Mob justice and the vanguard

[bezdomni]

Does anybody else think it is telling that both Kromando and spartan are encouraging mob rule?

[spartan]

Does anybody else think it is telling that both Kromando and spartan are encouraging mob rule?

Ah yes because the people need to be led by the precious vanguard. who know whats best for everyone, right?

Sorry but that was tried and has failed in every country that it was tried in.

And if Direct Democracy is "mob rule" then so be it.

[Dros]

Ah yes because the people need to be led by the precious vanguard. who know whats best for everyone, right?

Sorry but that was tried and has failed in every country that it was tried in.

And if Direct Democracy is "mob rule" than so be it.


I wish you luck trying to make revolution without a Vanguard. I dare say you are going to need it.

[kromando33]

It wouldn't even get to the organizational stage, yet alone a revolution.

[spartan]

It wouldn't even get to the organizational stage, yet alone a revolution.

If a movement has the support of an overwhelming majority of the people, then organizing wont be needed.

That is why these revolutions, led by vanguards, established states that eventually failed.

Only a movement that has the support of a minority of people would form a vanguard, because they no that they need to establish their rule over everyone else (More often than not without their consent).

[kromando33]

If a movement has the support of an overwhelming majority of the people, then organizing wont be needed.

That is why these revolutions, led by vanguards, established states that eventually failed.

Only a movement that has the support of a minority of people would form a vanguard, because they no that they need to establish their rule over everyone else (More often than not without their consent).
Sorry to put a damper on your naive idealism, but the proletariat can easily be deceived by the bourgeois and turned against their own interests, it requires a political vanguard to coordinate effectively the proletariat. Take Russia for example, most of the peasants were illiterate, ignorant and superstitious, it took the vanguard to be able to guide them in the right direction.

[spartan]

Sorry to put a damper on your naive idealism, but the proletariat can easily be deceived by the bourgeois and turned against their own interests, it requires a political vanguard to coordinate effectively the proletariat.

The Proletariats arent dogs you know?

So stop treating us as if we need masters all the time.


Take Russia for example, most of the peasants were illiterate, ignorant and superstitious, it took the vanguard to be able to guide them in the right direction.

Yes but that isnt the case for the majority of people in say western Europe anymore.

[kromando33]

The Proletariats arent dogs you know?

So stop treating us as if we need masters all the time.

Yes but that isnt the case for the majority of people in say western Europe anymore.
Again, your assuming that everyone has equal education and financial resources and the free time to organize in such a way, it simply makes sense to have a group of professional revolutionaries who can devote all their time and effort to organizing the proletariat, as a centralized point of contact if you will. The same argument against your grassroots 'socialism' can be extended to direct democracy, the workers under a bourgeois system simply do not have the time to be able to devote to the revolution, they must use this time to work to feed their families etc, and it also stands to reason that they also have other responsibilities and obligations to attend to.

[al8]

Sorry to put a damper on your naive idealism, but the proletariat can easily be deceived by the bourgeois and turned against their own interests, it requires a political vanguard to coordinate effectively the proletariat. Take Russia for example, most of the peasants were illiterate, ignorant and superstitious, it took the vanguard to be able to guide them in the right direction.

Yes, that was then. But now people are more literate. Doesn't that imply that the vanguard is a bit on the obsolete side?

[kromando33]

Yes, that was then. But now people are more literate. Doesn't that imply that the vanguard is a bit on the obsolete side?
No not really, education is just one issue, my point is about coordination of the movement, and the issue of time, as my post above proves.

Also, regarding the point of 'mob justice', not sure what your point is but we Marxists should be struggling against bourgeois Jurisprudence and the establishment of a law code which protects the proletarian classocracy above all things, just as the current legal systems in the world preserve the bourgeois.

[Lynx]

It is very likely that a future revolution will be led by a vanguard.

[kromando33]

It is very likely that a future revolution will be led by a vanguard.
I'd say that's almost inevitable considering that ones without a vanguard will never happen because strictly speaking they aren't a movement, non-vanguard actions are characterized by spontaneous outbursts against the bourgeois conditions, ad hoc protests from secondary (rather than primary) causes, for example wage drop reactions from the workers, police crackdowns on a picket etc, these things represent the symptoms of bourgeois capitalism but not the disease itself.

Without a vanguard to give central purpose to a movement it's just random reactions to various things, it has no objective or purpose, no forward direction. For this reason non-vanguard events are inherently opportunistic, it's kinda a 'oppose the corrupt officials but not the Emperor' phenomenon that Mao mentioned, they don't realize that it's the whole edifice of capitalism which causes worker oppression, not the local bosses etc.

Non-vanguard events may produce short-term reprieves from the 'rough edges of capitalism', such as lower wages, but it never opposes capitalism in full. We must differentiate ourselves from these 'grassroots' movements by the fact that we want revolution in full and not reform in short.

The intellengencia is not a class, it's a strata, as are administrators (bureucrats), soldiers etc, it's simply a coordination of different members of society for different tasks, anyone who thinks this is something sinister should stop reading Trotskite conspiracy papers and come back to reality.

[LSD]

Sorry to put a damper on your naive idealism, but the proletariat can easily be deceived by the bourgeois and turned against their own interests

And it can also be deceived by a "vanguard", or should I say professional politico's claiming to be that "vanguard".

'Cause really, this whole "vanguard" dispute is more of a distraction than anything else.

In strict Marxist terms, the vanguard is merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation. As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

A "vanguard party" however is precisely the opposite. It does have an organizational manifestation and it does (or at least it intends to) excersize authority. As the "voice" of the "vanguard", and therefore the entire working class, the "vanguard party" sees its role as that of the "dictator" in the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Personally, I would suggest for all my Anarchist and left-communist comrades, forget about the "vanguard" debate, it really isn't where you should be spending your energies. You will only end up in this kind of circular mess because what you're thinking of as the "vanguard" is not what a Leninist means by that term.

The central conflict between the "old" Leninist and the "new" "ultra leftists" is not over the esoteric political science question of "vanguards", it's over the flesh and blood political question of "vanguard parties". It's important that we keep that distinction clear in our minds. We're never going to convince Leninsts that there "shouldn't be a vanguard". Such a notion is antithetical to their entire class understanding.

Occasionaly, though we might just be able to convince a couple that that vanguard does not need a "leading party" to rule it. Accordingly, that's where we should focus our efforts in such conversations.


it simply makes sense to have a group of professional revolutionaries who can devote all their time and effort to organizing the proletariat

And once the revolution takes off, will these "professionals" who've "devoted all their time and effort" simply stand back and allow the proletariat to make its own decisions?

Will they allow all their "hard work" to be "squandered" by "illiterate" and "uneducated" commoners? Or will they perhaps ensure that they have a means of "leading" post-revolutionary society? Will they perhaps set up a "transitional government" of some sort, with themselves in charge?

Those are rhetorical questions, by the way, 'cause we know what "professional revolutionaries" do in that situation, we have 100 years of "professional" revolutions to look at and in every single case the "professionals" have done exactly the same thing.

"Vanguard parties" promise liberation once they've been placed in power. We are expected to "trust" that when they become the bosses, things will "get better". The problem with this equation, however, is that it ignores the material basis of class relations. Once the "leadership" of a party is firmly in control, that leadership becomes the new rulling class.

Not the class that it supposedly "represents", but the party elite itself.

That's why every Leninist revolution has failed so spectacularly, that's why despite the dedication and best wishes of Communist leaders throughout history, the workers have yet to actually gain power anywhere.

For a proletarian revolution to actually succeed, it must be a liberating process in itself. It must begin and end with the workers on the ground and it must be predicated on worker self-managment and motility. Communism is about more than a change in government, it's about a change in governance; it's about replacing top-down coercion with participatory democracy.

And that's somewhere to which no one can "lead" us.


Take Russia for example, most of the peasants were illiterate, ignorant and superstitious, it took the vanguard to be able to guide them in the right direction.

Yeah... how's Russia doing these days again?

[kromando33]

Ahh yes, 'self-management', sorry but your naive idea has already tried and it ended in sectarianism and civil war, it split the solidarity of the workers in half. It's actually quite amazing that a 'new generation' of unconscious Titoists are arising again.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Yeah... how's Russia doing these days again?


If they were to take your rationale, Russia would have been divided up amongst imperial powers by now.

What anarchists propose simply isn't feasible in real life. For centuries, people have lived under various forms of society that prevent the masses from controlling their own affairs. You cannot expect people that have never experienced democracy to be model democrats just because the previous ruling class has been overthrown. Wherever there is no state apparatus, people must be willing to do that job on their own- that is the responsibility that goes along with freedom. Don't want a military in the capitalist sense? This means that everyone will have to serve. Don't want police? Community citizens will have to do the job. Don't want some party careerist to be running everything? Citizens will have to expect to serve in some public service position at some point in their life.

A vanguard party is necessary, even in these times. But I should stress that in socialist Albania, they took this concept further than the socialists in Russia. For one thing, at one point 33% of the Albanian CC was female. Albania made greater strides toward female equality by getting them involved in the affairs of state. Also, the Party of Labor of Albania encouraged party members, including government officials, to take time doing productive work of various sorts, to keep them connected to the people they were leading. This is extremely important. Albania also managed to fight differentials far better than the USSR did even during the socialist period.

What this experience, the achievements of past socialist societies, and the help of modern technological advances in computers and networking technology(this is essential to building a better planned economy that would eliminate many of the "bottlenecks" that create inequalities and bureaucracy), it will be possible to make a "greater leap" toward Communism- in other words, the new socialism will be closer to a Communist society and the transition will be far shorter.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Ah yes because the people need to be led by the precious vanguard. who know whats best for everyone, right?

Sorry but that was tried and has failed in every country that it was tried in.

And if Direct Democracy is "mob rule" then so be it.

This is the kind of paranoid think that is so common among anarchist. That that "vanguard" means the people in the vanguard are supposedly smarter than everyone so they get to tell people what to do. This confuses the term leadership with command or authority. There is a big difference.

Intelligence is not the key factor, experience and class consciousness are far more important. Any time you use the benefits of your experience to help someone become politically minded, even if that means exposing them to anarchism, you are in a way 'leading' them. Motivating them to take a position that they didn't have before. Leadership is showing examples and motivating people to do things on their own, not simply telling them what to do.

And as for your mob rule comment, weren't you just pointing out that popular doesn't equal right in another thread? Of course at face value that is true, but you were comparing the facts I gave about the majority of people in the Soviet Union to the people of Nazi Germany, ignoring the obvious differences in both scenarios.

[Kitskits]

Imagine trying to realize a revolution in an islamic country without a vanguard. Ok simply it won't be a Marxist revolution because of the huge idealism of the masses. A vanguard could lead them through materialist analysis.

[KC]

Ah yes because the people need to be led by the precious vanguard. who know whats best for everyone, right?

Straw man.


Sorry but that was tried and has failed in every country that it was tried in.

Every revolution with the goal of bringing about communist society has failed, so therefore by your logic all theory is wrong.


And if Direct Democracy is "mob rule" then so be it.

Direct democracy is incredibly inefficient. Not only that, but it's ultimately impossible as well as it requires a fully conscious, aware, alert and knowledgeable body of participants 100% of the time.


If a movement has the support of an overwhelming majority of the people, then organizing wont be needed.

Wow, so organization is completely unnecessary?:rolleyes:

Have you ever worked on any single political issue at all, ever?

Issues don't just suddenly become popular. It takes publicizing the issue, educating people on it, organizing them to support it, etc...

You should really start doing some political work before you discuss theory anymore, because it's quite obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.


The Proletariats arent dogs you know?

Stop straw manning. Do you deny the fact that people can't be deceived by those in power? Do you know a worker that supports the war or the administration, for example? If so, then you should've answered that first question as no, and then should retract your response to kromando.


Yes but that isnt the case for the majority of people in say western Europe anymore.

The vast majority of people are still ignorant. Not much has changed.


It is very likely that a future revolution will be led by a vanguard.

It's inevitable; every movement in history has been/is led by a vanguard.


In strict Marxist terms, the vanguard is merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation. As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

LSD, thank you for being one of the few people intelligent enough to make this distinction! I disagree with most of what you say but really respect you for being so open and honest.

[spartan]

Stop straw manning. Do you deny the fact that people can't be deceived by those in power?

The trick is to have no more people in positions of power who can deceive you anymore.


It's inevitable; every movement in history has been/is led by a vanguard.

Yeah and look where all of them have led us to, Capitalism!

[KC]

The trick is to have no more people in positions of power who can deceive you anymore.

You didn't answer the question. Here's what happened:

1. Kromando stated that the proletariat can be deceived by those in power.
2. You replied stating that "proletarians aren't dogs," implying that you disagree with his statement.
3. I replied to you asking you if you think people can be deceived by those in power and gave a simple example to show you the ridiculousness of your position.

So stop trying to maneuver out of answering the question and address what I actually said.


Yeah and look where all of them have led us to, Capitalism!

I already addressed this:

"Every revolution with the goal of bringing about communist society has failed, so therefore by your logic all theory is wrong."

Also, I was talking about all movements, not just political movements. Every single movement has a vanguard.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

The trick is to have no more people in positions of power who can deceive you anymore.

Yeah and look where all of them have led us to, Capitalism!

For a guy who likes to decide what movements "have anything" to do with Marxism, this is a strange comment. Without capitalism, socialism and Communism would be impossible. Capitalism allowed for certain advances in technology, demographics, and politics that make it possible to move to socialism and then Communism. Remember what Marx wrote about capitalism creating its own gravediggers? That's the proletariat. A revolution to abolish class society could not have been carried out in previous class-societies.

[spartan]

You didn't answer the question. Here's what happened:

1. Kromando stated that the proletariat can be deceived by those in power.
2. You replied stating that "proletarians aren't dogs," implying that you disagree with his statement.

Actually the deceiving part was in the quote that i copied, but i was actually answering the last part of that quote where Kromando33 said that the Proletarians needed a vanguard to coordinate them in a revolution (Which i disagreed with).

Here it is (I will highlight the section that i was responding to):


Sorry to put a damper on your naive idealism, but the proletariat can easily be deceived by the bourgeois and turned against their own interests, it requires a political vanguard to coordinate effectively the proletariat.

[KC]

Actually the deceiving part was in the quote that i copied, but i was actually answering the last part of that quote where Kromando33 said that the Proletarians needed a vanguard to coordinate them in a revolution (Which i disagreed with).

In that case I'll refer back to the first post I made in this thread:

"Wow, so organization is completely unnecessary?:rolleyes:

Have you ever worked on any single political issue at all, ever?

Issues don't just suddenly become popular. It takes publicizing the issue, educating people on it, organizing them to support it, etc...

You should really start doing some political work before you discuss theory anymore, because it's quite obvious that you don't know what you're talking about."

[Lynx]

Yes it does appear inevitable that a vanguard will be necessary. To avoid a vanguard as some have described it, is to have different conditions at the time of revolution than was observed historically. What are the odds of achieving 'optimal' conditions?

[spartan]

"Wow, so organization is completely unnecessary?:rolleyes:

Organization is alright.

Its the vanguard party that i have the problem with.

There is always going to be one section of the working class (Usually a minority like us at revleft for example) who are going to be much more enlightened on most issues regarding Socialism.

Now i have no problem with that minority of people (Who are more in the know then the majority) being responsible for educating and organizing, but they shouldnt hold any more power than Joe Bloggs the local mechanic.

It is when these vanguards form themselves into parties, that take all power when the workers have achieved victory, that i have the problem with.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Now i have no problem with that minority of people (Who are more in the know then the majority) being responsible for educating and organizing, but they shouldnt hold any more power than Joe Bloggs the local mechanic.

It is when these vanguards form themselves into parties, that take all power when the workers have achieved victory, that i have the problem with.

Why should the people with less knowledge and experience, in the time shortly after a revolution, have the same amount of power as those that are part of the vanguard, aside from deciding certain limited issues? The job of the vanguard is to get the masses to enlighten themselves, as time goes on it recruits from the masses.

[spartan]

Why should the people with less knowledge and experience, in the time shortly after a revolution, have the same amount of power as those that are part of the vanguard, aside from deciding certain limited issues?

Oh i dont know, Socialism?


The job of the vanguard is to get the masses to enlighten themselves, as time goes on it recruits from the masses.

Yeah but it never really worked out that way did it?

[kromando33]

Spartan, your following the same post-91 'socialism has failed' line that all the 'new left' do, how about you make up your own mind and stop buying into the bourgeois version of history, I understand it's easy to feel disheartened about the communist movement, but that's no reason to fall into the bourgeois trap.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Oh i dont know, Socialism?

We've already seen how bizarre your definition of socialism is. What you are advocating here is an inefficient, unlikely system all in the name of some idealistic utopian definition of socialism. Do you realize that most workers at the time of the 1917 revolution were illiterate? Are you saying that they should have had equal authority with members of the vanguard who were able to see th big picture? And did that vanguard not build the Soviet educational system which helped eliminate that crucial barrier?



Yeah but it never really worked out that way did it?

That kind of logic would have killed so many inventions throughout history. This is like equating the Wright brothers plane to any number of ridiculous flying machine inventions which simply sailed right off a cliff into the ground nose first, and using that rational to reject aviation. Some socialist revolutions got further than others. Sometimes one revisionist country did something better than another, and on a few occasions you might find that a particular revisionist country did a certain thing better than an actual socialist country. From all these things one must learn.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Spartan, your following the same post-91 'socialism has failed' line that all the 'new left' do, how about you make up your own mind and stop buying into the bourgeois version of history, I understand it's easy to feel disheartened about the communist movement, but that's no reason to fall into the bourgeois trap.

The ironic thing about the new left is that because of their acceptance of the standard bourgeois narrative, their solution to the 91 collapse is to actually give more support to the kind of reformist or market-socialist policies that led to that collapse in the first place, unable to figure out that there were many disagreements and factions amongst socialist countries, and they were not simply run the same way from 1924 on out.

[KC]

Its the vanguard party that i have the problem with.

No, it was the vanguard that you were attacking. You're now shifting your argument.


Yeah but it never really worked out that way did it?

Yes it did. How do you think the Bolsheviks were able to become a mass party? Do you even know how the RSDLP and the later Bolshevik party were organized, or how democratic they actually were? Or was Lenin some kind of dictator that told everyone what to do and how to think?

[spartan]

The ironic thing about the new left is that because of their acceptance of the standard bourgeois narrative, their solution to the 91 collapse is to actually give more support to the kind of reformist or market-socialist policies that led to that collapse in the first place, unable to figure out that there were many disagreements and factions amongst socialist countries, and they were not simply run the same way from 1924 on out.

Who pissed in your brain?

Anyone who thinks that the anti-Stalinists are for Market-Socialism or Reformism has their head so far up their arse that they are unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction.

[spartan]

No, it was the vanguard that you were attacking. You're now shifting your argument.

Well i meant the vanguard party.


Yes it did. How do you think the Bolsheviks were able to become a mass party? Do you even know how the RSDLP and the later Bolshevik party were organized, or how democratic they actually were? Or was Lenin some kind of dictator that told everyone what to do and how to think?

Early twentieth century Russia was a unique situation granted.

Which is why building Socialism from the ruins of a society inbetween Feudalism and Capitalism, produced the underwhelming results that it eventually did.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Anyone who thinks that the anti-Stalinists are for Market-Socialism or Reformism has their head so far up their arse that they are unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction.


So Tito was a "Stalinist"? Khruschev? Brezhnev? Gorbachev? Nagy, Kadar, etc.?

Of course you ultra-leftists say you are not reformists, but you're all or nothing utopian ideas cause you to constantly attack those who do make real changes.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Which is why building Socialism from the ruins of a society inbetween Feudalism and Capitalism, produced the underwhelming results that it eventually did.

UNDERWHELMING RESULTS? And you were claiming I have a problem with judging reality? This is what happens when you get your Soviet history from Orwell. Let's look at those underwhelming results again:

1. Eliminating illiteracy.
2. Women's rights
3. Universal healthcare
4. Free education
5. Childcare in the workplace
6. Ultra-cheap housing and transportation
7. industrialization in roughly ten years, in the middle of a worldwide depression.
8. Support of numerous national liberation revolutions.
9. First satellite and man in space.
10. Turned out more engineers at one point than the US and Germany combined.
11. Defeated the strongest military power in Europe and its allies.
12. Rebuilt the economy in record time after the most devastating war of the 20th century.
13. Doubled the lifespan of its citizens in unprecendented time.
14. Put entire nations on the map. Did you think all those Central Asian republics you see today had always been states? Ukraine and Belarus were also not formerly states of any kind for centuries.


Need I go on? "Underwhelming results." Laughable.

[spartan]

UNDERWHELMING RESULTS? And you were claiming I have a problem with judging reality? This is what happens when you get your Soviet history from Orwell. Let's look at those underwhelming results again:

1. Eliminating illiteracy.
2. Women's rights
3. Universal healthcare
4. Free education
5. Childcare in the workplace
6. Ultra-cheap housing and transportation
7. industrialization in roughly ten years, in the middle of a worldwide depression.
8. Support of numerous national liberation revolutions.
9. First satellite and man in space.
10. Turned out more engineers at one point than the US and Germany combined.
11. Defeated the strongest military power in Europe and its allies.
12. Rebuilt the economy in record time after the most devastating war of the 20th century.
13. Doubled the lifespan of its citizens in unprecendented time.
14. Put entire nations on the map. Did you think all those Central Asian republics you see today had always been states? Ukraine and Belarus were also not formerly states of any kind for centuries.

That is all social and economical progress.

What has any of this got to do with Socialism?


Need I go on? "Underwhelming results." Laughable.

The above 14 points and your attempt at equating it with Socialism was laughable.

Any society that had just come from Feudalism and implemets these things can be seen as progressive, but that doesnt make it Socialist (Far from it in the USSR's case).

[KC]

Well i meant the vanguard party.

Then say vanguard party. The two concepts are completely different. Now, since we've got that over with, do you support the organization of the vanguard with the purpose of educating the proletariat and bringing it to a state of class consciousness, or do you think the vanguard shouldn't organize itself?


Which is why building Socialism from the ruins of a society inbetween Feudalism and Capitalism, produced the underwhelming results that it eventually did.

Which leads me to repeat myself once again:

"Every revolution with the goal of bringing about communist society has failed, so therefore by your logic all theory is wrong."

Also, what do you propose the Russian working class have done? Do you think it would have been impossible for them to build socialism?


UNDERWHELMING RESULTS? And you were claiming I have a problem with judging reality? This is what happens when you get your Soviet history from Orwell. Let's look at those underwhelming results again:

1. Eliminating illiteracy.
2. Women's rights
3. Universal healthcare
4. Free education
5. Childcare in the workplace
6. Ultra-cheap housing and transportation
7. industrialization in roughly ten years, in the middle of a worldwide depression.
8. Support of numerous national liberation revolutions.
9. First satellite and man in space.
10. Turned out more engineers at one point than the US and Germany combined.
11. Defeated the strongest military power in Europe and its allies.
12. Rebuilt the economy in record time after the most devastating war of the 20th century.
13. Doubled the lifespan of its citizens in unprecendented time.
14. Put entire nations on the map. Did you think all those Central Asian republics you see today had always been states? Ukraine and Belarus were also not formerly states of any kind for centuries.


Need I go on? "Underwhelming results." Laughable.

He claims the results were underwhelming because it didn't produce communism; he doesn't know how to look at a revolution that hasn't succeeded in that and find out what went wrong while at the same time finding out what was done correctly. This is due to his position that "Leninism/Bolshevism" is bad and therefore it cannot produce something positive (which is why you hear so many "anti-Leninists" rail against the negatives of the revolution while you hear so few discuss the positives, and generally when they do it's with a dismissive tone - i.e. "Well they did do that well, but look at all this other bad shit they did!" Labeling anything as "bad" inevitably produces such results.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

He claims the results were underwhelming because it didn't produce communism; he doesn't know how to look at a revolution that hasn't succeeded in that and find out what went wrong while at the same time finding out what was done correctly. This is due to his position that "Leninism/Bolshevism" is bad and therefore it cannot produce something positive (which is why you hear so many "anti-Leninists" rail against the negatives of the revolution while you hear so few discuss the positives, and generally when they do it's with a dismissive tone - i.e. "Well they did do that well, but look at all this other bad shit they did!" Labeling anything as "bad" inevitably produces such results.


A common belief among those people who were lucky enough to be born into a privileged nation. Funny how people like that discount the very real accomplishments of a society that at least began the approach to Communism and lasted many decades, while the kinds of methods and ideals they support couldn't create a society lasting more than a year at best in almost every case.

It's like the anarchists who claim that socialism doesn't work because of what happened in 91, while they could never even get their revolution off the ground without getting crushed within a short period of time- at which point they claim to have been betrayed by the Communists, and crushed by the overwhelming force of the opposition. Bolsheviks faced overwhelming support in the Civil War and WWII, and somehow managed to survive. Anarchists never did, but they like to dismiss Communism while never owning up to their 100% failure rate.

[kromando33]

Who pissed in your brain?

Anyone who thinks that the anti-Stalinists are for Market-Socialism or Reformism has their head so far up their arse that they are unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction.
Actually that's exactly what 'anti-Stalinists' stand for, by buying into the bourgeois (McCarthyist and Nazi) myths created around comrade Stalin, they are actively conforming and letting the bourgeois write down history as they like it, poisoning countless potential comrades with bourgeois propaganda against comrade Stalin.

To oppose Stalin and his proletarianization and his immense work for worker power, is to reject Marxism itself, because Marxism is the natural source of Stalin's work for building socialism.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Actually that's exactly what 'anti-Stalinists' stand for, by buying into the bourgeois (McCarthyist and Nazi) myths created around comrade Stalin, they are actively conforming and letting the bourgeois write down history as they like it, poisoning countless potential comrades with bourgeois propaganda against comrade Stalin.

To oppose Stalin and his proletarianization and his immense work for worker power, is to reject Marxism itself, because Marxism is the natural source of Stalin's work for building socialism.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c35/jpslovjanski/selfmanagethis.jpg

HOXHOWNED!!!1

[Cryotank Screams]

And it can also be deceived by a "vanguard", or should I say professional politico's claiming to be that "vanguard".

'Cause really, this whole "vanguard" dispute is more of a distraction than anything else.

In strict Marxist terms, the vanguard is merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation. As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

A "vanguard party" however is precisely the opposite. It does have an organizational manifestation and it does (or at least it intends to) excersize authority. As the "voice" of the "vanguard", and therefore the entire working class, the "vanguard party" sees its role as that of the "dictator" in the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Personally, I would suggest for all my Anarchist and left-communist comrades, forget about the "vanguard" debate, it really isn't where you should be spending your energies. You will only end up in this kind of circular mess because what you're thinking of as the "vanguard" is not what a Leninist means by that term.

The central conflict between the "old" Leninist and the "new" "ultra leftists" is not over the esoteric political science question of "vanguards", it's over the flesh and blood political question of "vanguard parties". It's important that we keep that distinction clear in our minds. We're never going to convince Leninsts that there "shouldn't be a vanguard". Such a notion is antithetical to their entire class understanding.

Occasionaly, though we might just be able to convince a couple that that vanguard does not need a "leading party" to rule it. Accordingly, that's where we should focus our efforts in such conversations.

I could not agree with you more, very well put comrade!