More general questions

[Pogue]

I consider myself an Anarchist but I have some more questions to clear stuff up

1. How will the revolution be created without a vanguard party?
2. How will it defend itself without a state?
3. How do we, as revolutionaries, combat the BNP if we don't believe in parliamentary parties seizing power, even though the fascists gain more powers through elections?
4. How do we regulate what goes on in a communist society, i.e. prevent people reintroducing capitalism for their own gain or people being racist/fascism growing?

[mikelepore]

Reintroducing capitalism? The basis of capitalism isn't that you have profit seekers. The basis is that you have a vast population that cannot survive unless they seek and obtain employment that is controlled by the profit seekers. Take away that dependency, no supply of wage labor exists, problem solved.

[ZeroNowhere]

I consider myself an Anarchist but I have some more questions to clear stuff up

1. How will the revolution be created without a vanguard party?
The general belief is in a general strike or insurrection, as far as I know. Well, it depends on what you mean by 'vanguard party' too.


2. How will it defend itself without a state?
It could have an army, etc. Also, whether or not it has a state depends on what definition you're using.


3. How do we, as revolutionaries, combat the BNP if we don't believe in parliamentary parties seizing power, even though the fascists gain more powers through elections?
Well, you could se parliamentary parties, but... You could also just do your general strike thing. Of course, one needs an anarchist majority to succeed.


4. How do we regulate what goes on in a communist society, i.e. prevent people reintroducing capitalism for their own gain or people being racist/fascism growing?
1. Why the hell would anybody consent to working for somebody else's profits if they had the option of joining a commune and such? Sure, if somebody wished to become a wage slave, they could, as long as they could leave at any time.
2. As for racism, the economic basis for racism and fascism would be eliminated, so it's not much of a threat. One can't regulate thoughts.

[mikelepore]

"Vanguard", which simply means those who point the way forward, is too vague. Does the revolutionary cause need a group of volunteers who are aware of a helpful goal and program and are willing to act as teachers? YES. Do we need to have full-time leaders rule society because the people aren't fit to govern themselves? NO.

[Sam_b]

It could have an army, etc. Also, whether or not it has a state depends on what definition you're using.

I disagree.

Firstly, you would hope that in a revolutionary society/world there would be no need for an army or armed group to defend itself, as it wouldn't be in anyone's interest to invade and there would be absolutely no such thing as imperialism. However, I know this is an idealistic and utopian view. However, we have to remember the role that the army has played in crushing movements and has traditionally played an anti-working class role: for example Tianmen Square, The Prague Spring, Hungary 1956.

In my view a revolutionary society would be guarded by a worker's militia. The working class would have access to arms and training and thus would defend itself if any counterrevolutionary forces would try and reverse the gains made by the revolution and the working class.

[Decolonize The Left]

I consider myself an Anarchist but I have some more questions to clear stuff up

1. How will the revolution be created without a vanguard party?

The revolution cannot be 'created.' It is enacted by the people.


2. How will it defend itself without a state?

People are more than able to defend themselves without a state. It will require a level of organization incapable under capitalism.



3. How do we, as revolutionaries, combat the BNP if we don't believe in parliamentary parties seizing power, even though the fascists gain more powers through elections?

This is a difficult decision which is ultimately up to you. The goal of the revolutionary is to raise class consciousness, this can be done in any number of ways. In regards to bourgeois elections, there are many arguments from many different sides... perhaps another discussion?


4. How do we regulate what goes on in a communist society, i.e. prevent people reintroducing capitalism for their own gain or people being racist/fascism growing?

"We" don't regulate anything. Should the proletariat rise up and overthrow the capitalism system, they would already be demonstrating great class consciousness and solidarity to the point where they would not allow capitalism to be re-introduced.

- August

[Enragé]

1. How will the revolution be created without a vanguard party?
2. How will it defend itself without a state?
3. How do we, as revolutionaries, combat the BNP if we don't believe in parliamentary parties seizing power, even though the fascists gain more powers through elections?
4. How do we regulate what goes on in a communist society, i.e. prevent people reintroducing capitalism for their own gain or people being racist/fascism growing?


1. There will be a vanguard, anarchists just dont call it that (any organisation which is at the forefront of class struggle, which has the militant minority of the class-conscious organised in its ranks is a vanguard)


The revolution cannot be 'created.' It is enacted by the people.


Semantics

2. There will be a state, anarchists just dont call it that (the state is, in essence, an armed group of people)
3. by mobilizing in the streets against fascism, making sure that they will never get that much support, and if that fails, by paralyzing the state machinery (also, even if we would participate in parliamentary politics, the same problems apply)
4. When people have fought a revolution and put society under their democratic control, what motivation have they to give that power out of their hands, to give someone more power than themselves? And, if armed counter-revolution erupts, they will be smashed by the people, armed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Vanguard", which simply means those who point the way forward, is too vague. Does the revolutionary cause need a group of volunteers who are aware of a helpful goal and program and are willing to act as teachers? YES. Do we need to have full-time leaders rule society because the people aren't fit to govern themselves? NO.

Well, at least you made a clear distinction between "teachers" and "guides." :)

"Guides" are not the type that are capable of making socialist theoreticians out of "ordinary workers," much less capable of inducing unity through discipline into the working class.

[Enragé]

i think the last thing the proletariate needs is more discipline, what we need is less, self-discipline will suffice, and it will be discipline to achieve a goal which is in our benefit, a goal which we ourselves have chosen.

[ZeroNowhere]

I disagree.

Firstly, you would hope that in a revolutionary society/world there would be no need for an army or armed group to defend itself, as it wouldn't be in anyone's interest to invade and there would be absolutely no such thing as imperialism. However, I know this is an idealistic and utopian view. However, we have to remember the role that the army has played in crushing movements and has traditionally played an anti-working class role: for example Tianmen Square, The Prague Spring, Hungary 1956.

In my view a revolutionary society would be guarded by a worker's militia. The working class would have access to arms and training and thus would defend itself if any counterrevolutionary forces would try and reverse the gains made by the revolution and the working class.
Wait, we're talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat stage (capitalism still exists. If you dislike the term, use another one, whatever), not socialism. One could call an organized fighting force a "workers' militia", I just call it an army for the sake of simplicity.

[Annie K.]

anarchists just dont call it thatYes. In fact, every struggle implying workers fit exactly the [...]ist revolution doctrine. Argumentation and criticizing are void, that's just semantics.

Wow, I think now we can recreate the first international !

[F9]

1. There will be a vanguard, anarchists just dont call it that (any organisation which is at the forefront of class struggle, which has the militant minority of the class-conscious organised in its ranks is a vanguard)



Semantics

2. There will be a state, anarchists just dont call it that (the state is, in essence, an armed group of people)
3. by mobilizing in the streets against fascism, making sure that they will never get that much support, and if that fails, by paralyzing the state machinery (also, even if we would participate in parliamentary politics, the same problems apply)
4. When people have fought a revolution and put society under their democratic control, what motivation have they to give that power out of their hands, to give someone more power than themselves? And, if armed counter-revolution erupts, they will be smashed by the people, armed.

No, there wont be neither a state nor a vanguard... ?
:confused:

[Enragé]

No, there wont be neither a state nor a vanguard... ?
:confused:

Semantics.

The point i was making is that there is in practice a vanguard, and a state, but that anarchists just don't call it that. There will be a militant minority organised (anarchist federation uk is an example), thus a vanguard and there will be a state, i.e a group of armed people (e.g the anarchist militias of the spanish civil war).

[Sam_b]

Wait, we're talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat stage (capitalism still exists. If you dislike the term, use another one, whatever), not socialism. One could call an organized fighting force a "workers' militia", I just call it an army for the sake of simplicity.

No. An army would be a centralised, organised and employed force which carries the legitimate use of coercion on behalf of the government. This is not a worker's militia.

[Annie K.]

There will be a militant minority organised (anarchist federation uk is an example), thus a vanguard and there will be a state, i.e a group of armed people (e.g the anarchist militias of the spanish civil war).Artificially reducing the meaning of the words we use can allow you to use your ideology on any situation, but it surely won't help the expansion of the revolutionnary consciousness.
Anarchists federations are not meant to organize the proletariat in an authoritarian and exclusive manner. They are the organization of a fraction of the proletariat and they have no organic links with the rest of the revolutionnary class.
And of course, spanish militias are no more a state than are the gangs of los angeles.
Any organization is not a vanguard organization, and any violent group of people is not a state.
A.

[Enragé]

Anarchists federations are not meant to organize the proletariat in an authoritary and exclusive manner. They are the organization of a fraction of the proletariat

.. and so are vanguard parties. The difference is in semantics only. Now, we can discuss the internal structure of revolutionary organisations, but thats a different subject (one in which both the standard anarchist and standard leninist have their flaws, or better, risks). As for "meant to organize the proletariat in an authoritary [sic] and exclusive manner", neither do vanguards, or, again, neither should vanguards.

Lukács gives a concise definition of the vanguard in the early 20's:
"the militant minority [...] assemble[d] in the form of an organisation"

Also, as to what the task of the vanguard is, lukács gives a clear answer:
"’in no sense is the party’s role to impose any kind of abstract, cleverly devised tactics on the masses. On the contrary it must continuously learn from their struggle and… unite the spontaneous discoveries…with the totality of the revolutionary struggle, and bring them to consciousness"


they have no organic links with the rest of the revolutionnary class.


what do you mean?


And of course, spanish militias are no more a state than are the gangs of los angeles.


What would the state be were it not for their thugs in uniform? It would not exist. The existence of an armed group of people is the sine qua non, the necessary prerequisite, for the existence of a state. If there is no such group, there is no state.

In any case, we can squabble till the sun swallows up the earth. Instead of debating what is a state and what is not, we should establish what is and what is not a state according to you and according to me. Then we can discuss whether or not we are for or against a state in your, and/or my terms.

I've presented my definition, and following that definition i do not oppose a state. What is yours?


Wow, I think now we can recreate the first international !

Barring most stalinists, a few trots and individualist anarchists, i think we can ;) (or better, should be able to.. but alas the battle for semantics rages on). Ofcourse, i wouldnt imagine such an international to have uniform tactics (and neither should we!), but our end goal is the same.

[Annie K.]

.. and so are vanguard parties. And so are regular parties. That's not semantics, there are objective differences.


As for "meant to organize the proletariat in an authoritary [sorry for that, I corrected] and exclusive manner", neither do vanguards, or, again, neither should vanguards.A teacher is also an authority. And I didn't read much of lukacs, but I suppose "the party" refers to a status of exclusivity.


what do you mean?That these organizations can exist without having a predefined relation with the revolutionnaries outside the organization.


What would the state be were it not for their thugs in uniform? It would not exist.As you say, these thugs are not ordinary thugs, they are thugs in uniform. And they don't get them so easily. The police is a part of the state, but it can't exist as a police if the others parts are not present. Violence is one of the characteristics of a state. It is not the only one. Frankly, I wouldn't be able to make an exhaustive list. I could define some essential features, but that's not what I want to discuss of.
"State" is a word used to describe a particular form of organisation of social relations, similarly applied in different territories and different times, and which among other means of social control, use groups of armed individuals. It is useful because it allows us to develop a detailled analysis of "the state". To describe any armed group, the expression "any armed group" is clear and sufficient.
Since, in fact, we will die before the sun swallows up the earth, it is better to use words to describe the specific cases and others to describe the general cases.

[Enragé]

And so are regular parties. That's not semantics, there are objective differences.


Then what are those objective differences? Wherein lies the difference?


A teacher is also an authority.

Indeed, and i have continually argued against the use of such wording in the trotskyite org i am a member of (to be quite honest, it makes my skin crawl), i.e the revolutionaries as "teaching" the working class. In any case, if you read the second time i quoted lukács, there is no such wording. In fact, if there is any teacher, it is that the struggle teaches the party and the working class as a whole, and that the role of the party is to combine individual lessons learned.


And I didn't read much of lukacs

Neither did I. I got the quotes from an IST document my group collectively read and discussed a few weeks back. If you like, i could send it you and we can discuss it. The whole document is about Strategy and Tactics, written in the trotskyite tradition. It really is an interesting read (its about more than just the party, from sectarianism to propaganda and agitation, but ofcourse parts of it go indepth as to the role of it etc.)


but I suppose "the party" refers to a status of exclusivity.

Well, no more than any form of organisation implies a certain exclusivity (i.e you have those in the organisation, and those not in it). So this is not anything unique to socalled vanguardist parties.


That these organizations can exist without having a predefined relation with the revolutionnaries outside the organization.

Sure.. but again i fail to see the difference with a party. In fact, having a predefined relation with other revolutionary groups, or individual revolutionaries, is an impossibility since the situation in time Y is different than the one in time X.


As you say, these thugs are not ordinary thugs, they are thugs in uniform.

So if gangs start to wear uniforms they are no longer ordinary thugs? Even thugs in uniform are ordinary thugs, the only difference is their outward appearance.


The police is a part of the state, but it can't exist as a police if the others parts are not present. Violence is one of the characteristics of a state. It is not the only one. Frankly, I wouldn't be able to make an exhaustive list. I could define some essential features, but that's not what I want to discuss of.


Ofcourse it's not the only one, it is however the only one without which the state simply cannot exist.


"State" is a word used to describe a particular form of organisation of social relations, similarly applied in different territories and different times, and which among other means of social control, use groups of armed individuals. It is useful because it allows us to develop a detailled analysis of "the state".

Ok, but what exactly is the state? Its useful to have a clearcut definition of the state if you're bent on abolishing it. Otherwise, you won't know if the state is finally dead or still exist, and more to the point here, nobody knows what exactly we are discussing when we debate whether or not the state will still exist post-revolution (that is, in the beginning. In the end the need for worker-militias to protect the revolution will gradually diminish, especially regarding outside threats. As for the resolution of crime entirely, it might take much, much longer).

[Annie K.]

Wherein lies the difference?A vanguard party "must continuously learn from their struggle and… unite the spontaneous discoveries…with the totality of the revolutionary struggle, and bring them to consciousness", and a regular party mustn't. The anarchist federations will never place themselves in the course of the events so that they can refer to the revolutionnary struggle as "their struggle".


the second time i quoted lukács, there is no such wording.The struggle of the working class is different than the working class. As the bolchevik experience showed, the represented hierarchical relation between the struggle of the working class and the working class representation can be inversed concerning the working class itself.
And what lukacs' party does once he brought the spontaneous discoveries to consciousness, if not teaching it to the working class ?


So this is not anything unique to socalled vanguardist parties.Did trotskysts theoricians theorize the existence of more than one vanguard party for one unified class struggle ?


In fact, having a predefined relation with other revolutionary groups, or individual revolutionaries, is an impossibility since the situation in time Y is different than the one in time X.Yes, that's why a vanguard party can exist only in a revolutionnary period. But it can be planned before.


So if gangs start to wear uniforms they are no longer ordinary thugs?Yes. But the important thing is that they don't.
A uniform is not just a specific set of clothes, it is associated with the power of the state to control its troups and to organize the production and distribution of the uniforms. It is not only a symbol of its power, it is a technical demonstration of it. The end of the confederate states of america is a good example.


it is however the only one without which the state simply cannot exist. Only if you consider, as in the definition you use, that all the other characteristics are incidental. For example, one common definition of the state insists on the absolute necessity of a territory.
But even if we accept that the police is the only necessary feature, all others characteristics are still existing, and should prevent (always for practical reasons) to use the word "state" to refer only at the police and at others violent groups.


Ok, but what exactly is the state? Its useful to have a clearcut definition of the state if you're bent on abolishing it. Otherwise, you won't know if the state is finally dead or still existThe state has been precisely defined by marxists and non-marxists theoricians, and I couldn't offer you a more satisfying answer than their articles.
But I want to abolish all powers, and beginning by the more organized ones, so I'm sure to destroy completely the state if I live long enough. That was one of bakunin arguments, if I recall correctly : the use of the state would obstruct its total destruction as the conscious opposition between it and the revolutionnary class would be erased. The error of the marxists (and in this way they were less marxists than the anarchists) was to think that history could be made without class-conscious historic actions.

[Enragé]

I'll respond to this when i have the time. I barely slept last night and i have to get up early tomorrow so im gonna hit the sack.

[Black Sheep]

The point i was making is that there is in practice a vanguard, and a state, but that anarchists just don't call it that.Yeah but the key difference is that in marxist strategy the vanguard is 'institutionalized' and taken into direct account.Its formation and leading role is supported and encouraged (because it is considered a revolutionary factor that is bound to happen,and thus a 'law' of the revolution).
Yeah,class consciousness rises in a non equal way, BUT using this fact as the spearhead of the revolution is not a 'law',it is an approach in my opinion.

Also, NewKindOfSoldier (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=10031) you mentioned semantics, which is on the one hand just saying almost the same (practically) thing,but on the other hand it plays a crucial role at affecting people and the course they are going to take,and thus,the revolution.

For example,propagandizing that the revolution will occur under the vanguard's guidance and institutionalizing the vanguard as the ideological beacon of light for the working class is not the same as telling people that it is up to them and them only to lead themselves to emancipation.

I mean, a vanguard group's guidance may (and probably will) occur, but institutionalizing this as a structure and plan for the revolution makes a huge difference IMO.

Same with the state.

edit:reading this post again makes no sense.. i ll try to edit tommorrow morning

[BobKKKindle$]

No, there wont be neither a state nor a vanguard... ?Wrong. The vanguard is simply the most militant and class-conscious section of the proletariat and so will always exist for the simple reason that there are differences in consciousness within the proletariat - not all workers view the world in the same way. This poses the question of whether the vanguard should just be allowed to exist as a political stratum without any kind of coordination between its members and no attempt to bring the rest of the proletariat round to a revolutionary viewpoint, or whether something should be done to make revolutionary change possible. Lenin was correct in arguing that the workers who are part of the vanguard should form an independent political organization (otherwise known as the vanguard party) with the aim of intervening in the mass struggles of the proletariat as a whole in order to "patiently explain" how the problems that workers face in the course of their daily lives are ultimately the result of the capitalist system, and so can only be eliminated when capitalism has been overthrown and replaced with a new mode of social organization based on the interests of the proletariat -socialism. Even most anarchists accept the legitimacy of these principles by creating organizations based on a coherent political platform.

A vanguard party is different from a normal party in that the main objective of a normal party is to gain as many votes as possible and eventually form a government, and so normal parties change their policies to reflect the demands of the public - this can be seen from the rightwards shift of both the Labour Party and the Conservatives in the UK on the issue of immigration, as large numbers of people have fallen under the illusion that immigration is somehow to blame for problems such as low wage rates and unemployment. The role of the vanguard, by contrast, is to change the worldview of the proletariat, and so must always retain a consistently revolutionary program regardless of the prevailing political climate.

[F9]

Wrong. The vanguard is simply the most militant and class-conscious section of the proletariat and so will always exist for the simple reason that there are differences in consciousness within the proletariat - not all workers view the world in the same way. This poses the question of whether the vanguard should just be allowed to exist as a political stratum without any kind of coordination between its members and no attempt to bring the rest of the proletariat round to a revolutionary viewpoint, or whether something should be done to make revolutionary change possible. Lenin was correct in arguing that the workers who are part of the vanguard should form an independent political organization (otherwise known as the vanguard party) with the aim of intervening in the mass struggles of the proletariat as a whole in order to "patiently explain" how the problems that workers face in the course of their daily lives are ultimately the result of the capitalist system, and so can only be eliminated when capitalism has been overthrown and replaced with a new mode of social organization based on the interests of the proletariat -socialism. Even most anarchists accept the legitimacy of these principles by creating organizations based on a coherent political platform.

A vanguard party is different from a normal party in that the main objective of a normal party is to gain as many votes as possible and eventually form a government, and so normal parties change their policies to reflect the demands of the public - this can be seen from the rightwards shift of both the Labour Party and the Conservatives in the UK on the issue of immigration, as large numbers of people have fallen under the illusion that immigration is somehow to blame for problems such as low wage rates and unemployment. The role of the vanguard, by contrast, is to change the worldview of the proletariat, and so must always retain a consistently revolutionary program regardless of the prevailing political climate.

How can I being wrong in what I believe?:rolleyes:
No, for me there wont be any vanguard, the class consciousness needs no vanguard!So basically you are wrong!

Fuserg9:star:

[BobKKKindle$]

How can I being wrong in what I believe?

You are wrong because the vanguard is not something which depends on your individual viewpoint, it is an empirical fact. Ultimately, if you accept that the class consciousness of the proletariat is uneven, then you must also accept that there is a vanguard, which simply amounts to the idea that there are some workers who are more militant and have a higher level of class-consciousness than the rest of the proletariat due to the influence of both objective and subjective factors which shape the way they view the world, and the way they want to change the world. This is true even if you reject Lenin's model of party organization.

[Black Sheep]

A vanguard party is different from a normal party in that the main objective of a normal party is to gain as many votes as possible and eventually form a government,
Whoaa!The vanguard party aims to change the dominant class,from the bourgeoisie to the working class.It is,according to the Communist International, the ideological leader and pioneer, a guide.The members of the workers' state needn't be members of the vanguard party.

[Enragé]

A vanguard party "must continuously learn from their struggle and… unite the spontaneous discoveries…with the totality of the revolutionary struggle, and bring them to consciousness", and a regular party mustn't. The anarchist federations will never place themselves in the course of the events so that they can refer to the revolutionnary struggle as "their struggle".


uhm im sorry but isnt it our struggle? Our goal is revolution is it not?


As the bolchevik experience showed, the represented hierarchical relation between the struggle of the working class and the working class representation can be inversed concerning the working class itself.

this sounds situationist, not that i have anything against situationism, except that it makes things way too complicated sometimes.. please explain, especially the "can be inversed concerning the working class itself".


And what lukacs' party does once he brought the spontaneous discoveries to consciousness, if not teaching it to the working class ?


So instead we shouldnt communicate with people outside the organisation? We shouldnt print newspapers, we shouldnt have websites, we shouldnt print pamphlets?


Did trotskysts theoricians theorize the existence of more than one vanguard party for one unified class struggle ?


Good point. But the united front is a tactic for more or less such a situation.


Yes, that's why a vanguard party can exist only in a revolutionnary period. But it can be planned before.

again
"In fact, having a predefined relation with other revolutionary groups, or individual revolutionaries, is an impossibility since the situation in time Y is different than the one in time X. "

Things can change fast, especially when there's a revolution on (the horizon).


A uniform is not just a specific set of clothes, it is associated with the power of the state to control its troups and to organize the production and distribution of the uniforms.
[emphasis added]

Yes, associated with, but it's not the intrinsic characteristic of a police force, military etc. Its a symbol which stands for what you describe, nothing more.


It is not only a symbol of its power, it is a technical demonstration of it

Erm no, its a symbol, nothing more. Just as a red and black flag stands for anarchosyndicalism, but doesnt actually entail anarchosyndicalism. Next you'll be saying flags are what is a country.


The end of the confederate states of america is a good example.


im not familiar with that.


For example, one common definition of the state insists on the absolute necessity of a territory.
But even if we accept that the police is the only necessary feature, all others characteristics are still existing, and should prevent (always for practical reasons) to use the word "state" to refer only at the police and at others violent groups.


Err yes, which is why when i mean the police i say "the police" and not "the state". However, when we're talking about whether or not to abolish the state directly after revolution, or about how the state whithers away, i look at the police/workers' militia to get to the sine qua non of the state, i.e that without which the state cannot exist, and conclude that the state cannot be pushed out of existence directly after the revolution (unless we want the revolution to fail) since we still need the worker's militia at that point in time.

Also, if the state has territory, this means that it has people at their disposal willing to enforce its claim on that territory, i.e a police force/military.


The state has been precisely defined by marxists and non-marxists theoricians, and I couldn't offer you a more satisfying answer than their

Im sorry but couldnt you just give a definition then? Parafrase those theoreticians, or quote them for all i care, but don't refer to them without even giving me a clue of what they say.

--


Yeah but the key difference is that in marxist strategy the vanguard is 'institutionalized' and taken into direct account.Its formation and leading role is supported and encouraged (because it is considered a revolutionary factor that is bound to happen,and thus a 'law' of the revolution).
Yeah,class consciousness rises in a non equal way, BUT using this fact as the spearhead of the revolution is not a 'law',it is an approach in my opinion.


Ok, i never heard anyone talk about it as if it is a law. In fact, justifications for a vanguard i heard come from pointing at situations where there wasnt one and shit went down the drain (thus disproving that it is a law).

As for the rest of what you say, i don't see the problem. And i also don't see how this differs in practice from what anarchists do.


For example,propagandizing that the revolution will occur under the vanguard's guidance and institutionalizing the vanguard as the ideological beacon of light for the working class is not the same as telling people that it is up to them and them only to lead themselves to emancipation.

I agree completely, and this isnt what a vanguard should be like. Again i refer to lukács when he says: "’in no sense is the party’s role to impose any kind of abstract, cleverly devised tactics on the masses. On the contrary it must continuously learn from their struggle and… unite the spontaneous discoveries…with the totality of the revolutionary struggle, and bring them to consciousness"


but institutionalizing this as a structure and plan for the revolution makes a huge difference IMO.

As if anarchists don't have organisational structure and plan for things, such as (should the occasion arise) the revolution. Basically because if you go into the fray without an idea of the big picture, without organisation, without planning, you die, or simply fail.

Looking at the protests in Rostock last year, we can see all sorts of planning, and all sorts of structures, including anarchists.
--

How can I being wrong in what I believe?
No, for me there wont be any vanguard, the class consciousness needs no vanguard!

the funny thing is, is that you are a part of it! ^^
--

You are wrong because the vanguard is not something which depends on your individual viewpoint, it is an empirical fact. Ultimately, if you accept that the class consciousness of the proletariat is uneven, then you must also accept that there is a vanguard, which simply amounts to the idea that there are some workers who are more militant and have a higher level of class-consciousness than the rest of the proletariat due to the influence of both objective and subjective factors which shape the way they view the world, and the way they want to change the world. This is true even if you reject Lenin's model of party organization.


QFT!

[Vendetta]

Semantics.

How is that semantics?

[Enragé]

How is that semantics?

how is there a difference between a revolution created and a revolution enacted by the people?

[F9]

the funny thing is, is that you are a part of it! ^^

Part of what?

[BobKKKindle$]

Part of what?

The vanguard. The fact that you are aware of how capitalism leads to the exploitation of the proletariat and support the overthrow of capitalism through revolution means that your class consciousness is more advanced than the main section of the proletariat - most workers do not the view the world in these terms, and are often influenced by ideas such as racism which turn workers against each other and prevent them from recognizing that they all have interests in common, or are under the illusion that the economic demands of the proletariat can be addressed within the framework of the capitalist system through electoral politics and peaceful negotiation with employers. Lenin argued that the workers who are part of the vanguard should acknowledge the uneven consciousness of the proletariat, and form an independent political organization with the objective of raising the general level of consciousness by means of agitation and intervention in workers struggles, because widespread class consciousness is a prerequisite for the overthrow of capitalism, which can only occur through the collective action of the proletariat as a class, not the isolated intrigues of a small group of individuals.

[Black Sheep]

Holy sh*t Fuserg9 is the Fing VANGUARD!:D:D:D