Vanguard = one party state?

[Kitskits]

It's clear from the title. Vladimir Lenin supported one party state through his vanguard theory? CLEAR question.

That's what I understood and made me a Leninist but someone recently told me that the vanguard is just supposed to lead the proletariat, other parties like right wing or centrist parties should be allowed even if the vanguard exists.

So, if this is true, the one party state theory is Marxist-Leninist (meaning Stalinist) and not by Lenin himself.

If it's like that, it's my first step towards stalinism. :D

[Fiskpure]

Leninism states that a vanguard (Party) is required to bring communism. That's why so many revolutions were suppressed because they had no vanguard to lead the proletariat.

[FireFry]

Leninism states that a vanguard (Party) is required to bring communism. That's why so many revolutions were suppressed because they had no vanguard to lead the proletariat.


Sounds like a bullshit excuse to me for a despotic hold on government power...

[Bilan]

Leninism states that a vanguard (Party) is required to bring communism. That's why so many revolutions were suppressed because they had no vanguard to lead the proletariat.

Of course, it had nothing to do with the conditions surrounding those revolutions! Nothing at all! Material conditions are irrelevant, so long as we have the precious vanguard party, right?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Of course, it had nothing to do with the conditions surrounding those revolutions! Nothing at all! Material conditions are irrelevant, so long as we have the precious vanguard party, right?

This is what Trotskyists think on the subject of the vanguard (broadly)


Here is a summation by Ernest Mandel of what Trotsky decided in the experiences of the proletariat from the begining of the degeneration in SU to his death.

For ten years from 1923 to 1933 Trotsky confronted the problem of the Soviet Thermidor – the political counter-revolution in the USSR. This analytical effort coincided with his struggle to clarify in a theoretical manner the link between ‘self-organisation of the class and the vanguard’, in the light of the degeneration of the first workers’ state.

But not only in the light of that experience. Partially, later on, from the rise of the fascist danger in Germany, partially from the experience of the English general strike in 1926, Trotsky formulates a number of conclusions on the relationships of class, mass unions, soviets and worker parties, which, as far as he was concerned, were definitively confirmed by the tragic experiences of the Spanish revolution of 1936-1939. They can be resumed in the form of the following theses:


1. The working class is not homogenous either socially or in terms of consciousness. Its relative heterogeneity at least implies the possibility, if not the fatality, of the formation of several political and party currents, which are supported by fractions of the class.

2. The struggle for victories in the daily life of the working class, as well as immediate economic and political demands (perhaps against the danger of fascism), demands a strong degree of unity in action of the class. The struggle thus demands organisations that include workers of differing political convictions and different organisational loyalties, that is, a party based on a united front of action between different parties and currents. Mass unions and workers’ councils are examples of such organisations. In the Spanish revolution, militia committees played the same role, above all in Catalonia.

3. Even when they are partially or, during some periods, totally lead by an apparatus which is strongly integrated in the bourgeois state (bourgeois society), mass organisations do not exclusively represent forms of integration and subordination. They still retain at least a dual character, and they at least remain potential instruments of emancipation and self-activity of the class. They are ‘the seeds of proletarian democracy inside bourgeois democracy’.

4. The revolutionary vanguard party distinguishes itself from other workers’ parties essentially by the fact that in its programme, its strategy and its current practice it totally represents and defends the immediate and historic interests of the working class, a defence oriented towards the overthrow of the bourgeois state and the capitalist mode of production and towards the construction of a socialist society without class. To attain this goal it must convince the majority of the working class of the justice of its programme and its strategy and its current practice. This can only be done by political rather than administrative methods. It demands, among other things, a correct application of the tactics of the united proletarian front. It demands respect for the autonomy and the freedom of action of all worker organisations.

5. The same rules of conduct apply mutatis mutandis for the construction of the workers’ state and in the exercise of political power (with the possible exception of during an active civil war). In the course of this process, the leading role of the revolutionary party is guaranteed by the success of its political conviction, not by administrative methods, and certainly not by repression of sections of the working class. It can only be realised by the principal of the effective application of politics; rigorous separation of party and state, direct exercise of power by the organs of the working population, elected democratically and not by the vanguard itself, multi-partyism: Workers and peasants must be free to elect who they want to the workers’ councils.

6. Socialist democracy, democracy in the soviet and the union ,democracy in the party (rights of tendencies, no banning of factions even if they are ‘in themselves’ undesirable) have need of each other. These are not abstract conditions but practical conditions for an effective workers’ fight and for the effective construction of socialism. Without proletarian democracy, the proletarian united front and thus the victorious workers’ struggle, is, in the best case, put in danger and, in the worst case, rendered impossible. Without socialist democracy an effective, planned socialist economy is equally impossible.

[#FF0000]

That's what I understood and made me a Leninist but someone recently told me that the vanguard is just supposed to lead the proletariat, other parties like right wing or centrist parties should be allowed even if the vanguard exists
I think your friend is confusing Marx's idea of the vanguard with Lenin's idea of the vanguard. As I understand it, Marx never really said that the vanguard is supposed to be a party, just a group made up of the most dedicated revolutionaries who help the rest of the proletariat achieve class consciousness. The idea of an actual vanguard party is a Leninist concept, I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[Fiskpure]

Of course, it had nothing to do with the conditions surrounding those revolutions! Nothing at all! Material conditions are irrelevant, so long as we have the precious vanguard party, right?

Apologies, the party was just an example. Was supposed to be a "leading figure", doesn't have to be associated with anykind of state or government.

I'm no expert on these issues, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I'm unsure about this but, many riots were tamed down in europe because they had no vanguard to lead, them is what I understood.

[Palmares]

Also I'm unsure about this but, many riots were tamed down in europe because they had no vanguard to lead, them is what I understood.

Using the example of Paris, May '68, it was the communist leaders that made the deal with the then French Government that brought the majority of workers back to work and ended the mass strike. Thus, the end of the occupied universities and workplaces, not to mention the riotous street battles...

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's clear from the title. Vladimir Lenin supported one party state through his vanguard theory? CLEAR question.

That's what I understood and made me a Leninist but someone recently told me that the vanguard is just supposed to lead the proletariat, other parties like right wing or centrist parties should be allowed even if the vanguard exists.

So, if this is true, the one party state theory is Marxist-Leninist (meaning Stalinist) and not by Lenin himself.

If it's like that, it's my first step towards stalinism. :D

A vanguard exists with or without a party. It is simply the most revolutionary-thinking people in the working class at any given time (it's not the same people all the time since ideas change). The idea of a vanguard party is organizing a party of the vanguard of the class. Before this you had general socialist parties like in Germany where there were some revolutionaries but also reformists and even nationalists. Lenin wanted a party only of the revolutionists. That's the difference.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding the one-party state theory of vanguardism. After the Revolution there were Bolsheviks as well as Left Independent Socialists and smaller parties in the government.

I think the vanguard party is necessary for the revolution to be sucsessful, but I don't believe in a one-party state or the dictatorship of a party - just the dictatorship of the whole working class!

[E.G. Smith]

I think your friend is confusing Marx's idea of the vanguard with Lenin's idea of the vanguard. As I understand it, Marx never really said that the vanguard is supposed to be a party, just a group made up of the most dedicated revolutionaries who help the rest of the proletariat achieve class consciousness. The idea of an actual vanguard party is a Leninist concept, I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

You're right... this is a Leninist idea.

One thing we do have to be careful of is not to become so overwhelmingly "vanguard" that we lose faith in the individual as a part of a very important revolution. That we don't just uphold a single person that's surrounded only with like-minded underlings that won't challenge them when they're wrong. That we make way for the people to shape the revolution, not just tell them what to do because "the vanguard knows best". the RCP's Bob Avakian comes to mind here... while his leadership has proven very tactful amongst his followers, he's upheld to a fault.

[Random Precision]

It's clear from the title. Vladimir Lenin supported one party state through his vanguard theory? CLEAR question.

That's what I understood and made me a Leninist but someone recently told me that the vanguard is just supposed to lead the proletariat, other parties like right wing or centrist parties should be allowed even if the vanguard exists.

So, if this is true, the one party state theory is Marxist-Leninist (meaning Stalinist) and not by Lenin himself.

If it's like that, it's my first step towards stalinism. :D

Lenin never intended the vanguard party to be the only party in the Soviet state. As such this cannot be properly labeled a "theory". The single-party dictatorship was adopted by the Bolsheviks because of the obvious need for the working class to be strictly organized and regimented in combatting counterrevolution during the Civil War. Toward the end of his life as he combatted the emergence of Stalinism, he intended to remove the ban against the Mensheviks and SRs from being freely elected to the Soviets.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The vanguard isn't necessarily a "one party state" [at least it does not have to be] but rather, a central organization of the revolutionary proletariat. It is the centralized organization of the revolutionary proletariat which has already become class-conscious. This cannot be "all proletarians" because not all proletarians have reached class-consciousness.

The vanguard is needed to enrage the proletariat to bring about class-consciousness. Through enraging the proletariat- by the distribution of propaganda - newspapers, leaflets, etc. -i.e. pravda. Without class-consciousness there will be no revolution- and class-consciousness does not just fall out of the sky. The proletariat needs leadership. Lenin recognized that, just as do many revolutionaries. The role of the vanguard, is then, for the central organization of the working class- before/during/after the revolution. The unity of the proletariat is important.

The vanguard will also exist following the revolution- through the formation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to secure it- provide defense to the newly formed proletarian state. There can be no democracy until ALL counterrevolutionary/oppositional/reactionary movement is crushed- that means, the former ruling class must be effectively crushed, too- and all remnants of the bourgeois state and its society. The vanguard will continue to exist until it is no longer needed to secure the proletarian state, i.e. it will wither away when all threats have been eliminated.

In regard to the "one-party state" issue, however, it couldn't have been avoided. The increase of counterrevolutionary threats and the occurrence of the civil war made this a necessary means of securing the proletarian state. With revolution comes the need to provide defense, otherwise the whole revolution will crumble to pieces- when there's opposition forming from all surrounding area. There is no time for talk of ideals. The SRs and Mensheviks had to be excluded for the reason that they posed a threat that was not worth risking the success of the revolution over. With that said, for the proletarian state to be secured- it was a necessary measure.

There is no time to sit down and debate whether or not something should be eliminated or someone should be purged- if the proletarian state is threatened- which, if strong enough, will prevent communist society from being attained- it by all means must be crushed- with the greatest force.

As for those who blame Lenin, the Bolsheviks, Stalin, etc. for carrying out the such, there isn't time to waste thinking of ideal ways of dealing with threats- and *****ing over organizational issues. It is that kind of thinking that will get comrades killed and wounded- and acts of sabotage carried out against the proletarian state. It can be expected following any revolution that such will happen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If it's like that, it's my first step towards stalinism. :D

Before you turn Stalinist, this ex-Trot and ex-Stalinist would like to highlight the fact that Stalinism doesn't really support a one-party state, but rather a bureaucratic NO-party state (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=67387&page=2).


As for the so-called "one-party states" of the past, you should read this:

The No-Party State (http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/no-party-state.html)


In this fascinating book (http://books.google.com/books?id=ETQpY-32DysC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=lewin+%22no+party%22&source=web&ots=neGK4Mp5Wu&sig=14zdfW1WElqtLO5qUbCMYmYhQB0), Moshe Lewin – himself a former collective farm worker and Red Army soldier - in effect proposes an alternative to the standard view that seeks to avoid both of these pitfalls...

Lewin rejects the claim that the Soviet Union was an example of a one party system. Instead, he suggests that it is best described as having been a “no party system”: “In the 1930s, the organization calling itself the ‘party’ had already lost its political character; it had been transformed into an administrative network, wherein a hierarchy ruled a rank and file”. Indeed, by the latter years of the regime, the party had literally become “a corpse”.



Read further down the thread above for my "compromise," because the key problem here is the merger of party positions and positions within the administration of the state (ie, bureaucracy)!



Stay true to the course, and remain probably the third proper, non-spinoff "Leninist Marxist" on this board! :D

[Luís Henrique]

No, Lenin has nothing to do with the idea of a one-party system.

In the wake of Russian Civil War, most parties other than the Bolsheviks joined the counter-revolution, and were outlawed because of that - not because of some "theory" of one-party State (on the contrary, the left-wing of the SR's even participated in the revolutionary government at its begginings).

But, in a clear case of what Rosa Luxemburg would call "taking necessity for virtue", a whole "false memory" of Leninism as a one-party theory was developed by Stalin and his cronies.

It is a pity that someone would be driven into shameless reformism out of such a silly issue as supporting one-party systems...!

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, Lenin has nothing to do with the idea of a one-party system.

In the wake of Russian Civil War, most parties other than the Bolsheviks joined the counter-revolution, and were outlawed because of that - not because of some "theory" of one-party State (on the contrary, the left-wing of the SR's even participated in the revolutionary government at its begginings).

But, in a clear case of what Rosa Luxemburg would call "taking necessity for virtue", a whole "false memory" of Leninism as a one-party theory was developed by Stalin and his cronies.

It is a pity that someone would be driven into shameless reformism out of such a silly issue as supporting one-party systems...!

Luís Henrique

On the other hand, Razlatzki had this to say about multi-party systems (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=67387&page=2):


So what should we have? A two party (or multiparty) system? And will we let social contradictions resolve themselves through struggle between the ruling and the opposition party?

But, along this path, the fundamental contradiction of society, the source of its development, would be concealed, made more complicated and even pushed entirely to the side in the struggle for power; that is to say, secondary contradictions would divert much effort, but would in no way, shape or form assist in advancing society. Besides which, the existence of many parties inevitably assists in the stratification of society and the division of its interests, that is, serves to place additional obstacles on the path of the transformation of the society to classlessness.

No, solving the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only by bursting through the historical (and altogether alien to proletariat) precedents, only by liberating oneself from the path of habitual schematism.

Not the opposition of a ruling and an opposition party, but the immediate opposition of the party and the state; this is what fully reveals the social contradictions, this is what the proletariat must strive for. Yes, the party must lead the proletariat in the struggle for power. Yes, the party, at the head of the proletariat must seize this power. Yes, it must destroy the old state apparatus and build a new one. It must promote its most experienced organizers, leaders and chiefs to the leading posts in the state; and then it must immediately cross them off its list of voting members.



I elaborated my contentions with some of his finer details, but personally, I'm on the "center-right" in regards to the issue of one-party states (Stalinist folks being "far-right," multi-party folks being "far-left," and Razlatzki being "center-left").

[Kitskits]

No, Lenin has nothing to do with the idea of a one-party system.

In the wake of Russian Civil War, most parties other than the Bolsheviks joined the counter-revolution, and were outlawed because of that - not because of some "theory" of one-party State (on the contrary, the left-wing of the SR's even participated in the revolutionary government at its begginings).

But, in a clear case of what Rosa Luxemburg would call "taking necessity for virtue", a whole "false memory" of Leninism as a one-party theory was developed by Stalin and his cronies.

It is a pity that someone would be driven into shameless reformism out of such a silly issue as supporting one-party systems...!

Luís Henrique

Yes but if you look in other revolution after the october revolution, (see Cuba etc) they had it planned. So whether there were huge coincidences in all the revolutions that made other parties illegal or it WAS actually a theory (probably popularized by itself after it became the case in the soviet union).

Not to mention that somewhere I had read "..Castro made Cuba a one party state in the soviet model" but I don't remember if the source was bourgeois or some idiot.

All I have to say is that I agree with the one-party-state, I mean when the target is socialism and then communism it is so fixed that I don't understand why we should have pluralism, even right-wing pluralism in elections. What other reasons are except the "criticism" of some fascist "human" rights watch bourgeois propaganda tank.

[kromando33]

Allowing the bourgeois to operate their own political party seems to me completely contrary to class struggle.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes but if you look in other revolution after the october revolution, (see Cuba etc) they had it planned. So whether there were huge coincidences in all the revolutions that made other parties illegal or it WAS actually a theory (probably popularized by itself after it became the case in the soviet union).

Well, not exactly. In Cuba the idea was not even that of a socialist revolution; that came after.


All I have to say is that I agree with the one-party-state, I mean when the target is socialism and then communism it is so fixed that I don't understand why we should have pluralism, even right-wing pluralism in elections. What other reasons are except the "criticism" of some fascist "human" rights watch bourgeois propaganda tank.

Because there are many different ways to attain an end? And if someone does want to start a second party, who's going to say no? The police?

Social conflict cannot be suppressed by decree. If reactionary tendencies cannot express themselves openly through their independent organisation, they will find a way to express themselves via the one-party, thus contaminating it with their reactionarism. See the history of the Soviet Union...

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

If reactionary tendencies cannot express themselves openly through their independent organisation, they will find a way to express themselves via the one-party, thus contaminating it with their reactionarism. See the history of the Soviet Union...

Luís Henrique

As I said (and I quote Razlatzki above), you're a "habitual schematist" in this regard. Even the presence of multiple parties wouldn't stop the reactionary tendencies from trying to penetrate the party of power.

[kromando33]

As I said (and I quote Razlitzki above), you're a "habitual schematist" in this regard. Even the presence of multiple parties wouldn't stop the reactionary tendencies from trying to penetrate the party of power.
Exactly right, the power of the bourgeois lies in their deceptive dictatorship, which is clouded in concepts of 'democracy', 'human rights', 'civil liberties', 'the rule of law' etc, of course these trivial decorations on bourgeois dictatorship will just as easily be restricted or dispensed with entirely if the proletariat starts using them to perpetuate class struggle. To think that the bourgeois will declare themselves openly in such a multi-party system is ludicrous, the current 'pluralistic' system is not at all pluralistic - it's simply a reflection of the 'consensus' and a competition between two equally bourgeois dictatorships, it's simply a fraud to try and fool the proletariat from resisting their class oppression.

[Janus]

That's what I understood and made me a Leninist but someone recently told me that the vanguard is just supposed to lead the proletariat, other parties like right wing or centrist parties should be allowed even if the vanguard exists.
The vanguard, defined simply, is merely the forefront of a movement. Now, it can be extremely diverse and decentralized, as the entire communist population is, or it can be very structured and centralized as the vanguard party is. Some sort of leadership/guiding role is implied in the concept of the vanguard but only in the idea of the vanguard party is that role aggressively pursued in a direct manner.

As far as the concept of the vanguard party/vanguardism itself, it didn't originate with Lenin (who was influenced by Blanqui himself) but he certainly was the one who developed it further.

[kromando33]

Actually the concept of the vanguard is actually very practical, and simply exists as a revolutionary political forefront for the proletariat themselves, because of practical considerations of representations. Those who take principled issue with it are most anarchists or whatever, who would rather sit in their tiny factions and critique 'the system' and 'authority' rather than help build a movement or party.

[Ol' Dirty]

Actually the concept of the vanguard is actually very practical, and simply exists as a revolutionary political forefront for the proletariat themselves, because of practical considerations of representations. Those who take principled issue with it are most anarchists or whatever, who would rather sit in their tiny factions and critique 'the system' and 'authority' rather than help build a movement or party.
I disagree. There are numerous anarchists who are actively involved in direct action. Labor movements across the world and the labor movement as a whole have strong anarchist currents. It's healthy to question the strategies and tactics people with the same goal. From a dialectical point of view, it is healthy to have different ideas bounce off each other. The thesis would be the idea of the vanguard; the antithesis of this idea would be the 'autonomous,' 'spontaneous' revolutionary strategy; in my opinion, the synthesis would be that a mass movement needs to both have direction and meet the needs of common people. Neither approach is 'wrong;' they're protons and electrons, or something like that... I'm not good with hard science. :)

[Luís Henrique]

As I said (and I quote Razlitzki above), you're a "habitual schematist" in this regard. Even the presence of multiple parties wouldn't stop the reactionary tendencies from trying to penetrate the party of power.

Evidently not. I would make it easier for us to stop them from doing so.

Could you please avoid using "ism" name-calling? I think it was unwarranted.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Evidently not. I would make it easier for us to stop them from doing so.

Could you please avoid using "ism" name-calling? I think it was unwarranted.

Luís Henrique

Sorry if I snapped. :(

Anyhow, care to provide proof with regards to your first statement?

[kromando33]

Well their seems to be a misconception is more ultra-leftist circles that democratic centralism is undemocratic or whatever, I myself have been in a Leninist party for over 2 years, and I can say that's extremely democratic, but also it preserves a sense of forward direction in the party and prevents divisive splits. The thing about DS is, everyone equally must speak up on positions, and the open structure itself prevents creations of secretive factions.

[Luís Henrique]

Sorry if I snapped. :(

Anyhow, care to provide proof with regards to your first statement?

It would be a little difficult, because there is no much experience of pluripartidarism in socialist countries (as far as I remember, Poland and East Germany had three parties each, but all three were in fact controled by the same bureaucracy).

But it seems that if there is only one party, and this party is the only way to access power, automatically all people who drive for power will adhere to it. As there are no external poles of bourgeois ideology, it becomes much more difficult to understand if the positions these people defend within the Communist Party are bourgeois or not - while if bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties did exist, their position could be compared to the positions of those parties.

But even if all bourgeois parties are banned, which seems likely, since they would not accept the replacement of parliament by soviets, the existence of several proletarian parties would allow for freer discussion. Besides, it is clear that the usual model of Communist Parties in post-revolutionary societies was never really democratic; free dissent was never allowed. And without free discussion, critical thought perishes - and if critical thought perishes, how are we going to be able to recognise bourgeois ideology when we see it?

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

(as far as I remember, Poland and East Germany had three parties each, but all three were in fact controlled by the same bureaucracy).

More than that for East Germany, actually:

National Front (East Germany) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28East_Germany%29) - 5 parties and 4 mass organizations (allowed to run in parliament, but it kinda sucks when the SED had FAR less than 50% of the seats)


But it seems that if there is only one party, and this party is the only way to access power, automatically all people who drive for power will adhere to it. As there are no external poles of bourgeois ideology, it becomes much more difficult to understand if the positions these people defend within the Communist Party are bourgeois or not - while if bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties did exist, their position could be compared to the positions of those parties.

Actually, I anticipated this criticism and made an allowance for "provincial and local petit-bourgeois organizations" in my fictitious constitutional document (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=67479). This article below is still yet to be finalized:


Article 107

In conformity with the interests of the urban and rural workers, and in order to develop their organizational initiative and political activity, citizens of the Soviet Republic are guaranteed the right to unite in public organizations, both inside and outside the system of workers' power: workers' organizations (including workplace committees), cooperative organizations (including communal councils), provincial and local petit-bourgeois organizations, youth organizations, sport clubs, and cultural and scientific societies.

Article 107-a

The most advanced and resolute (that is, militant) sections of the urban and rural workers voluntarily unite in the Revolutionary Party of Workers' Power (Communist), which was the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers in their revolutionary struggles, and remains the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers—as the nucleus of various organs of workers' power—in their continuing efforts to jointly build socialism and communism.

Article 107-b

Other advanced and resolute (but not militant) sections of the urban and rural workers are guaranteed the right to voluntarily unite in the Communist Workers' League (or its youth wing), which is the leading mass organization of the urban and rural workers and is the nucleus of various public organizations that are outside the Party.




But even if all bourgeois parties are banned, which seems likely, since they would not accept the replacement of parliament by soviets, the existence of several proletarian parties would allow for freer discussion. Besides, it is clear that the usual model of Communist Parties in post-revolutionary societies was never really democratic; free dissent was never allowed. And without free discussion, critical thought perishes - and if critical thought perishes, how are we going to be able to recognise bourgeois ideology when we see it?

I know I'm being circular here, but did you read what Razlatzki said regarding the increase in societal divisions as a result, as well as his rather innovative remarks regarding the separate of party affairs and state administration (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1049613&postcount=15)? :confused:

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

Well their seems to be a misconception is more ultra-leftist circles that democratic centralism is undemocratic or whatever, I myself have been in a Leninist party for over 2 years, and I can say that's extremely democratic, but also it preserves a sense of forward direction in the party and prevents divisive splits. The thing about DS is, everyone equally must speak up on positions, and the open structure itself prevents creations of secretive factions.

One can only assume you've never encountered the British SWP in action, and I speak as a former member of that party. If the British SWP is a prime example of democratic centralism then I'd say that the whole doctrine is due for the dustbin of history.

Regarding the subject of vanguards in general and the idea of one party states, I'll offer you two quotes:

'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Lord Acton.

'Revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert and know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as the latter have done their job.' George Orwell, discussing 'Animal Farm.'

If the internal culture of many Leninist groups is similar (and I believe it is) and, coupled with the frankly cut-throat attitude of many Leninist groups towards one another, is typical of such outfits then I'd run a mile before re-engaging with Leninism.

Leninism - 57 varieties, and all unfit for human consumption.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One can only assume you've never encountered the British SWP in action, and I speak as a former member of that party. If the British SWP is a prime example of democratic centralism then I'd say that the whole doctrine is due for the dustbin of history.

Regarding the subject of vanguards in general and the idea of one party states, I'll offer you two quotes:

'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Lord Acton.

'Revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert and know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as the latter have done their job.' George Orwell, discussing 'Animal Farm.'

That's within a bourgeois paradigm, though.


If the internal culture of many Leninist groups is similar (and I believe it is) and, coupled with the frankly cut-throat attitude of many Leninist groups towards one another, is typical of such outfits then I'd run a mile before re-engaging with Leninism.

Leninism - 57 varieties, and all unfit for human consumption.

Democratic centralism is "freedom of discussion, unity in action." (Lenin)

Let me review the features of democratic centralism and also highlight where I think you've got problems:

1) Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.
2) Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.

3) Strict and conscious discipline in the party—the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.

4) Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.
5) Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create.



If you've got problems with the bolded text above, I understand your position (the potential for abuse). Note, however, that I've deliberately put space between #3 (strict subordination of the minority to the majority) and the rest. If you've got problems with this - like anarchists and "autonomous Marxists" do - then you're erroneously (and quite gravely, might I add) siding with spontaneity. :(



Now, since you were part of a Trotskyist party, might I also add that Trotsky's slogan "march separately but strike together" still reeks of disunity of action, being in direct conflict with #3.

[kromando33]

Plymoth, also why are you quoting Orwell, a well known anti-communist bourgeois informer and propagandist?
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

Plymoth, also why are you quoting Orwell, a well known anti-communist bourgeois informer and propagandist?

Would that be the same Orwell who risked his life fighting Fascism, was shot through the neck and then left the country with Stalinists hot on his heels intent on silencing him permanently, perchance?

And I think you'll find that Orwell was anti-Stalinist, not anti-Communist, and with considerable Anarchist sympathies.

[Comrade Rage]

Would that be the same Orwell who risked his life fighting Fascism, was shot through the neck and then left the country with Stalinists hot on his heels intent on silencing him permanently, perchance?

And I think you'll find that Orwell was anti-Stalinist, not anti-Communist, and with considerable Anarchist sympathies.Orwell was quite anti-Communist. Fighting in the Abraham Lincoln brigade, doesn't make one Communist.

Orwell was a Democratic 'Socialist'.

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

Orwell was quite anti-Communist. Fighting in the Abraham Lincoln brigade, doesn't make one Communist.

Orwell was a Democratic 'Socialist'.

Orwell was a democratic Socialist, correct, he was open about it. But I'd say he could only be described as anti-Communist if you equate Stalinism with Communism, which, as a class struggle Anarchist, I certainly do not.

And he went nowhere near the Abraham Lincoln brigade not any other IB unit, as the IB's role in the purges of POUM members and others left him feeling it was impossible for him. I suggest you read 'Homage To Catalonia' for a proper overview of Orwell's time in Spain.

And Orwell's quote stands, IMHO.

[kromando33]

'Democratic socialism' is just more of the reformist post-91 trash which came into proper view after the Soviet Union collapsed in a desperate attempt to conform to bourgeois parliamentarianism and get into power in the bourgeois state.

[Comrade Rage]

Orwell was a democratic Socialist, correct, he was open about it. But I'd say he could only be described as anti-Communist if you equate Stalinism with Communism, which, as a class struggle Anarchist, I certainly do not.I equate Stalinism with Communism because there are no political discrepancies between the two. So-called Stalinism is the continuation of Lenin's policies.


And Orwell's quote stands, IMHO.No it doesn't. It's been discredited. It's just that my criticism has gone (whoosh) over your head.


'Democratic socialism' is just more of the reformist post-91 trash which came into proper view after the Soviet Union collapsed in a desperate attempt to conform to bourgeois parliamentarianism and get into power in the bourgeois state.
I couldn't have said it better myself, kromando.

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

I equate Stalinism with Communism because there are no political discrepancies between the two. So-called Stalinism is the continuation of Lenin's policies.

No it doesn't. It's been discredited. It's just that my criticism has gone (whoosh) over your head.


I couldn't have said it better myself, kromando.

Well, as a class struggle Anarchist Communist, I beg to differ, as would a great many others as well. There are many who consider themselves Communists who would run a mile from Stalinism. Even the SWP don't consider themselves Stalinist.

And, if Stalinism is the continuation of Lenin's policies, I can't think of a better reason to dump Marxist Leninism in the dustbin of history and may it rot there permanently. How many millions died or were sent to Siberia at the whim of Comrade Stalin and his ilk?

And Orwell's quote has, if anything, been proved by the existence of Stalinism, as has Lord Acton's remark about power and absolute power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, as a class struggle Anarchist Communist

So much for my conciliatory remarks regarding democratic centralism. :(

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

So much for my conciliatory remarks regarding democratic centralism. :(

It seems like a fine idea in principle, but my experience of it has been that it evolves into a case of all centralism and little or no democracy. This isn't confined to Stalinist groups either, as the British SWP (Trotskyites) so amply demonstrate. It seems as though, in the UK certainly, the mishmash of different groups, all claiming to be Leninist and all accusing each other of the same undemocratic practices while doing similar things themselves, are the principle reason why so many people are disenchanted with the Old Left here.

[kromando33]

Well, as a class struggle Anarchist Communist, I beg to differ, as would a great many others as well. There are many who consider themselves Communists who would run a mile from Stalinism. Even the SWP don't consider themselves Stalinist.

And, if Stalinism is the continuation of Lenin's policies, I can't think of a better reason to dump Marxist Leninism in the dustbin of history and may it rot there permanently. How many millions died or were sent to Siberia at the whim of Comrade Stalin and his ilk?

And Orwell's quote has, if anything, been proved by the existence of Stalinism, as has Lord Acton's remark about power and absolute power.
You think quoting anti-communists like Orwell or bourgeois reactionaries like 'Lord' Action proves anything except your own revisionism?.... I think not.

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

You think quoting anti-communists like Orwell or bourgeois reactionaries like 'Lord' Action proves anything except your own revisionism?.... I think not.

For the last time, Orwell was an anti-Stalinist, not an anti-Communist. Stop conflating true Communism with Stalinism. And he had good reason to be an anti-Stalinist, given his experiences (and those of a great many others) during the Spanish Civil War.

And you can't simply write off perfectly true statements simply because you don't like the source. That's just dogmatic and shows a marked tendency, common among Stalinists, to put their heads in the sand every time an inconvenient truth rears its ugly head.

[kromando33]

For the last time, Orwell was an anti-Stalinist, not an anti-Communist. Stop conflating true Communism with Stalinism. And he had good reason to be an anti-Stalinist, given his experiences (and those of a great many others) during the Spanish Civil War.

And you can't simply write off perfectly true statements simply because you don't like the source. That's just dogmatic and shows a marked tendency, common among Stalinists, to put their heads in the sand every time an inconvenient truth rears its ugly head.
Please stop calling a me a 'Stalinist', comrade Stalin's simply contributed to the base of Marxist science put forward by Marx and brought forward even more by Lenin, all other claims to Marxist theory ultimate revise, reform and deviate from true Marxism. It's alright comrade, you can see the truth of Marxism-Leninism any time you like, there's no need to hide behind your Hegelian 'democratic socialism' so you look acceptable enough to the bourgeois mainstream opinion.

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

Please stop calling a me a 'Stalinist', comrade Stalin's simply contributed to the base of Marxist science put forward by Marx and brought forward even more by Lenin, all other claims to Marxist theory ultimate revise, reform and deviate from true Marxism. It's alright comrade, you can see the truth of Marxism-Leninism any time you like, there's no need to hide behind your Hegelian 'democratic socialism' so you look acceptable enough to the bourgeois mainstream opinion.

I'm not a Hegelian or a democratic socialist, I'm a class struggle Anarchist with prior experience of Marxist-Leninist ways and means of organising. If the cap fits I'm afraid you'll have to wear it.

Marxism-Leninism is, in the UK at least, a dead duck. Group upon group of small and terminally irrelevent Leninist sects, each claiming to be the one true follower of Marx and all falling by the wayside at a rate of knots while frantically stabbing each other in the back at every turn. That and they seem to shed members as soon as they recruit them, partly because of the lack of internal democracy seemingly so redolent of Leninist groups in general.

And if I were interested in 'bourgeois mainstream opinion' I'd hardly be a class struggle Anarchist, now would I?

[Lenin II]

While the situation today is revolutionary, it mostly takes the form of great outbursts. The vanguard party must exist, and must be a party. Otherwise the working class will be reduced to simple acts of violent spontaneity given a revolutionary situation such as a national crises or intolerable widespread misery. Their actions will temporarily gain a few inches, and then will sink back to the old ways, without seeking to fight the battle against capitalism to the end, and the bourgeoisie, a ruthless and highly organized class, will reassert themselves unopposed and with great ease, their feather barely ruffled by the slight inconvenience of the class’s tantrum.

In "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", Lenin showed that the present epoch is the epoch of imperialism, and therefore this is the epoch of the DESTRUCTION of the old capitalist order and imperialism through the seizure of state power by the proletariat. In this age of imperative struggle, why should we be compelled to give the capitalist-imperialist bourgeoisie, which is the most ferocious, deceitful, and bloodthirsty class known to history, their own party? There should be no bourgeoisie party or right-wing party because giving more power to them goes completely against class struggle.

As for them contaminating, that seems extremely unlikely, as they will have been purged or otherwise had their state power and wealth completely stripped. This whole fraud of bourgeoisie democracy, which is continuously conducted on broad proportions, is camouflaged with false slogans about “freedom,” “democracy,” “human rights,” etc., especially during electoral campaigns. At the same time, the bourgeoisie in the other capitalist and imperialist countries will be sharpening their claws—the army, the police, the secret services and the courts. The last thing we need is to give them power in our own country.

The vanguard of the working class must become the sole political leading force of the state and society. Post-Stalin, the Soviet revisionists tried such pluralism by calling their party the "party of the entire people" and reduced it to such a condition that it could no longer be the party of the working class, but the party of the new Soviet bourgeoisie.

And, if Stalinism is the continuation of Lenin's policies, I can't think of a better reason to dump Marxist Leninism in the dustbin of history and may it rot there permanently. How many millions died or were sent to Siberia at the whim of Comrade Stalin and his ilk?
Same ole’ song and dance. A revolution killed bourgeoisie. How bloody horrible.

[kromando33]

It's anti-communists like Plymoth who ultimately mourn the loss of their dead bourgeois 'comrades'....