Somebody explain the vanguard?

[Rascolnikova]

The whole concept seems a bit vague and strange to me.

[Incendiarism]

A vanguard is a group of dedicated revolutionaries recruited from the workers, intelligentsia, etc who would lead the less advanced layers to socialism. Lenin formulated the theory of the vanguard after noting the inability of the workers to organize effectively in Russia.

Anybody can correct me on details that I'm wrong about if you please.

[Hit The North]

At its most basic level, the idea of the vanguard supposes that class consciousness is unevenly distributed amongst the working class. The vanguard aims to be the most class conscious workers organised as party, or federation of parties. However, a vanguard does not stand separately from or over the working class but must be rooted within it.

[Q]

The whole concept seems a bit vague and strange to me.

Have a look on MIA (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard).

[Rascolnikova]

Have a look on MIA (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard).

(!)

Thank you.

how did I not know about this before? Great link.


Edit: and now another question. Why identify it as a distinct class among the workers? It seems more natural to me that this would be seen as a spectrum. . .

[apathy maybe]

(!)

Thank you.

how did I not know about this before? Great link.


Edit: and now another question. Why identify it as a distinct class among the workers? It seems more natural to me that this would be seen as a spectrum. . .

Any one claiming to use Marxian analysis, will not define the "vanguard" as a separate class to the rest of the "proletariat" (at least, not without being wrong).

Of course, knowing that there is a group within the proletariat who are more committed to the struggle, and have a more advanced "consciousness", suggests that economics isn't the be all and end all.


As to whether the vanguard is a separate party, or is simply part of the mass, I would suggest that there are always going to be socially advanced workers who are not part of the "revolutionary party", and as such, there is no such thing as "the vanguard" with regard to a "party". I think that didn't come out quite as I wanted it.

[Tower of Bebel]

The emancipation of the workers should be the task of the working class as a whole. But the working class as a whole does not mean that every worker would be like-minded. There are always people who guide and lead and there are always people who are more conscious of certain things than others. Now, those who are more conscious, those who take the lead - the leadership of the working class - are the vanguard of that class. We cannot ignore the concept of a vanguard because it is real.

Now, what has the vanguard to do with the emancipation of the working class? Well, since they are the leaders of the working class they can also guide the working class through the class struggle. They can be organized against capitalist exploitation, they can be organized for the revolutionary overthrow of class society.

I talk about organizing because capitalism is also organized. We do not argue for decentralization because we know that this is the way that capitalists try to defeat us: through "atomization" and (liberal) individualization. We argue for centralism. Since this struggle is a political struggle most marxists suggest a political party is needed. A marxist party should therefor try to organize the vanguard of the working class as a party.
The party should embody the whole of the workers' movement and have the necessary means to both justify the goal and keep the party independent - to keep the workers' party a party of the working class a whole and nothing else. The means I'm talking about are summed up in the word democracy. As the working class needs democracy to rule, the party needs democracy to become the means of the proles to rule.

The vanguard party is not the party which claims to have the correct ideas. The vanguard party is the party of the vanguard, a material reality formed through class struggle, not simply correct ideas. Correct ideas (a program for example) are important, but they can only emerge from class struggle, democracy, criticism and organization. They do not simply come from textbooks.

Why do we need a marxist vanguard party? Because marxism aims at the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, which is a necessity to keep the party independent from capital.

[chegitz guevara]

The vanguard is the most militant, advanced layer of the working class. The vanguard party is the party which has attracted that layer. As no party in the U.S. has attracted that layer, there is no vanguard party in the U.S.

[spice756]

Now, what has the vanguard to do with the emancipation of the working class? Well, since they are the leaders of the working class they can also guide the working class through the class struggle. They can be organized against capitalist exploitation, they can be organized for the revolutionary overthrow of class society.


This thread come up before but should the vanguard be in government or just act has Unions and activists

How much power or control should they have.

[JimmyJazz]

(!)

Thank you.

how did I not know about this before? Great link.


Edit: and now another question. Why identify it as a distinct class among the workers? It seems more natural to me that this would be seen as a spectrum. . .

It is a spectrum. What makes you think the idea of a vanguard party contradicts this, or that the vanguard is a "class among the workers"?

Class consciousness--awareness that you belong to a class with shared interests, and that your fight against your boss is not some isolated experience at your workplace--is distributed among the working class like a pyramid. The biggest (bottom) layer has the least class consiousness but the same material interests as everyone else. The peak of the pyramid is the vanguard. In between is all different levels of consiousness, although there are fewer numbers at each level you ascend. For example, somewhere near the top, but not quite in the vanguard, would be people like militant labor activists who do not yet endorse a revolutionary solution but who do fight hard to organize their workplace and connect it with those struggling at other workplaces, to create union democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_democracy), and to win benefits for workers.

As chegitz noted in his post, the vanguard is something which always exists whether we recognize it or not. The only thing we have control over is whether there is a party that attracts this group. The Cuban revolution was not won by a vanguard party but by a guerilla army; yet Che referenced Cuba's "vanguard workers" in many of his speeches, most of which he was giving to actual workers. He simply meant those workers who most clearly recognized what the outcome of the revolution meant for their class, and who accordingly worked to build up/defend the revolutionary achievements.

I had the chance to go to the "How Class Works (http://www.stonybrook.edu/workingclass/conference/2008/schedule.shtml)" conference at SUNY-Stony Brook this past summer, and although I was still a student at the time, I met lots of vanguard workers. I went out drinking at night with some people who shared my conference housing, and it turned out a few of them were lifelong blue collar workers and union activists/leaders who had actually been to Cuba or other places. Lots (I dare say the majority) of the working class attendees were Trotskyists. Yet, this is at a conference that technically had nothing to do with socialism.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I agree with most of the posters above. The vanguard is more of a conceptual tool then a concrete reality. The vanguard could be as rigid as specific party with specific voting procedures, or it could be a loose collection of individuals engaged in revolutionary action.


Then it don't matter. I'll be all around in the dark. I'll be everywhere, wherever you can look. Wherever there's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready and where people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build. I'll be there, too.

[Rascolnikova]

It is a spectrum. What makes you think the idea of a vanguard party contradicts this, or that the vanguard is a "class among the workers"?

If it's a spectrum, it seems that the appropriate grammar would be "more vanguard or less vanguard" rather than "vanguard or not."

[Q]

This thread come up before but should the vanguard be in government or just act has Unions and activists

How much power or control should they have.

This is a rather abstract question. If the most active and politically aware layers of the working class (i.e. the vanguard) doesn't act as a leadership, who will?


If it's a spectrum, it seems that the appropriate grammar would be "more vanguard or less vanguard" rather than "vanguard or not."
Correct, to a certain point. The vanguard is the most active and politically aware layer of the working class. While you can also be political aware if you're not very active, this doesn't necessarily mean you're part of the vanguard. I would say that the queality that makes the vanguard what it is, is its ability to lead others in struggle. Now, there is a wide variety of quality in leadership, I guess this is where the "spectrum" kicks in JimmyJazz was talking about. But it isn't gradual all the way from most active to most passive, the line lies with the ability to lead.

[Rascolnikova]

the line lies with the ability to lead.

That is perfectly situational.

[Q]

That is perfectly situational.

Could you expand on that?

[Rascolnikova]

Could you expand on that?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. The qualities required for leadership are perfectly dependent on the situation.

[Q]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. The qualities required for leadership are perfectly dependent on the situation.

While each situation differs from eachother in details, I think a working class leader has some basic characteristics such as political understanding, making his ideas clear to others and providing an alternative.

[JimmyJazz]

If it's a spectrum, it seems that the appropriate grammar would be "more vanguard or less vanguard" rather than "vanguard or not."

No, I'm sorry, "vanguard or not" is the only acceptable phrasing. Anything else is petit bourgeois.

[Rascolnikova]

No, I'm sorry, "vanguard or not" is the only acceptable phrasing. Anything else is petit bourgeois.

:P

I think this was actually the only thing I was confused about.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Many disagree with the amount of power and centralization the vanguard should have, but they fundamentally suppose that some group should lead the revolution.

The only contrary theory I've heard is some forms of ultra-leftism which maintain magically there will be some massive uprising which people spontaneously resist capitalism through a revolution. I obviously don't buy that.

[Rascolnikova]

but they fundamentally suppose that some group should lead the revolution.

Does anyone but me find it strange that this idea needed it's own word?

[Q]

Does anyone but me find it strange that this idea needed it's own word?

We're stuck with it, we might aswell use it.

[KC]

Vanguard in the general sense means the most advanced section, that which pushes forward all others. It is the forefront of a movement that is paving new ground; that is why we have avante-garde in art.

In terms of revolution it is the most advanced section of a particular class; in this sense every revolution has a vanguard. People that belong to the same class aren't on the same level of consciousness, and because of this there will be people that are more advanced in terms of consciousness than others. The most advanced section then is the vanguard.

It is not a party or an organization, but an analytical observation. It has been historically documented and verified and continues to be verified. Thus, asking whether there "should" or "should not" be a vanguard in a revolution is a pointless question; the vanguard by its nature exists wherever there is class conflict.

[Leo]

This quote from the Communist Manifesto I think would be helpful:


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

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 line 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.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.

[JimmyJazz]

Does anyone but me find it strange that this idea needed it's own word?

Communists did not invent the word vanguard (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vanguard), they just used it, because it was appropriate.

[Pogue]

Could it be said that any organised group of socialists represents a vanguard? Like the anarcho-syndicalist union or AFed sector is like a vanguard but it doesnt want to flop like Marx-Leninism historically has so it does not want to seize power and 'lead' people.

[chegitz guevara]

Does anyone but me find it strange that this idea needed it's own word?

[Middle English vandgard, from avaunt garde, from Old French : avaunt, before (from Latin abante; see advance) + garde, guard (from garder, to guard; see guard).]

[Rascolnikova]

We're stuck with it, we might aswell use it.

:laugh:

Also, thank you, Leo, that's one of my favorite sections of the manifesto. In fact, I believe I just quoted it myself in my cc nominee thread.

I suppose I ought to clarify a few things about this thread. First, I wasn't unaware of the leftist usage of the word "vanguard." I've never had access to an active leftist community before, though, and was curious about how usage worked out in real life. . . especially in light of this earlier thread, and the way Yehuda Stern invoked it there.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/approaching-mainstream-t92566/index.html?t

[PostAnarchy]

Vanguard - Basically a Leninist idea of a political party, composed of the most "advanced" knowledgable and revolutionary workers (professional revolutionaries) leading the working class into victory over the capitalist and setting up a "worker's state" on behalf of the proleteriat.

[Tower of Bebel]

Vanguard - Basically a Leninist idea of a political party, composed of the most "advanced" knowledgable and revolutionary workers (professional revolutionaries) leading the working class into victory over the capitalist and setting up a "worker's state" on behalf of the proleteriat.
Someone has been skipping some replies.