Vanguard

[Bud Struggle]

I have a question on the Vanguard.

I seem to understand it is a "pre" Communist group of some sort. I also seem to believe that Communism could only "really" exist if the entire world is Communist and the vanguard is anything that is Communist that isn't the entire world communism.

Now was/is the SU or China or Cuba the vanguard--all are imperfect Communist countries in a non-Communist world? How about the CPUSA? or other national Communist parties?

Could the vanguard be even more local? Does it have to be "incharge" of something, or could it be just a local party. Does it have to be a party? Could RevLeft be a vanguard?

It doesn't have a real Marxist basis, from what I understand. Anyway--it's a somewhat confusing concept to me.

Thanks.

[Dean]

I have a question on the Vanguard.

I seem to understand it is a "pre" Communist group of some sort. I also seem to believe that Communism could only "really" exist if the entire world is Communist and the vanguard is anything that is Communist that isn't the entire world communism.

Now was/is the SU or China or Cuba the vanguard--all are imperfect Communist countries in a non-Communist world? How about the CPUSA? or other national Communist parties?

Could the vanguard be even more local? Does it have to be "incharge" of something, or could it be just a local party. Does it have to be a party? Could RevLeft be a vanguard?

It doesn't have a real Marxist basis, from what I understand. Anyway--it's a somewhat confusing concept to me.

Thanks.

The vanguard is supposed to be the spearhead of the movement. Since I believe in social change, rather than forced political change, I oppose vanguardism.

I guess yo ucould categorize states which are communist/socialist and revolutionary as vanguards, though I don't think I've heard that definition before. I think it is really a powerful a elite who "know best."

[spartan]

I think it is really a powerful a elite who "know best."

Agreed. If you havent read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" TomK then i recommend that you read it as it gives you a good blueprint for how most self-appointed vanguards usually turn out.

[RGacky3]

Could the vanguard be even more local? Does it have to be "incharge" of something, or could it be just a local party. Does it have to be a party? Could RevLeft be a vanguard?

Of coarse Leninists could answer that question better. But Lenin's Vanguard was a specific politcal party, now some say "well its anyone with class conscious taking a lead in revolution," I would respond to that saying that people with charisma, that are good at organizing arising naturally in a movement are a lot different then a specific political ground trying to take power and wielding power, which is what Lenin and all his copycats did.

Most Leninist parties in every country make claim to being the vanguard for that country, or the revolutionary leaders for that country. But in the words of the great Mr. Eugene Debs (One of the only Politicians I have any respect for)"

"if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition. "

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I partially addressed this topic in a debate with Led Zeppelin against democratic centralism, but the thread hasn't been moved into a public forum.

Leninists believe in democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) as a means of competing against political opposition. The Bolsheviks originally never planned to ban non-aligned political alliances, but the Civil War pitted almost every political party against another. Unfortunately, later models adopted a single-party platform. Trotsky later called the ban one primary reason for the succession of "Stalinism."

The vanguard was developed out of necessity. Most Russians couldn't write their legal names; even fewer had even heard about Marx, capitalism, and socialism. In fact a few years earlier Marx had been very skeptical about a successful worker revolution occurring in Russia; he was looking more towards America (90% "literacy" by the 1890s). From my understanding different Leninists argue over the merits of a vanguard in developed countries where access to information about any subject is a mouse click away.

[PRC-UTE]

The vanguard are the workers with the most advanced consciousness.

animal farm wasn't about the vanguard, it was about bureaucracy taking over. Orwell himself fought within a marxist vanguard party.

[Awful Reality]

I think it is really a powerful a elite who "know best."

Great, resident Social-Democrat, you just figuratively shot the proletarian movement. No, the vanguard is the part of the proletariat which has achieved class consciousness. It's not a bouregeois elite conspiracy. It's impossible for a revolution, or an election or whatever in your case, to succeed unless it has a leadership structure which directs and holds it together. But, seeing as you're clearly no Marxist, there's no point arguing this.

[Bud Struggle]

I guess there are a few differing opinions about it. Is there a vanguard now--or will it only come AFTER the revolution? Or will the Vanguard be the cause (or at least the spark) of the revolution?

[al8]

Well I do not concive the vanguard as being neccsisarily a small group of people prying for personal power through beaurocratic org skills. I consive of it in a larger yet more limited sense. The vanguard is simply the (initially) few people that are active, radical and class concious that are willing to fight for the cause. And are fully aware that it is the masses that make the revolution, not a rag-tag minority of eager revolutionaries. We are few, they are many.
So it's not about being a spearhead that leads the revolution in Leviathan way, as if the vanguard were a council replacing the head of a king -- But about being the spark that ignites the praire fire. Or if I continue the analogy; like fire technicians that make sure that there are enough flamible materials spread around to make a fire.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

http://www.swp.org.uk/ <- vangaudist ( sorry to put the swp in but they were the first i thoughrt off)

http://www.af-north.org/afed/index.html - non vangaurdist

Vangaurd - wants to lead the revolution and seize power
No vangaurd group - wants to encoruge people to have a revaltion and to encourge people to seiz power for the cause of the group.

[Kronos]

Here are two vanguard. Although it appears as if they are simply standing by the van in an affectionate position, they are actually watching over the van while their friend, the driver, is calling a tow-truck. They experienced a flat tire earlier, and are on the bad side of town. There is much looting in this area.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-17896346.jpg?size=572&uid=%7B38C2C5D4-ABB6-4B89-8D94-D5CBB59571E7%7D

[RGacky3]

The vanguard are the workers with the most advanced consciousness.

animal farm wasn't about the vanguard, it was about bureaucracy taking over. Orwell himself fought within a marxist vanguard party.

If thats what the Vanguard is, then the Vanguard is'nt a realy organization or entity, its just a classification of people, like a poll or something.

The fact is every group or organization that has called itself the Vanguard has been a specific group of people organized in a hiarchical manner, trying to take over power in the state.

I say get rid of the whole concept of the vanguard, its pointless, unless your trying to set up a hiarchial organization to sieze state power, Vanguardism was a concept invented by Lenin, and we saw the fruits of that.

[RHIZOMES]

Agreed. If you havent read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" TomK then i recommend that you read it as it gives you a good blueprint for how most self-appointed vanguards usually turn out.

And you're supposed to be a Honeckerist? :rolleyes:

[KC]

I have a question on the Vanguard.

I seem to understand it is a "pre" Communist group of some sort. I also seem to believe that Communism could only "really" exist if the entire world is Communist and the vanguard is anything that is Communist that isn't the entire world communism.

The vanguard is that section of the movement that is most advanced and which leads it through education, agitation and helping bring the mass of the class towards consciousness.

Every movement has a vanguard.

It is important to note, though, that the vanguard is a distinct and separate concept than the vanguard party.


I guess there are a few differing opinions about it. Is there a vanguard now--or will it only come AFTER the revolution? Or will the Vanguard be the cause (or at least the spark) of the revolution?

Marx's position on the vanguard:

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

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


The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
-Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

[PRC-UTE]

If thats what the Vanguard is, then the Vanguard is'nt a realy organization or entity, its just a classification of people, like a poll or something.

The fact is every group or organization that has called itself the Vanguard has been a specific group of people organized in a hiarchical manner, trying to take over power in the state.

I say get rid of the whole concept of the vanguard, its pointless, unless your trying to set up a hiarchial organization to sieze state power, Vanguardism was a concept invented by Lenin, and we saw the fruits of that.

You're creating a false dichtomy; there's no reason that a vanguard of the most class conscious workers could not form a hierarchal political party/league/movement or whatever organisation they saw fit to implement their ideas concretely.

I think it's not an issue of whether or not it's pointless but more so that it is inevitable. Not everyone will attain the same consciousness at the same time, some will become confirmed and active revolutionary before others do. If everyone could attain the same consciousness at once, rather than in layers, capitalism would not be possible to begin with. It requires that the working class the vast majority of the time cannot see their own interests for it to function.

Class consciousness cannot solely be introduced artificially or 'inserted' into a workers mind, it has to be an organic developement as a result of struggle, coupled with education.

[Led Zeppelin]

I partially addressed this topic in a debate with Led Zeppelin against democratic centralism, but the thread hasn't been moved into a public forum.

I don't know if this was the case when you posted but it is now: Democratic Centralism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-t79028/index.html)

:)

[Dimentio]

I guess there are a few differing opinions about it. Is there a vanguard now--or will it only come AFTER the revolution? Or will the Vanguard be the cause (or at least the spark) of the revolution?

Basically, to my understanding, marxist-leninists (whether they are trotskyites or stalinists) use this following intellectual equation:


Concious Part of Working Class = Party.

But its a wholly pre-revolutionary construct.

[spartan]

And you're supposed to be a Honeckerist? :rolleyes:

It was my parody of the Hoxhaist Union, though it stuck and i quite like it now.

[Bud Struggle]

It was my parody of the Hoxhaist Union, though it stuck and i quite like it now.

Was that a parody? I though you were quite serious. (You never know around here. :rolleyes:)

It is pretty funny now that you mention it. :lol:

[RHIZOMES]

It was my parody of the Hoxhaist Union, though it stuck and i quite like it now.

So what is your real political ideology? I could've sworn you were some sort of Leninist...

[spartan]

So what is your real political ideology? I could've sworn you were some sort of Leninist...

My beliefs are not set in stone.

I am a Socialist i know that but what kind of a Socialist i myself dont fully know that yet. For example i dont like the idea of a vanguard party (History has shown us what usually happens when a group of self-important "know it alls" have free range over an entire state and how it's economy is run and it isnt usually pretty as it requires the suppression of Democracy) but i recognise that a "vanguard of the Proletariat" is a practical necessity to direct a revolution that isnt global in scale and if unorganised cant overwhelm a powerful state apparatus.

Things like worker's cooperatives, worker's council's and Syndicalism appeal to me and i guess that i could be described as a Libertarian Socialist or Democratic Socialist of sorts though i myself would never shut myself off from other left wing ideologies.

[RGacky3]

You're creating a false dichtomy; there's no reason that a vanguard of the most class conscious workers could not form a hierarchal political party/league/movement or whatever organisation they saw fit to implement their ideas concretely.

I think it's not an issue of whether or not it's pointless but more so that it is inevitable. Not everyone will attain the same consciousness at the same time, some will become confirmed and active revolutionary before others do. If everyone could attain the same consciousness at once, rather than in layers, capitalism would not be possible to begin with. It requires that the working class the vast majority of the time cannot see their own interests for it to function.

Class consciousness cannot solely be introduced artificially or 'inserted' into a workers mind, it has to be an organic developement as a result of struggle, coupled with education.

The concept of the Vanguard as a concrete group of people lends it self almost automatically to a hiarchical structure, because they are claiming to have more class concious, now if your saying that the Vanguard is not a concrete group, then its poinless to talk about them, its like talking about 'good' plumbers, only even more vague because class concsiousness is'nt as concrete as plumbing.

If your talking about people that have class consiousness trying to talk about to to those who don't, then yeah sure, thats natural, and I say its pointless to have a theory on it because its a given.

BUT the fact is the theory on it is an organized group of people claiming to have more class consiousness, and trying to convince the workers to follow them.

[Bud Struggle]

The Varguard seems to be the aristocracy of the proletariat.

[Kropotesta]

Orwell himself fought within a marxist vanguard party.
He also went on to say that he should have fought with the anarchists at the end of 'Homage to Catalonia'.

[RGacky3]

The Varguard seems to be the aristocracy of the proletariat.

Thats the best way to put it, and thus, no true communist should trust anyone calling themself a vanguard, its against communist principles. You got it Tomk.

[PRC-UTE]

The Varguard seems to be the aristocracy of the proletariat.

Nah, for one they're not more privelaged, if anything (although not by necessity) they're probably worse off to become more class conscious. The problem here is that as usual many are substituting polemics for real answers.

[RGacky3]

Nah, for one they're not more privelaged, if anything (although not by necessity) they're probably worse off to become more class conscious. The problem here is that as usual many are substituting polemics for real answers.

Well, the fact that they want to gain power, authority that they have, and others don't, means that the vanguard wants to become privilaged, after the revolution, by definition they have authority nad power that most others don't have, i.e. priviledged.

Also historically, most of those calling themselves a vanguard, hav'nt come from working class backgrounds, most were professionals of some sort, (not that that should matter, but based on their claim of 'representing' the working class, which no one can do, it does.)

Any theory of group intending to put authority in the power of a few over the many in the name of communism is a fraud. That includes Leninism and all its sprouts (Maoism, Trotskyism)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The popular misconception here is that Lenin developed "vanguardism" :(

More serious RevLefters who - for the wrong reasons - oppose "vanguardism" should check out some of the more recent, non-OI threads on the subject. :)

[La Comédie Noire]

The vanguard are the workers with the most advanced consciousness.

animal farm wasn't about the vanguard, it was about bureaucracy taking over. Orwell himself fought within a marxist vanguard party.


But no group in history(as far as I know) claiming to be the vanguard has ever been that. They've all been intellectuals, I'm talking about the top of the vanguard, the center of the party who dish out orders to lower party members.

So either:

A. They were mistaken or even worse, lied.

or

B. Your defenition of a Vanguard Party is wrong.

I like your defenition of the Vanguard though, sounds like real working class power.

[PRC-UTE]

Any theory of group intending to put authority in the power of a few over the many in the name of communism is a fraud. That includes Leninism and all its sprouts (Maoism, Trotskyism)

This isn't historically true that all Leninists were this way- look at the Workers' Opposition group within the CPSU who were borderline syndicalists, or the Cuban CP, which even its detractors admit has the active support and participation of the majority. Or the POUM to name another example.

You really can't judge an entire group by their label- you have to examine their actual policies.

And the main contribution of Leninism wasn't the conception of the party, but the analysis of imperialism and the necessity of defeating it to open room for workers and peasants revolution.

[PRC-UTE]

But no group in history(as far as I know) claiming to be the vanguard has ever been that. They've all been intellectuals, I'm talking about the top of the vanguard, the center of the party who dish out orders to lower party members.

So either:

A. They were mistaken or even worse, lied.

or

B. Your defenition of a Vanguard Party is wrong.

I like your defenition of the Vanguard though, sounds like real working class power.

But there are examples of vanguards made up of class conscious militant workers. You're basing your examination on who self-identified themselves as the vanguard. Look at the revolutionaries such as the Friends of Durruti Group, a small organisation that called for a junta to suppress the counter-revolutionaries. It doesn't matter that they considered themselves against Marxism, they acted like a vanguard.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, I'll go as far as to label the original German Social-Democratic Party as a "vanguard party." :D ;)

[RGacky3]

but the analysis of imperialism and the necessity of defeating it to open room for workers and peasants revolution.

Your right, I'm not however talking about the writings of Lenin, perse, I'm talking about the leninist style of revolution and governance.


look at the Workers' Opposition group within the CPSU who were borderline syndicalists, or the Cuban CP, which even its detractors admit has the active support and participation of the majority. Or the POUM to name another example.

POUM had a defined hiarchy and leadership, with central leaders making main desicions, also POUM never really gained much poewr, we don't know how they would have acted had they gained power.

The Cuban CP I agree includes a lot of participation and support, that being said, participation and support are different from real, practical authority and power.

Also the workers opposition I can't say was exactly a leninist organization, it was a faction working within a leninist government (Because that was their only option really), for more direct control by the workers.


But there are examples of vanguards made up of class conscious militant workers. You're basing your examination on who self-identified themselves as the vanguard. Look at the revolutionaries such as the Friends of Durruti Group, a small organisation that called for a junta to suppress the counter-revolutionaries. It doesn't matter that they considered themselves against Marxism, they acted like a vanguard.

The friends of Durruti never claimed any special position, nor did they wield, or attempt to wield and authority over people, so they did'nt act like a vanguard in the sense that people who call themselves vanguards do, and thats what we all mean by vanguard, other then that, the term is really pointless.

No one is against people agitating or using leadership skills to motivate people to revolution (whats not a theory thats just common sense), what I am against people claiming special positions, and wielding or trying to wield authority.

[La Comédie Noire]

But there are examples of vanguards made up of class conscious militant workers. You're basing your examination on who self-identified themselves as the vanguard. Look at the revolutionaries such as the Friends of Durruti Group, a small organisation that called for a junta to suppress the counter-revolutionaries. It doesn't matter that they considered themselves against Marxism, they acted like a vanguard.


Yeah, but the point I'm making is Democratic Centralism is bust.

[Green Dragon]

The Varguard seems to be the aristocracy of the proletariat.


The "aristcracy" doesn't seek to lead anyone in a particular direction. I don't think its a correct description.

The vanguard is a way for the revolution to deal with its basic problem- getting from "here" to "there."

Should the revolution be left to its own devices, it goes off in all different directions. That simply be cannot be judged as a desirable development. Wose still, is the revolutionary who declares he has all the appropriate sympathies and theories, but proudly states he will offer no assistance (ie the Debs quote elsewhere) to the downtrodden worker.

But the vanguard leads to what Rgacky states: total tyranny.

[Anarcho-Commie25]

The vanguard are the workers with the most advanced consciousness.

animal farm wasn't about the vanguard, it was about bureaucracy taking over. Orwell himself fought within a marxist vanguard party.

right, the vanguard is the inteligentsia of the movement. It is the backbone and support of the revolution. Without the vanguard party, the workers are confused and fail to bring the movement towards a unified cause.