The Vanguard Party

[Bastable]

is the vanguard party, by definition, organized on the lines of "democratic Centralization"?

If so, does it have to be? or could there be another way of doing it?

[Unicorn]

is the vanguard party, by definition, organized on the lines of "democratic Centralization"?
Yes, democratic centralism.



If so, does it have to be? or could there be another way of doing it?
No. Otherwise the party becomes crippled by factions or undemocratic.

[RebelDog]

The 'vanguard party' is a means of controlling the working class much less 'emancipating' them. Any political party is in reality a machine of control over the working class because they rely on the state to exist and the state is an anathema where working class emancipation is concerned. The state and the party exists because interests that are not working class interests have power.

[Bastable]

The 'vanguard party' is a means of controlling the working class much less 'emancipating' them. Any political party is in reality a machine of control over the working class because they rely on the state to exist and the state is an anathema where working class emancipation is concerned. The state and the party exists because interests that are not working class interests have power.

yes that's largely what i think, i was just wondering if there was another way of doing it that didn't cause the proletariat to just be exploited in another way. what i'm saying is, could it be possible to use a Vanguard like mechanism to bring about the revolution, skipping the intermediary state stage?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Uneven Development of Class Consciousness (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1127548&postcount=56)

“Unity in Action, Freedom of Discussion and Criticism”: Circumstantial Discussive Unity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html)

[Bastable]

interesting, although you didn't answer me on whether a 'socialist state' is inherently necessary before communism.

also, how does the vanguard interact with the working class directly? to me the most efficient way would be to form workers councils on the lines of Anton Pannekoek, with the vanguard advising but not commanding.

and another question, who makes up the vanguard? workers or intellectuals?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your original question pertained only to democratic centralism. I responded accordingly.


also, how does the vanguard interact with the working class directly? to me the most efficient way would be to form workers councils on the lines of Anton Pannekoek, with the vanguard advising but not commanding.

Pannekoek was a reductionist "ultra-left" idiot:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1049042&postcount=37

[Read in particular the vastly superior proposal of comrade Razlatzki.]


and another question, who makes up the vanguard? workers or intellectuals?

^^^ Uh, modern "intellectuals" are proletarians ( :glare: ):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

[Read in particular the lengthy Kautsky quote and the two paragraphs above it.]

[BobKKKindle$]

A vanguard party necessary. The need for a party arises because of the uneven level of political development amongst the working class. The main section of the working class is only capable of attaining trade-union consciousness, which means they are limited to demands for improvements within the framework of the capitalist system, they are not able to understand how we might be able to organize society in a different way, and may be affected by ideas such as racism which give them a distorted view of the world. However, there is also a section of the working class which has an advanced understanding of how workers are exploited under capitalism, and is capable of fighting for revolutionary change. This section is the vanguard, and forms the basis of the revolutionary party.


and another question, who makes up the vanguard? workers or intellectuals?

Do some reading on Gramsci's "organic intellectuals" starting with this post I made in the Trot forum:


What do you understand the term "intellectual" to mean? Gramsci argued that the working class gives rise to "organic" intellectuals who are able to give expression to the collective interests of their class, and are the "thinking element" of their class, and so form the core of the proletarian vanguard. They differ from "traditional" intellectuals in that they do not see themselves as an autonomous group, but as firmly rooted within their class. However, students do not form part of this group [of organic intellectuals] as they are not workers, they are a social stratum in a state of transition.

If by "intellectual" you mean a student or a member of the ruling class who has chosen to defect, then, although these individuals may comprise part of the vanguard, it is wrong to say that they are the most important part or that they are of equal importance to Gramsci's organic intellectuals, as they do not have direct experience of life as a worker, nor are they active on the shop floor.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Pre-renegade Kautsky was far more accurate in my quote of him than Gramsci was in his formulation of "organic intellectuals." The modern "intellectual" is already a proletarian, but with petit-bourgeois delusions:


There is still a third category of proletarians that has gone far on the road to its complete development – the educated proletarians. Education has become a special trade under our present system. The measure of knowledge has increased greatly and grows daily. Capitalist society and the capitalist state are increasingly in need of men of knowledge and ability to conduct their business, in order to bring the forces of nature under their power […] Under this system education becomes a merchandise.

A hundred years or so ago this commodity was rare. There were few schools; study was accompanied with considerable expense. So long as small production could support him, the worker stuck to it; only special gifts of nature or favorable circumstances would cause the sons of the workers to dedicate themselves to the arts and sciences. Though there was an increasing demand for teachers, artists and other professional men, the supply was definitely limited.

Since those days the development of higher education has made immense progress. The number of institutions of learning has increased wonderfully, and in a still larger degree, the number of pupils.

[…]

The time is near when the bulk of these proletarians will be distinguished from the others only by their pretensions. Most of them still imagine that they are something better than proletarians. They fancy they belong to the bourgeoisie, just as the lackey identifies himself with the class of his master. They have ceased to be the leaders of the capitalist class and have become rather their defenders. Place-hunting takes more and more of their energies. Their first care is, not the development of their intellect, but the sale of it. The prostitution of their individuality has become their chief means of advancement.

[Bastable]

What you say makes a lot of sense, but i ask you this, would an international party be necessary, or should there be one for every state or region?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index3.html

Feel free to contribute to the material above.

[Unicorn]

If I may quote Leon Trotsky:

The party in the last analysis is always right
because the party is the single historic instrument given
to the proletariat for the solution of its fundamental
problems. I have already said that in front of one's
own party nothing could be easier than to say: all my
criticisms, my statements, my warnings, my protests --
the whole thing was a mere mistake. I, however, comrades,
cannot say that, because I do not think it. I know that
one must not be right against the party. One can be
right only with the party, and through the party, for
history has created no other road for the realization of
what is right.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

where is that quote from?

[Unicorn]

where is that quote from?
The 13th Soviet Party congress.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It may very well be sarcasm then, as Trotsky was being called up on his inability to maintain party discipline and rules.

Though by 1924 the organisational powers stalin had centred in himself meant that the leadership of stalin had culminated in a very worrying degree of a lack of internal party democracy.

During 1923, a year prior to the quote you provided, Trotsky constantly criticised the party leadership.

So, its just odd for Trotsky to say this, while he clearly didnt accept it. lol.

[Unicorn]

It may very well be sarcasm then, as Trotsky was being called up on his inability to maintain party discipline and rules.

Though by 1924 the organisational powers stalin had centred in himself meant that the leadership of stalin had culminated in a very worrying degree of a lack of internal party democracy.

During 1923, a year prior to the quote you provided, Trotsky constantly criticised the party leadership.

So, its just odd for Trotsky to say this, while he clearly didnt accept it. lol.
Wrong, Trotsky was just grovelling. It was not sarcasm.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Wrong, Trotsky was just grovelling. It was not sarcasm.

Haha maybe, but when faced with an undemocratic party, you might as well be sneaky.