Vanguard Party.

[Catbus]

I've heard that Anarchists are opposed to a Vanguard Party, why is this. Does a Vanguard Party go along with the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Winter]

The Vanguard Party organizes the proletariat so that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established.

[redarmyfaction38]

The Vanguard Party organizes the proletariat so that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established.
i'm gonna disagree, the role of the "vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat" is to show the way, to organise itself and ENCOURAGE those coming into conflict with the capitalist state to join it.
a "vanguard party" that seeks to organise the proletariat as if they were some seperate entity is all ready travelling down the road of counter revolution.
maybe that's why the anarchists oppose it.

[Winter]

i'm gonna disagree, the role of the "vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat" is to show the way, to organise itself and ENCOURAGE those coming into conflict with the capitalist state to join it.
a "vanguard party" that seeks to organise the proletariat as if they were some seperate entity is all ready travelling down the road of counter revolution.
maybe that's why the anarchists oppose it.

I agree. I just didn't get into that. I just wanted to clear up his concepts of a vanguard party and the dotp.

[Catbus]

Thanks, yeah I understand for the most part now.

[Winter]

In our opinion, what has been said needs no proof, for it is self-evident that, so long as the capitalists system exists, with its inevitably attendant poverty and backwardness of the masses, the proletariat as a whole cannot rise to the desired level of class consciousness, and, consequently, there must be a group of class conscious leaders to enlighten the proletarian army in the spirit of socialism, to unite and lead it in its struggle. It is also clear that a party which has set out to lead the fighting proletariat must not be a chance conglomeration of individuals, but a compact, centralized organization, so that its activities can be directed according to a single plan. - Josef Stalin, The Proletarian Class and the Proletarian Party, 1905

[Q]

i'm gonna disagree, the role of the "vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat" is to show the way, to organise itself and ENCOURAGE those coming into conflict with the capitalist state to join it.
a "vanguard party" that seeks to organise the proletariat as if they were some seperate entity is all ready travelling down the road of counter revolution.
maybe that's why the anarchists oppose it.

In addition to this I like to say that the vanguard of the working class is its most politically aware, active and militant layers. Those that actually want to fight for the improvement of their rights, wage, etc. The vanguard party is by consequence a party that tries to organise these layers as a means to organise the whole of the working class.

Anarchists are opposed to it because they use a different definition, mostly also used by Stalinists, in that the "vanguard" is an elite that tries to rule in their own interests.

[Black Sheep]

So if the working class had reached a certain point of class awareness and willingness to revolt, the vanguard party would be obsolete?

[Tower of Bebel]

I found this (http://www.marxistparty.org/principles.html) interesting:

11. A Marxist party is not an instrument of control by an enlightened few over the working class, or a substitute for the action of the working class as a whole. It is a means by which the class can develop an independent political programme, enabling it to act as a class politically independent of the various factions of the bourgeois politicians, and through which it can organise itself and educate itself as a political class. Hence it has to aim to organise the class movement as a whole. But a Marxist party is distinct from the broader immediate working class movement (trade unions and so on): it sees more clearly that the inner logic of the working class organising to defend its immediate interests and impose its collective will on the society is for the working class to take political power and create socialism. Hence a Marxist party cannot counterpose itself to any existing movement of the class which seeks to fight for working class interests as such, but does not yet grasp this logic. It must participate in this broader class movement, fighting within it both against class-collaborationist politics and for the programme of working class political power. In doing so it must aim to lead the broad movement forward politically: neither to take it over by organisational manipulation and render it into a sterile appendage of the party; nor to break it up by splitting for short-term party gains; nor to abandon the struggle against class-collaborationism and for the programme of workers’ power in the name of a false unity which requires the Marxists to gag themselves.

12. Since the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself, a Marxist party can only play the role it needs to play if every member of the party develops as a leader and if the party’s own organisational form includes means of struggle against the permanent division of labour between managers and managed, leaders and led. We oppose the cult of the personalities of permanent individual leaders, which is commonplace in the existing organised left and has recently taken grotesque forms: the future of socialism rests with organised class-conscious workers, not with the continuity of individual party leaders. We oppose such personality cults, irremovable leaders, etc, equally in the broader class movement.

The dictatorship of the proletariat does not end the reason d'être of such a party. Only when this dictatorship reaches its conclusion (the abolishment of the proletariat as a class) the party will become obsolete togheter with the state and other material elements based on class-societies.

[Yehuda Stern]

i'm gonna disagree, the role of the "vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat" is to show the way, to organise itself and ENCOURAGE those coming into conflict with the capitalist state to join it.

I do not at all agree with that phrasing. Many people, including parts of the ruling class, come into conflict with the capitalist state. The vanguard party organizes the most advanced layers of the class so that those can lead the more backward ones into power.


In addition to this I like to say that the vanguard of the working class is its most politically aware, active and militant layers. Those that actually want to fight for the improvement of their rights, wage, etc.

This view is in line with the very common confusion on the left between labor militants and revolutionists. Revolutionary workers are more than militants, they want more than to fight for the improvements of rights and wages - they are for the destruction of the capitalist state and its replacement with a proletarian one.

[trivas7]

I found this (http://www.marxistparty.org/principles.html) interesting:

Why, exactly? Can you say more?

AFAIK anarchists believe that social revolution in principle isn't political.

[Tower of Bebel]

Why, exactly? Can you say more?

AFAIK anarchists believe that social revolution in principle isn't political.
Points eleven and twelf try to define the marxist (vanguard) party. It think the definition (as quoted) explains it well and proves nobody should fear fighting for a vanguard party.

[redarmyfaction38]

I do not at all agree with that phrasing. Many people, including parts of the ruling class, come into conflict with the capitalist state. The vanguard party organizes the most advanced layers of the class so that those can lead the more backward ones into power.



This view is in line with the very common confusion on the left between labor militants and revolutionists. Revolutionary workers are more than militants, they want more than to fight for the improvements of rights and wages - they are for the destruction of the capitalist state and its replacement with a proletarian one.

militant trade unionists etc are but one step away from from political consciousness, their economic demands cannot be met by the capitalist system, at some point, unless they are out and out careerists, they will be forced to draw political conclusions in order to acheive the economic gains they are seeking to acheive for themselves and their respective organisations.
the "vanguard party" should enable this "leap in consciousness".
which is what i thought i said, but obviously didn't apparrently.

as for members of the capitalist class coming into conflict with the capitalist state bit.
whilst life would be extremely easy if the ruling class all sang the same song and all the working class sang the oppossing song, it doesn't actually work like that.
there are elements/individuals amongst the capitalist class that would welcome a world wide socialist revolution, cos for them, t would give their lives purpose and fulfillment, in the same way that engels supported socialists in struggle and financed marx.
their are also elements an individuals amongst our class that will fight and die for the capitalist system cos it fulfils a need for them, alone and apart rom their "common interest".
we define these "rogue" elements amogast our class as "lumpen" or "careerist".
does that answer your post or have i wandered?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I found this (http://www.marxistparty.org/principles.html) interesting:


11. A Marxist party is not an instrument of control by an enlightened few over the working class, or a substitute for the action of the working class as a whole. It is a means by which the class can develop an independent political programme, enabling it to act as a class politically independent of the various factions of the bourgeois politicians, and through which it can organise itself and educate itself as a political class. Hence it has to aim to organise the class movement as a whole. But a Marxist party is distinct from the broader immediate working class movement (trade unions and so on): it sees more clearly that the inner logic of the working class organising to defend its immediate interests and impose its collective will on the society is for the working class to take political power and create socialism. Hence a Marxist party cannot counterpose itself to any existing movement of the class which seeks to fight for working class interests as such, but does not yet grasp this logic. It must participate in this broader class movement, fighting within it both against class-collaborationist politics and for the programme of working class political power. In doing so it must aim to lead the broad movement forward politically: neither to take it over by organisational manipulation and render it into a sterile appendage of the party; nor to break it up by splitting for short-term party gains; nor to abandon the struggle against class-collaborationism and for the programme of workers’ power in the name of a false unity which requires the Marxists to gag themselves.

12. Since the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself, a Marxist party can only play the role it needs to play if every member of the party develops as a leader and if the party’s own organisational form includes means of struggle against the permanent division of labour between managers and managed, leaders and led. We oppose the cult of the personalities of permanent individual leaders, which is commonplace in the existing organised left and has recently taken grotesque forms: the future of socialism rests with organised class-conscious workers, not with the continuity of individual party leaders. We oppose such personality cults, irremovable leaders, etc, equally in the broader class movement.

The dictatorship of the proletariat does not end the reason d'être of such a party. Only when this dictatorship reaches its conclusion (the abolishment of the proletariat as a class) the party will become obsolete togheter with the state and other material elements based on class-societies.

Actually, comrade, if you read Chapter 5 and especially Chapter 6 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html) of my work, you'll have noted that I still have problems with the still-traditional party model above. ;)


If, out of sheer dynamic-materialist necessity, such a maximalist (not in programmatic terms) mass organization were to encompass the vast majority of the proletariat in very literal terms, thereby going beyond the false dilemma presented by mass movements and typical traditional “parties” (the cadres-only party wrongfully put forward as an international model by the Bolsheviks only well into the civil war, the mass-but-reformist party, and even mass revolutionary parties not encompassing the vast majority of the proletariat in very literal terms), would it not be entitled to initiate the political revolution?

[...]

1) Social-Labourists (yes, even “revolutionary” reformists) must strive to, at a very dynamic minimum, achieve a transnational organization of United Social Labour along the lines of the “degenerated” federal model (since the “yellow” trade unions are themselves beginning to move past the antiquated federal model);
2) The revolutionary-Marxist SPD as “the [transnational, near-all-encompassing] party of the proletariat” (a truly maximalist spin on Kautsky’s words, though again for obvious reasons excluding both “yellow” and “orange” trade unions) that emerges only when material conditions justify such emergence must operate as a unitary and not federal organization, with regional “sections” that can encompass one or several countries

Which in turn is the maximalist application of this remark on the organization of working-class self-emancipation:


[b]In order for “Marxism” and the workers' movement to become reconciled and to become merged once more, “Marxism,” in the process of becoming truly revolutionary, has to break out of reductionist, as well as revisionist and sectarian, ways of thinking. This is the world-historical deed of the revolutionary Marxists, who in turn 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 (i.e. the simultaneously social-abolitionist and proletocratic form), this is the function not of the various ”Communists,” “Revolutionary Communists,” “Marxist-Leninists,” “Socialists,” “Socialist Workers,” etc. that have betrayed the banner of the working class in their own particular manner, but of the organizations of United Social Labour and [then] of Social Proletocracy!

Nevertheless, considering my ending section to Chapter 3, this is a good start. :)

[Yehuda Stern]

militant trade unionists etc are but one step away from from political consciousness, ... the "vanguard party" should enable this "leap in consciousness".

The vanguard party aiding advanced workers in their political evolution is not the same as saying that labor militants are revolutionaries. Like I said, revolutionaries are more than militants (meaning they are also militants, but have a higher level of consciousness than 'just' a militant), and they form the basis of the vanguard party - not the militants. At a stage where the revolutionary party becomes a mass party, such elements may become part of it, but we are talking now about the stage when the party is still being built.


there are elements/individuals amongst the capitalist class that would welcome a world wide socialist revolution, cos for them, t would give their lives purpose and fulfillment, in the same way that engels supported socialists in struggle and financed marx.
their are also elements an individuals amongst our class that will fight and die for the capitalist system cos it fulfils a need for them, alone and apart rom their "common interest".

Marxism, like all science, does not analyze individual parts but general phenomena. We do not know how each and every person will stand in relation to the revolution, but we know how classes will react to it. In this sense, the fact that some workers might oppose the revolution and some capitalists might support it is immaterial.

[redarmyfaction38]

The vanguard party aiding advanced workers in their political evolution is not the same as saying that labor militants are revolutionaries. Like I said, revolutionaries are more than militants (meaning they are also militants, but have a higher level of consciousness than 'just' a militant), and they form the basis of the vanguard party - not the militants. At a stage where the revolutionary party becomes a mass party, such elements may become part of it, but we are talking now about the stage when the party is still being built.



Marxism, like all science, does not analyze individual parts but general phenomena. We do not know how each and every person will stand in relation to the revolution, but we know how classes will react to it. In this sense, the fact that some workers might oppose the revolution and some capitalists might support it is immaterial.

regarding militant trade unionists etc. you said exactly what i said, we just phrased it differently, i don't understand what point you're trying to make.

marxism defines those elements of the working class tied to capitalist ideology, morality and ambition as the "lumpen proletariat".
it also points out that such "lumpen proles" will follow the strongest lead given a revolutionary situation.
whilst i agree fully that marxism analyzes in a broad sense, the role of the lumpen proletariat and "progressive" elements of the ruling class certainly does impact quite strongly on the success or failure of a revolutuionary movement.
i thought marx made this quite clear.

[Yehuda Stern]

marxism defines those elements of the working class tied to capitalist ideology, morality and ambition as the "lumpen proletariat".
it also points out that such "lumpen proles" will follow the strongest lead given a revolutionary situation.

The second part is correct, not the first. The lumpenproletariat is composed of those elements thrown out of the productive process - criminals, prostitutes, the unemployed, etc. That class, from my experience, usually holds on to very reactionary and racist ideas, but history shows that parts of that class can support the revolution if the working class takes the correct steps towards that.


the role of the lumpen proletariat and "progressive" elements of the ruling class certainly does impact quite strongly on the success or failure of a revolutuionary movement.

I strongly disagree. The decisive question is the working class and the support of the impoverished petty-bourgeois. The lumpens and individual capitalists who become revolutionaries are of course welcome but are indecisive.

As for labor militants, like I said, the way you put it made it sound as if the vanguard is formed out of labor militants, while in fact it is formed out of those militants who have become revolutionaries.

[RedHal]

I understand the need for a revolutionary vanguard to lead the masses towards revolution and make things run smoother during the transitional stage from capitalism towards communism. But when does it get dissolved, what conditions must be met before the party must be destroyed before it becomes a bureaucratic monstrosity? What are you parties views on when the party dissolves?

[redarmyfaction38]

The second part is correct, not the first. The lumpenproletariat is composed of those elements thrown out of the productive process - criminals, prostitutes, the unemployed, etc. That class, from my experience, usually holds on to very reactionary and racist ideas, but history shows that parts of that class can support the revolution if the working class takes the correct steps towards that.



I strongly disagree. The decisive question is the working class and the support of the impoverished petty-bourgeois. The lumpens and individual capitalists who become revolutionaries are of course welcome but are indecisive.

As for labor militants, like I said, the way you put it made it sound as if the vanguard is formed out of labor militants, while in fact it is formed out of those militants who have become revolutionaries.

on this point of labour militants, which we seem to be in "disagreement", but i'm not really sure we are.
i think what we are probably talking about here is difference of personal experience.
in the uk, when i was a "junior" back in the 1970s and 1980s, trade union shop stewards would stand at the factory gate looking for those selling revolutionary newspapers.
they would do this in order to determine which workers they could encourage to become union "activists".
in the uk the trade union movement and revolutionary politics are inseperable despite the best effforts of new labour and the trade union leaders.
socialist politics are part and parcel of trade union constitutions despite the actions of their "leaders".

[redarmyfaction38]

I understand the need for a revolutionary vanguard to lead the masses towards revolution and make things run smoother during the transitional stage from capitalism towards communism. But when does it get dissolved, what conditions must be met before the party must be destroyed before it becomes a bureaucratic monstrosity? What are you parties views on when the party dissolves?
in the transitional stage from capitalism to socialism, the vanguard party becomes the "mass party of the working class".
as workers leap to political conclusions based on economic experience they move from bourgouise politics and political parties to revolutionary conclusions and membership of revolutionary parties.
the "vanguard" party is no longer composed of a "politically aware" minority but is the instrument of the revolutionary proletariat.
in effect, it dissolves itself and becomes a mere "vehicle" for the self emancipation of the working class.
well, that's the theory, anyway.

[F9]

I've heard that Anarchists are opposed to a Vanguard Party, why is this. Does a Vanguard Party go along with the dictatorship of the proletariat?

it is sad that none of the Anarchists answered so far and we let other spoke for us.But lets fix that!:)
We are opposed to vanguard party because it is opposed to our Anarchist ideas!Simply ha?Not so!Vanguard party leads to corruption,it leads to an elite of people,members of the party arent treated samely as non members,and that makes classes again inthe opposite way.In vanguard party there are "leaders",we want noone to tell us Anarchists what we do,we decide all together.So having a vanguard party we consider it as a continuation of the dicatoship and non equality.Thats the general thing why we oppose vanguard party.

Fuserg9:star:

[lombas]

I was under the impression makhnoists (platformists) do not oppose the idea of a vanguard party that much.

[redarmyfaction38]

it is sad that none of the Anarchists answered so far and we let other spoke for us.But lets fix that!:)
We are opposed to vanguard party because it is opposed to our Anarchist ideas!Simply ha?Not so!Vanguard party leads to corruption,it leads to an elite of people,members of the party arent treated samely as non members,and that makes classes again inthe opposite way.In vanguard party there are "leaders",we want noone to tell us Anarchists what we do,we decide all together.So having a vanguard party we consider it as a continuation of the dicatoship and non equality.Thats the general thing why we oppose vanguard party.

Fuserg9:star:
you're saying what i said way back at te beginning of this thread.
it doesn't have to be that way as i posted later in this thread.

as an "anarchist" (i've paraphrased that as i don't think you anything other than another revolutionary socialist), what's your analysis regarding my latest post?
which imo is an honest as your gonna get definition of how the "vanguard" party should develop and serve the need of the proletariat etc. etc.
posted in friendship btw.

[F9]

I was under the impression makhnoists (platformists) do not oppose the idea of a vanguard party that much.

platformists are not makhnoists,but makhno was a platformist.
i must say that i have heard from a "platformist" that he advocates the making of a party,BUT he decribes it a whole different than the partys now.The party they have in mind(as i am aware and as much i know) isnt a party where is divided within members,its a free join party where EVERYONE is equal,meaning that it might be a party but there wont be any presidents within etc etc places.This as i heard they want it just for the coordination of the plans during revolution but also for the theoritical unity where there is going to be in the party to have a straight target of what they try.
Thats what i know,heard or think of platformists "party" but a "platformist" would answer it better i think.;)

(ps:i really dnt like the platformist label because platform never was the big texture explaining everything etc.It was a start where platformists at that time wished to improve through time,unforunately it left as it was with no improvements)

Fuserg9:star:

[F9]

you're saying what i said way back at te beginning of this thread.
it doesn't have to be that way as i posted later in this thread.

as an "anarchist" (i've paraphrased that as i don't think you anything other than another revolutionary socialist), what's your analysis regarding my latest post?
which imo is an honest as your gonna get definition of how the "vanguard" party should develop and serve the need of the proletariat etc. etc.
posted in friendship btw.

are you calling me revolutionary socialist?:lol:
sorry but i must say that i didnt understand perfectly what you write!

Fuserg9:star:

[JimmyJazz]

In our opinion, what has been said needs no proof, for it is self-evident that, so long as the capitalists system exists, with its inevitably attendant poverty and backwardness of the masses, the proletariat as a whole cannot rise to the desired level of class consciousness, and, consequently, there must be a group of class conscious leaders to enlighten the proletarian army in the spirit of socialism, to unite and lead it in its struggle. It is also clear that a party which has set out to lead the fighting proletariat must not be a chance conglomeration of individuals, but a compact, centralized organization, so that its activities can be directed according to a single plan.- Josef Stalin, The Proletarian Class and the Proletarian Party, 1905


Revolution-->consciousness rather than consciousness-->revolution?

Sounds like Jacobinism, not Marxism. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just an observation.

Does anyone know whether Lenin would have agreed with the quoted statement?

[Benos145]

Revolution-->consciousness rather than consciousness-->revolution?

Sounds like Jacobinism, not Marxism. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just an observation.

Does anyone know whether Lenin would have agreed with the quoted statement?
I am sure one of the more knowledgable Marxist-Leninists on this forum could find you a quote, it wouldn't be hard however considering that Lenin and Stalin are almost indistinguishable in their theory. No doubt some wreckers will disagree with this, but you only have to read Lenin and Stalin to understand it's truth.

[redarmyfaction38]

are you calling me revolutionary socialist?:lol:
sorry but i must say that i didnt understand perfectly what you write!

Fuserg9:star:
too many labels mate and my "writings" tend to come from the heart.

in my opinion, you cannot be an "anarchist" without being a revolutionary socialist.
this is how it TENDS to work, when capitalism was the "way forward" there were "socialists" called "diggers" and "levellers" that tried to take the capitalist revolution beyond capitalist ambition. they were defeated and their leaders executed, the capitalist revolution succeeded.
during the russisan revolution and every other revolution since there has been an "anarchist" element that has stood up for the true ambition of revolutuianary socialist ambition, the creation of a truly "communist" society, where party politics are a thing of the past and serving the people is the ultimate ambition of each and every human being.
they too were defeated and the stalinist counter revolutionary state was born.

[F9]

for one more time i just only got confused that doesnt play ANY role in where i am Anarchist or rev socialist.i just dont seem to getting your point there.

Fuserg9:star: