Why should there be formed a vanguard party?

[Natasha Gonzalez]

Many say that Marx said that the proletariat will rise spontaneously.
Is this indeed true?
If it is, why do we need then a vanguard party , that will lead the workers into taking power?
Why can't the workers take power themselves?
I am sorry if it is a dumb question but I am relatively new to Marxism and I am not sure in which direction to head.
Thanks everyone:)

[BobKKKindle$]

A vanguard party organization is necessary because the consciousness of the working class is not uniform - not all workers see the world in the same way or have the same level of political consciousness. Most workers exhibit "trade-union consciousness" which means they are limited to temporary reforms within the framework of capitalism and are not able to imagine how society could be organized in a different way. The vanguard party is comprised of the most class conscious section of the working class (workers who understand how the proletariat is exploited under capitalism and recognize the need for revolutionary struggle against the bourgeois state) and exists to engage with the workers who are subject to the influence of bourgeois ideology, to enable the widespread development of class consciousness, which is a prerequisite for the overthrow of capitalism. In the absence of a vanguard party which is able to agitate and promote revolutionary ideas by intervening in workers struggles, even if the correct objective conditions for revolution exist (a high rate of unemployment, attacks on workers conditions, etc.) workers may not overthrow capitalism and may instead turn to political apathy or reactionary ideas which locate a group within the proletariat as the cause of material deprivation (for example, the immigrant population) thereby securing the power of the bourgeoisie.

The concept of the vanguard is explained more fully in Lenin's What is to be Done which is available here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm).

[Niccolò Rossi]

Your question is not at all dumb! Thank you for asking it.

A lot of Leftists (generally speaking) seem to struggle with the topic of the nature of the vanguard and the vanguard party.

Firstly it is essential to define our terms. The Vanguard is merely that section of the proletariat which 'lead' the working masses in terms of class consciousness. The Vanguard Party is on the other hand, the vanguard of the proletariat (as defined above) organised into a political party.

Secondly, we must understand that class consciousness develops unevenly. Some sections of the proletariat are more or less likely to attain a revolutionary class consciousness than others. For example, those workers who have a tertiary education may be more likely to understand their historic goals as a class and the methods best suited to achieving these. Another example may be a third world factory worker, who due to extreme poverty and hard labour is able to recognise the need to abolish modern capitalism.

It follows from this that, it is highly unlikely that the proletariat, as a whole class, will spontaneously rise up against bourgeois oppression (even if we assume extreme conditions such as economic depression). It is then the task of the Vanguard, which will always initially be a minority, to spread class consciousness (by means of education and propaganda) and lend assistance to the struggles of their fellow workers (agitation and direct action campaigns).

An important point to note also is the connotations of the word 'vanguard party'. As I have discussed in a thread in the Revolutionary Marxist Group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-t79650/index.html), the 'vanguard party' has historically been associated with a small group of militant intellectuals who seek to capture state power 'in the name of the proletariat'. Such a connotation is understandable from a historical point of view, but is a complete misrepresentation of the vanguard party as a concept.

You also mentioned the argument that workers should take power and make the revoltuion themselves. I completely agree with this, but this does not contradict the 'vanguard party'. Remember that there is an unevenness in the development class consciousness. It is this unevenness with 'vanguardism' tries to eliminate by spreading class consciousness by mass education and assisting the working class in it's struggle, at all times bringing to the forefront it's real object class interests. The task of the Vanguard Party is thus to raise class consciousness on a mass level so that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself", in the words of Karl Marx himself.

To sum up, the vanguard (whether it be organised as a rigid party or a loose organisation), is a necessity for any and all revolution. The proletariat will not become class conscious simultaneously and it is those minority class conscious elements that are necessary to raise the entire proletariat to the level of 'socialist theoreticians' capable of emancipating themselves. The 'Vanguard party' is thus the necessary means by which the proletariat must emancipate themselves.

[Raúl Duke]

Many say that Marx said that the proletariat will rise spontaneously.
Is this indeed true?
If it is, why do we need then a vanguard party , that will lead the workers into taking power?
Why can't the workers take power themselves?
I am sorry if it is a dumb question but I am relatively new to Marxism and I am not sure in which direction to head.
Thanks everyone:)

This idea comes from a specific reading of something Marx mention in The Civil War in France (The Paris Commune chapter): "But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

It's also an idea similar to those thought of by anarchists, such as myself.

However, in other parts, if I recall correctly, Marx mentioned/called the Paris Commune is the "dictatorship of the proletariat." (However, this also leads to negative implications for the USSR and other "socialist" states: The USSR was, although due to many material conditions in Russia during the revolution, never similar in structure to the Paris Commune. IMO, the USSR wasn't quite socialistic, again mostly due to material conditions although IMO democratic centralism seems to lead revisionism/degeneration from within, and became even less so since its inception. To trotskyists, the USSR after Lenin became a "deformed workers state" while to anti-revisionists, stalinists, it suffered from internal revisionism by Khrushchev for Russia, Deng for China, etc.).

Marxists who reject the need of the state are called Libertarian Marxists (although once I heard of the term "anarcho-Marxist") while those who state that it's neccesary are called "authoritarian" Marxists (more accurately, Marxist-Leninist, this is the group that calls for a vanguard party.). However, there's also another strand of Marxism called Left Communism (You should take a look into it, since I'm don't know much of Left Communists, Devrim and Leo are our main left communist members) which, if I recall correctly, states the needs of having some form of party yet are critical of the Leninist conception of a socialist state.

I hope this helps.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What Comrade Zeitgeist said... :)

There are two "vanguardism" threads in question, one of which he pointed out. This is the other:

Spontaneity, class consciousness, and "vanguardism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/spontaneity-class-consciousness-t81312/index.html)

Together, these two threads culminated in a blog of mine:

"Vanguardism" Revisited (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=60)

“We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.” (Karl Marx)

[Psy]

Many say that Marx said that the proletariat will rise spontaneously.
Is this indeed true?
If it is, why do we need then a vanguard party , that will lead the workers into taking power?
Why can't the workers take power themselves?
I am sorry if it is a dumb question but I am relatively new to Marxism and I am not sure in which direction to head.
Thanks everyone:)
Look at Paris May 1968, yes the workers spontaneously took the means of production, yet they didn't know what to do next. Workers occupied the factories, gave the police a serious spanking and had the French ruling class craping its pants. Workers know how to stir up a uprising but going beyond that requires class consciousness.

[Natasha Gonzalez]

Thank you all for your responses now it is more clear to me.
In order to formulate an opinion I certainly have to read What is to be done by Lenin and works from the left communists and libertarian Marxists.
Know I see the need for a vanguard party. I mean I always had the idea that some organization of class concious people need to exist in order to educate the rest of the population in a revolutionary situation, but I did not know that it was called the vanguard party .
Because of some discussion with my friends I got a negative impression for "the vanguard".
So I won't ask further questions until I read everyones opinion (Lenin etc) so I could formulate an opinion of my own.
Again thank you everyone . Your responses were very helpful.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Look at Paris May 1968, yes the workers spontaneously took the means of production, yet they didn't know what to do next. Workers occupied the factories, gave the police a serious spanking and had the French ruling class craping its pants. Workers know how to stir up a uprising but going beyond that requires class consciousness.

They also thought that were was no issue leaving the business owners Gold in the vaults. The Gold was then used to pay Prussian mercenaries to slaughter them by the old ruling class.

First step we take now? Nationalize the banks. :)

[Raúl Duke]

Thank you all for your responses now it is more clear to me.
In order to formulate an opinion I certainly have to read What is to be done by Lenin and works from the left communists and libertarian Marxists.
Know I see the need for a vanguard party. I mean I always had the idea that some organization of class concious people need to exist in order to educate the rest of the population in a revolutionary situation, but I did not know that it was called the vanguard party .
Because of some discussion with my friends I got a negative impression for "the vanguard".
So I won't ask further questions until I read everyones opinion (Lenin etc) so I could formulate an opinion of my own.
Again thank you everyone . Your responses were very helpful.

You should definitely look into those Left Communists, although I know very little of their theory, specifically on their practice; yet they are quite interesting.

Other then that the other interesting person who I know little of their theory is Jacob Richter and social proletrocracy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's Jacob Richter, actually (Lenin's pseudonym while at the British Library). ;)