Spontaneity, class consciousness, and "vanguardism"

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm


We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia.


Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without [von Aussen Hineingetragenes] and not something that arose within it spontaneously [urwüchsig]. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task.



First of all, let me say that I have a mixed stance on class consciousness, given my "professional worker" status and what Kautsky said about professional workers such as myself in my article on class relations (quoting The Class Struggle) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html):


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.

All of what I've thought about thus far I've done as a proletarian, and not a "bourgeois intellectual."

However, what I find interesting is this remark by his most notable disciple - Lenin - which for some reason is sorely needed by the modern working class (more "theory nuts," as Led Zeppelin put it :p ):


This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge. But in order that working men may succeed in this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “literature for workers” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature. It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known.



So, to cap:

1) Class consciousness can only arise spontaneously amongst a "vanguard" ("those from within the ranks of the proletariat who are already, under the present material conditions, in support of communism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-t79650/index.html)). The "bourgeois intelligentsia" is an ancient relic.

2) Without vanguardism, the masses of workers can ONLY develop not even "trade union consciousness," as Lenin POLEMICALLY put it, but worse: reductionist "nothing but the trade unions" consciousness. Therefore, if Marx meant self-emancipation en masse of the working class to occur at EVERY STEP of the revolutionary process, then he was dead wrong (like he was on binary class relations, on sectarianism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-wrong-sectarianism-t78284/index.html), etc.)!

3) Therefore, in Kautsky's words which pioneered vanguardism, "[the socialist movement] must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class-struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party." At times, "all in its power" refers merely to ADVISING the working-class masses. At certain critical times (and ONLY these times, I must emphasize), "all in its power" refers to LEADERSHIP. [To be sure, the final step in the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves. The hard part is: what other steps beforehand are best left to them, and what others are left to the organized vanguard?]

4) When the revolutionary process of bringing class consciousness to the masses of workers begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians" (Lenin).



Thoughts?

[Hyacinth]

1) Class consciousness can only arise spontaneously amongst a "vanguard" ("those from within the ranks of the proletariat who are already, under the present material conditions, in support of communism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-t79650/index.html)). The "bourgeois intelligentsia" is an ancient relic.

2) Without vanguardism, the masses of workers can ONLY develop not even "trade union consciousness," as Lenin POLEMICALLY put it, but worse: reductionist "nothing but the trade unions" consciousness. Therefore, if Marx meant self-emancipation en masse of the working class to occur at EVERY STEP of the revolutionary process, then he was dead wrong (like he was on binary class relations, on sectarianism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-wrong-sectarianism-t78284/index.html), etc.)!

3) Therefore, in Kautsky's words which pioneered vanguardism, "[the socialist movement] must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class-struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party." At times, "all in its power" refers merely to ADVISING the working-class masses. At certain critical times (and ONLY these times, I must emphasize), "all in its power" refers to LEADERSHIP. [To be sure, the final step in the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves. The hard part is: what other steps beforehand are best left to them, and what others are left to the organized vanguard?]

4) When the revolutionary process of bringing class consciousness to the masses of workers begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians" (Lenin).
Why? What makes the “vanguard” so specialist that only it is capable of attaining class consciousness? Why wouldn’t a sufficient change in the material conditions of most workers result in a change in their class consciousness?

Moreover, if the role of the vanguard is to “hasten the day” this hardly makes them necessary. One might admit that actions undertaken here and now might result in the working class reaching class consciousness sooner, but this hardly forces us to concede that the vanguard is a necessary component of the revolution, or that spontaneity cannot occur within the general working class.

Historically, as well, workers have proven themselves to be *more* revolutionary and progressive than any vanguard. The example of the Shanghai Commune; when the workers went too far ahead of what the central leadership wanted Mao had to send in the army to reign them in. Or the events of May 1968, another example where the ordinary working class was much further ahead than the supposed vanguard (if I recall correctly the French Communist Party didn’t back the students nor the general strike). Not to mention, May 1968 also serves as a good example of spontaneity amongst the working class as well.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why? What makes the “vanguard” so specialist that only it is capable of attaining class consciousness? Why wouldn’t a sufficient change in the material conditions of most workers result in a change in their class consciousness?

Comrade, the Great Depression rendered Lenin's polemical remark about "trade union consciousness" to be an overestimation, and confirmed the real meaning behind that remark ("nothing but the trade unions").


Historically, as well, workers have proven themselves to be *more* revolutionary and progressive than any vanguard. The example of the Shanghai Commune; when the workers went too far ahead of what the central leadership wanted Mao had to send in the army to reign them in. Or the events of May 1968, another example where the ordinary working class was much further ahead than the supposed vanguard (if I recall correctly the French Communist Party didn’t back the students nor the general strike). Not to mention, May 1968 also serves as a good example of spontaneity amongst the working class as well.

Actually, the Russian Revolution of 1905 too was "spontaneous," and so were the "July Days" (I think). The problem is that these were isolated events, and thus weren't successful. :(



[Following is the end to the intro of my work-in-progress.]

To this end, the concept of "class struggle" must be revisited. If a certain revolutionary Marxist were alive today, especially in the United States, he could very well have said this, quoting his theoretical mentor like he did in the middle of 1920:

In bygone days, when still standing on his head as the real founder of "Marxism" and not of renegacy, a theoretician commented undisputedly on the problems of class struggle in the United States (now applicable to other imperialist powers):

Just now Social Democracy had nowhere to struggle against such difficulties as in America. The disunion and petty jealousies among the different socialist organizations are if possible even greater than in England. While in the latter country these drawbacks have to a certain extent been balanced by great advances in the socialist consciousness of the proletariat, the mental effervescence lately to be seen in America has not yet led to a considerable advance of the socialist movement. On the contrary, some socialist organizations have lately even experienced a decline. Whether the fault lies in the American workers or in the socialists, whether the former are too limited and egoistical or the latter do not sufficiently understand the workers, or finally whether both are to be blamed for that situation — that is difficult to determine from here. It is clear that, just as such a situation demands criticism it must lead to particularly irritable reactions to it.

How well this founder, Karl Kautsky, wrote – over eleven decades ago!

[Hyacinth]

I can agree on the advisory and educational role of the vanguard (where by this all I mean those among the working class who have developed class consciousness; those at the forefront of class consciousness, so to speak) with no reservations. In fact, I think that is the task of us here, to try and educate the working classes here and now about both the everyday struggles that they face within the context of capitalist, as well as to show them that the problems they face are systemic and cannot and will not be resolved unless the system that is causing them is overthrown.

It is the leadership role of the vanguard that I’m more wary about. First of all, leadership produces followership; how can you expect the working class to be able to walk on its own two feet, to use that expression, if one is constantly leading them. But I’d like you to elaborate on what exactly do you mean by “leadership” in this context.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It's great to see you made this thread!

To start off, the quotes from Lenin and Kautsky regarding the origins of class consciousness coming from the bourgeois intelligentsia is total garbage. From my knowledge this is a view you likewise hold.

The intellectual, the individual who by their education and position within society, is the most likely to achieve class consciousness is largely speaking, today not a member of the bourgeoisie (as asserted by Kautsky and Lenin, but on the contrary a proletarian.


The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

Further, the notion that socialist class consciousness is imported from the bourgeoisie is fundamentally un-materialist. Lenin and Kautsky fail to explain to us what objective interest these bourgeois academics have in a socialist class consciousness and further fail to point out what interest these individuals have in spreading such a consciousness which - by their definition - aught to be against the objective class interests of these bourgeois academics!


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.

However, Kautsky does a virtual back flip here, correcting the garbage he advocate in the former quotation. Here he is correct in that, whilst many intellectuals fancy themselves more than the working class, their objective class interests are the same.


1) Class consciousness can only arise spontaneously amongst a "vanguard".

This is only mild note pertaining to the semantics but, class consciousness does not arise amongst the vanguard. The vanguard arises due to class consciousness (this is it's very definition, the members of the proletariat who hold a revolutionary class consciousness)


2) Without vanguardism, the masses of workers can ONLY develop not even "trade union consciousness," as Lenin POLEMICALLY put it, but worse: reductionist "nothing but the trade unions" consciousness.

We can not talk about hypothetical scenarios without vanguardism. Vanguardism is the direct product of the existing material conditions of capitalism and will thus always arise given such a society.


Therefore, if Marx meant self-emancipation en masse of the working class to occur at EVERY STEP of the revolutionary process, then he was dead wrong (like he was on binary class relations, on sectarianism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-wrong-sectarianism-t78284/index.html), etc.)!

How does this make sense? You have previously stated that the vanguard is the means by which the proletarian is able to emancipate itself. You have further gone on to say that intellectuals (who are today proletarians) are generally speaking the source of class consciousness. How then can you go on to say that the emancipation of the proletariat is anything but it's own self activity?


3) Therefore, in Kautsky's words which pioneered vanguardism, "[the socialist movement] must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class-struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party."

Oh my, what a reductionist trap you have fallen into Jacob! Kautsky's notion (and it seems your own as well) that the vanguard's role is the "hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself" is a terribly confused idea.

Such an understanding of the Vanguard and it's role, springs from a reductionist understanding of Historical Materialism, namely the interpretation that proletarian revolution is an inevitable reality. The question of revolution then becomes not one of if, but when.

Further; the task of the vanguard is not to hasten the inevitable. Rather it is the means by which the proletariat may emancipate itself, in this sense it make history and merely speeds up the inevitable.

This may just be a matter of semantics, but it confuses the situation and provides a reductionist interpretation of the historical materialism and the role of the vanguard.


At times, "all in its power" refers merely to ADVISING the working-class masses. At certain critical times (and ONLY these times, I must emphasize), "all in its power" refers to LEADERSHIP.

What exactly do you mean by your rather hazy concept of "leadership" in this case. Why is it not satisfactory for the vanguard to act as an educative element in the emancipation of the proletariat?


To be sure, the final step in the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves. The hard part is: what other steps beforehand are best left to them, and what others are left to the organized vanguard?

You are correct in saying that the "emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves". This is why I reject any notion of the vanguard "leading" (leading pre-revolution in terms of consciousness certainly, but not the sense I feel you are implying it).

I would argue that the only step assigned to the vanguard is the task of imbuing the masses with a revolutionary consciousness, that is raising the working class to the level of revolutionaries, by means of agitation and education.


4) When the revolutionary process of bringing class consciousness to the masses of workers begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians" (Lenin).

This I would agree with largely due to the role I assigned to the vanguard above. However theory is useless so long as it is kept locked behind closed doors and buried in books. The revolutionary must be connected with the working class and the working class movement as a whole so as to find real expression of their theory in having it linked with the material reality of the proletariat.


Moreover, if the role of the vanguard is to “hasten the day” this hardly makes them necessary. One might admit that actions undertaken here and now might result in the working class reaching class consciousness sooner, but this hardly forces us to concede that the vanguard is a necessary component of the revolution, or that spontaneity cannot occur within the general working class.

We could always argue that theoretically in the lab with a perfect model of society, that by tweaking minute variables, a situation could take place where the material conditions allow for the attainment of a mass spontaneous class consciousness. However, we live in the real world and so long as we do we can almost rule out this possibility. We have to accept that even during periods of extreme the revolutionary vanguard is going to begin in the minority, it's task is to thus spread and imbue a class consciousness amongst all working people.

Further, whilst you may be able to argue that the vanguard is not necessary, however this point is rather useless. The fact remains that whether the vanguard is needed or not it is birthed by the existing materila conditions of capitalist society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's great to see you made this thread!

Thank you, comrade! :cool:


The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

My only problem is his mention of "the lawyer" and "the priest," who definitely belong in "Class #2," not the proletariat. ;)


Further, the notion that socialist class consciousness is imported from the bourgeoisie is fundamentally un-materialist. Lenin and Kautsky fail to explain to us what objective interest these bourgeois academics have in a socialist class consciousness and further fail to point out what interest these individuals have in spreading such a consciousness which - by their definition - aught to be against the objective class interests of these bourgeois academics!

I think it was Comrade Hyacinth who mentioned Hal Draper's The Two Souls of Socialism in regards to bourgeois or PETIT-bourgeois academics:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hal-draper-discussion-t78545/index.html


More than ever in our day, when the credit of the capitalist system is disintegrating throughout the world, he easily dreams of a form of society in which he can come into his own, in which the Brain and not Hands or Moneybags would dictate; in which he and his similars would be released from the pressure of Property through the elimination of capitalism, and released from the pressure of the more numerous masses through the elimination of democracy.




However, Kautsky does a virtual back flip here, correcting the garbage he advocate in the former quotation. Here he is correct in that, whilst many intellectuals fancy themselves more than the working class, their objective class interests are the same.

Actually, the quote in WITBD was made in 1901, whereas my quote on "educated proletarians" - part of Chapter 2 of my WIP ( ;) ) - was made in 1892. :D

If anything else, he regressed! :lol:




How does this make sense? You have previously stated that the vanguard is the means by which the proletarian is able to emancipate itself. You have further gone on to say that intellectuals (who are today proletarians) are generally speaking the source of class consciousness. How then can you go on to say that the emancipation of the proletariat is anything but it's own self activity?

Comrade, I did NOT say anything about intellectuals being the source of class consciousness. "Socialist theoreticians" can be anybody. Heck, I'm not even a proper "intellectual" (scientist, academic, whatever).

In regards to your last question, like I said, the emancipation is like a business project, with "milestones." Each of these "milestones" must be achieved by the proletarian masses themselves. However, to say that the masses will perform Step 1 of the process themselves is, well...


Oh my, what a reductionist trap you have fallen into Jacob! Kautsky's notion (and it seems your own as well) that the vanguard's role is the "hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself" is a terribly confused idea.

Comrade, I recall your remarks about probability very well (I just can't put it to better language). There is a tinge of "apocalyptic predestinationism" in Kautsky's remarks.


Such an understanding of the Vanguard and it's role, springs from a reductionist understanding of Historical Materialism, namely the interpretation that proletarian revolution is an inevitable reality. The question of revolution then becomes not one of if, but when.

Further; the task of the vanguard is not to hasten the inevitable. Rather it is the means by which the proletariat may emancipate itself, in this sense it make history and merely speeds up the inevitable.

Indeed (but note my reminder remark above)!

How about this, then:

Revolutionary Marxists must do ALL in their power to make possible the self-emancipation of the proletariat as a whole. To give this self-emancipation the most effective form, this is the function of Social-Labour Democracy / United Social Labour - as an organization - and of the Social-Proletocratic Party!




What exactly do you mean by your rather hazy concept of "leadership" in this case. Why is it not satisfactory for the vanguard to act as an educative element in the emancipation of the proletariat?

Comrade, I re-read the "Vanguard" thread, and I noticed that you didn't reply to Comrade MarxSchmarx (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1157122&postcount=16) ( :( ):


Comrade Richter:

What do you think are specific ways in which the vanguard, qua the vanguard, can "lead" the working class, especially towards constructing political alternatives instead of, say, running in elections or building unions?

The "advising" part is easier - as you note, a proletarian press and leftists with special skills can work to advance the interests of the working class in a variety of spheres.

Indeed, if we seek to build an alternative to the parliamentarian (or rebellious for that matter) vanguards, one has a hard time visualizing what these people do on a day-to-day basis. Certainly, in the abstract, many of the attributes of a parliamentarian vanguard are attractive, but as soon as this is made concrete it becomes quickly muddled.

And my reply:


Good question, comrade. Well, I did say in my Workers' Movements remarks that building unions, no matter their flaws, would indeed be a key task (in this case, rebuilding the labour movement).

I mentioned elsewhere in the RevMarx forum the Hezbollah example, although theirs is more of a social-welfare alternative (hospitals, schools, etc.) plus parliamentarianism and militia organization.

The "lead" part that I was referring to was only in regards to organs of workers' power that were already built during revolutionary upheaval (soviets, workplace committees, red unions, etc.).

I honestly don't know. :crying: I'm not sure if the word "lead" is appropriate in terms of building these organs, because "lead" implies that others follow, usually in a hierarchy of sorts. The closest analogy is "setting an example" (I don't wish to use the term "leadership by example").

[Niccolò Rossi]

More than ever in our day, when the credit of the capitalist system is disintegrating throughout the world, he easily dreams of a form of society in which he can come into his own, in which the Brain and not Hands or Moneybags would dictate; in which he and his similars would be released from the pressure of Property through the elimination of capitalism, and released from the pressure of the more numerous masses through the elimination of democracy.

You agree with this? The what was the need for you to include the quotes from Kautsky and Lenin above indicating the opposite. If you included them for the sake of argument, why did you not critique them with such a quote from Draper?


Actually, the quote in WITBD was made in 1901, whereas my quote on "educated proletarians" - part of Chapter 2 of my WIP ( ;) ) - was made in 1892. :D

If anything else, he regressed! :lol:

Yes yes, my mistake.


Comrade, I did NOT say anything about intellectuals being the source of class consciousness. "Socialist theoreticians" can be anybody. Heck, I'm not even a proper "intellectual" (scientist, academic, whatever).

Sorry, I assumed you did from your Lenin and Kautsky quotes and your so called "mixed stance" given your "professional worker" status.


In regards to your last question, like I said, the emancipation is like a business project, with "milestones." Each of these "milestones" must be achieved by the proletarian masses themselves. However, to say that the masses will perform Step 1 of the process themselves is, well...

What is this "Step One"? Even if this supposed step must be carried forward by "socialist theoreticians" are these not working people? If not where does the material basis of their support lye?


Comrade, I recall your remarks about probability very well (I just can't put it to better language).


Revolutionary Marxists must do ALL in their power to make possible the self-emancipation of the proletariat as a whole. To give this self-emancipation the most effective form, this is the function of Social-Labour Democracy / United Social Labour - as an organization - and of the Social-Proletocratic Party!


This is better language comrade! However the "most effective form" I still find a sticking point. More effective than what? Can we conceive of a revolution without vanguardism - that is the revolutionary class consciousness held by a minority who, by what ever means, act to spread such class consciousness to the masses)?

Maybe better wording would be:

Revolutionary Marxists must do all in their power to make possible the self-emancipation of the proletariat as a whole. This is the task of the Social-Labour Democracy / United Social Labour - as an organization - and of the Social-Proletocratic Party!


I honestly don't know. :crying: I'm not sure if the word "lead" is appropriate in terms of building these organs, because "lead" implies that others follow, usually in a hierarchy of sorts. The closest analogy is "setting an example" (I don't wish to use the term "leadership by example").

Doesn't this statement by yourself go again your talk of "leadership". The construction of organs of workers power is not a leadership role as such and nor is being directly involved or participating in them.

Does your call for the circumstantial leadership of the vanguard imply more than you have stated, or has its been used a tad inappropriately? Certainly the vanguard must be leaders in terms of their class consciousness, but the word can be easily misinterpreted (something I was convinced you tried to avoid given you "obsession" with re-inventing language.)


Comrade, I re-read the "Vanguard" thread, and I noticed that you didn't reply to Comrade MarxSchmarx (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1157122&postcount=16) ( :( )

Wasn't it meant to be a rhetorical question? Certainly you don't expect me to provide such an answer?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You agree with this? The what was the need for you to include the quotes from Kautsky and Lenin above indicating the opposite. If you included them for the sake of argument, why did you not critique them with such a quote from Draper?

Comrade, in my first post, I wanted to contrast the "bourgeois intelligentsia" with modern intellectuals, who by and large are professional workers. I didn't think at that time to include Draper's quote. :confused:


What is this "Step One"? Even if this supposed step must be carried forward by "socialist theoreticians" are these not working people? If not where does the material basis of their support lye?

Yes, indeed these are working people here and there as "socialist theoreticians," but these are not the working masses. That's why I said the word "masses" and not "people." ;)


This is better language comrade! However the "most effective form" I still find a sticking point. More effective than what? Can we conceive of a revolution without vanguardism - that is the revolutionary class consciousness held by a minority who, by what ever means, act to spread such class consciousness to the masses)?

Maybe better wording would be:

Revolutionary Marxists must do all in their power to make possible the self-emancipation of the proletariat as a whole. This is the task of the Social-Labour Democracy / United Social Labour - as an organization - and of the Social-Proletocratic Party!

Well, the reason why I said "the most effective form" was two-fold:

1) Trying to quote Kautsky as much as possible within a paraphrase;
2) Compare the revolutionary mass party to, say, unions, red unions, cultural organizations, sports clubs, etc. It certainly has proven to be the most effective vehicle for spreading class consciousness and enabling self-emancipation.

So, to answer your question about revolution without vanguardism, I can't conceive it. You yourself said this above:

We can not talk about hypothetical scenarios without vanguardism. Vanguardism is the direct product of the existing material conditions of capitalism and will thus always arise given such a society.




Doesn't this statement by yourself go against your talk of "leadership". The construction of organs of workers power is not a leadership role as such and nor is being directly involved or participating in them.

Does your call for the circumstantial leadership of the vanguard imply more than you have stated, or has its been used a tad inappropriately? Certainly the vanguard must be leaders in terms of their class consciousness, but the word can be easily misinterpreted (something I was convinced you tried to avoid given your "obsession" with re-inventing language.)

According to mainstream sociology (in this case organizational behaviour), "leadership" encompasses these "soft" examples as well as the conventional "shepherding the sheep" and "lording over the masses" crap. This construction of which I speak, however, isn't merely an educative (or, to be more linguistically clear, advisory) function.

Yes, indeed: the word can be VERY easily misinterpreted. If "education," "advising," nor "leadership" are the right words to describe the construction of which I speak, then at this point so far I don't know any other appropriate word. :crying:




Wasn't it meant to be a rhetorical question? Certainly you don't expect me to provide such an answer?

Hehehe! Well, that question by Comrade MarxSchmarx was directed at ME. :D

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yes, indeed these are working people here and there as "socialist theoreticians," but these are not the working masses. That's why I said the word "masses" and not "people."

I would agree with this.


Well, the reason why I said "the most effective form" was two-fold:

1) Trying to quote Kautsky as much as possible within a paraphrase;
2) Compare the revolutionary mass party to, say, unions, red unions, cultural organizations, sports clubs, etc. It certainly has proven to be the most effective vehicle for spreading class consciousness and enabling self-emancipation.

1) Why do you wish to paraphrase Kautsky?
2) Are you saying that unions, red unions, cultural organizations, sports clubs, etc. are also means for spreading class consciousness? In other words these organisations contain members of the vanguard which can spread class consciousness, but the vanguard party is the most effective form by which the vanguard can spread class consciousness.


Hehehe! Well, that question by Comrade MarxSchmarx was directed at ME.

Huh?


Comrade, I re-read the "Vanguard" thread, and I noticed that you didn't reply to Comrade MarxSchmarx (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1157122&postcount=16) ( :( ):


This is among the more eloquent posts I've read here, but it begs the question of "what is to be done?".

[Bright Banana Beard]

According to mainstream sociology (in this case organizational behaviour), "leadership" encompasses these "soft" examples as well as the conventional "shepherding the sheep" and "lording over the masses" crap. This construction of which I speak, however, isn't merely an educative (or, to be more linguistically clear, advisory) function.

Yes, indeed: the word can be VERY easily misinterpreted. If "education," "advising," nor "leadership" are the right words to describe the construction of which I speak, then at this point so far I don't know any other appropriate word. :crying:

Jacob, just using one word is too reductionist.:) How about using "to create [...]and enhance it/to make it grow among[...]" In my opinion, if one word is not going to work, then make it a little bit complicate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is this "Step One"? Even if this supposed step must be carried forward by "socialist theoreticians" are these not working people? If not where does the material basis of their support lye?Yes, indeed these are working people here and there as "socialist theoreticians," but these are not the working masses. That's why I said the word "masses" and not "people."I would agree with this.

A RevLeft member, who is a bit of a "workerist" (but not a sectoral chauvinist by any stretch), asked me why I used the word "merger." He said that revolutionary socialism grows from out of the broader struggle.

I use the word "merger" because, once there is a working-class vanguard in the initial sense, that vanguard becomes artificially "separated" from the rest of the proletariat ("proletarian masses").

In Kautsky's and Lenin's day, there was the PETIT-bourgeois intelligentsia to act as "socialist theoreticians" (actual separation due to different class backgrounds, as opposed to artificial "separation" arising in spite of a common class background):


When the revolutionary process of bringing class consciousness to the masses of workers begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians" (Lenin)

In other words, do what the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia used to do ("socialist theoreticians") to bring about the merger, but without falling into the elitist trap that Draper spoke of.




1) Why do you wish to paraphrase Kautsky?

Because he, albeit standing on his head, was the real founder of "Marxism" (from my WIP section on "Plain Proletocracy" ;) ):

Marxists are left with the unenviable task of going beyond merely repeating the respective “merger” achievements of Marx and of the 19th-century social-democrats. Through scientific socialism, Marx was able to unite political socialism with the workers’ pre-movement struggles, and his immediate theoretical successors, most notably Kautsky, were able to unite his ideas with the emerging workers’ labour movement, thus creating what is known today as “Marxism” (in spite of the overly negative remarks by Cyril Smith as quoted in Chapter 1). Unfortunately, this “Marxism” itself, not just political socialism, proved historically to be quite detachable from the workers’ movement, not the least of which is because of its vulnerability to reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism. This is where revolutionary Marxism – the revolutionary merger of both the entire workers’ movement and a “Marxism” purged of reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism – comes into play.


2) Are you saying that unions, red unions, cultural organizations, sports clubs, etc. are also means for spreading class consciousness? In other words these organisations contain members of the vanguard which can spread class consciousness, but the vanguard party is the most effective form by which the vanguard can spread class consciousness.

That is correct, comrade: "Nothing but the party" is as reductionist as the "Nothing but the trade unions" approach that a certain "disciple" condemned in WITBD (tred-iunionizm, not today's "trade unionism").