Is a Vanguard Necessary?

[lvleph]

I have been reading somethings on Marxism and Leninism as of late, and I came to realize something. And as an Anarchist I am having trouble with my realizations.

Marx believed that the proletariat would naturally rise up against the bourgeois under the right material conditions. He felt it was inevitable. However, history has shown this not to be true. History seems to show that the proletariat does not rise above labor union consciousness. Obviously, this is problematic with both Marxism and Anarchism.

Anarchism, from my understand, believes that we, as people in general, can self organize. However, Anarchism is a proletarian movement and thus requires the proletariat to organize, and obviously this organization must be past the labor union consciousness that seems to be the limit shown throughout history.

The reasons for this limit in class consciousness seems to come about because of capitalist propaganda and other such outer influences. This outer influence on class consciousness is inevitable, and maybe there are good ways to address this, besides the conclusions made by Lenin. That is, Lenin concluded that a Vanguard must lead the proletariat into revolution.

This is where I am stuck. The problem is that Anarchist don't believe that such a Vanguard is necessary, but historically this does not seem to be the case. And obviously, if this is not the case are we Anarchist just delusional? Is there something to Bakunin's idea of the Anarchist Vanguard? (Yes, I know there is a thread on the Anarchist Vanguard.) It seems obvious to me that such an idea is antithetical to Anarchism, but then where does that leave us?

I truly believe that all authority is coercive and oppressive and therefore should be abolished, but how can this happen if a revolution cannot begin our of simple labor union consciousness? Some of you might say to look at the Spanish revolution, but the Spanish Revolution was more than just Anarchists. It included Communist too, and they were a big part of moving into revolution. Maybe, I don't know enough about the Spanish Revolution, but it seems as though the Communists were both necessary for the revolution and a big part of why it failed.

So anyway, how do we Anarchists address what seems to be a necessity, the Vanguard?

(Yes, I speak blasphemy, but these questions need to be addressed.)

[lvleph]

I wanted to add one more question in here, and I think maybe it stems out of not reading enough, but...

The bourgeois are a powerful force that has to be guarded against. How does an Anarchist society deal with this force after a successful abolition of power? It seems to me that the Bourgeois is still going to be waiting in the wings to recapture power, this was one of the premises behind the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. How do we prevent the rise of the bourgeois back into power?

[spartan]

Well i have Democratic Socialist beliefs but i also believe that a vanguard of sorts is acceptable as long as it is to a degree Democratic and dissolves itself after all threats to the country are eliminated and Socialism can progress without being harassed anymore.

So anyway, how do we Anarchists address what seems to be a necessity, the Vanguard?
Platformism?

[The Feral Underclass]

There are many, many threads in this particular forum and in Learning that will answer your questions indepth from both sides.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by spartan+December 20, 2007 09:07 am--> (spartan @ December 20, 2007 09:07 am) Well i have Democratic Socialist beliefs but i also believe that a vanguard of sorts is acceptable as long as it is to a degree Democratic and dissolves itself after all threats to the country are eliminated and the advancement of Socialism is not harassed anymore.

So anyway, how do we Anarchists address what seems to be a necessity, the Vanguard?
Platformism? [/b]
But how can we guaranty that this will indeed happen? I think most Anarchists would agree that it most likely wouldn't happen, unless it was forced to happen.

I found an online version of Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (draft) (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000)

I actually had not read that yet. I really should get up to speed in my reading.


The Anarchist Tension
There are many, many threads in this particular forum and in Learning that will answer your questions indepth from both sides.
How about at least one link then?

[blackstone]

A Vanguard is not necessary, but I am necessary.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me," (John 14:6)

I mean errr....

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to communism, but through Me," (Bob 14:6)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by lvleph+December 20, 2007 03:19 pm--> (lvleph @ December 20, 2007 03:19 pm)
The Anarchist Tension
There are many, many threads in this particular forum and in Learning that will answer your questions indepth from both sides.
How about at least one link then? [/b]
Come on dude, I'm not your mother. Type vanguard into the search engine.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 20, 2007 09:31 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 20, 2007 09:31 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:19 pm

The Anarchist Tension
There are many, many threads in this particular forum and in Learning that will answer your questions indepth from both sides.
How about at least one link then?
Come on dude, I'm not your mother. Type vanguard into the search engine. [/b]
My point was that you weren't helping the discussion, but I was trying to be polite about it. Why post some nonsense that is not beneficial to the discussion? If you don't like that I started this thread, you can take off.

And vanguard into the search won't really help with the discussion I was trying to organize.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by lvleph+December 20, 2007 03:39 pm--> (lvleph @ December 20, 2007 03:39 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 20, 2007 09:31 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 20, 2007 09:31 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 03:19 pm

The Anarchist Tension
There are many, many threads in this particular forum and in Learning that will answer your questions indepth from both sides.
How about at least one link then?
Come on dude, I'm not your mother. Type vanguard into the search engine. [/b]
My point was that you weren't helping the discussion, but I was trying to be polite about it. Why post some nonsense that is not beneficial to the discussion? If you don't like that I started this thread, you can take off. [/b]
Suggesting that you search the many other threads on this forum in order to understand the question propositioned in the title of your thread is unhelpful?


If you don't like that I started this thread, you can take off.

As a matter of fact I don't like what you have said but my giving you the advice to employ the search options has nothing to do with that. I'm finding it difficult in understanding why such a proposal could be this controversial.


And vanguard into the search won't really help with the discussion I was trying to organize.

What debate are you attempting to organise? Is it the debate that anarchists are perhaps deluded in their opinion that a vanguard is unnecessary? That's not a particularly original debate and as I have said there are many threads on this forum that will help you understand what a vanguard is and why anarchists oppose it.

[lvleph]

I wasn't looking for a debate, but rather a discussion. That is, I was looking for Anarchist's opinions on the subject. I know we all reject the idea of a Vanguard, but how do we rectify this in the face of history?

Also, the search isn't working so I can't search for Vanguard.

[lvleph]

Anyway, the search works now. If you do a search for Vanguard (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=&CODE=show&searchid=28fde0f1ad67f57d2641aeb0dd3cfe5e&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&hl=Vanguard&highlite=Vanguard&details=&st=0) as you suggest, there is no specific thread dealing with Historical Evidence that a Vanguard Party may be necessary. However, there is a thread on Platformism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73837&hl=Vanguard), which I suppose it can be argued does relate to that topic. But that is only one view on the matter. I was hoping to organize a discussion that points out many views in one centralized thread.

[lvleph]

From the Indigenism, Anarchism, and the State, by Ward Churchill thread refering to the Black Bloc in Seattle

Originally posted by Ward Churchill+--> (Ward Churchill)
Clinton deployed Delta Force for that one in case
things really did start to get serious. I mean that's
as serious as it gets in terms of repressive capacity
in the United States.
These are the surgical assassination units, and they
were deployed in Seattle.

But if you're going to go up against that, or if
you're actually going to do serious damage to the
structure of things, it isn't going to happen in some
sort of a frontal confrontation with whatever
deployment of force the state makes. So it is
symbolic, in the sense that it's educational and kind
of empowering. But if you're going to engage with that
force, you're not going to simply wake up one morning,
take a pill along with your glass of water and go out
prepared to do it. You have to build the
consciousness, you have to build the psychology, you
have to build the experiential base, and you have to
build the theoretical base, and that happens step by
step by step. Maybe the thing that happened in Seattle
was a sort of, "let's get out of the chat rooms and
see if we can't actually make a physical
confrontation." There hasn't been anything significant
along those lines for 25, 30 years in the US.[/b]

So that does address the my question of how to combat the power of the bourgeois.

Also from the aforementioned thread

Ward Churchill
You don't have to have the preponderance of the
population engaged in some sort of a final campaign to
bring down the government. What you do need is the
ability to cause an increasing number of people to
withdraw consent from some key sectors that keep the
system functioning. And if an appreciable number of
those people are going into more active forms of
resistance and are supportive, at least to the extent
that they won't give you up to the cops and that maybe
they will make a contribution, be it monetarily, or by
providing you sanctuary, I think that's attainable
over the long haul. You have to have a much greater
weight in order to take the structure intact and then
rearrange its organization, than you need to have it
begin to unravel and collapse, and that's actually the
aspiration that I hold.

[lvleph]

Although, this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73496&hl=Vanguard) is directly related to Communism, I think it still applies. However, I disagree to some extent with the following
Originally posted by p.m.a
The vanguard theory of revolution, however, has been shot down by history: every “Communist” nation produced only variations on the theme of state-capitalism. C.L.R. James, a Trinidadian-born Marxist and prominent social theorist on the topics of black emancipation and class struggle, made an in-depth analysis of the Soviet economy in his 1950 work State Capitalism & World Revolution.I don't believe that it was necessarily the Vanguard that had been shot down by history, rather the insistence on the bourgeois hierarchical structure inherent in State Communism.

[nom de guerre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:36 pm
I don't believe that it was necessarily the Vanguard that had been shot down by history, rather the insistence on the bourgeois hierarchical structure inherent in State Communism.
The vanguard is the bourgeois hierarchical structure. Political parties are a bourgeois invention. I say fuck politics all together.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by nom de guerre+December 20, 2007 12:14 pm--> (nom de guerre @ December 20, 2007 12:14 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 04:36 pm
I don't believe that it was necessarily the Vanguard that had been shot down by history, rather the insistence on the bourgeois hierarchical structure inherent in State Communism.
The vanguard is the bourgeois hierarchical structure. Political parties are a bourgeois invention. I say fuck politics all together. [/b]
Well, I guess I am referring to the type of Vanguard proposed by the Platformists. One in which they guide the proletariat into class consciousness and revolution, but do not lead in the traditional sense. I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself, but I am hoping to hash out new or ideas unknown to me and others that may be interested.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:34 pm
Well, I guess I am referring to the type of Vanguard proposed by the Platformists. One in which they guide the proletariat into class consciousness and revolution, but do not lead in the traditional sense. I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself, but I am hoping to hash out new or ideas unknown to me and others that may be interested.
Well if you look at Paris May 1968 what was missing was a party to turn the revolutionary situation into revolution. Most of the people will have spent most of the lives living in capitalist propaganda so even when you get mass class conscious they will not have any understanding of class struggles of the past and most likely would be making the same mistakes of failed revolutions as they would be learning.

[Labor Shall Rule]

A 'vanguard' is the most advanced section of a class — it does not necessarily mean a 'party', or a 'club', or even a 'union' — it is a faction of the actual rank-in-file that is more skilled in revolutionary action than any other part of their class.

The formulations on a 'truly revolutionary party' are distorted, disconnected from a material understanding of historical reality. There can be no plastering of revolutionary class consciousness — it can only be achieved by the independent action of the working class themselves, who must develop their own self-initiative, self-determination, and the necessary economic and strategical training to assume control over the economy and manage it in their own interests.

I normally disagree with Bakunin, but I think the difference between many 'Marxist' groups and the anarchists today is their conception of how to approach a non-revolutionary, dormant working class that has little to no organization.


Bakunin, The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State, eighth paragraph:

This divergence leads to a difference in tactics. The communists believe it necessary to organize the workers' forces in order to seize the political power of the State. The revolutionary socialists organize for the purpose of destroying - or, to put it more politely - liquidating the State. The communists advocate the principle and the practices of authority; the revolutionary socialists put all their faith in liberty. Both equally favor science, which is to eliminate superstition and take the place of religious faith. The former would like to impose science by force; the latter would try to propagate it so that human groups, once convinced, would organize and federalize spontaneously, freely, from the bottom up, of their own accord and true t their own interests, never following a prearranged plan imposed upon "ignorant"; masses by a few "superior" minds.

You can not bring about revolutionary situations by resolutions at party congresses, or through a 'newspaper', but through bringing a class analysis to the table of struggles for daily human needs. The party (or 'anarchist' union, or any other organization for that matter) is only as strong as the class it represents; for without a mass following, it is a general without soldiers. It can not measure out what it takes to win — it can only work on calculable consequences and arrange their mode of action around it, devising the correct strategy to lead the class in the right direction.

[lvleph]

So in the pure sense of the term Vanguard we are only talking about the Working Intelligencia organizing the rest of the workers in a revolutionary manner?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:29 pm
So in the pure sense of the term Vanguard we are only talking about the Working Intelligencia organizing the rest of the workers in a revolutionary manner?
No, as I stated in my post, it is the diametric opposite of that. It will never be like that.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+December 20, 2007 08:02 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ December 20, 2007 08:02 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 07:29 pm
So in the pure sense of the term Vanguard we are only talking about the Working Intelligencia organizing the rest of the workers in a revolutionary manner?
No, as I stated in my post, it is the diametric opposite of that. It will never be like that. [/b]
But shouldnt that be something we must try too build. A group that offers media coverage and educate the masses, consisting of rank and file members of a group.

Gramsci made points on the "common sense" of workers to better their lives within capitalism and the fact that for years the bourguoise has taught them not to look beyond capitalism. So before a revolution can be thought of, we must educate the masses to look beyong capitlaism.

[KC]

Gramsci made points on the "common sense" of workers to better their lives within capitalism and the fact that for years the bourguoise has taught them not to look beyond capitalism. So before a revolution can be thought of, we must educate the masses to look beyong capitlaism.

Which is what you do by "bringing a class analysis to the table of struggles for daily human needs."

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 20, 2007 08:34 pm
Which is what you do by "bringing a class analysis to the table of struggles for daily human needs."
Exactly, may I ask why the inverted commas? Is it a book, or a quote?

[KC]

I was quoting LSR's earlier post. But I could've probably got that exact quote from Lenin somewhere. Ah, here it is:


In conducting agitation among the workers on their immediate economic demands, the Social-Democrats inseparably link this with agitation on the immediate political needs, the distress and the demands of the working class, agitation against police tyranny, manifested in every strike, in every conflict between workers and capitalists, agitation against the restriction of the rights of the workers as Russian citizens in general and as the class suffering the worst oppression and having the least rights in particular, agitation against every prominent representative and flunkey of absolutism who comes into direct contact with the workers and who clearly reveals to the working class its condition of political slavery. Just as there is no issue affecting the life of the workers in the economic field that must be left unused for the purpose of economic agitation, so there is no issue in the political field that does not serve as a subject for political agitation. These two kinds of agitation are inseparably connected in the activities of the Social-Democrats as the two sides of the same medal. Both economic and political agitation are equally necessary to develop the class-consciousness of the proletariat; both economic and political agitation are equally necessary for guiding the class struggle of the Russian workers, because every class struggle is a political struggle. By arousing the class-consciousness of the workers, by organising, disciplining and training them for united action and for the fight for the ideals of Social-Democracy, both kinds of agitation will enable the workers to test their strength on immediate issues and immediate needs, to wring partial concessions from their enemy and thus improve their economic conditions, compel the capitalists to reckon with the strength of the organised workers, compel the government to extend the workers’ rights, to pay heed to their demands and keep the government in constant fear of the hostility of the masses of workers led by a strong Social-Democratic organisation.
-Lenin, V.I. The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1897/dec/31b.htm)

He goes into more detail as well.

[Trotsky's Ghost]

I've always liked to use the analogy of a classroom: A teacher makes a racist comment. Now, a certain percentage of the students are going to have backward ideas and laud the teacher. Some students are going to feel pretty indifferent. Others are going to feel strongly that what the teacher said was fucked up, but lack the confidence to challenge the teacher. The vanguard in the classroom are the students who actually are confident enough to challenge the teacher.

It's not so much a question of whether or not the vanguard exists or if it's necessary. Capitalism creates uneven consciousness. Some layers of the working class are bound to be more advanced than others. The question is: should the vanguard be organized?

I would wholeheartedly argue yes; I can't imagine smashing capitalism any other way. It's the job of those students who challenged the teacher to work as a team to build the confidence of those other students who felt too small to call the teacher out.

[KC]

I've always liked to use the analogy of a classroom: A teacher makes a racist comment. Now, a certain percentage of the students are going to have backward ideas and laud the teacher. Some students are going to feel pretty indifferent. Others are going to feel strongly that what the teacher said was fucked up, but lack the confidence to challenge the teacher. The vanguard in the classroom are the students who actually are confident enough to challenge the teacher.

It's not so much a question of whether or not the vanguard exists or if it's necessary. Capitalism creates uneven consciousness. Some layers of the working class are bound to be more advanced than others. The question is: should the vanguard be organized?

Good example. Amusingly, in the "What Kind of Marxism is Leninism?" thread I made the same claim and was accused of calling workers "dumb" by nom de guerre. Anyways, good analogy.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 20, 2007 09:45 pm

I've always liked to use the analogy of a classroom: A teacher makes a racist comment. Now, a certain percentage of the students are going to have backward ideas and laud the teacher. Some students are going to feel pretty indifferent. Others are going to feel strongly that what the teacher said was fucked up, but lack the confidence to challenge the teacher. The vanguard in the classroom are the students who actually are confident enough to challenge the teacher.

It's not so much a question of whether or not the vanguard exists or if it's necessary. Capitalism creates uneven consciousness. Some layers of the working class are bound to be more advanced than others. The question is: should the vanguard be organized?

Good example. Amusingly, in the "What Kind of Marxism is Leninism?" thread I made the same claim and was accused of calling workers "dumb" by nom de guerre. Anyways, good analogy.
I agree, if we look at revolutionary situations like Paris May 1968 the bulk of the workers are not dumb but they are struggling to try and come to terms with their recently found class consciousness all while the forces loyal to the capitalist system are busy conspiring to put a quick end to the dissent. It is like expecting a person to learn chess while paying against a professional and winning the first game.

"Those who make half a revolution dig their own grave", workers may be still thinking in terms of fighting for gains within the capitalist class when the capitalist class is far to reactionary for this and wants to push the working back.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by nom de [email protected] 20, 2007 10:14 am
The vanguard is the bourgeois hierarchical structure. Political parties are a bourgeois invention. I say fuck politics all together.
Giving up on organization, huh? :(

[Lenin II]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so of course I'm going to say a vanguard is necessary to raise the class consciousness of the working class. But coming from the point of anarchism, at first it seems as though an "organized anarchist authority" is an incredible contradiction in terms. However, it seems as though anarchists could be organized in a vanguard of sorts. Unlike the theory of the Leninist type of party, who seizes state power and then withers away,this would be a direct democratic party whose objective it is to SMASH the bourgeoisie state without becoming a ruling party itself.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Yes, the vanguard is necessary. It's organizational structure is needed not only during and following the revolution, but for prior, for raising class consciousness, distributing newpapers (pravda-style), etc.; do you see, it is critical that the proletariat becomes aware of the conditions under the bourgeois state apparatus, they must become enraged. This type of organizational structure is needed for propaganda to be effective. The key is making it accessible to all proletarians. The vanguard is also needed during the revolution, as an organizational structure to unite the proletariat as a whole. It is a critical aspect during the period post-revolution, where civil war can develop along with counterrevolutionary/oppositional movement and other threats. It is the very organizational structure to which will hold up the proletarian state, to secure it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 06:49 am
It's organizational structure is needed not only during and following the revolution, but for prior, for raising class consciousness, distributing newpapers (pravda-style), etc
What is this organisational structure?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 23, 2007 06:14 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 23, 2007 06:14 am)
Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 06:49 am
It's organizational structure is needed not only during and following the revolution, but for prior, for raising class consciousness, distributing newpapers (pravda-style), etc
What is this organisational structure?[/b]
Well I'd argue for more of a 'leninist' structure (which i see as an irrelevant term as some have a way of distorting its actual meaning), but to understand this concept the need for central planning must be understood; so when referring to the 'vanguard' I mean in structural terms that of the bolsheviks; if this draws a clear enough picture.

i.e. the 'vanguard' cannot be too large (hence, centralization), so it can secure the proletarian state apparatus (DotP) which in that regard it is needed to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats and crush their development. This can be done effectively through the centralization of state power and the elimination of oppositional movements through certain acts of force. Centralization allows for the strengthening of defense of the proletarian state; its army is centralized with the intention of its use as a means of crushing oppositional movement; which is effective because it is connected to that of the vanguard and serves the interest of the proletarian state, rather than its 'own' interest.

Also, the 'vanguard' cannot be abolished. It must wither away when the state is secured and all threats to it are eliminated, since it is a necessary stage in securing progression towards communism. If all threats haven't been eliminated and it is abolished, the task of securing the proletarian state has not yet been completed, so abolishing it would interrupt the process and cause this process of securing the proletarian state to fail; thus leading to regression instead of progression towards communist society.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Anarchist Tension, what do you think about our definition of the vanguard? Is it wrong?

[manic expression]

I agree with many posters: Not only is the vanguard necessary, but inevitable. The most advanced portion of the working classes must and will organize themselves into a disciplined body and lead the revolution.

[Vanguard1917]

Marx believed that the proletariat would naturally rise up against the bourgeois under the right material conditions. He felt it was inevitable.

Marx didn't believe that socialism was inevitable in the sense that it would come about regardless of people's conscious actions. On the contrary, Marx argued that 'every class struggle is a political struggle': the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie necessitates the political organisation of workers.


History seems to show that the proletariat does not rise above labor union consciousness.

No, history shows us that the proletariat certainly can and does rise above trade union consciousness. However it also shows us that this doesn't come about 'spontaneously' or 'inevitably', but through the active intervention of communist revolutionaries into the class struggle.

[Lenin II]

No, history shows us that the proletariat certainly can and does rise above trade union consciousness. However it also shows us that this doesn't come about 'spontaneously' or 'inevitably', but through the active intervention of communist revolutionaries into the class struggle.

There is a very distinct and important difference between the spontaniety of the working people and the highly disciplined and at least quasi-militarized action of a vanguard party. I cannot be so optimistic as to think that the days of revolutions carried out by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses is at an end. I do not have that fortune.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

the vanguard is necessary in enraging the proletariat enough so that it becomes conscious of the conditions existent in bourgeois society. an "unorganized" mass cannot lead a revolution on its own because it hasn't reached classconsciousness yet, there must be a force to bring about that consciousness. thus, the need for a centralized structure (vanguard). the distribution of newpapers (such as pravda, as i mentioned earlier) is critical, also other various propaganda efforts, which must be pursued to the greatest extent, with the greatest effort, in order for it to be effective in enraging the proles.

[KC]

What is this organisational structure?

Comrade N is incorrect in his statement that the vanguard has some type of organizational structure. The vanguard is not an organization; the distinction between a vanguard and its organization must be made in order to have this discussion, which he has failed to do.

It's good to see, however, that you have moved beyond discussing whether or not the vanguard exists and is beneficial/inevitable to what specific form it will take.

[ellipsis]

is a vanguard always necessary? Necessary to be available in case of extreme tyranny.

[KC]

is a vanguard always necessary?

This question is completely arbitrary and irrelevant. Vanguards exist for every revolution, so asking whether or not one is necessary is completely arbitrary.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:25 pm
Well if you look at Paris May 1968 what was missing was a party to turn the revolutionary situation into revolution.
Psy, that is a load of shit and you know it. It was because of the French "Communist" Party and, its trade union puppet, the General Confederation of Labor, that the second French Revolution did not develop out of the situation of May-June 1968 in the first place!

[Marsella]

A 'vanguard' is the most advanced section of a class — it does not necessarily mean a 'party', or a 'club', or even a 'union' — it is a faction of the actual rank-in-file that is more skilled in revolutionary action than any other part of their class.

Seems to contradict this:


Yes, the vanguard is necessary. It's organizational structure is needed not only during and following the revolution, but for prior, for raising class consciousness, distributing newpapers (pravda-style), etc.

and this:


*Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism- Maoism
*Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
*Our Leader is Chairman Avakian

I think someone is being more truthful however. :ph34r:

[Labor Shall Rule]

The 'vanguard' can not exist prior to a revolutionary situation, though a political organization that is oriented to working class politics can.

[KC]

The 'vanguard' can not exist prior to a revolutionary situation

Uh, yes it can.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 25, 2007 04:04 am

The 'vanguard' can not exist prior to a revolutionary situation

Uh, yes it can.
If it is the forefront of a mass revolutionary movement, then how could it hypothetically exist in a non-revolutionary situation where there are no working class organizations, and the 'movement' is largely dormant and demoralized?

[KC]

If it is the forefront of a mass revolutionary movement, then how could it hypothetically exist in a non-revolutionary situation where there are no working class organizations, and the 'movement' is largely dormant and demoralized?

There is a point between a "dormant and demoralized" movement and a "revolutionary situation".

[Labor Shall Rule]

The existence of a strong current of active, class-conscious workers (what I think we defined as 'the vanguard' of the working class) is a precondition for the development of a socialist party.

[KC]

The existence of a strong current of active, class-conscious workers (what I think we defined as 'the vanguard' of the working class) is a precondition for the development of a socialist party.

Certainly.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 25, 2007 04:12 am
If it is the forefront of a mass revolutionary movement, then how could it hypothetically exist in a non-revolutionary situation where there are no working class organizations, and the 'movement' is largely dormant and demoralized?
It will be smaller, weaker, and less advanced than in a revolutionary situation, but even in a very backward situation proletarians will be different from each others, and some will be more class-conscious than the average.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

If it is the forefront of a mass revolutionary movement, then how could it hypothetically exist in a non-revolutionary situation where there are no working class organizations, and the 'movement' is largely dormant and demoralized?

The vanguard - i.e. the most advanced, militant, politically conscious section of the working class - exists in all class struggles, but it's by no means necessarily communist. For instance: the vanguard of 1917 Petrograd was one that had been won over to the communism, while the vanguard of, say, 1984-85 Britain - made up of the striking miners - had not, even though it was undoubtedly made up of Britain's most politically advanced workers.

[lvleph]

So then a Vanguard is only antithetical to Anarchism if it takes on a hierarchical structure. So here I am thinking of the term leading, which a vanguard is suppose to do, in a different sense. One can agitate. I think this can be considered leading, in a way. So a Anarchist Vanguard could be defined as those who are more class conscious than the general public and therefore agitates the public into class consciousness?

[KC]

So then a Vanguard is only anti-antithetical to Anarchism if it takes on a hierarchical structure. So here I am thinking of the term leading, which a vanguard is suppose to do, in a different sense. One can agitate. I think this can be considered leading, in a way. So a Anarchist Vanguard could be defined as those who are more class conscious than the general public and therefore agitates the public into class consciousness?

I covered the tasks of the vanguard in this post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74431&view=findpost&p=1292437584).