with what control and/or power you have.

RGacky3, you're offically a liberal. First of all, this argument is barely readable. Secondly, you're completely wrong when it comes to class. In socialism, the proletariat controls society: the state, the economy. Furthermore, your interests align with your class and your class only. Bill Gates isn't in governmental power, but it doesn't matter because HIS CLASS holds power. Drop the liberalism.


Yes but before they are workers they are individuals, and just because they are workers does'nt mean they will neccessarily put the interests of their class as a whole ahead of interests of authority and power.

More liberalist junk. Workers pursue their interests as workers, not as abstract "individuals".

[RGacky3]

So you're saying that a capitalist state can work for the interests of the workers?

Let me put it too you this way, if the working class took over control of the economy, then the Capitalist State would'nt have a choice, the reason its a Capitalist State, is because the Capitalits wield control over it is because they control the economy.


What theory? Theoretically and practically, the capitalist state does NOT work for "the public". What the hell is "the public", anyway?

Well if you ask someone who supports the Capitalist state, they would say it works for the public, it does'nt, but thats what they say, the reason I bring that up is because it does'nt matter what someone SAYS an institution is for, what matters is who has control over it.


They may not own the means of production after the revolution, but it still exists and attempts to roll back working class gains. Do you really think that the bourgeoisie disappears overnight?

As a class yes, whats left is dispossesed Bourgeoisie, who can maybe try and take it over through if they have foriegn help, which many times they do, But thats not any basis to define them as a class, at best they are simply angry dispossesed rebels.


Now you're just deliberately misunderstanding me and everyone else here. The workers have political and economic power. That's the point.

Ok, HOW? If you say through the Vanguard party, then how do they have direct control over the Vanguard party, how do they have direct control over the economy and the State?


Then he wouldn't be bourgeois, RGacky3, and the point would be moot.

Yeah My point is that it has to do with who controls what, not what class your from.


Workers pursue their interests as workers, not as abstract "individuals".

If that is the case, a worker would never try and get a raise or a promotion by stepping on, or competing with other workers. Workers are individuals, thats not abstract, whats abstract is the innate unselfish loyalty they have to their class, which simply does'nt exist, their loyalty is to themselves first, their class second, or maybe third, or fourth, I don't know, by for almost everyone, they matter first.


Furthermore, your interests align with your class and your class only. Bill Gates isn't in governmental power, but it doesn't matter because HIS CLASS holds power. Drop the liberalism.

Again, you interests align with yourself first, and it does matter who's class holds political power, what matteres is that he holds a lot of economic power, so whoever is holding political power is irrelivent, because he has economic power.

You can call me a Liberal if you want, its irrelivent really, what matters is that you have this Marxist Dogma, that the world is only devided into classes, and all desicions are made unselfishly by class, which is completely untrue. Power and Control changes your Social Situation, it does'nt matter what class you come from, if you can't see that Power and Control changes your Social Situation you are truely in a fairy dreamland.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

If the Vanguard is a tool of the working class, how does the workers as a whole wield it, how does the working class have control over the Vanguard, the fact that the Vanguard is made up of members of the working class does'nt give the working class as a whole control over it.

Yeah thats just the theory, but how is that guaranteed? The American Democratic State seeks the interests of the American Public, thats the theory, but it does'nt work that way, the only way it would, would be if it is under direct control in all aspects by the American Public.

Yes, but under the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", who is the subordinate class? Also how is the proletariat as a whole the ruling class, when Society is controlled by that Vanguard Party which as far as I know is'nt accountable to the proletariat as a whole.

I agree, I don't think at all Lenin had personal interests in mind, nor am I against a gruop trying to raise class consciousness, what I am against is innate authority given to that group, and as soon as that happens, the interest of keeping and wielding that authority neccessarily comes in.
I. Direct control allows for the bourgeoisie to reclaim power. It doesn't allow for the development of a worker's state.

II. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a worker's state which rules in the interest of the proletariat, just as the bourgeois state rules in the interest of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is then the subordinate class in the worker's state, because the state is ruling in the interests of the working-class, not the bourgeoisie.

III. In regards to the authority of the vanguard, much of the necessity for it to have such authority existed because of certain conditions which existed after the revolution and couldn't have been eliminated without a vanguard (at least not as effectively). These conditions were created by counterrevolutionary threats and oppositional forces. These were not only threats to power but threats to the working-class movement, which couldn't have been eliminated as effectively without a vanguard. The vanguard makes it easier to secure revolution and state power after the former state is overthrown. It is very difficult for counterrevolutionary threats and opposition to be overcome without a force to eliminate them. Again, I'm not saying it isn't possible for threats to be eliminated without a vanguard, but it surely isn't as effective.


So the Vanguard, after gaining power, gives up its own power to the working class? What guarantees that? Other than the goodwill of the Vanguard.
No, then the vanguard is still necessary for threats to the worker's state to be eliminated. Threats could not be completely eliminated without a vanguard- it would not be effective- without a vanguard to enforce anything for the purpose of securing the worker's state no threat can be eliminated successfully.


Even if the entire Senate and Congress and Executive branch were made up of Proletariat, they would STILL need to bow to Capitalist power why? Because Capitalist power controls the economy, the Capitalists have control over the State now, not because the State officials come form the Capitalist class, its because the State is dependant on the economy, and the economy is controlled by the Capitalists, it does'nt matter what class those in power come from, what matters is who controls what.
What you aren't understanding is the interest the state is ruling in. A bourgeois state isn't ruling in the interests of the working-class- it is ruling in the interests of itself, which is ultimately the bourgeois class. That is why it becomes an issue. There is a significant difference between a bourgeois state and a worker's state- this difference is the interest the state is ruling in.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:14 pm
Let me put it too you this way, if the working class took over control of the economy, then the Capitalist State would'nt have a choice, the reason its a Capitalist State, is because the Capitalits wield control over it is because they control the economy.
Your points are descending further and further into delusion and confusion. You can't even present a coherent argument.

The reason the capitalist state is capitalist is because it is made to preserve the capitalist order. Class determines interests; being determines consciousness. You're putting the carriage before the horse.


Well if you ask someone who supports the Capitalist state, they would say it works for the public, it does'nt, but thats what they say, the reason I bring that up is because it does'nt matter what someone SAYS an institution is for, what matters is who has control over it.

No, you would if you took the liberal capitalist presumption at face value, which you shouldn't. The entire point was irrelevant, just admit it and move on.


As a class yes, whats left is dispossesed Bourgeoisie, who can maybe try and take it over through if they have foriegn help, which many times they do, But thats not any basis to define them as a class, at best they are simply angry dispossesed rebels.

No, they aren't, because their interests still lie with private ownership of the means of production. Calling them "angry dispossessed rebels" ignores history and the situation itself. Furthermore, you're forgetting that capitalism is an international system, and so it's not "foreign help", it's capitalism trying to re-establish its order.


Ok, HOW? If you say through the Vanguard party, then how do they have direct control over the Vanguard party, how do they have direct control over the economy and the State?

Drop the liberalism. The vanguard party takes control as workers, and since their interests are in setting up worker democracy (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat), they do so. "Checks and balances" are what they taught you in civics class.


Yeah My point is that it has to do with who controls what, not what class your from.

No, your point is that political power is an independent entity unto itself, which is liberal and insipid. Political power stems directly from class dynamics, it doesn't exist in a vacuum; you're putting the carriage before the horse yet again.


If that is the case, a worker would never try and get a raise or a promotion by stepping on, or competing with other workers. Workers are individuals, thats not abstract, whats abstract is the innate unselfish loyalty they have to their class, which simply does'nt exist, their loyalty is to themselves first, their class second, or maybe third, or fourth, I don't know, by for almost everyone, they matter first.

No, they would if they had the chance, but the reality of the capitalist workplace is that they are seldom given a chance of becoming bourgeois themselves. They may get to be "assistant sub-manager", but that does not change their basic economic interests. Workers are workers, and their interests follow as such. Calling them "individuals first" is abstract because you're trying to remove people from their material conditions, which is a liberal position. Being determines consciousness.


Again, you interests align with yourself first, and it does matter who's class holds political power, what matteres is that he holds a lot of economic power, so whoever is holding political power is irrelivent, because he has economic power.

What the hell are you talking about? "You interests align with yourself first"...what does that even mean?


You can call me a Liberal if you want, its irrelivent really, what matters is that you have this Marxist Dogma, that the world is only devided into classes, and all desicions are made unselfishly by class, which is completely untrue. Power and Control changes your Social Situation, it does'nt matter what class you come from, if you can't see that Power and Control changes your Social Situation you are truely in a fairy dreamland.

Your positions are liberal. My position is based on a material conception of the world, which contrasts with your abstract liberalism. If you were paying attention anytime during this thread, you would see that I have kept referring to "interests"; your assertion that I think "decisions are made unselfishly by class" is wrong because people follow their self-interest. However, this ALSO means that they follow their class interests, for the two are inseperable. It is in a worker's interest to get higher pay, therefore it is in a worker's interests to strike and demand better pay; this taken to its logical conclusions means it is in a worker's interest to overthrow capitalism and take control of the means of production. It's not that hard to understand, but I guess that's asking too much of you.

Learn a thing or two about how capitalism works and I might take you seriously.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 pm
lol, you ARE stupid.


And obviously you do not suggest that, right?
No, that is not what I suggest.

I am talking about line and its decisiveness. There were those in the Chinese CP that advocated material incentive for production, rather than ideological ones. In other words, to promote production and advance, the revisionists sought material and financial rewards for the proletariat and peasantry, while the Maoists sought ideological ones (such as the continuation of socialism, political debate, the road to communism, etc.) that put the rest of society and the advance of socialism above individual financial interests. The revisionists also wanted for the masses to be unquestioning of authority, they thought that all officials who called themselves "communists" should be followed blindly. Mao fought this. He said that it was the wrong way to go, that workers and peasants should always form their own organizations of power (which they did) and always question the line and program of those officials to determine whether it was advancing the revolution, or taking it back to the old system. Some CCP cadres felt that they no longer needed to consult the masses, etc.

But here's the rub. There are forces in high positions of leadership in the party and state that push and fight for a bourgeois line. By bourgeois line, I mean an outlook and policies that seek to expand the kinds of inequalities that characterize capitalism. I mean an outlook and policies that seek to restrict the initiative of the masses. And these forces in high leadership who push a bourgeois line will be strategically positioned to implement their program: to institute policies and to restructure economic and social relations in a capitalist direction.

Thats all there is to it, and cultural revolution certainly is the solution.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense i am talking about.



But here's the rub. There are forces in high positions of leadership in the party and state that push and fight for a bourgeois line. By bourgeois line, I mean an outlook and policies that seek to expand the kinds of inequalities that characterize capitalism. I mean an outlook and policies that seek to restrict the initiative of the masses. And these forces in high leadership who push a bourgeois line will be strategically positioned to implement their program: to institute policies and to restructure economic and social relations in a capitalist direction.

There should be no reason whatsoever, that any one person or groups of people, should be "strategically positioned" to implement their programs to restructure economic and social relations in a capitalist direction!

If the structure of the organization is of the Leninist form , then that structure in of itself, due to its hierarchy and non-participatory nature, will thwart a true proletariat revolutionary movement, due to it's exclusion of the working class!

In fact, this very structure, is the reason why forces can become "strategically positioned" in high positions of leadership to wield a larger influence in the direction of society and the revolutionary movement.


Because Leninist forms of organizations do no incorporate a democratic process in which workers and consumers jointly plan their endeavors, this obviously excludes ordinary workers and consumers from participating in any economic decision making process.

As a result, a Leninist party usually ends up implementing a centrally planned economy. This is in essence bureaucratic management of the the economy and other spheres of society.

This leads to a monopoly on decision making, as well as other tasks (and former bourgeois perks).

However, this whole threat of forces carrying a bourgeois line can be completely avoided.

How so?

Throw the whole Leninist vanguard party model out the window.

It's a just a breeding ground for the restoration of capitalism.

The Revolutionary Betrayed: The Sequel


Instead, we need a form of organization where the working class are in direct control of the movement. By implementing Participatory Allocation, and participatory or decentralized economics in general, we can avoid any threat of "forces in high leadership".

Joe Smoe wants to institute zones for capitalist investment in a participatory society? Good luck getting that one passed buddy. Something like that isn't a neighborhood, ward, city, state or region decision. So good luck with having the majority of society voting to restore capitalism.

[RGacky3]

The reason the capitalist state is capitalist is because it is made to preserve the capitalist order. Class determines interests; being determines consciousness. You're putting the carriage before the horse.

Your thinking in unconcrete terms, the capitalist state does'nt exist for a reason perse, the fact is that its not an ideological reason at all, its a concrete material one, the State must act in favor of the Capitalist because the Capitalist controls the economy.

Let me ask you this, if the entire American government was made up of working class people would it make a difference?

I'll tell you the answer, its no, because the Capitalist class still controls the means of production, it does'nt matter what class those in the state come from.


No, you would if you took the liberal capitalist presumption at face value, which you shouldn't. The entire point was irrelevant, just admit it and move on.

exactly, I don't take the liberal capitalist presumtion at face value, neither do I take the State Socialist presumtion at face value.


Furthermore, you're forgetting that capitalism is an international system, and so it's not "foreign help", it's capitalism trying to re-establish its order

Thats true, Capitalism is a international system, but I'm talking about concrete terms in a nation, after a revolution is taken out in a nation, or an area, the Capitalists in that area, no longer can function as a class within the area, and in that situation, it would be "foreign help," as far as and type of counter revolution is concerned.


No, they aren't, because their interests still lie with private ownership of the means of production.

Their interests lie with either getting their property back, giving up and working within the system, or trying to undo the revolution so they can get their proporty back.


Drop the liberalism. The vanguard party takes control as workers, and since their interests are in setting up worker democracy (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat), they do so. "Checks and balances" are what they taught you in civics class.

Yes, but Checks and Balances recognise that humans are not selfless servents of their class. Like I said before, once they gain power, their social situation changes, and their interests may or may not change, you cannot simply predict interests, because humans are complex creatures.


No, your point is that political power is an independent entity unto itself, which is liberal and insipid. Political power stems directly from class dynamics, it doesn't exist in a vacuum; you're putting the carriage before the horse yet again.

My point is that both Political power, and Economic power depend on who controls it, and they are both dependant on each other. Political power depends on who has the authority to make political desicions, one huge factor in those desicions is appeasing those who have Economic Power, those who have the Economic power, can either various people, now its the Capitalist class, in most State Socialists states its the Communist party (Because they make economic desicions), and I'll argue that their Social Situation changes once they attain power, it both situations its not the working class as a whole that have direct political or economic authority, if they did, they would be making the decisions as a whole.


Calling them "individuals first" is abstract because you're trying to remove people from their material conditions,

Not at all, calling them workers first is abstract because your trying to group many different peoples and personalities into one umbrella, and assuming that they put their class above themselves which is simply untrue.


What the hell are you talking about? "You interests align with yourself first"...what does that even mean?

It means that everyone thinks of their own well being, of their own comfort, and in the case of power, their own power, before they think of their class.


Your positions are liberal. My position is based on a material conception of the world, which contrasts with your abstract liberalism. If you were paying attention anytime during this thread, you would see that I have kept referring to "interests"; your assertion that I think "decisions are made unselfishly by class" is wrong because people follow their self-interest. However, this ALSO means that they follow their class interests, for the two are inseperable. It is in a worker's interest to get higher pay, therefore it is in a worker's interests to strike and demand better pay; this taken to its logical conclusions means it is in a worker's interest to overthrow capitalism and take control of the means of production. It's not that hard to understand, but I guess that's asking too much of you.

Class interests and self-interests much of the time are the same, but many times they are not, if they were always, then there would never be scabs, nor would their ever be corrupt Union Leaders. I agree that its a workers interest to overthrough capitalist and take control of the means of production. But thats way different then a Vangaurd taking over "As Workers" and running the State and the Economy "for" the workers, and like I've said many times, when a small group of people control the State and Economy Directly, and the vast majority of the others do not, that changes Social Dynamics a little bit does'n it, that small group are in somewhat of a different situation than the rest arn't they?


Direct control allows for the bourgeoisie to reclaim power. It doesn't allow for the development of a worker's state.

How so?


The dictatorship of the proletariat is a worker's state which rules in the interest of the proletariat, just as the bourgeois state rules in the interest of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is then the subordinate class in the worker's state, because the state is ruling in the interests of the working-class, not the bourgeoisie.

Supposedly rules in the interest of the proletariat. The only reason the Bourgeois state rules in the interest of the bourgeoisie is because the bourgeoisie has direct control of the economy. Also, in a workers state, if the workers do actually control the means of production, how are their still bourgeoisie? Are they secretly running factories?


It is very difficult for counterrevolutionary threats and opposition to be overcome without a force to eliminate them. Again, I'm not saying it isn't possible for threats to be eliminated without a vanguard, but it surely isn't as effective.

Maybe your right, although there is little proof saying that it is, but the point is, when you have a Vanguard with ultimate authority, then the revolution is dead anyway.


There is a significant difference between a bourgeois state and a worker's state- this difference is the interest the state is ruling in.

The reason the bourgeois state rules in the interests of the bourgeois, is because the bourgeois directly controls the economy, so the State MUST answer to the bourgeois. In the So Called workers state, why MUST the Vanguard answer to the workers, if they control both the State and the Economy, if you look at it honestly and without abstractoins, simply put, they are not forced to answer to the workers, like the Bourgeois state is forced to answer to the Capitalists, so there is nothing to insure that they will, other than rhetoric and this unslefish Class Loyalty they are supposed to have.

[KC]

There should be no reason whatsoever, that any one person or groups of people, should be "strategically positioned" to implement their programs to restructure economic and social relations in a capitalist direction!

If the structure of the organization is of the Leninist form , then that structure in of itself, due to its hierarchy and non-participatory nature, will thwart a true proletariat revolutionary movement, due to it's exclusion of the working class!

In fact, this very structure, is the reason why forces can become "strategically positioned" in high positions of leadership to wield a larger influence in the direction of society and the revolutionary movement.

What both of you aren't realizing is that these huge changes aren't simply due to "leaders strategically positioned high in the party"; they're based on the actions of the class as a whole. You're both looking at it from an individualistic and ultimately unmarxist viewpoint.


Because Leninist forms of organizations do no incorporate a democratic process in which workers and consumers jointly plan their endeavors, this obviously excludes ordinary workers and consumers from participating in any economic decision making process.

As a result, a Leninist party usually ends up implementing a centrally planned economy. This is in essence bureaucratic management of the the economy and other spheres of society.

This leads to a monopoly on decision making, as well as other tasks (and former bourgeois perks).

However, this whole threat of forces carrying a bourgeois line can be completely avoided.

That, of course, depends on what you mean by "Leninist". The only "Leninist" party I'd consider to ever have existed was the Bolshevik party. And in that case your claims don't hold much water.

[Leo]

That, of course, depends on what you mean by "Leninist". The only "Leninist" party I'd consider to ever have existed was the Bolshevik party.

How can the Bolshevik Party be "Leninist" when the concept "Leninism" didn't even exist before Lenin died?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:13 pm
Your thinking in unconcrete terms, the capitalist state does'nt exist for a reason perse, the fact is that its not an ideological reason at all, its a concrete material one, the State must act in favor of the Capitalist because the Capitalist controls the economy.

Let me ask you this, if the entire American government was made up of working class people would it make a difference?

I'll tell you the answer, its no, because the Capitalist class still controls the means of production, it does'nt matter what class those in the state come from.
You were just denying those very reasons just now. The state is created to defend economic structures in place. Therefore, it is the product of that economic system. Saying "capitalists control the economy" is a tangent and is asking the wrong questions.

If the working class controlled the American government it wouldn't be capitalist. Period.

The capitalist class controls the means of production THROUGH CONTROL OF THE STATE.


exactly, I don't take the liberal capitalist presumtion at face value, neither do I take the State Socialist presumtion at face value.

You used an example based on a capitalist presumption. Now that I pointed that out to you, you backtracked and said you never took it as true. Why did you propose the situation in the first place if you knew it was wrong?


Thats true, Capitalism is a international system, but I'm talking about concrete terms in a nation, after a revolution is taken out in a nation, or an area, the Capitalists in that area, no longer can function as a class within the area, and in that situation, it would be "foreign help," as far as and type of counter revolution is concerned.

Nations do not exist in vacuums. The bourgeoisie wants to establish capitalism everywhere. That is all we need to know.


Their interests lie with either getting their property back, giving up and working within the system, or trying to undo the revolution so they can get their proporty back.

Yes, getting property and exploiting workers are their interests. Going into the worker state doesn't help them, because they can't own property within the system.


Yes, but Checks and Balances recognise that humans are not selfless servents of their class. Like I said before, once they gain power, their social situation changes, and their interests may or may not change, you cannot simply predict interests, because humans are complex creatures.

Again, you're regurgitating what you learned in civics class; stop. Your liberal position leads you to think in individualistic terms: that individuals have rights that must be protected from others. This is a liberal idea. The FACT is that people's interests are deriven directly from their relationship to the means of production. If you're bourgeois, you're bourgeois whether you're in office or not. If you're a worker, you're still a worker if you hold office in a worker state.

Like I said before, your logic would say that Bill Gates' interests are different from George Bush's interests because one is in office and the other is not. This is absurd, they both have the same exact goddamn interests.


My point is that both Political power, and Economic power depend on who controls it, and they are both dependant on each other. Political power depends on who has the authority to make political desicions, one huge factor in those desicions is appeasing those who have Economic Power, those who have the Economic power, can either various people, now its the Capitalist class, in most State Socialists states its the Communist party (Because they make economic desicions), and I'll argue that their Social Situation changes once they attain power, it both situations its not the working class as a whole that have direct political or economic authority, if they did, they would be making the decisions as a whole.

Yawn. More liberal junk. See previous answer.


Not at all, calling them workers first is abstract because your trying to group many different peoples and personalities into one umbrella, and assuming that they put their class above themselves which is simply untrue.

Calling them workers first is putting emphasis on their material conditions and not some mystical ideal. They are workers first because that is what their interests align with.

Oh, and they don't "put their class above themselves", THEIR INTERESTS ALIGN WITH THEIR CLASS. Are you trying to be thick? Seriously, try reading what I write next time.


It means that everyone thinks of their own well being, of their own comfort, and in the case of power, their own power, before they think of their class.

See previous 3 answers.


Class interests and self-interests much of the time are the same, but many times they are not, if they were always, then there would never be scabs, nor would their ever be corrupt Union Leaders. I agree that its a workers interest to overthrough capitalist and take control of the means of production. But thats way different then a Vangaurd taking over "As Workers" and running the State and the Economy "for" the workers, and like I've said many times, when a small group of people control the State and Economy Directly, and the vast majority of the others do not, that changes Social Dynamics a little bit does'n it, that small group are in somewhat of a different situation than the rest arn't they?

No, class interests and self-interest is exactly the same. Scabs are workers who aren't class conscious, so they work for the benefit of the bosses unwittingly. Union leaders oftentimes never work, they're just glorified lobbyists in a bourgeois system.

It doesn't change social dynamics at all, because their class is still the same.

I'll ask you the same question that you haven't answered so far: do George Bush and Bill Gates have the same interests or not?

Stop repeating the same garbage that everyone's disproven countless times.

[RGacky3]

The capitalist class controls the means of production THROUGH CONTROL OF THE STATE.

Not at all the Capitalits control it directly.


If the working class controlled the American government it wouldn't be capitalist. Period.

Yes it would be, it does'nt matter if the President used to be a Factory worker, and Congress was all made up of farmers, blue collar workers, clerks, whatever, the economy would still be Capitalist and the State would still be subservient to the Capitalists.


Nations do not exist in vacuums. The bourgeoisie wants to establish capitalism everywhere. That is all we need to know.

Yeah, but how does internal political repression, have anything to do with that?


Going into the worker state doesn't help them, because they can't own property within the system.

It could be, their interests could be, well there was a revolution, I lost my Buisiness, so I'll just get along with life under the new order.


that individuals have rights that must be protected from others. This is a liberal idea. The FACT is that people's interests are deriven directly from their relationship to the means of production. If you're bourgeois, you're bourgeois whether you're in office or not. If you're a worker, you're still a worker if you hold office in a worker state.

Like I said before, your logic would say that Bill Gates' interests are different from George Bush's interests because one is in office and the other is not. This is absurd, they both have the same exact goddamn interests.

Your a bourgeois if you are controling a business under a Capitalist system, if you hold office, and you still own Company(s) your still a bourgeois sure. If your a worker holding office in a "workers state," your not producing, your not on the same plane as other workers, your not in a factory, or a farm, your making desicions for other workers, your controlling the State and Capital, Big difference.


Scabs are workers who aren't class conscious, so they work for the benefit of the bosses unwittingly. Union leaders oftentimes never work, they're just glorified lobbyists in a bourgeois system.

Scabs are people who look out for themselves, the same way most Union members are, also let me ask you this, Union leaders oftentimes never work yeah, but then again, niether do many Vanguardists after the revolution, why? Because they are just glorified leaders in a ungenuine Socialist system.


do George Bush and Bill Gates have the same interests or not?

In certain things yes, in other things no, and in different ways. Bill Gates Interests are to increase his profits and his companies power, George Bushes interests are about gaining Political power, appeasing the Capitalist class so the economy keeps running, leaving a political legacy, Increasing Amiercan Imperial Power, and once out of power, going back to making profits for himself. Interests are not clean cut and simple. They are related to each other but they are not the Same. The only thing that makes George Bush have to appease Bill Gates, is the fact that bill gates controls the means of production. If George Bush was a sweatshop worker before he became president, it would'nt change that relationship, once in power, his interests would be completely different, than they were when he was a sweatshop worker.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:59 pm
Not at all the Capitalits control it directly.
What is that supposed to mean? Your fondness for blabbering meaningless crap and moving to the next point is really getting on my nerves.

EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN. I've done so, and I'd like for you to do so.


Yes it would be, it does'nt matter if the President used to be a Factory worker, and Congress was all made up of farmers, blue collar workers, clerks, whatever, the economy would still be Capitalist and the State would still be subservient to the Capitalists.

Incorrect. Your equation of the state being subservient is purely wrong. Why? The state arose BECAUSE of contradictions within capitalist society. It cements bourgeois control of society (and the means of production), and so the possibility of workers controlling a capitalist state is a contradiction in terms.


Yeah, but how does internal political repression, have anything to do with that?

If the bourgeoisie is attempting to reestablish capitalism, the workers must respond and keep them from doing so. This may mean abolishing counterrevolutionary propaganda.


It could be, their interests could be, well there was a revolution, I lost my Buisiness, so I'll just get along with life under the new order.

Most rich people don't think like that, unfortunately.


Your a bourgeois if you are controling a business under a Capitalist system, if you hold office, and you still own Company(s) your still a bourgeois sure. If your a worker holding office in a "workers state," your not producing, your not on the same plane as other workers, your not in a factory, or a farm, your making desicions for other workers, your controlling the State and Capital, Big difference.

Many politicians in Washington DC don't own businesses, yet they're still bourgeois politicians. Why? They are there for the express purpose of maintaining the capitalist state and therefore the capitalist order. Likewise, in socialism, workers can hold office in government and still have the interests of a worker. The nature of the state is important, which is fundamentally changed during the revolution.

It's simply impossible to expect all the administrators in socialist society to hoe a field for 8 hours a day AND do their jobs in government. Workers must take up positions in the worker state so it can run efficiently. That doesn't change their interests at all.


Scabs are people who look out for themselves, the same way most Union members are, also let me ask you this, Union leaders oftentimes never work yeah, but then again, niether do many Vanguardists after the revolution, why? Because they are just glorified leaders in a ungenuine Socialist system.

Wrong. Scabs disrupt unity within the working class, which aids the bosses. They may be pursuing their immediate goals, but their ultimate class interests are betrayed. For a wobbly (or a leftist in general), you have a very sympathetic view of scabs.

Many members of the vanguard go into positions in the state after the revolution for reasons already stated. That doesn't make socialism "ungenuine" (as you put it).


In certain things yes, in other things no, and in different ways. Bill Gates Interests are to increase his profits and his companies power, George Bushes interests are about gaining Political power, appeasing the Capitalist class so the economy keeps running, leaving a political legacy, Increasing Amiercan Imperial Power, and once out of power, going back to making profits for himself. Interests are not clean cut and simple. They are related to each other but they are not the Same. The only thing that makes George Bush have to appease Bill Gates, is the fact that bill gates controls the means of production. If George Bush was a sweatshop worker before he became president, it would'nt change that relationship, once in power, his interests would be completely different, than they were when he was a sweatshop worker.

Typical wishy-washy liberal answer. YES OR NO?

George Bush's interests are EXACTLY the same as Bill Gates'. They both profit immensely from the capitalist system, they both have much at stake in preserving the capitalist order, they are both bourgeois. That is all you need to know. Any attempt to inject more into it is purely liberalist garbage that you learn in civics and sociology.

George Bush wasn't a sweatshop worker before he was president for a very good reason: sweatshop workers don't become president, and if they do, they would get their asses shot (see Allende).

Drop the liberalism.

[RGacky3]

What is that supposed to mean? Your fondness for blabbering meaningless crap and moving to the next point is really getting on my nerves.

EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN. I've done so, and I'd like for you to do so.

Well the Capitalits command the factories, the workers, the farms, the offices, they move the money, not the State, they control it directly.


It cements bourgeois control of society (and the means of production), and so the possibility of workers controlling a capitalist state is a contradiction in terms.

Well there have been Working class people elected into Capitalist states, Brazil is one example I can think off from the top of my head, does'nt change a thing. So are you saying that the State is NOT subservient to the Capitalists? If that is the case, then the State can be reformed democratically quite easily. How the state arose is irrelevent, what is relevent is the States Relation to the Haves and Have nots. You hav'nt explained by the way, how my observation of the Capitalists control of the economy, and the States control of the Politics, and their relation to each other, is wrong.


Many politicians in Washington DC don't own businesses, yet they're still bourgeois politicians. Why? They are there for the express purpose of maintaining the capitalist state and therefore the capitalist order. Likewise, in socialism, workers can hold office in government and still have the interests of a worker. The nature of the state is important, which is fundamentally changed during the revolution.

It's simply impossible to expect all the administrators in socialist society to hoe a field for 8 hours a day AND do their jobs in government. Workers must take up positions in the worker state so it can run efficiently. That doesn't change their interests at all.

Who says what their purpose is, do they have a choice? Yes the nature of the State is important, but what decides the nature of the State, what decides it is who has authority over what, thats important.

Workers outside the workforce, that now have positions of power and authority, and are making decisions effection many many people definately changes their Social Situation, which almost inevitably will change many of their interests.


Wrong. Scabs disrupt unity within the working class, which aids the bosses. They may be pursuing their immediate goals, but their ultimate class interests are betrayed. For a wobbly (or a leftist in general), you have a very sympathetic view of scabs.

Many members of the vanguard go into positions in the state after the revolution for reasons already stated. That doesn't make socialism "ungenuine" (as you put it).

I am not sympathetic to scabs, but I understand their mindset, the good thing of understanding people like scabs mindsets, is to change their view, and combat that mindset.

My point in pointing out Scabs is to show that interests are not black and white, Class is not the only thing deciding interests, most people, unless their decicions are Moral (Like many leftists who give up things to help the working class), will put their own personal interests before their interests as a class as a whole, if the interests clash, they'll generally choose their own personal interests over the interests of their class. Which is definately the case when someone comes into a position of power and authority, because then their class interests change, because their social situation has changed.


YES OR NO?

Interests are not that simple :P.


They both profit immensely from the capitalist system, they both have much at stake in preserving the capitalist order, they are both bourgeois. That is all you need to know. Any attempt to inject more into it is purely liberalist garbage that you learn in civics and sociology.

George Bush wasn't a sweatshop worker before he was president for a very good reason: sweatshop workers don't become president, and if they do, they would get their asses shot (see Allende).

In that case all we got to do is vote in a guy that used to work in a sweatshop.

So I suppose having the idea that Power and Control are important, and who has power and control changes the situation is being a Liberal. hmmm.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:30 am
Well the Capitalits command the factories, the workers, the farms, the offices, they move the money, not the State, they control it directly.
So they don't control the state, yet they control it directly? You're lost. Please make a coherent explanation for this point.


Well there have been Working class people elected into Capitalist states, Brazil is one example I can think off from the top of my head, does'nt change a thing. So are you saying that the State is NOT subservient to the Capitalists? If that is the case, then the State can be reformed democratically quite easily. How the state arose is irrelevent, what is relevent is the States Relation to the Haves and Have nots. You hav'nt explained by the way, how my observation of the Capitalists control of the economy, and the States control of the Politics, and their relation to each other, is wrong.

Lula getting elected doesn't mean the workers control the state. It's still a capitalist state, and so it protects the interests of the bourgeoisie. How the state arose is relevant, because it shows its purpose and character. It cannot be "reformed democractically quite easily" because its role in society is to protect all things bourgeois.

Capitalists control the economy and the state controls politics. That is your proposition, correct? It is perfectly stupid and I've explained why countless times here. To be specific, it would mean that capitalists within the state have separate interests from those outside of the state, which is wrong on its face; secondly, it would mean that the state is independent from those who control society, which is again wrong; lastly, it would mean that economics and politics are different, when in reality the two align completely. Your refusal to deal with the arguments I've put forth doesn't mean that I haven't explained myself. You, of all people, are not in the position to be patronizing.


Who says what their purpose is, do they have a choice? Yes the nature of the State is important, but what decides the nature of the State, what decides it is who has authority over what, thats important.

Holy fucking shit. Economic structures determine the nature of the state. No one has any fucking individual authority over it, it comes down to who controls the means of production. Political power stems from those conditions.


Workers outside the workforce, that now have positions of power and authority, and are making decisions effection many many people definately changes their Social Situation, which almost inevitably will change many of their interests.

Now you're singing the same song of the capitalists. If you're in power, you'll be corrupt! No, interests are tied to material conditions: being in office doesn't change this.


I am not sympathetic to scabs, but I understand their mindset, the good thing of understanding people like scabs mindsets, is to change their view, and combat that mindset.

So...you're sympathetic.


My point in pointing out Scabs is to show that interests are not black and white, Class is not the only thing deciding interests, most people, unless their decicions are Moral (Like many leftists who give up things to help the working class), will put their own personal interests before their interests as a class as a whole, if the interests clash, they'll generally choose their own personal interests over the interests of their class. Which is definately the case when someone comes into a position of power and authority, because then their class interests change, because their social situation has changed.

And more importantly, you're wrong. Are you saying that workers have an interest in being scabs? Since their "personal interests" are ahead of their class interests, they should all be scabs, right?

That's where your argument fails: scabs are going against their own interests by helping the bosses. Using your logic, scabs are doing nothing wrong; using my logic, they are. This is what liberalism gets you.


Interests are not that simple

No, they are. Either you support the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. No neutral ground.


In that case all we got to do is vote in a guy that used to work in a sweatshop.

So I suppose having the idea that Power and Control are important, and who has power and control changes the situation is being a Liberal. hmmm.

Did I say that? Where did I say that? Please, point out where I said that "all we got to do is vote in a guy that used to work in a sweatshop", because my word, it would be great for you to tell me what I just said instead of READING WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.

If you can't understand what I'm writing, let me know, don't guess and make yourself look like a bigger idiot.

Go back, read what I wrote, then come and talk. I'll be here to debunk your stupid points again and again and again.

[KC]

How can the Bolshevik Party be "Leninist" when the concept "Leninism" didn't even exist before Lenin died?

You pretty much just said what I was trying to imply.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Zampanò@October 23, 2007 10:27 pm

How can the Bolshevik Party be "Leninist" when the concept "Leninism" didn't even exist before Lenin died?

You pretty much just said what I was trying to imply.
my point exactly.

[blackstone]

That's the silliest argument i ever heard.

That's like saying no one suffered from schizophrenia in the years 1700 and earlier because schizophrenia as a concept didn't exist till the late 1800s, early 1900s.

Lenin doesn't need to be alive to describe his form of organization as Leninist.

Stop the nonsense

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:18 am
That's the silliest argument i ever heard.

That's like saying no one suffered from schizophrenia in the years 1700 and earlier because schizophrenia as a concept didn't exist till the late 1800s, early 1900s.

Lenin doesn't need to be alive to describe his form of organization as Leninist.

Stop the nonsense
Leninists don't necessarily argue for the same things that Lenin did himself, varifying my point.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It should be clear that personal interests can not correspond outside the realm of social reality. If your individual aspirations do not correspond with the objective interests of your own stratum, then you will become an outcast.

The method of historical materialism is reduced to an ash heap of idealism when you talk about the state as a strict body, rather than the product of a certain time and location, that is under the control of a certain class. If it founded through an armed seizure of the political power by the working class, then the state will have a far different character than the capitalist state. To ignore that is to take an ahistorical, mythical perspective that is separated from reason itself.

I don't think that anarchists have a justification for criticizing us, considering that while we empowered the masses, they weakened them; while we gave them power, they lead them to massacre; while we had the state, they refused to wield it altogether.

[Leo]

Leninists don't necessarily argue for the same things that Lenin did himself, varifying my point.

To outline the differences more clearly:

Lenin argued for a narrow revolutionary party which doesn't take power; "Leninists" argued for a mass party which aims to come to power.

Lenin argued that proletarian revolution was necessary; "Leninists" argued for joining the "progressive" bourgeois forces.

Lenin took an internationalist position during the first imperialist war and opposed the war, putting forward the slogan "turn the imperialist war into civil war"; "Leninists" became a major part of an imperialist block in the second imperialist war.

Lenin opposed social-patriotism; "Leninists" argued for "toilers patriotism".

Lenin was a revolutionary-defeatist, "Leninists" were "revolutionary"-victoryists and the patriotic defenders of their fatherlands.

Lenin argued against and was disgusted by the concept of cult of personality; "Leninists" created a cult around Lenin's personality.

Lenin was a sincere revolutionary militant, despite the deeply mistaken positions he had; "Leninists" were counter revolutionaries who murdered thousands of communists.



Now, as I said Lenin had lots of deeply mistaken and even harmful positions: like the one on parliamentarianism, the one on the trade-unions, the one on national liberation and so forth. Yet he was never one with the "Leninists", and even the name "Leninism" would make him turn on his grave.

[Labor Shall Rule]

So, there are no genuine proponents of Lenin's theories? They are all counter revolutionaries?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 24, 2007 05:29 pm
So, there are no genuine proponents of Lenin's theories? They are all counter revolutionaries?
Obviously, Leo Uilleann's statement is not only incorrect but too general. Certainly, not all Leninists were that way.

[Leo]

Obviously, Leo Uilleann's statement is not only incorrect but too general. Certainly, not all Leninists were that way.

What I meant was the "Leninists" who invented the concept, that is the Stalinists. It was something exclusive to Stalinists. I thought it would be understood that way also. Something similar could be written about Trotskyists , especially after Trotsky's death but sometime before also.


So, there are no genuine proponents of Lenin's theories? They are all counter revolutionaries?

As I said I meant the Stalinists of the time, the people who invented the concept "Leninism".

But the original question is more significant. Who are the genuine proponents of Lenin's theories? Those who worship Lenin as if he was a god who landed on earth hundred years ago, achieved the impossible and died or revolutionaries who analyze his theories and contributions critically and who try to draw the lessons from the experience of the defeated revolution (whether those people call themselves Leninists or not is not significant here). It really is about how you see Lenin, isn't it?

[KC]

But the original question is more significant. Who are the genuine proponents of Lenin's theories? Those who worship Lenin as if he was a god who landed on earth hundred years ago, achieved the impossible and died

i.e. "Leninists"


or revolutionaries who analyze his theories and contributions critically and who try to draw the lessons from the experience of the defeated revolution (whether those people call themselves Leninists or not is not significant here).

i.e. Marxists.

[RGacky3]

So they don't control the state, yet they control it directly? You're lost. Please make a coherent explanation for this point.

You missunderstood me, They state does'nt control the means of production like you claimed eariler, the Capitalists do, and because of that, they have a huge influence on State policy.


Lula getting elected doesn't mean the workers control the state. It's still a capitalist state, and so it protects the interests of the bourgeoisie. How the state arose is relevant, because it shows its purpose and character. It cannot be "reformed democractically quite easily" because its role in society is to protect all things bourgeois.

But acording to you, a worker will always work in his class interest it does'nt matter what position he's in, so according to you, Lula will work in his class interest, and push only policies for the workers without any concern for his own power.

Social things such as the state, and so on, cannot be put so clear cut into purpose and the such, for example, the "purpose" of a regular army in the US, has changed over the years, how it arose is not very relevant to what it is, and what it does today. The same with the State, and also, there were more than one reason for the rise of the Modern State, and the State has changed and evolved since then.


Capitalists control the economy and the state controls politics. That is your proposition, correct? It is perfectly stupid and I've explained why countless times here. To be specific, it would mean that capitalists within the state have separate interests from those outside of the state, which is wrong on its face; secondly, it would mean that the state is independent from those who control society, which is again wrong; lastly, it would mean that economics and politics are different, when in reality the two align completely. Your refusal to deal with the arguments I've put forth doesn't mean that I haven't explained myself. You, of all people, are not in the position to be patronizing.

Saying the Capitalits control the ecnomy and the State controls the Policies is simply fact, and that does'nt mean that all their interests are separate. Yes 'Capitalists' within the state, have some interests that are separate from other Capitalists interests, I never said that the State is independent, I've always said that the State are COMPLETELY DEPENDANT on the Capitalists, now why is that? BECAUSE, THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL THE ECONOMY. now then, if the Capitalists did not control the ecnomy, would the State be comepltely dependent on them? NO, (first of all they would'nt be Capitalists to begin with if they did'nt control the economy), would they put some sort of class loyalty before the immediet need to appease those running society? NO.

Now then lets move over to a Vanguardist Socialist-State. Who controls the economy? The State, Ok, so who used to control the economy? The Capitalists, hmm, ok, So, do you think the state, which now has direct control over both policy and the economy, will put some sort of class loyalty before its own self interest? Which at this point is preserving its own power? If a Capitalist state would'nt do it, why on earth, would a Socialist state do it? You cannot run a system on the preposition of class loyalty.


Holy fucking shit. Economic structures determine the nature of the state. No one has any fucking individual authority over it, it comes down to who controls the means of production. Political power stems from those conditions.

yes, in the USSR, the CCCP, controled the economy, and the political power, and Lenin, later Stalin, and so on, had a huge amount of control of the CCCP, so there we go. The workers had almost no direct (or even indirect, the electoral system in the USSR was embarrasing) control over the conomy.


Now you're singing the same song of the capitalists. If you're in power, you'll be corrupt! No, interests are tied to material conditions: being in office doesn't change this.

Being in office changes your Material Conditions, especially when you have no economic superior to answer too, such as is the Case in a State-Socialist system.


So...you're sympathetic.

If you want to call lack of ignorance sympathetic, then yeah, do you understand why Islamic terrorists blow themselves up in Isreal? I'm sure you do, your a smart guy, does that make you sympathetic?

Its kind of the same thing, you call me a Liberal because I understand the nature of power and authority, fine, So I guess I'm a Liberal Anarcho-Communist :P, I like that.


And more importantly, you're wrong. Are you saying that workers have an interest in being scabs? Since their "personal interests" are ahead of their class interests, they should all be scabs, right?

That's where your argument fails: scabs are going against their own interests by helping the bosses. Using your logic, scabs are doing nothing wrong; using my logic, they are. This is what liberalism gets you.

Workers may, or may not have an interest in being scabs, even I have an interest in being a scab when my workplace has a confrontation with the boss, but I would never do it, because I put solidarity over my personal interest. I don't think anyone should be a scab, but I understand, that sometimes their personaly interest dictates that, and they do not have the same Moral fibre, that Militant Workers have, so I cannot rely on them 100% to be in solidarity. Maybe by being a scab the worker will get a raise, maybe he's unemployed and now he'll have employment, thats in his direct interest. Now I still think its wrong, because the more right thing to do is struggle with your fellow workers, but I'm not naive into thinking people will just do the right thing, even if direct material gains are more easily available by doing the wrong thing.

The same way, I cannot rely on a Political leader, in control of a so-called Socialist State, to always work in the interest of the people, when it may conflict with his own interest in Power and Authority.


No, they are. Either you support the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. No neutral ground.

Thats complete crap, thats a ethical issue, not an issue of interests. Interests are what benefits you personally, which are way more compllicated than simply "who do you support," who do you support is a moral question, what are your interests is a completely different one.


Did I say that? Where did I say that? Please, point out where I said that "all we got to do is vote in a guy that used to work in a sweatshop", because my word, it would be great for you to tell me what I just said instead of READING WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.

By saying that people in Power will always work for the class they come from you implied it. By you saying in a Socialist State, just because the Vanguard is made up of workers, they will neccessarily work unselfishly for the working class, it implies that simply because they are workers they will work for hte working class, if thats the case, they if you vote in a working class guy into office he'll do the same, he would'nt work against his class .... Would he? NOOO, Impossible!!!

Now then I have a question for you comrade, does having economic and political control and authority, change your Social Situation? When previosly you had niether. Yes or No. :mellow:

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:16 pm
You missunderstood me, They state does'nt control the means of production like you claimed eariler, the Capitalists do, and because of that, they have a huge influence on State policy.
No, you just can't make yourself clear on this point.

The state doesn't control the means of production? The bourgeoisie have a "huge influence on State policy"? Wrong. The state IS there FOR the bourgeoisie and to protect the capitalist order. Of course it doesn't own the means of production, but the class which controls the state does. If you had comprehended what I wrote earlier, this wouldn't have been necessary.


But acording to you, a worker will always work in his class interest it does'nt matter what position he's in, so according to you, Lula will work in his class interest, and push only policies for the workers without any concern for his own power.

So you're saying bourgeois politicians (Lula) have working class interests?


Social things such as the state, and so on, cannot be put so clear cut into purpose and the such, for example, the "purpose" of a regular army in the US, has changed over the years, how it arose is not very relevant to what it is, and what it does today. The same with the State, and also, there were more than one reason for the rise of the Modern State, and the State has changed and evolved since then.

The army's purpose is still precisely the same as it was in 1848. If you don't believe this, you have no grasp of how capitalism works. The bourgeoisie always needs the state to protect their position of exploitation. That is the distinct reason for the state.

What other reasons would you say played a part, since you put so much stock in these phantom "reasons"?


Saying the Capitalits control the ecnomy and the State controls the Policies is simply fact, and that does'nt mean that all their interests are separate. Yes 'Capitalists' within the state, have some interests that are separate from other Capitalists interests, I never said that the State is independent, I've always said that the State are COMPLETELY DEPENDANT on the Capitalists, now why is that? BECAUSE, THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL THE ECONOMY. now then, if the Capitalists did not control the ecnomy, would the State be comepltely dependent on them? NO, (first of all they would'nt be Capitalists to begin with if they did'nt control the economy), would they put some sort of class loyalty before the immediet need to appease those running society? NO.

No, what you say ignores class dynamics completely, which is what all delusional anarchists and liberals do. Your equation says that the state IS independent from the bourgeoisie. The mere fact that YOU CLAIM the state's interests deviate from capitalist interests is proof enough of your fallacy.

The stupidity of your argument comes down to the fact that the state didn't just fall out of the sky, it was created for a very good reason: to protect capitalist property and capitalism itself. You say that the state only aligns with capitalism because of economic supremacy of the capitalists, as if the capitalist state would side with the workers as soon as they occupied a factory. The opposite is true: it wouldn't matter if all the factories were controlled by workers, the capitalist state would fight against this to the bitter end. Why? The capitalist state is the product of capitalism; the two are inseperable.

Liberalism loses. Again.


Now then lets move over to a Vanguardist Socialist-State. Who controls the economy? The State, Ok, so who used to control the economy? The Capitalists, hmm, ok, So, do you think the state, which now has direct control over both policy and the economy, will put some sort of class loyalty before its own self interest? Which at this point is preserving its own power? If a Capitalist state would'nt do it, why on earth, would a Socialist state do it? You cannot run a system on the preposition of class loyalty.

Confused liberalism.

Capitalism: the bourgeoisie controls the means of production. The state protects this economic order.
Socialism: the workers control the means of production. The state protects this economic order.

The worker state is needed to ensure worker control, just as the capitalist state is needed to preserve bourgeois control.


yes, in the USSR, the CCCP, controled the economy, and the political power, and Lenin, later Stalin, and so on, had a huge amount of control of the CCCP, so there we go. The workers had almost no direct (or even indirect, the electoral system in the USSR was embarrasing) control over the conomy.

Lenin had "a huge amount of control of the CCCP" because the workers supported him and voted for him. What do you think the Soviets did? They elected the Commissars, of which Lenin was the chairman. The vanguard party was simply the party that had the support of the rest of the working class (since they were revolutionary workers).


Being in office changes your Material Conditions, especially when you have no economic superior to answer too, such as is the Case in a State-Socialist system.

The same liberal capitalist tune. Being in office doesn't change your interests if your class stays the same. Interests align with one's class. George Bush is a capitalist, Bill Gates is a capitalist; they both have the same interests. One worker in the worker state has interests that align with another worker who does not hold formal office. It's just that simple.


If you want to call lack of ignorance sympathetic, then yeah, do you understand why Islamic terrorists blow themselves up in Isreal? I'm sure you do, your a smart guy, does that make you sympathetic?

Its kind of the same thing, you call me a Liberal because I understand the nature of power and authority, fine, So I guess I'm a Liberal Anarcho-Communist :P, I like that.

Anyone who read what you wrote about scabs would attest to your sympathetic tone. It's just one of many liberal tendencies of yours.

I call you a liberal because your views are anti-materialist, abstract and deriven from capitalist ideas. Power is a tool of class interests, not some abstract mystical force of its own. That you accept the term "liberal" while retaining the term "communist" only attests to your unflinching ignorance.


Workers may, or may not have an interest in being scabs, even I have an interest in being a scab when my workplace has a confrontation with the boss...

I thought so. Thanks for at least being honest about your sympathy for scabs and your inability to comprehend class interests.


The same way, I cannot rely on a Political leader, in control of a so-called Socialist State, to always work in the interest of the people, when it may conflict with his own interest in Power and Authority.

Who the fuck are "the people"? Again, stop using capitalist definitions of society and get down to the basics: the vanguard party, being revolutionary workers struggling for their class interest, struggle for the interests of the working classes as a whole.


Thats complete crap, thats a ethical issue, not an issue of interests. Interests are what benefits you personally, which are way more compllicated than simply "who do you support," who do you support is a moral question, what are your interests is a completely different one.

In class struggle, there is no middle ground. Either your interests are with the bourgeoisie, or they are with the proletariat. Why? When revolutions happen, these are the two sides, and one who is not on one side is on the other. Sorry that it doesn't go with your liberal sentimentality, but it's true.


By saying that people in Power will always work for the class they come from you implied it. By you saying in a Socialist State, just because the Vanguard is made up of workers, they will neccessarily work unselfishly for the working class, it implies that simply because they are workers they will work for hte working class, if thats the case, they if you vote in a working class guy into office he'll do the same, he would'nt work against his class .... Would he? NOOO, Impossible!!!

Wrong, you FALSELY implied it because you can't bring yourself to address what I'm actually saying. I never said the vanguard works "unselfishly", that is moot, they work IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, which are the same as those of the entire working class. Your liberal fallacy leads you to look at power as some menace to the individual, when it fact it is a tool of class conflict.

Forget what you learned in civics class.


Now then I have a question for you comrade, does having economic and political control and authority, change your Social Situation? When previosly you had niether. Yes or No. :mellow:

No, one's interests remain the same. If they did not, then George Bush and Bill Gates would have separate interests, which is absurd.

[RGacky3]

So you're saying bourgeois politicians (Lula) have working class interests?


But he comes from a working class background? Did his class change once he came to political power? (I'm not saying he has working class interests, I'm just applying your theory, that working class people must work in working class interests to Brazil.)


No, what you say ignores class dynamics completely, which is what all delusional anarchists and liberals do. Your equation says that the state IS independent from the bourgeoisie. The mere fact that YOU CLAIM the state's interests deviate from capitalist interests is proof enough of your fallacy.


The opposite is true: it wouldn't matter if all the factories were controlled by workers, the capitalist state would fight against this to the bitter end. Why? The capitalist state is the product of capitalism; the two are inseperable.

The fact that the State is the product of Capitalism does not change the fact that it MUST bow to economic pressure.


Capitalism: the bourgeoisie controls the means of production. The state protects this economic order.
Socialism: the workers control the means of production. The state protects this economic order.

So under your type of Socialism, the workers control their own factories, farms, and offices? Without having to Listen to the Vanguard Party? So its actually NOT the Vanguard party making the decision, but rather the workers as a whole, in their own workplaces? If thats the case, then we agree. But that was'nt the Case under the USSR, it was more like this: The CCCP controls the means of prodction, the State protest this economic order.


Lenin had "a huge amount of control of the CCCP" because the workers supported him and voted for him. What do you think the Soviets did? They elected the Commissars, of which Lenin was the chairman. The vanguard party was simply the party that had the support of the rest of the working class (since they were revolutionary workers).

This is fantasy History, the elections were hardly free, and were salted with a great amount of violence against opposers. Also the WORKERS did'nt suport and cote for him, the Communist party voted for the Party Congress, which Voted for the Central Committee, which voted for the politburo, and let me ask you this, who was running against him? Also just because he has the support, does'nt justify him, the fact is, in the USSR, the Communist Party replaced both the Capitalists and the State as the new Economic Controlers and Power wielders.


That you accept the term "liberal" while retaining the term "communist" only attests to your unflinching ignorance.

That was an Ironic joke, pointing to the fact that its stupid you call someone who wants a Communist society a Liberal.


I call you a liberal because your views are anti-materialist, abstract and deriven from capitalist ideas. Power is a tool of class interests, not some abstract mystical force of its own.

Its not at all some abstract mystical force, your concept that somehow class comes above everything else for some mystical reason, is a little abstract. Power comes before class, if it was'nt for power, or authority, there would be no classes, its not a TOOL of class, calling Power a tool is rediculous. Power something someone has over someone else, and when they have it, they want to keep it, that applies to Capitalists having power over the economy, Politicians having Power over the State, and Vanguardists having power over the State. Power is'nt a tool of class interests, Class seperations come out of some people having power and others not having power.


I thought so. Thanks for at least being honest about your sympathy for scabs and your inability to comprehend class interests.

And so do you have an interest in being a scab, you know what it could be? You could get a raise, I'm not saying that you would be a scab, but it could be in your interest to be a scab. I don't think you understand the concept of interests.


In class struggle, there is no middle ground. Either your interests are with the bourgeoisie, or they are with the proletariat. Why? When revolutions happen, these are the two sides, and one who is not on one side is on the other. Sorry that it doesn't go with your liberal sentimentality, but it's true.

Ok, but something being in your interest, and supporting something, are 2 completely different things.


I never said the vanguard works "unselfishly", that is moot, they work IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, which are the same as those of the entire working class. Your liberal fallacy leads you to look at power as some menace to the individual, when it fact it is a tool of class conflict.

THEIR OWN INTERESTS CAN AND WILL CONFLICT WITH THE REST OF THE WORKING CLASS. When the Vanguard comes to power, and starts controlling the economy, and the State, THEY ARE NO LONGER WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, THEY ARE STATE CAPITALISTS, and they have one interest that the rest of the working class does not have MAINTAINING THEIR POWER AND AUTHORITY AND CONTROL.

Power is a menace to the individual, because power implies some people having power and others not having it, otherwise its not power, and people having power over other poeple, those people who do not have power are under threat of being abused by people with power, just common sense. Its not a tool of class conflict, class conflict is all about power, class conflict stems from power, one classes power over another, if you replace that with a Parties power over others, does'nt change much.


No, one's interests remain the same. If they did not, then George Bush and Bill Gates would have separate interests, which is absurd.

And then Lulas would also be the same as the rest of the workers right, since he was a worker before attaining power? Bill Gates does'nt have any personal interest in wielding political power, he has an interest in selling computers. George Bush has his political interests to worry about.

You are confused about a couple things,
A: Peoples Interests are not always inline with their class Interests. (otherwise there would be no scabs, or Revolutoinaries from rich backgrounds)

B: Being in Power (Political or economic) changes your social situation (Lenin did not have economic power or political power before the revolution, then he did, which changes his situation immensely)

C: Power is some abstract liberal Notion (If a guy tells you to do something with a threat of loosing your job, going to prison, going to a gulag, being killed, its not so abrsact, its pretty real, and its dangerous to the one being threatend.)

I'm sure there are more, but I don't ahve time to go back and read all your Theoretical Marxist Gross Generalizations.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:50 pm
But he comes from a working class background? Did his class change once he came to political power? (I'm not saying he has working class interests, I'm just applying your theory, that working class people must work in working class interests to Brazil.)
Lula IS a bourgeois politician. Half the bourgeois cretins in Washington have some "In Pursuit of Happyness" story about how their parents were mill workers or miners or what-have-you. Big deal. Your relationship to the means of production matter, not your FORMER relationship to the means of production.


The fact that the State is the product of Capitalism does not change the fact that it MUST bow to economic pressure.

No, it means that your entire equation is insane. The state doesn't bow to anything, it protects capitalism itself. No "economic pressure" is needed, because the state is there for the sole reason of protecting the capitalist order. It's like saying a fortification "bows" to the city it protects.


So under your type of Socialism, the workers control their own factories, farms, and offices? Without having to Listen to the Vanguard Party? So its actually NOT the Vanguard party making the decision, but rather the workers as a whole, in their own workplaces? If thats the case, then we agree. But that was'nt the Case under the USSR, it was more like this: The CCCP controls the means of prodction, the State protest this economic order.

Under my type of socialism, people would connect the dots. The vanguard party is MADE UP OF WORKERS. Are you even paying attention? The workers control the means of production, which includes the most revolutionary section of the working class: the vanguard. The vanguard, being the most politically advanced section of the working class, takes control of the means of production AS the workers they are. Their interests are PRECISELY THE SAME as all other workers.

How the hell are you using the term "CCCP"? You mean the Soviet Communist Party, right? "CCCP" is the Russian equivalent of "USSR". When it comes to stuff like this, make sure you look it up to avoid confusion.


This is fantasy History, the elections were hardly free, and were salted with a great amount of violence against opposers. Also the WORKERS did'nt suport and cote for him, the Communist party voted for the Party Congress, which Voted for the Central Committee, which voted for the politburo, and let me ask you this, who was running against him? Also just because he has the support, does'nt justify him, the fact is, in the USSR, the Communist Party replaced both the Capitalists and the State as the new Economic Controlers and Power wielders.

Good generalization, RGacky3, but you can't substitute wanton vagueness for an actual argument. The workers DID vote for Lenin and the Bolsheviks through the Soviet system. What do you think the Congress of the Soviets did all day? They elected the Bolsheviks (and Left SRs, before they revolted due to the treaty with Germany) to the positions they held. Be specific: when was power consolidated? Knowing history might help a bit.

On your mindless parroting of silly theories, the Communist party did not replace the capitalists, such an assertion is ridiculous. When did the communists own private property? When did they hold stocks and bonds and employ workers? Oh, that's right, NEVER. Sorry.


That was an Ironic joke, pointing to the fact that its stupid you call someone who wants a Communist society a Liberal.

It's an ironic joke that you call yourself a "communist" of any sort. The sooner you recognize your liberal tendencies the better.


Its not at all some abstract mystical force, your concept that somehow class comes above everything else for some mystical reason, is a little abstract. Power comes before class, if it was'nt for power, or authority, there would be no classes, its not a TOOL of class, calling Power a tool is rediculous. Power something someone has over someone else, and when they have it, they want to keep it, that applies to Capitalists having power over the economy, Politicians having Power over the State, and Vanguardists having power over the State. Power is'nt a tool of class interests, Class seperations come out of some people having power and others not having power.

Wrong again. Class IS what drives an individual's interests. Class denotes their relationship to the means of production, and all else arises from this position. That is not abstract, that is materialist, and it is in complete contrast to your liberal mewlings.

Class is necessary for authority, not the other way around. Power is a tool because it is how classes retain control over opposing sects of society with contradicting interests. Your points grow more and more liberal and abstract as we go along. Now, power is what creates class! As if to say that capitalists had power before they had economic clout. The opposite is true: the bourgeoisie existed long before it had complete power, and AFTER its conquest of power was it able to protect its economic order. Without class, there is no reason for power. Read the Manifesto sometime.


And so do you have an interest in being a scab, you know what it could be? You could get a raise, I'm not saying that you would be a scab, but it could be in your interest to be a scab. I don't think you understand the concept of interests.

As I said, thanks for openly exposing the fact that you don't understand class interests at all. If you don't intimately understand that it is in the interest of a worker to NOT be a scab, you might as well just quit now.


Ok, but something being in your interest, and supporting something, are 2 completely different things.

People usually go with their interests. At any rate, it's moot; there are two sides. That's it.


THEIR OWN INTERESTS CAN AND WILL CONFLICT WITH THE REST OF THE WORKING CLASS. When the Vanguard comes to power, and starts controlling the economy, and the State, THEY ARE NO LONGER WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, THEY ARE STATE CAPITALISTS, and they have one interest that the rest of the working class does not have MAINTAINING THEIR POWER AND AUTHORITY AND CONTROL.

Translation: Because I have no concept of how class works, I think that when a worker assumes a position of power, his/her interests automatically change. I give no thought to the fact that his/her class never changed at all, or that his/her interests are exactly the same, I just repeat the same liberal talking points regardless.


Power is a menace to the individual, because power implies some people having power and others not having it, otherwise its not power, and people having power over other poeple, those people who do not have power are under threat of being abused by people with power, just common sense. Its not a tool of class conflict, class conflict is all about power, class conflict stems from power, one classes power over another, if you replace that with a Parties power over others, does'nt change much.

OK there, John Locke, look out for those tyrants on your way to the bank.


And then Lulas would also be the same as the rest of the workers right, since he was a worker before attaining power? Bill Gates does'nt have any personal interest in wielding political power, he has an interest in selling computers. George Bush has his political interests to worry about.

Have you been reading ANYTHING I've written? Apparently not. You brought up Lula (even though you probably didn't even know who he was), I said he's a bourgeois politician, which you must have read as "worker". Sorry, go back and read what I wrote.

Be clear in your answer. Are you saying that George Bush and Bill Gates have separate interests?


You are confused about a couple things,
A: Peoples Interests are not always inline with their class Interests. (otherwise there would be no scabs, or Revolutoinaries from rich backgrounds)

This is true. Scabs are going against their class interests and siding with the bosses over their fellow workers; revolutionaries stop being bourgeois once they cease having bourgeois social relations, which they threw to the side for various reasons (sometimes for egalitarian reasons, sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes for a disgust with bourgeois society, etc...).


B: Being in Power (Political or economic) changes your social situation (Lenin did not have economic power or political power before the revolution, then he did, which changes his situation immensely)

It does not change one's interests if they remain a part of the same class. Lenin was a revolutionary with the same interests of the working class before the revolution, and he was a revolutionary with the same interests of the working class after the revolution.


C: Power is some abstract liberal Notion (If a guy tells you to do something with a threat of loosing your job, going to prison, going to a gulag, being killed, its not so abrsact, its pretty real, and its dangerous to the one being threatend.)

You talk of power AS an abstract notion. Power stems DIRECTLY from class, not the other way around. So yes, you are being liberal.


I'm sure there are more, but I don't ahve time to go back and read all your Theoretical Marxist Gross Generalizations.

So is that what you think CCCP stands for?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 23, 2007 07:05 pm

That, of course, depends on what you mean by "Leninist". The only "Leninist" party I'd consider to ever have existed was the Bolshevik party.

How can the Bolshevik Party be "Leninist" when the concept "Leninism" didn't even exist before Lenin died?
What relevance does that have? People can and have labeled the Bolshevik party Leninist retrospectically, and correctly in my opinion.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Could a vanguard be formed by electing members of each trade union that support the revolutionary cause?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 26, 2007 01:03 pm
Could a vanguard be formed by electing members of each trade union that support the revolutionary cause?
Why would that be a good idea?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 26, 2007 07:34 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 26, 2007 07:34 am)
Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 26, 2007 01:03 pm
Could a vanguard be formed by electing members of each trade union that support the revolutionary cause?
Why would that be a good idea? [/b]
It's a bad idea. Defeats the purpose.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+October 26, 2007 05:43 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ October 26, 2007 05:43 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 07:34 am

Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 26, 2007 01:03 pm
Could a vanguard be formed by electing members of each trade union that support the revolutionary cause?
Why would that be a good idea?
It's a bad idea. Defeats the purpose. [/b]
Why, becaue traid unionists push for reform within capitalism and are not revolutionaries?

What about a more progresive form of workplace organisation, that non union membrs can vote in and that is revolutionary, like the commities in Italy (Gramsci's time), or the russian soviets

[RGacky3]

Lula IS a bourgeois politician. Half the bourgeois cretins in Washington have some "In Pursuit of Happyness" story about how their parents were mill workers or miners or what-have-you. Big deal. Your relationship to the means of production matter, not your FORMER relationship to the means of production.

How is that different from Vanguardists, when they come to power, their relationship to the means of production changes, because they arn't working in the fields or the factories anymore (Granted they can't), they are wielding authority and controling things. Sure they Used to be Workers (not Lenin, not Trotsky), but they arn't anymore, just like Lula.


No, it means that your entire equation is insane. The state doesn't bow to anything, it protects capitalism itself. No "economic pressure" is needed, because the state is there for the sole reason of protecting the capitalist order. It's like saying a fortification "bows" to the city it protects.

The difference between my explination and yours is that mine deals with material conditions that actually must affect peoples decisions, i.e. politicians must bow to the Capitalists, or else the Capitalist Economy will take away investment and things will go wrong for them, the economic pressure is there whether intentionally or not, "either you listen to us or we take our Capital elsewhere." I'm not saying ideological reasons don't wiegh in i.e. protecting the Capitalist Order, its the role of the state" but they are secondary to the immediat pressures.

Its more like saying the King Bows to the Landowners, he must do what they say, because if he does'nt he's screwed, which was actually the case.


Under my type of socialism, people would connect the dots. The vanguard party is MADE UP OF WORKERS. Are you even paying attention? The workers control the means of production, which includes the most revolutionary section of the working class: the vanguard. The vanguard, being the most politically advanced section of the working class, takes control of the means of production AS the workers they are. Their interests are PRECISELY THE SAME as all other workers.

The fact that the Vanguard is made up of workers is as relevant as saying Lula was a Worker.

If the workers control the means of production then it would be absolutely ok for a factory or a farm to disobay the Communist party with no reprocussions, was that the case in the USSR?


On your mindless parroting of silly theories, the Communist party did not replace the capitalists, such an assertion is ridiculous. When did the communists own private property? When did they hold stocks and bonds and employ workers? Oh, that's right, NEVER. Sorry.

Well, did the Communsit party have the same power as Capitalists? Yes, they could choose where reasorses went, how much people got paid, who worked, who did'nt, what got produced, where the distribution went, and they had even more power, State power, who was free, who went to prison.

The the Communist Party were Capitalists with more direct power.


Good generalization, RGacky3, but you can't substitute wanton vagueness for an actual argument. The workers DID vote for Lenin and the Bolsheviks through the Soviet system. What do you think the Congress of the Soviets did all day? They elected the Bolsheviks (and Left SRs, before they revolted due to the treaty with Germany) to the positions they held. Be specific: when was power consolidated? Knowing history might help a bit.

Well, they elected both Bolsheviks and other Socialists, but if Lenin and the Bolsheviks were so confident in the workers support, why did they simply devalidate elections that wen't against their favor, why did they violently suppress other political parties, and end up banning all of them. Power was Consolidated over time.


It's an ironic joke that you call yourself a "communist" of any sort. The sooner you recognize your liberal tendencies the better.

We'll I'm one of the few Liberals that believe in abolishing private property and the State.


Wrong again. Class IS what drives an individual's interests. Class denotes their relationship to the means of production, and all else arises from this position. That is not abstract, that is materialist, and it is in complete contrast to your liberal mewlings.

Not all the time, Class is NOT what rives an individuals interest all the time. If that was the case, no one would ever have anything to gain from being a scab, starting his own business as an individual, there are also many interests that have nothing to do with class, like your interest in not supporting someone because they want to restrain your free speach, that interest has nothing to do with class.


Class is necessary for authority, not the other way around. Power is a tool because it is how classes retain control over opposing sects of society with contradicting interests. Your points grow more and more liberal and abstract as we go along. Now, power is what creates class! As if to say that capitalists had power before they had economic clout. The opposite is true: the bourgeoisie existed long before it had complete power, and AFTER its conquest of power was it able to protect its economic order. Without class, there is no reason for power. Read the Manifesto sometime.

I've read the Manifesto, its not the Bible, but its got some good ideas. Let me ask you something, would anyone listen to the Capitalists if they had no economic power? No, they would'nt would they. Now Lets say a walks into a bar with 2 machine guns, he has authority right? Nothing to do with class. yeah the bourgeoisie existed, and it had power over their workers, THEY ALWAYS had power and authority over their workers, other wise they would be bourgeosie now would they? Thats not abstract is it? Any one can have power over anyone if he has control over them for whatever reason, no matter what class they come from.


As I said, thanks for openly exposing the fact that you don't understand class interests at all. If you don't intimately understand that it is in the interest of a worker to NOT be a scab, you might as well just quit now.

If that were the case, Scabs would always be kicking themself for being scabs after they were scabs.


I think that when a worker assumes a position of power, his/her interests automatically change. I give no thought to the fact that his/her class never changed at all, or that his/her interests are exactly the same, I just repeat the same liberal talking points regardless.

They change in the same way they do when a worker becomes a Capitalist. first he did'nt have control over workers, now he does, interests change, whats the difference between a worker and a Capitalist, worker runs the machines, works the farms, builds things, Capitalists controls the resources and has authority over the workers. Difference between Vanguard party in power and the rest of the workers, Vanguard party controls resources and has authority over the workers, the rest of the workers run the machines, work the farms, and build things.


OK there, John Locke, look out for those tyrants on your way to the bank.

Ok, you did'nt respond to anything I said, you just tried to be smart and whitty, now get back to what I said, call me a Liberal or whatever, but then tell me why I'm wrong.

I'll say it again ehem:
"Power is a menace to the individual, because power implies some people having power and others not having it, otherwise its not power, and people having power over other poeple, those people who do not have power are under threat of being abused by people with power, just common sense. Its not a tool of class conflict, class conflict is all about power, class conflict stems from power, one classes power over another, if you replace that with a Parties power over others, does'nt change much."


I said he's a bourgeois politician, which you must have read as "worker". Sorry, go back and read what I wrote.

He was a worker before he got into politics, what changed? He got political power.


Be clear in your answer. Are you saying that George Bush and Bill Gates have separate interests?

I answered that already.

ehem:
" Bill Gates does'nt have any personal interest in wielding political power, he has an interest in selling computers. George Bush has his political interests to worry about."


This is true. Scabs are going against their class interests and siding with the bosses over their fellow workers; revolutionaries stop being bourgeois once they cease having bourgeois social relations, which they threw to the side for various reasons (sometimes for egalitarian reasons, sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes for a disgust with bourgeois society, etc...).

The reason the Scabs go against their class interests and side with the boss is because they have some personal interest to do so.


It does not change one's interests if they remain a part of the same class.

Well if your in control and everyone else is'nt, your not in the same class as everyone else are you.


You talk of power AS an abstract notion. Power stems DIRECTLY from class, not the other way around. So yes, you are being liberal.

Power is when you can tell people what to do, and they gotta do it, whether it comes from class or something else, like you got a gun and the other guy does'nt, not abstract at all.

[Labor Shall Rule]

RGacky3, answer to my post.

You do not realize that we live under capitalism, and all forms of social production is based on its appropriation of its product by private ownership. The enviroment that surrounds us, and the social settings that forms it, is strictly capitalist. I don't think you have honestly offered a coherent argument that would argue otherwise.

The argument that a criminal incident in a bar has nothing to do with class is unfounded. The daily workings of society motivate masterminds - the individual, and how he responds to the social parameters that surround him, ultimately determine his behavior. If he was poor, and needed some cash, he might rob the bar. If he was in a gang because he was looking for 'friends' because he came from a broken, pauperized family, then he might attack the bank as a means of initiation. If he grew up in a violent family, and was attracted to violent acts, then he might of done it for a sort of high.

In the end, his personal decision to destroy the bar would run up against the interests of the class that controls society, so they would throw him in jail.


Well, did the Communsit party have the same power as Capitalists? Yes, they could choose where reasorses went, how much people got paid, who worked, who did'nt, what got produced, where the distribution went, and they had even more power, State power, who was free, who went to prison.

The Communist Party couldn't choose all of that. When a wave is crashing down on you, you can't 'choose' to move it to another part of a beach, because its out of your natural control. In a country in which scarcity is rampant because the productive forces are not developed, then you have no control over what you want. You can either choose to create a bureaucracy that is capable of laying the groundwork of the productive forces, and that will fight imperialist forces back, or you can stick to 'principles' and fight without a gun in your hand. I choose victory over suicide.

[Muted Faith]

My basic opinion when it comes to the Vanguard Party and the idea of which is generally negative, for the idea of a Vanguard Party seems to be coercive, no, hierarchal. It seems to place an elite group of revolutionaries to lead, especially when speaking of "professional revolutionary" parties such as the Bolsheviks. This could quite possibly result in a party dictatorship.

If one's response to the above that a democratic and open-to-all party is what they invision, why is it a vanguard, a leading party? That would basically be simply naming an organized group of revolutionaries, which is kind of pointless and seems to miss the point of a vanguard party, emphasized to express leading.

So, using the idea of a Vanguard Party as that of the Bolsheviks, I would say my problem with them is their possibility of power and their decision to close the proletariat from it.

[KC]

It seems to place an elite group of revolutionaries to lead

What do you mean by "elite"? Could you explain what you mean using quotes from Lenin?


especially when speaking of "professional revolutionary" parties such as the Bolsheviks.

Let me provide a quote from Lenin's What Is To Be Done?:

" I invite our Economists, terrorists, and “Economists-terrorists”[9] to confute these propositions. At the moment, I shall deal only with the last two points. The question as to whether it is easier to wipe out “a dozen wisemen” or “a hundred fools” reduces itself to the question, above considered, whether it is possible to have a mass organisation when the maintenance of strict secrecy is essential. We can never give a mass organisation that degree of secrecy without which there can be no question of persistent and continuous struggle against the government. To concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean that the latter will “do the thinking for all” and that the rank and file will not take an active part in the movement. On the contrary, the membership will promote increasing numbers of the professional revolutionaries from its ranks; for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and for a few working men waging the economic struggle to gather in order to form a “committee”, but that it takes years to train oneself to be a professional revolutionary; and the rank and file will “think”, not only of amateurish methods, but of such training. Centralisation of the secret functions of the organisation by no means implies centralisation of all the functions of the movement. Active participation of the widest masses in the illegal press will not diminish because a “dozen” professional revolutionaries centralise the secret functions connected with this work; on the contrary, it will increase tenfold. In this way, and in this way alone, shall we ensure that reading the illegal press, writing for it, and to some extent even distributing it, will almost cease to be secret work, for the police will soon come to realise the folly and impossibility of judicial and administrative red-tape procedure over every copy of a publication that is being distributed in the thousands. This holds not only for the press, but for every function of the movement, even for demonstrations. The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a “dozen” experienced revolutionaries, trained professionally no less than the police, will centralise all the secret aspects of the work – the drawing up of leaflets, the working out of approximate plans; and the appointing of bodies of leaders for each urban district, for each institution, etc. (I know that exception will be taken to my “undemocratic” views, but I shall reply below fully to this anything but intelligent objection.) Centralisation of the most secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and enhance the quality of the activity of a large number of other organisations that are intended for a broad public and are therefore as loose and as non-secret as possible, such as workers’ trade unions; workers’ self-education circles and circles for reading illegal literature; and socialist, as well as democratic, circles among all other sections of the population; etc., etc. We must have such circles, trade unions, and organisations everywhere in as large a number as possible and with the widest variety of functions; but it would be absurd and harmful to confound them with the organisation of revolutionaries, to efface the border-line between them, to make still more hazy the all too faint recognition of the fact that in order to “serve” the mass movement we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social-Democratic activities, and that such people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries.

Yes, this recognition is incredibly dim. Our worst sin with regard to organisation consists in the fact that by our primitiveness we have lowered the prestige of revolutionaries in Russia. A person who is flabby and shaky on questions of theory, who has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the masses as an excuse for his own sluggishness, who resembles a trade union secretary more than a spokesman of the people, who is unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command the respect even of opponents, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art – the art of combating the political police – such a man is not a revolutionary, but a wretched amateur!

Let no active worker take offence at these frank remarks, for as far as insufficient training is concerned, I apply them first and foremost to myself. I used to work in a study circle[23] that set itself very broad, all-embracing tasks; and all of us, members of that circle, suffered painfully and acutely from the realisation that we were acting as amateurs at a moment in history when we might have been able to say, varying a well-known statement: "Give us an organisation of revolutionaries, and we will overturn RussiaP’ The more I recall the burning sense of shame I then experienced, the bitterer become my feelings towards those pseudo-Social-Democrats whose preachings “bring disgrace on the calling of a revolutionary”, who fail to understand that our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries."
Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm#v05fl61h-440-GUESS)

He goes on further in this chapter, but I think this excerpt will do, and you can always read further if you wish.

Anyways, what Lenin is talking about here is the amateurism within the working class movement and its devastating effects it has on that movement. He is using the term "professional revolutionary" as a means of juxtapositioning it against what he considers to be the amateurism that is crippling the movement. So what does he mean by professional revolutionary?

"A person who is flabby and shaky on questions of theory, who has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the masses as an excuse for his own sluggishness, who resembles a trade union secretary more than a spokesman of the people, who is unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command the respect even of opponents, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art – the art of combating the political police – such a man is not a revolutionary, but a wretched amateur!"

It is quite obvious from this quote and from the passage above that he means simply one that is well trained, both theoretically and practically, to do their job in a professional manner.

Now, he also talks about the role of the professional revolutionary within the movement. He mentions centralization and secrecy, and to some this might bring up ideas that these revolutionaries work in secrecy, isolated from the rest of the movement, and performing as if above them, not leading them but dictating them, or performing in their place.

"To concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean that the latter will “do the thinking for all” and that the rank and file will not take an active part in the movement. [emphasis mine] On the contrary, the membership will promote increasing numbers of the professional revolutionaries from its ranks; for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and for a few working men waging the economic struggle to gather in order to form a “committee”, but that it takes years to train oneself to be a professional revolutionary; and the rank and file will “think”, not only of amateurish methods, but of such training."

In other words, these revolutionaries will perform precisely in order to connect themselves with the rest of their class and to help raise them to a level on which their comrades can also reach a point where they too can participate. This falls precisely in line with this quote by Marx in the Manifesto:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

Emphasis mine.


If one's response to the above that a democratic and open-to-all party is what they invision, why is it a vanguard, a leading party?

Because an organization of this sort is made up of the most theoretically and practically advanced sections of the class (the vanguard), which invariably leads the class as a whole.


That would basically be simply naming an organized group of revolutionaries, which is kind of pointless and seems to miss the point of a vanguard party, emphasized to express leading.

Because that is exactly what the role of a party is (yes, even a democratic, open-to-all party).

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 26, 2007 03:46 pm
Why, becaue traid unionists push for reform within capitalism and are not revolutionaries?

What about a more progresive form of workplace organisation, that non union membrs can vote in and that is revolutionary, like the commities in Italy (Gramsci's time), or the russian soviets
The problem is reforming capitalism is not a solution- and that is what you are merely suggesting-- the such cannot eliminate the conditions causing exploitation and therefore reforming capitalism cannot lead to the formation of a worker's state because ultimately there will still be elements of capitalism existent and you will not have effectively eliminated the bourgeois ruling class and their control of the state apparatus. Therefore, a worker's state cannot be formed at all and you have the same problem you had in the first place. The only way that is to be eliminated is if you eliminate what threatens and prevents the formation of the worker's state-- otherwise there will be none. Without a vanguard it is unlikely for the movement to result in any more than a reform of the system which you are trying to eliminate.

[RGacky3]

The argument that a criminal incident in a bar has nothing to do with class is unfounded. The daily workings of society motivate masterminds - the individual, and how he responds to the social parameters that surround him, ultimately determine his behavior. If he was poor, and needed some cash, he might rob the bar. If he was in a gang because he was looking for 'friends' because he came from a broken, pauperized family, then he might attack the bank as a means of initiation. If he grew up in a violent family, and was attracted to violent acts, then he might of done it for a sort of high.

In the end, his personal decision to destroy the bar would run up against the interests of the class that controls society, so they would throw him in jail.

You miss the whole point of my argument, my bringing up a guy in a bar with a gun, is the point out the nature of power. I'm using a small situation, to illustrate a social situation. The nature of Power.

I think his personal interest to destroy a bar would run against everyones interest :P, and would make him just a drunk asshole. I agree that the individual's decisions are based on Societal parameters, but those decisions do not always go inline with class interests, many times they don't at all.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:13 am
How is that different from Vanguardists, when they come to power, their relationship to the means of production changes, because they arn't working in the fields or the factories anymore (Granted they can't), they are wielding authority and controling things. Sure they Used to be Workers (not Lenin, not Trotsky), but they arn't anymore, just like Lula.
It's different because the vanguard isn't made up of bourgeois politicians, it's made up of workers. I thought you were smart enough to figure that much out.

They aren't working in the fields and factories because they are working toward revolution. Following your logic, NO ONE could make a revolution, because they must be too busy doing what their boss wants them to do. Such is the failure of your reasoning: there must be a vanguard of revolutionary workers.

And no, power is wielded by the working class as a whole, just as power now is wielded by the bourgeoisie as a whole.


The difference between my explination and yours is that mine deals with material conditions that actually must affect peoples decisions, i.e. politicians must bow to the Capitalists, or else the Capitalist Economy will take away investment and things will go wrong for them, the economic pressure is there whether intentionally or not, "either you listen to us or we take our Capital elsewhere." I'm not saying ideological reasons don't wiegh in i.e. protecting the Capitalist Order, its the role of the state" but they are secondary to the immediat pressures.

Not only are you insipid, you're also pretentious. Don't tell me you're dealing with "material conditions" when you have no understanding of capitalism.

The capitalists do not wield power through the threat of withdrawn investment, the capitalists wield power through their control of the state. If you can't figure out that much, you're lost.


Its more like saying the King Bows to the Landowners, he must do what they say, because if he does'nt he's screwed, which was actually the case.

Tell me, when did the Sun King bow to the nobles? That's right, never. If you fail to grasp the nuances of the capitalist system, don't even try to talk about the feudal system because you're going to make yourself look even more clueless.


The fact that the Vanguard is made up of workers is as relevant as saying Lula was a Worker.

WAS. Does he have working class interests now? No, of course not. The Bolsheviks, however, did, and their actions proved this.


If the workers control the means of production then it would be absolutely ok for a factory or a farm to disobay the Communist party with no reprocussions, was that the case in the USSR?

They are not permitted to disobey the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the issue. If someone tried to defy the Soviets, they would surely face repercussions, and rightfully so.


Well, did the Communsit party have the same power as Capitalists? Yes, they could choose where reasorses went, how much people got paid, who worked, who did'nt, what got produced, where the distribution went, and they had even more power, State power, who was free, who went to prison.

The Soviets decided that, the Bolsheviks did not. So you're wrong.


The the Communist Party were Capitalists with more direct power.

:rolleyes: :lol: :rolleyes: :lol:

That's rich. So tell me, is a feudal lord a capitalist, since he has the same power over his subjects?


Well, they elected both Bolsheviks and other Socialists, but if Lenin and the Bolsheviks were so confident in the workers support, why did they simply devalidate elections that wen't against their favor, why did they violently suppress other political parties, and end up banning all of them. Power was Consolidated over time.

They never devalidated elections. They put power in the Soviets and shut the bourgeoisie out of the political process, which is exactly what every revolutionary should work for. They did not repress political groups unless they threatened the Soviet system (you DO know that there was a civil war going on, right?).


We'll I'm one of the few Liberals that believe in abolishing private property and the State.

Those are called anarchists.


Not all the time, Class is NOT what rives an individuals interest all the time. If that was the case, no one would ever have anything to gain from being a scab, starting his own business as an individual, there are also many interests that have nothing to do with class, like your interest in not supporting someone because they want to restrain your free speach, that interest has nothing to do with class.

Class is the basis of all else. Scabs betray their own class interests and serve the bosses. That's IN SPITE of their interests, not because of their interests.

What do you mean, "not supporting someone because they want to restrain your free speech"? Why would someone of your class want to restrain your speech? Someone from the bourgeoisie would LOVE to restrain a worker's free speech, and they usually do, but that obviously comes down to class lines.


I've read the Manifesto, its not the Bible, but its got some good ideas. Let me ask you something, would anyone listen to the Capitalists if they had no economic power? No, they would'nt would they. Now Lets say a walks into a bar with 2 machine guns, he has authority right? Nothing to do with class. yeah the bourgeoisie existed, and it had power over their workers, THEY ALWAYS had power and authority over their workers, other wise they would be bourgeosie now would they? Thats not abstract is it? Any one can have power over anyone if he has control over them for whatever reason, no matter what class they come from.

The capitalists created the state to protect their economic power. It is not a case of the state fearing a loss of investment, the state is full of bourgeois individuals!

On your pathetic analogy (since you're too desperate to deal with the topic directly), the person who owns the bar would call the cops, who have a few more guns than the criminal. The bar owner's private property would be protected by the capitalist state, which is a bit more powerful than a petty criminal. That's how it works.


If that were the case, Scabs would always be kicking themself for being scabs after they were scabs.

They lack class consciousness, that's why they're scabs in the first place.


They change in the same way they do when a worker becomes a Capitalist. first he did'nt have control over workers, now he does, interests change, whats the difference between a worker and a Capitalist, worker runs the machines, works the farms, builds things, Capitalists controls the resources and has authority over the workers. Difference between Vanguard party in power and the rest of the workers, Vanguard party controls resources and has authority over the workers, the rest of the workers run the machines, work the farms, and build things.

The vanguard takes control of power AS workers. Their interests do not change because their class stays the same. Why would a worker work to the detriment of his/her own class? You still refuse to recognize this.


Ok, you did'nt respond to anything I said, you just tried to be smart and whitty, now get back to what I said, call me a Liberal or whatever, but then tell me why I'm wrong.

I'll say it again ehem:
"Power is a menace to the individual, because power implies some people having power and others not having it, otherwise its not power, and people having power over other poeple, those people who do not have power are under threat of being abused by people with power, just common sense. Its not a tool of class conflict, class conflict is all about power, class conflict stems from power, one classes power over another, if you replace that with a Parties power over others, does'nt change much.

My response pointed out that your rhetoric could be taken from the pages of any liberal bourgeois writer. "Power is a menace to the individual", except for the fact that power is a constant presence during class conflict. The futile attempt to obscure class struggle is what defines your arguments, and it is very anti-materialist and liberal.


He was a worker before he got into politics, what changed? He got political power.

No, he didn't get into political power at first, he joined the politics of the bourgeois state. That changed his class interests. Furthermore, he is working within a bourgeois state, not a worker state.


I answered that already.

ehem:
" Bill Gates does'nt have any personal interest in wielding political power, he has an interest in selling computers. George Bush has his political interests to worry about."

So you're saying they have separate interests? So George Bush and Bill Gates' interests are in conflict, yes?


The reason the Scabs go against their class interests and side with the boss is because they have some personal interest to do so.

Like what? It's because they lack class consciousness.


Well if your in control and everyone else is'nt, your not in the same class as everyone else are you.

So George Bush and Bill Gates are in a different class now? So the Bolsheviks were NOT workers, in spite of the fact that they were?


Power is when you can tell people what to do, and they gotta do it, whether it comes from class or something else, like you got a gun and the other guy does'nt, not abstract at all.

Using power as something in a vacuum IS abstract, and you are guilty of this. Power comes from economic interests and is perpetually tied to class struggle. Were it not for class struggle, no authority would be needed.

READ THIS
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch04.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2)

[RGacky3]

It's different because the vanguard isn't made up of bourgeois politicians, it's made up of workers. I thought you were smart enough to figure that much out.

The Vanguard is made up of people who may have used to be workers, but are not administrators. So I ask again, whats the difference in real concrete terms and not just spitting out titles.


And no, power is wielded by the working class as a whole, just as power now is wielded by the bourgeoisie as a whole.

Thats not true, the Vanguard controls it, the Vanguard makes the decisions, and the workers Must follow what they say, so no, the Vanguard wields power. You can say the workers wield power through the Vanguard, but the fact is the Vanguard are not accountable to the workers, the workers have no direct control over the Vanguards decisions.

You can say, "ohh the Vangaurd is made of workers" but its a small percentage of workers and they arn't workers anymore, they are administrators and leaders.


The capitalists do not wield power through the threat of withdrawn investment, the capitalists wield power through their control of the state. If you can't figure out that much, you're lost.

And how do they control the state? Through control of the economy, which includes, in a large way, the threat of withdrawn investment.


Tell me, when did the Sun King bow to the nobles? That's right, never. If you fail to grasp the nuances of the capitalist system, don't even try to talk about the feudal system because you're going to make yourself look even more clueless.

Read Feudal History, many many times, did Kings have to bow to pressure from nobles.


WAS. Does he have working class interests now? No, of course not. The Bolsheviks, however, did, and their actions proved this.


He may or may not have working class interest, and its the same with the Bolsheviks. He WAS a worker, and so WERE the Bolsheviks, until they recieved power.


They are not permitted to disobey the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the issue. If someone tried to defy the Soviets, they would surely face repercussions, and rightfully so.

Your right, now given that, who actually has the power and authority and control? Not the workers.


That's rich. So tell me, is a feudal lord a capitalist, since he has the same power over his subjects?

Not in marxist terms, but he's just as bad as one, just as a Vanguardist Leader is just as bad as one.


The Soviets decided that, the Bolsheviks did not. So you're wrong.

Thats 100% bullshit, sorry, the Bolsheviks made the economic and political decisions and the more they could, the more power they took from the soviets and put directly into the parties hands. The fact is the Communist party made economic policy, and executed political authority, if it were the case that the Soviets made those decisions, then plausibly, some Soveits would have made some decisoins counter to the Bolshevics plan, but that was'nt the case, the Bolsheviks controlled everything they could. Just like anyone would given the authority too.


They never devalidated elections. They put power in the Soviets and shut the bourgeoisie out of the political process, which is exactly what every revolutionary should work for. They did not repress political groups unless they threatened the Soviet system

THe Soviets had some power to begin with, but History Shows that, the Bolsheviks as much as they could, took power away from the Soviets, and centralized the desicion making for themselves, to a the point to where the Soviets were just rubber stampers.. The economy was planned out by the State, not the Soviets, and the State was run by the Communist Party.


Class is the basis of all else. Scabs betray their own class interests and serve the bosses. That's IN SPITE of their interests, not because of their interests.

Really, so Scabs serve the bosses with no view of self interest? I always though it was because they wanted to make an extra buck, and try and get ahead. Get your head out of the clouds.


What do you mean, "not supporting someone because they want to restrain your free speech"? Why would someone of your class want to restrain your speech

First of all, when theres a group of people telling me what to produce, how much money I get, how to produce it, what the laws are that I must follow, he's hardly of my class is he. He'd want to restrain my speech because I might say something that would undermine his power and authority over me and everyone else.


On your pathetic analogy (since you're too desperate to deal with the topic directly), the person who owns the bar would call the cops, who have a few more guns than the criminal. The bar owner's private property would be protected by the capitalist state, which is a bit more powerful than a petty criminal. That's how it works.

You completely missed the point dumbass, its an illustration.


The vanguard takes control of power AS workers. Their interests do not change because their class stays the same. Why would a worker work to the detriment of his/her own class? You still refuse to recognize this.

BECAUSE THE VANGUARD HAS CONTROL, AND THE OTHER WORKERS DO NOT. THEIR SOCIAL SITUATION CHANGES, the same way Lulas did.


No, he didn't get into political power at first, he joined the politics of the bourgeois state. That changed his class interests. Furthermore, he is working within a bourgeois state, not a worker state

The only difference is in name and what they call themselves, you can call it a workers state, its a Vanguardist State of a few people who call themselves workers and who control the economy and the State.


So you're saying they have separate interests? So George Bush and Bill Gates' interests are in conflict, yes?

Interests are not absolute.


Like what? It's because they lack class consciousness.

Like what? Like making money maybe? Ever thought of that?


So George Bush and Bill Gates are in a different class now? So the Bolsheviks were NOT workers, in spite of the fact that they were?

They are Both in control, of different things. No the Bolsheviks were NOT workers, what makes a worker is someone who works, they were administrators.


Were it not for class struggle, no authority would be needed.

Authority is never needed, but its used by people who want it, and who want to exploit other people. Class struggle is the result of someone having authority over another, not the other way around.

[Rawthentic]

ManicExpression:

People like SovietPants and I long ago decided to not engage this liberal troll. After countless threads and debating, simple logic and materialism cannot cross his thick skull (unfortunately thats a large disease here). Although, there are others that have his narrow, bourgeois way of thinking that are not trollish and are better to engage.

I suggest you do the same.

[RGacky3]

People like SovietPants and I long ago decided to not engage this liberal troll. After countless threads and debating, simple logic and materialism cannot cross his thick skull (unfortunately thats a large disease here). Although, there are others that have his narrow, bourgeois way of thinking that are not trollish and are better to engage.

The problem is your arguing in your small little Marxist philisophical Box, when I ask a question out of that Box you guys loose your damn minds.

[Rawthentic]

RGacky3, answer me this:

What is Marxism, in your view?

[RGacky3]

Thats a big big question, but I'll say this, its a good theory that Marx came up with, that explains certain things, that deal with certain issues, but not everything.

I'm not sure if thats what your looking for.

[Rawthentic]

Nah, I found what I expected: you don't know what Marxism is. You dont argue from a materialist viewpoint, but from a liberal one.

[RGacky3]

Ok, so am I wrong? Does Marxism explain everything? What is Marxism to you then?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:34 pm
Ok, so am I wrong? Does Marxism explain everything? What is Marxism to you then?
Yes, you are. You don't even know what Marxism is, which shows your juvenile attitude and approach to politics in general.

It is not that hard, I encourage you to read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other theorists and revolutionists before you make your ignorant conclusions.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+November 01, 2007 04:09 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ November 01, 2007 04:09 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 04:34 pm
Ok, so am I wrong? Does Marxism explain everything? What is Marxism to you then?
Yes, you are. You don't even know what Marxism is, which shows your juvenile attitude and approach to politics in general.

It is not that hard, I encourage you to read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other theorists and revolutionists before you make your ignorant conclusions. [/b]
I take it since you didn't answer the comrades question, you do not know what Marxism is neither, do not have a firm grasp on it or scared to post what your definition of it in fear of ridicule. I don't blame you.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by blackstone+November 01, 2007 09:12 pm--> (blackstone @ November 01, 2007 09:12 pm)
Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 01, 2007 04:09 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 04:34 pm
Ok, so am I wrong? Does Marxism explain everything? What is Marxism to you then?
Yes, you are. You don't even know what Marxism is, which shows your juvenile attitude and approach to politics in general.

It is not that hard, I encourage you to read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other theorists and revolutionists before you make your ignorant conclusions.
I take it since you didn't answer the comrades question, you do not know what Marxism is neither, do not have a firm grasp on it or scared to post what your definition of it in fear of ridicule. I don't blame you. [/b]
I didn't answer the comrade's question because I have better things to do, but I will grant you my definition.

Marxism is a science of the world in which we live, in the economic relations that have come to define our social existence. It correctly analyzed the process and social relations which comprise capitalist production, and revealed that it must inevitably operate in a way that doesn't provide a livelihood for millions of people. It is also an indispensible tool for viewing a political situation correctly.

I hope that is sufficient enough for you?

[RGacky3]

I didn't answer the comrade's question because I have better things to do, but I will grant you my definition.


Well you obviously have enough time to throw out useless stupid insults, and recite Marxist dogma endlessly in pretty much textbook format. Like the following.


Marxism is a science of the world in which we live, in the economic relations that have come to define our social existence. It correctly analyzed the process and social relations which comprise capitalist production, and revealed that it must inevitably operate in a way that doesn't provide a livelihood for millions of people. It is also an indispensible tool for viewing a political situation correctly.

"Marxism is a science" Science deals with things that you can apply the scientific method too, where you can predict mathematically that something must neccessarily happen, you can't do that with Social problems because Social Problems deal with people (unlike stars or Atoms) have free will and make decisions, you can't apply the scientifuc method to social problems. Also Social situations always deals with Ethics (which are not scientific), because they deal with people.

Now, I do agree that it explains a lot about Capitalism (not everything), and is a great tool (not the only one) for viewing a political situation.

My problem is when people use Marxism as the end all of all social philosophies, meaning if it does not fit into marxism, it MUST be wrong, or applying Marxism to everything, acting as if rational thought does'nt exist outside Marxism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:06 pm
"Marxism is a science" Science deals with things that you can apply the scientific method too, where you can predict mathematically that something must neccessarily happen, you can't do that with Social problems because Social Problems deal with people (unlike stars or Atoms) have free will and make decisions, you can't apply the scientifuc method to social problems. Also Social situations always deals with Ethics (which are not scientific), because they deal with people.
Then I suppose "political science" doesn't exist?

Your definition of science is a subjective one.


My problem is when people use Marxism as the end all of all social philosophies, meaning if it does not fit into marxism, it MUST be wrong, or applying Marxism to everything, acting as if rational thought does'nt exist outside Marxism.

Marxism is based on rational thought. If you can prove something by use of rational thought, Marxism changes to encompass it.

That's why people refer to Marxism as a scientific theory, because it changes as the facts change, it is not a dogma, and should not be treated as such. Though I know a lot of people do treat it in that manner...

[RGacky3]

Then I suppose "political science" doesn't exist?

Your definition of science is a subjective one.

Political Science, is'nt a true science, because its not an objective one. Everyones definition of science is a subjective one :P. What I'm saying is Marxism cannot be put in the categories of hard science, like Physics or Astromony, like Marxists generally try to do.


Marxism is based on rational thought. If you can prove something by use of rational thought, Marxism changes to encompass it.

Very rarely does it do that, Marxists are some of the most ideologically rigid people I know, generally what they do, is rather than change Marxism, they try explain everything away through Marxist analysis, ignoring everything else.


That's why people refer to Marxism as a scientific theory, because it changes as the facts change, it is not a dogma, and should not be treated as such. Though I know a lot of people do treat it in that manner...

Marxism should simply be treated as a theory that explains certain things such as class struggle, the nature of Capitalist production, and so forth, HOWEVER, that theory is'nt an end all of all theories, if you only think in Marxist terms, and ignore all other avanues of thought, you end up like Many of the Rigid Marxists here that only think in rigid Marxist terms ignoring all other posibilities and all other factors.