To Marxists: Do you think Leninism/vanguardism was a necessary addition?

[Lowtech]

Nothing in society will ever be 100% agreed upon so by even making any decisions you'll be viewed as dictatorial by somebody somewhere. Even just setting up a socialist society is viewed as tyrannical and dictatorial by the bourgeoisie. Everybody has their own agenda and the point here is to have the people in power who'll benefit the largest amount of society.

A blatant dictatorship has zero accountability to the people, so you're asking us to have blind faith in a totalitarian structure. you are wanting the working class to have a blind faith relationship the same way you do with your employer under capitalism. You have zero understanding of the very thing you think you advocate and you can achieve what you want right now by picking a corporation, any corporation and singing it's praises. Save yourself the trouble of debating me, and just do that.

[Baseball]

And you state that cars and beer aren't bought by workers? And that the workers aren't buyers? But if they are, then I ask again: hy someone else is to decide what to produce?

Even in the socialist community, the brewers are producing beer for other people who want beer. And even in the socialist community, people who want beer also want other goods and services(sometimes even more so than beer). And resources whicj are usrd to brew beer can be used for other items. So nothing is really said when its claimed that in a socialist community brewers are workers also.

[Baseball]

capitalist, you aren't skeptical, you are being elitist and seeing other people as inferior to you, self-validating your exploitation of them. capitalism is economically invalid and this is mathematically observable.i'm not responsible for your inaccurate understanding of capitalism.

to reiterate, i said that skill sets will exist as needed. under communism, skill sets will have to be more productive than it's capitalist counterparts as a consequence because in communism, economic value has precedence, not profit. since people would not be subjected to artificial scarcity, the same level of productivity we see now will be accomplished with less work hours. under capitalism there is a huge artificial deficit in economic value the working class experiences because economic value is concentrated in the 1%. an economy free of artificial scarcity will not have this burden.currently, corporate structures, entrepreneurs decide what is to be produced, the belief capitalism isn't planned is a myth.
it is very much planned; for the good of the rich.subjective wants do not validate economic subjugation (few rich dominating the working majority) nor does it validate the allocating of resources on massive scales based on the whim of a plutocratic ruling class. on massive scales, need follows a very uniform and predictible pattern. essentially, we know what people need to survive and live happy productive lives and this does not include paying atonement to a plutocratic class for the fault of being alive. the "subjective wants" can be satisfied by 3D printers and rediscovering the lost art of crafts. the convenience of being a consumerist sloth does not validate a system creating poverty and giving exchange value to .

There is nothing particularly elitist questioning whether workers can create and function effectively within a socialist community. It is sort of par for the course.

Socialism has to be defended in terms of socialism, not in terms of capitalism. All the above paragraph explains is the glory that will be socialism, without explaining the how and why. It is mere assertions.

So, even if craftworkers are all that are needed to provide goods and services in a socialist community, you would need to ecplain why their needs are more important than the needs of those who want the product iof the craftmaker. You need to define and explain "economic value" as the socialist understands it.

[Revenant]

The vanguard is just a group of intellectuals and others who are already aware of economic inequality and how to fix it. They spread this message to others in order to gain support for a revolution so it can be successful.

I disagree, I think the vanguard should be able to gauge the right moment to act on class consciousness, they should represent the step beyond, I think if you look at the 70's and 80's in the UK, the attacks on the Unions and british industry, what was lacking was a clear and equal response to the violence/force employed by the state to put down revolution, essentially the Proletariat weren't ready for or expecting actual warfare, but that's what they got, there was the solidarity, the class consciousness, the intent, but they lacked the Revolutionary spark, figurative and literal1

When the Police state closed in British sensibilities won through, where were the Anarchists?

An opposite example would imo be Carlos the Jackal, he had the revolutionary spark, the methods and means of attaining a successful revolution, his name and reputation probably struck fear into many an international diplomats heart, but he lacked a revolution and tried to make one.

So to me a Vanguard knows the specific situation, it is not a specific group with well defined functions in the Revolution, it acts on the Revolutionary consciousness and masses at the decisive moment, it should have no obstacles, ethical, moralistic, scientific or ideological to the achievement of revolution it's job is to a=raise the stakes and b=to defend the success if victories are won.

For every obscene oppressive use of force by the State apparatus the Vanguard should have an equal reaction in place imo..

I would say from the little I've read Marx's complaint about the Paris Commune was their reluctance to raise the stakes, take the wealth of the cities institutions, which inhibited their ability to defend the successes they'd won.

Now I think bearing that in mind MLK's method of resistance is interesting, he negated the force of the state, and actually used it as a weapon

[Old Bolshie]

people have lived in very communistic societies for the better part of our 26 million year existence as a species. the historical information you provided is nothing more than reverse rationale for authoritarian ideology.

Yes I know but we aren't living in Hunter-Gatherer societies anymore and we have to deal with harsh realities like a brutal counter-revolution against the proletariat revolution. You need organization and certain degree of authoritarianism to counter it.

the proletariat and a vanguard class are not the same thing.

The vanguard is not a class or something apart from the proletariat. The vanguard party comes from and is supported by the proletariat. The proletariat is the pillar of the vanguard which represents the proletariat interests and aims, leading it through the class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

people do not need oppressors, we need no handlers, dominance has had it's day as an evolutionary factor. we are no longer just a species of animal, we are a civilization.

That's a very nice speech but I doubt that would repel the counter-revolution.

political economy underpins everything in our world today. if economic principle isn't important to you, you're debating on the wrong forum.

Economic principle is important for me. What isn't important is distorting completely others users posts. I was talking about the dichotomy vanguard/mass party and you came talking about companies and CEO's. If I wanna talk about companies and CEO's I go to another forum.

[tuwix]

Even in the socialist community, the brewers are producing beer for other people who want beer. And even in the socialist community, people who want beer also want other goods and services(sometimes even more so than beer). And resources whicj are usrd to brew beer can be used for other items. So nothing is really said when its claimed that in a socialist community brewers are workers also.

But you ignores the fact that they are workers still. And you don't answer the question: why someone else shoould decide what and how to produce?

[Lowtech]

There is nothing particularly elitist questioning whether workers can create and function effectively within a socialist community. It is sort of par for the course.

there is no doubt workers can. We already function more than effectively, even under the harsh burden of exploitation right now. Tell me again how you justify economic subjugation? You are comical.

Socialism has to be defended in terms of socialism, not in terms of capitalism. All the above paragraph explains is the glory that will be socialism, without explaining the how and why. It is mere assertions.

there is no glory accept the reality that capitalism is economically invalid and this is mathematically observable. you can disgree with reality if you wish, it will just make you look like an idiot and rightfully so.

So, even if craftworkers are all that are needed to provide goods and services in a socialist community, you would need to ecplain why their needs are more important than the needs of those who want the product iof the craftmaker. You need to define and explain "economic value" as the socialist understands it.

we by far understand economic value better than capitalists, we create it.

[Lowtech]

Yes I know but we aren't living in Hunter-Gatherer societies anymore and we have to deal with harsh realities like a brutal counter-revolution against the proletariat revolution. You need organization and certain degree of authoritarianism to counter it.

you are again putting forward the argument that the working class is unable to organize itself, therefore justifying an authoritarian system.. "who will watch the watchers?" economic subjugation is the problem, and you are wanting to substitute this with subjugation of another kind. This is the attempt to use a problem as It's own solution. it is madness.

The vanguard is not a class or something apart from the proletariat. The vanguard party comes from and is supported by the proletariat. The proletariat is the pillar of the vanguard which represents the proletariat interests and aims, leading it through the class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

spare me your blind faith nonesense. If a "vangard" class, group, whatever is given unopposed power, they are a defacto ruling class.

That's a very nice speech but I doubt that would repel the counter-revolution.

class awareness, proper (communist) economic policy, there would be little to no counter revolution. however, opposition of a new ruling class would be an entirely diferent scenerio.

Economic principle is important for me. What isn't important is distorting completely others users posts. I was talking about the dichotomy vanguard/mass party and you came talking about companies and CEO's. If I wanna talk about companies and CEO's I go to another forum.

capitalism is economic subjugation. It shouldn't bother you if i bring up the "economic" portion of that issue. If it does, you're not helping the movement, man. Maybe you should get a new hobby.

[lemushyman]

How else are you supposed to achieve revolution? What - you expect millions of workers to be completely altruistic, educated in Marxism and to co-operate with one another in the establishment of a harmonious, woe-free society? The problem with a lot of these pre-revolution countries is that the proletariat was illiterate, extremely susceptible to reactionary propaganda (as is today's working class) and had no clue why their lives were so bad, and how to improve them. Vanguardism is necessary because it unites the working class, and can act as a governing body that will aid in the establishment of socialism, and provided the vanguard party integrates mandatory membership worker's councils, it can function democratically.

[The Idler]

Forgive me for quoting but Engels was pretty clear on what he thought of vanguards

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work that we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

Pretty hard to quibble with, yet aspiring vanguards seem to dispute this.

[Old Bolshie]

you are again putting forward the argument that the working class is unable to organize itself, therefore justifying an authoritarian system.. "who will watch the watchers?"

Unfortunately that's the case with proletarian revolutions and you just have to look at History to confirm it.

economic subjugation is the problem, and you are wanting to substitute this with subjugation of another kind. This is the attempt to use a problem as It's own solution. it is madness.

I am proposing subjugation of what kind if I defend the end of classes differences?

spare me your blind faith nonesense. If a "vangard" class, group, whatever is given unopposed power, they are a defacto ruling class.

Political movements or political parties aren't classes apart. They come from, are support by and represent classes interests.

class awareness, proper (communist) economic policy, there would be little to no counter revolution. however, opposition of a new ruling class would be an entirely diferent scenerio

That's very pretty in theory but reality tell us a completely different thing. Counter revolution will always follow a proletarian revolution despite of the class awareness or how proper your economic policy is.

.capitalism is economic subjugation. It shouldn't bother you if i bring up the "economic" portion of that issue. If it does, you're not helping the movement, man. Maybe you should get a new hobby.

My problem wasn't that you brought the economic portion but rather the fact that I was talking about something and you came talking about a completely different one.

[c0z]

The vanguard is just a group of intellectuals and others who are already aware of economic inequality and how to fix it.

Yeah, so they claim. Or maybe it's just a subconscious desire for power? It's much easier to get the population to support your dictatorship when you promise them your authority is for their ultimate benefit.

[Baseball]

But you ignores the fact that they are workers still. And you don't answer the question: why someone else shoould decide what and how to produce?

Why should the workers, as brewers decide , ? Who cares what they wish to do? Shouldn't the workers, as beer consumers decide?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?

It was not a necessary addition, no.

Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

Yes, of course it would be possible.

I don't think it would be possible to have revolution based on Marx alone, particularly not in feudal and other non-industrialized societies.

Marxism was designed for capitalist society, not for feudal and other non-industrialized societies.

1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen.

How does that make a Marxist revolution impossible?

2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely.

Only for a limited time, that is.

3) With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction.

Indeed.

Also, an Orthodox Marxist I was arguing with said that Russia should have had a capitalist revolution before having a communist one in order to have the proper Marxist conditions in place.

For a specifically Marxist revolution, capitalism is needed prior to socialism.

However, I don't think there would have been a revolution had a capitalist revolution occurred beforehand.

There probably wouldn't have been a successful revolution yet.

Again, the new capitalist class would prevent it from happening; at the time of the October Revolution Russia had no such class on a large scale to prevent such a revolution.

It would had prevented it from happening at the time, yes. However, I think that if there had been no Soviet Union and other countries like it, socialism would be much more popular. With the Soviet Union, and countries like it, socialism's image has been almost permanently damaged, despite the fact that they never achieved socialism.

[Lowtech]

Unfortunately that's the case with proletarian revolutions and you just have to look at History to confirm it.

if you believe the people cannot organize themselves, you agree with the capitalist contention that people require subjugation. the working class cannot trust those that are capitalist-like

I am proposing subjugation of what kind if I defend the end of classes differences?

you can pretend to defend anything you wish, once you have unopposed power, your actions become completely unaccountable to the people, again, like a capitalist.

Political movements or political parties aren't classes apart. They come from, are support by and represent classes interests.

are you now advocating political systems? which is a strange position as political systems cannot exist within a superseding totalitarian structure. are you unaware of what you're actually talking about or are you a liar?

That's very pretty in theory but reality tell us a completely different thing. Counter revolution will always follow a proletarian revolution despite of the class awareness or how proper your economic policy is.

people have a natural tolerance level for each other. some would call it conformity, others would call it a weakness, ultimately it is a propensity for peace. you want to use it as a means to subjugate humanity. we are subjugated now. if you cannot provide an alternative to what is already exercised by capitalists, you and those who share your ideology would be poor in taking up the task of social engineering.

My problem wasn't that you brought the economic portion but rather the fact that I was talking about something and you came talking about a completely different one.

if you can't see the link, you're still in the wrong place discussing the wrong things. you can't say that you support the interests of the economically subjugated and then stubbornly ignore economic principle. economics has everything to do with how we are to liberate ourselves from economic subjugation. you make a mockery of everything we hope to create.

[Old Bolshie]

if you believe the people cannot organize themselves,

It's not a matter of believe. It's a matter of practical analysis and historic evidence. I'm a Marxist and not an idealist like yourself and neither was Lenin. It was not by chance that Lenin headed the first successful proletarian revolution in History.

you agree with the capitalist contention that people require subjugation. the working class cannot trust those that are capitalist-like

I'm not advocating subjugation of any kind so it would be better if you could drop this demagogic speech.

you can pretend to defend anything you wish, once you have unopposed power, your actions become completely unaccountable to the people, again, like a capitalist.

I don't see anything wrong with proletarian unopposed power.

are you now advocating political systems? which is a strange position as political systems cannot exist within a superseding totalitarian structure. are you unaware of what you're actually talking about or are you a liar?

I am advocating that the Bolsheviks born of the Russian proletarian, represented its interests and were supported by. Try not to confuse this simple statement like you have been doing during our arguing.

people have a natural tolerance level for each other. some would call it conformity, others would call it a weakness, ultimately it is a propensity for peace. you want to use it as a means to subjugate humanity. we are subjugated now. if you cannot provide an alternative to what is already exercised by capitalists, you and those who share your ideology would be poor in taking up the task of social engineering.

But I provide an alternative. The replacement of the bourgeoisie dictatorship for the proletarian's one. The methods by which I defend that replacement is what separates us.

if you can't see the link, you're still in the wrong place discussing the wrong things. you can't say that you support the interests of the economically subjugated and then stubbornly ignore economic principle. economics has everything to do with how we are to liberate ourselves from economic subjugation. you make a mockery of everything we hope to create.

Again, I don't ignore the economic principle. I never said I did. I was talking about the fact that Communist Parties in the West don't resemble in anything the Bolsheviks and are more alike parliamentary bourgeois reformist parties and you came talking about companies and CEO's...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why should the workers, as brewers decide , ? Who cares what they wish to do? Shouldn't the workers, as beer consumers decide?

LOL, as if capitalists as beer consumers decide? Capitalists decide based on profits. If you worked as part of a socialist brewerey it wouldn't matter if you were a brewer because you liked the science of it or just loved the beer, you would be producing for use, not profit... which means your accountability would be meeting need as much as possible. You would decide how to produce because it's your labor which produces it. But that decision would be based on meeting the demand for beer - both in aestetics and in quantity. You would do this because the pub soviets and other distribution sites have demand for X amount of beer from people in that area. Even if you don't like beer, since you like going to distribution sites (stores) and finding milk and cheese available, then you understand that the beer you make is part of making abundance for people and you yourself get to also enjoy that abundance... even if it's for goods you didn't make personally. Your incentives would be meeting need with as little wasted labor effort or materials as possible without sacrificing quality... since collective production and collective consumption would be unified.

In capitalism however, the producers and the mass consumers are seperated from the decision-making process. Workers consume some of the social wealth, but it's a tiny portion (their wages) and most of it just goes back into privitized necessities like mortgage or rent, food and bills, and maybe some diversions. Socialism is about putting all the collective wealth into the hands of workers for collective consumption.

Pretty hard to quibble with, yet aspiring vanguards seem to dispute this.

Indeed, but the point of organizing revolutionaries isn't to lead over the unsuspecting masses, but to coordinate radical elements organically involved in various struggles of workers and the oppressed. But there have been many "aspiring vanguard" groups that would fit the description you quoted unfortunately. In fact many anti-vanguard groups too.

[Baseball]

If you worked as part of a socialist brewerey it wouldn't matter if you were a brewer because you liked the science of it or just loved the beer, you would be producing for use, not profit... which means your accountability would be meeting need as much as possible

.

And profit, risk, cost, all are factors which guides the capitalist in determining how much production is "possible."
By what basis would the workers in a socialist community be held accountable?

You would decide how to produce because it's your labor which produces it. But that decision would be based on meeting the demand for beer

So in other words, the workers vote on how to organizse their production based upon what meets the needs of beer consumers.

Which of course means that the CONSUMERS of beer determine how production is organised, based upon what they wish to consume. The brewers simply organize themselves in such a way to meet that demand.

This is of course only natural and reasonable, since it makes little sense for the producers in any community to decide what to produce and how to produce it. The workers in the socialist brewery would not have the kind of control over the means of production as you seem to think they would.

- both in aestetics and in quantity. You would do this because the pub soviets and other distribution sites have demand for X amount of beer from people in that area. Even if you don't like beer, since you like going to distribution sites (stores) and finding milk and cheese available, then you understand that the beer you make is part of making abundance for people and you yourself get to also enjoy that abundance... even if it's for goods you didn't make personally.

Yeah-- your objective would be to produce beer, and not cheese or milk.
But so what? If you produced X amount, you did your job. And you hope the cheese and milk guys did theirs.

Your incentives would be meeting need with as little wasted labor effort or materials as possible without sacrificing quality... since collective production and collective consumption would be unified.

How would you know this was accomplished? How would you know if 30 workers were needed to produce X amount of beer as opposed to 20? Or X amount of electricity as opposed to Y amount?
Why would you care, if you did your job and met the objective in beer production?

[Lowtech]

. And profit, risk, cost, all are factors which guides the capitalist in determining how much production is "possible."
By what basis would the workers in a socialist community be held accountable?

by producing for economic value, producing commodities designed to meet a need, not to dereive the most profit. It is hypocritical that you advocate accountability while your system of exploitation has none.

So in other words, the workers vote on how to organizse their production based upon what meets the needs of beer consumers.

Which of course means that the CONSUMERS of beer determine how production is organised, based upon what they wish to consume. The brewers simply organize themselves in such a way to meet that demand.

demand does not equate to need.demand is manufactured out of commercialism in order to sell garbage for it's profitability.

Capitalists chose a few designs, a recipe or product to mass produce, this is very much planned.simply planned for the good of the few.

The workers in the socialist brewery would not have the kind of control over the means of production as you seem to think they would.

alcohol would not be mass produced for this use anyway. This kind of commodity doesn't meet a need, rather it is suited to profitability and alienation, creating a employer-employed-consumer arrangement. Whereas without exhange value and without a profit oriented economy, such commodities would not be mass produced, needed commodities would have priority.

Yeah-- your objective would be to produce beer, and not cheese or milk.
But so what? If you produced X amount, you did your job. And you hope the cheese and milk guys did theirs.

you're describing disorganized, aliented production centers as they exist now in a market paradigm. However your understanding of communism is crude. Communism is not required to emulate a market. Therefore problems of market dynamics don't apply. And only the rich experience the "benefits" of capitalism, so you have no argument there either

How would you know this was accomplished? How would you know if 30 workers were needed to produce X amount of beer as opposed to 20? Or X amount of electricity as opposed to Y amount?
Why would you care, if you did your job and met the objective in beer production?

we know what a single human needs to live a long, happy productive life, that cannot be met while the burden of production is left on the shoulders of the many and enjoyment of economic value is kept to the few in an archaic plutocratic society.

The economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization. Capitalism is economic subjugation enforced by a totalitarian structure based on fuedalistic elitism.

[revscare]

This is aimed specifically at Marxists for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory? Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

I don't think it would be possible to have revolution based on Marx alone, particularly not in feudal and other non-industrialized societies. 1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen. 2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely. 3) With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction.

Also, an Orthodox Marxist I was arguing with said that Russia should have had a capitalist revolution before having a communist one in order to have the proper Marxist conditions in place. However, I don't think there would have been a revolution had a capitalist revolution occurred beforehand. Again, the new capitalist class would prevent it from happening; at the time of the October Revolution Russia had no such class on a large scale to prevent such a revolution.

So comrades, thoughts?

The concept of the vanguard party was necessary for Marxian theory to be converted into practical action - it's the only way to have a disciplined movement. Today, in most countries, we don't have that kind of organised dissent an the result is anarchy.