Yep. The "vanguard" is the only logical way to organize socialism into some sort of coherence and to move it forward.
Results 41 to 60 of 100
Big Time
Without the vanguard party we are nothin but an unorganized riot
Leninism also included the peasantry which were excluded in Marxism
And it has given organisation to the art of revolution
Workers of the world unite
Yep. The "vanguard" is the only logical way to organize socialism into some sort of coherence and to move it forward.
I think Lenin did have something to add to Marxism, and it was an important contribution (his theory on Imperialism being one). A vanguard party is something that maybe can be, and should be, used. Though, I think the party he envisioned was too strict, and perhaps a little bit "elitist".
There's a difference between a vanguard being the most advanced members of the class and a vanguard party substituting itself for the class. The vanguard's role is to spread class consciousness and class struggle.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Yes, revolutions that are taking place today are almost all guided by a vanguard party, FARC, Naxalites. In the contest of this subject, people tend to bring up anarchist Spain. Although anarchist Spain was essentially a successful Marxist society, it was unable to protect itself from the fascists. The Marxists and Anarchists were guided by the right virtues against the evil fascists, but their struggle ultimately failed. The vanguard party in its proper form should never be elitist or undemocratic. Someone needs to set up democratic institutions before they can even happen. A good example of successful vanguard party is when Mao Tse-Tung successfully set up democratic institutions after the Cultural Revolution, before which the Party Cadres were becoming increasingly bureaucratic and elitist. But the Cultural Revolution set up local Revolutionary Committees designed for complete participation of citizens in their own lives, (dictatorship of the proletariat). In my opinion, this proves the democratic capabilities of the vanguard party. Sadly, these institutions ceased to exist as capitalism returned to the country.
Sudsy for nigh on a century the British Working class has rejected the very idea of a vanguard party.Is there a plan B ? Readily see the advantages of Democratic Centralism, Lenin studied our trade unions and developed his ideas whilst in London. No the very idea of a vanguard, professional full timers makes a mockery of democracy. Besides any caste old or new on our political landscape invites further derision and suspicion. We have several MP's in clink. If I am to engage politically or set out on a course of action or put it this way, make some sacrifice--Then I would expect that cadre to be beside me in 'the trench'. Put another way have as much to lose as me. It was noted by workers that during the Great War, top brass stayed in Chateaux, some 40 miles from the trenches. Whilst Tommies and Fritz slaughtered each other. Does not appeal. An example, calling for a General Strike, all too often the people calling for it are not the ones on strike. All too often we get served up half baked theories some positively dangerous...others merely hilarious. No , I am not a fan of any Vanguard.
Night has one thousand eyes
Leninism. According to Stalin, Leninism is ‘Marxism in the era of imperialism and of the proletarian revolution … Leninism is the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular’ (Foundations of Leninism, 1924). Accordingly, this ideology is often referred to as ‘Marxism-Leninism’. This, however, is a contradiction in terms: Marxism is essentially anti-Leninist. But not everything Lenin wrote is worthless; for example, his article entitled The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913), contains a concise exposition of Marxism. Why, then, is Leninism objectionable? Because, for socialists, it is anti-democratic and it advocates a course of political action which can never lead to socialism.
In What Is To Be Done? (1902) Lenin said: ‘the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness’. Lenin argued that socialist consciousness had to be brought to the working class by professional revolutionaries, drawn from the petty bourgeoisie, and organised as a vanguard party. But in 1879 Marx and Engels issued a circular in which they declared:
‘When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.’
Nor is this an academic point, since the history of Leninism in power shows that allowing elites to rule ‘on behalf of’ the working class is always a disaster. Working class self-emancipation necessarily precludes the role of political leadership.
In State and Revolution (1917) Lenin said that his ‘prime task is to re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the state’. Lenin argued that socialism is a transitional society between capitalism and full communism, in which ‘there still remains the need for a state… For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary’. Moreover, Lenin claimed that according to Marx work and wages would be guided by the ‘socialist principle’ (though in fact it comes from St Paul): ‘He who does not work shall not eat.’ (Sometimes this is reformulated as: ‘to each according to his work’.) Marx and Engels used no such ‘principle’; they made no such distinction between socialism and communism. Lenin in fact did not re-establish Marx’s position but substantially distorted it to suit the situation in which the Bolsheviks found themselves. When Stalin announced the doctrine of ‘Socialism in One Country’ (i.e. State Capitalism in Russia) he was drawing on an idea implicit in Lenin’s writings.
In State and Revolution, Lenin gave special emphasis to the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. This phrase was sometimes used by Marx and Engels and meant working class conquest of power, which (unlike Lenin) they did not confuse with a socialist society. Engels had cited the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, though Marx in his writings on this subject did not mention this as an example, since for him it meant conquest of state power, which the Commune was not. Nevertheless, the Commune impressed itself upon Marx and Engels for its ultra-democratic features - non-hierarchical, the use of revocable delegates, etc. Lenin, on the other hand, tended to identify democracy with a state ruled by a vanguard party. When the Bolsheviks actually gained power they centralised political power more and more in the hands of the Communist Party.
For Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat was ‘the very essence of Marx’s teaching’ (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, 1918). Notice, however, that Lenin’s Three Sources article - referred to above - contains no mention of the phrase or Lenin’s particular conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And for modern Leninists this concept, in Lenin’s interpretation, is central to their politics. So, for its anti-democratic elitism and its advocacy of an irrelevant transitional society misnamed ‘socialism’, in theory and in practice, Leninism deserves the hostility of workers everywhere.
Leninism. According to Stalin, Leninism is ‘Marxism in the era of imperialism and of the proletarian revolution … Leninism is the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular’ (Foundations of Leninism, 1924). Accordingly, this ideology is often referred to as ‘Marxism-Leninism’. This, however, is a contradiction in terms: Marxism is essentially anti-Leninist. But not everything Lenin wrote is worthless; for example, his article entitled The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913), contains a concise exposition of Marxism. Why, then, is Leninism objectionable? Because, for socialists, it is anti-democratic and it advocates a course of political action which can never lead to socialism.
In What Is To Be Done? (1902) Lenin said: ‘the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness’. Lenin argued that socialist consciousness had to be brought to the working class by professional revolutionaries, drawn from the petty bourgeoisie, and organised as a vanguard party. But in 1879 Marx and Engels issued a circular in which they declared:
‘When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.’
Nor is this an academic point, since the history of Leninism in power shows that allowing elites to rule ‘on behalf of’ the working class is always a disaster. Working class self-emancipation necessarily precludes the role of political leadership.
In State and Revolution (1917) Lenin said that his ‘prime task is to re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the state’. Lenin argued that socialism is a transitional society between capitalism and full communism, in which ‘there still remains the need for a state… For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary’. Moreover, Lenin claimed that according to Marx work and wages would be guided by the ‘socialist principle’ (though in fact it comes from St Paul): ‘He who does not work shall not eat.’ (Sometimes this is reformulated as: ‘to each according to his work’.) Marx and Engels used no such ‘principle’; they made no such distinction between socialism and communism. Lenin in fact did not re-establish Marx’s position but substantially distorted it to suit the situation in which the Bolsheviks found themselves. When Stalin announced the doctrine of ‘Socialism in One Country’ (i.e. State Capitalism in Russia) he was drawing on an idea implicit in Lenin’s writings.
In State and Revolution, Lenin gave special emphasis to the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. This phrase was sometimes used by Marx and Engels and meant working class conquest of power, which (unlike Lenin) they did not confuse with a socialist society. Engels had cited the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, though Marx in his writings on this subject did not mention this as an example, since for him it meant conquest of state power, which the Commune was not. Nevertheless, the Commune impressed itself upon Marx and Engels for its ultra-democratic features - non-hierarchical, the use of revocable delegates, etc. Lenin, on the other hand, tended to identify democracy with a state ruled by a vanguard party. When the Bolsheviks actually gained power they centralised political power more and more in the hands of the Communist Party.
For Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat was ‘the very essence of Marx’s teaching’ (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, 1918). Notice, however, that Lenin’s Three Sources article - referred to above - contains no mention of the phrase or Lenin’s particular conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And for modern Leninists this concept, in Lenin’s interpretation, is central to their politics. So, for its anti-democratic elitism and its advocacy of an irrelevant transitional society misnamed ‘socialism’, in theory and in practice, Leninism deserves the hostility of workers everywhere.
The revolution, revolution... What is a revolution?
After the unsuccessful assassination of the tzar and the execution of his brother Alexander, Lenin famously said "We will go another way" implying the overthrow of the autocracy as a political system. The February Revolution had made it possible. However, Lenin's mistake of assigning a General Secretary within the collective government had untied the hands of a pathological criminal and again brought Russia back to autocracy. Stalin had once confessed to his own mother that he had become new Russian tsar. The further fate of the "great revolution" and revolutionaries had been predetermined.
... Today as well as 100 years ago, already the next generation of Russian "revolutionaries" continues to fight against yet another autocrat and assiduously puts forward new idols and future tyrants. http://www.modelgovernment.org/image...with_Putin.jpg
"A new political system as a real Democratic Revolution."
http://www.modelgovernment.org/
I'm not a Marxist, but I'll offer my opinion anyway.
It was necessary in the sense that reality never conformed to Marxist theory. The working class were never as monolithic as Marx and Engels conceived. So either a) We have to either wait around for the working class to develop adequate class conscious. Or b) have a minority of sufficiently enlightened individuals lead the working class into unity.
Waiting doesn't really appeal, so b) was inevitable really.
It really does depend on how you view capitalism as well; Marx portrays it as destined to basically commit suicide. At this point the working class could just "take over" capitalism's infrastructure after it implodes. Assuming there was sufficient class unity, of course.
No, I prefer my revolutions spontaneous.
Nonsense. The average person can never understand the very working of capitalism or not the complex theories of Marxism or Capitalism. That's why Communist Parties exist, they are nothing more than the most dedicated, educated, and revolutionary elements of society be them proletarians or petit-bourgeois.
They lead them as a means of supremacy for who? For the working class. That is undeniable. Lenin and Co. did not start another revolution to feed their ego. The authoritarian ideologies are the means by which the "proper observations of Capitalism" are realized and effected. You cannot do away with Capitalism by playing niceties with the individuals that exploit you while you're trying to topple.
And who's going to do the "walk in with guns and make them do what you want"? A handful of individuals? No. You firstly need to show people the issues of Capitalism, convince them of an alternative, and they will do all that by themselves under the Communist banner. The Communist Party merely directs them, organizes them, educates them, and manages them. The revolutionaries individually without any organization or even without any Communist or Socialist organization can only build a more "liberal" form of Capitalism as we have seen in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries as of late. It is the Communist Party that sets them on the path to Socialism and Communism, not the other way around.
You know, comparing it to religion in an attempt to make it look bad despite the lack of similarities isn't much of an argument.
Oh please, more of that "Freedom Fighter" bullshit. Control is not evil. Capitalism isn't as authoritarian as its state.
Misanthropic? Figured. First we must get to Socialism, secure Socialism, and THEN EVENTUALLY move on to Communism. That "eventuality" is a necessity unless you want a Makhnovshchina, Kibbutzim, or other such failure.
First of all, they are not a class. See my post in the Learning section on the bureaucracy, the state, and party being "classes" (they are not). Yes, their usefulness validates their position as a higher class. They know what they are doing, they are educated in that aspect, much, much more than your average steelworker. They are dedicated to Communism much more than your average revolution, person, or even worker.
[citation needed]
And that's why it continues to exist. That's what Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat are - the use of force to enforce Socialists'/Communists'/Workers' notion of ownership against the Capitalists' notion of ownership.
Ergo why we need a Communist Party, a vanguard party. People really do not give a shit even if they're exploited, even if they gave no consensus in support of Capitalist, or even if they have a negative opinion of it. They are require a vanguard party to do that for them, to act as an organizer for a catalyst, to lead the path for them.
Oh please, if anything is evident from "the way a revolution is carried out" it is that vanguard parties are necessary and will inevitably rise and come to power. Your Anarchistic Utopian beliefs are ridiculous. It is impossible that "no one group seizes power", even the transitional councils of Libya, Egypt, and so on led to the formation of groups seizing power whether people liked it or not, be it the Muslim extremists or otherwise. It is the job of the vanguard to ensure that the Socialists, the Communists, the representatives of the working class come to power, not anyone else. A group will come to power whether you like it or not, it is not a question of "if" or "when" but a question of "who". Anarchy and self-governance are Utopian teenage nonsense. Why? Because they only exist in the imaginations of misanthropic teenage Utopian Anarchists, and I mean this because that is the only instance where I find such a self-destructive means of social mass suicide. Production on a world or national scale can NEVER take place with fragmented, autonomous, independent, and decentralized workplaces. You need these workplaces to be united or acting in accordance in order to meet the demands of the world or society. Bukharin addressed this in "ABC of Communism" under the name he gave to this concept of yours "lumpenproletarian socialism", since I cannot link yet I have to quote:
"1. Lumpenproletarian socialism (anarchism). The anarchists reproach the communists on the ground that communism (so they contend) will maintain the State authority in the future society. As we have seen, the assertion is false. The essential difference consists in this, that the anarchists are far more concerned with dividing up than with the organization of production; and that they conceive the organization of production as taking the form, not of a huge cooperative commonwealth, but of a great number of 'free', small, self-governing communes. It need hardly be said that such a social system would fail to liberate mankind from nature's yoke, for in it the forces of production would not be developed even to the degree to which they have been developed under capitalism. Anarchism would not increase production, but would disintegrate it. It is natural that, in practice, the anarchists should advocate the dividing up of articles of consumption and should oppose the organization of large-scale production. They do not, for the most part, represent the interests and aspirations of the working class; they represent those of what is termed the lumpenproletariat, the loaferproletariat; they represent the interests of those who live in bad conditions under capitalism, but who are quite incapable of independent creative work."
It is exactly because of the combined need for organized revolt exists that a combined class dictatorship is necessary.
I don't know about the other guy, but I support Socialist/Communist dictatorships (Marxist sense, not traditional one-man-rule sense) and totalitarian systems.
I like how the (mostly sectarian) people who have never overthrown an autocracy are bashing on the Bolsheviks. No I'm sure you're political advice is more useful, with the centuries of failed revolutions experiance as proof for your 20/20 hindsight. A vanguard is necessary so the clusterfucks that were 1848 and the Paris commune aren't repeated with the same mistakes.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
I think this is the only time I've ever agreed with a Trotskyite, and I mean so in the most good-natured way possible.
Formerly known as "dogwoodjuche."
How did a lack of a vanguard party lead to the failures of the Paris Commune? Also, if lack of a vanguard party is what lead to the failure of the Paris Commune, then logically, having a vanguard party is what lead to what happened in the USSR, no?
The Paris commune was disorganized and frantic due to the lack of a dedicated, organize revolutionary party which paul lafarque and Marx were arguing for. 1848 was sold out by the mountain because the socialists accepted positions in government. The Bolshevik party was formed after Marxists studied what didn't work in immediately establishing a workers state. They got the farthest ahead than anybody else but they were invaded because the second international sold the revolutionaries in their own countries out. So the 3rd international was between a rock and a hard place and the opportunists in the Russian workers state were more concerned at best with revolutionary defensism.
None of that history validated your claim that the vanguard party leading the Russian or German working classes for that matter had the idea their whole time about becoming the new capitalists or consolidating their power until the purges which actually killed most oohs the original vanguard.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
The failure of the Paris Commune could have been stopped by a vanguard party. A vanguard party with Democratic Centralism allows for swift and decisive action with disregard for the long and slow consensus and problems of direct democracy or public democracy. Yes, the Soviets had a large part in the events following the October Revolution but they were sidelined for a reason during the Civil War and after, they were too slow to act, too slow to reach a consensus, too slow to take part in meetings, too disorganized, too problematic, each delegate concerned about his own local community above all else, they could not start a new meeting for every new item of information from the front, etc. etc. A vanguard party allows for what is needed during wartime, even being able to know when sacrifice is necessary. A vanguard party would have been able to nationalize the banks of Paris without the consent of the rest of the populace. They would have known what needed to be done at whatever cost to ensure victory and then AFTER victory had been secured that they can proceed to construct their own society.
And what the hell do you mean by "what happened in the USSR"? Are you speaking of how the Bolsheviks turned a shithole of a medieval agrarian country into a super-industrialized world superpower that defeated the Nazi scum and struck them in their very heart, made the world's Capitalist powers shit themselves in constant fear of the USSR, achieved numerous firsts and won the Space Race, led to multiple revolutions all over the world, etc. etc.?
Seriously Anarchist, go break some windows or play in your garden commune or something, leave this real shit to us Communists.
And there was no other way of organising?
I don't believe it was a secret plan to gain power. That's like saying that the non-vanguardists planned the failure of the Paris Commune (if that is what lead to its failure).
Stalin.
Hitler took Germany and remade it into into a superpower. That doesn't make him a good leader.
World War 2 was between many countries not just the USSR and Nazi Germany.
Both sides feared each other.
So did other capitalist nations.
And how did that help socialism? Plus, wasn't that done under "revisionists"?
That failed to establish socialism and were mostly authoritarian.
I am a communist.
None as effective and as historically proven, no.
Yes, and what about Stalin? Do I need to keep asking you the same question until you decide to reply?
A super power? Nonsense. A militaristic machine that was utterly destroyed after he idiotically invaded numerous countries based on a debt-ridden economy of racism, ethnic discrimination, genetic discrimination, etc. etc.? You do know that becoming a superpower was not the argument, but that a SPECIFIC "country" with a SPECIFIC ideology (read: USSR) became a world superpower following a SPECIFIC form of government being discussed here?
Indeed it was and yet 70% (yes, that's an actual statistic, it's around 70%) of the Axis casualties were on the Eastern Front. The brunt of the German forces were on the Eastern Front. The Germans were the main force behind the Axis forces. As for Japan, need I even continue saying anything other than "Soviet Invasion of Manchuria"? Furthermore, it was Nazi Germany that invaded the USSR, not Japan or Italy that invaded the USSR. The USSR was capable of not only repelling the invasion, but taking that stake out of their hands and shoving it deep in their heart. The Italians, Japanese, and the rest of the Axis forces were nothing compared to the Nazi Germans.
I'm pretty sure the "Iron Curtain" with spies filling their ranks made the US fear the Communists much, much more than the Communists feared the US. Do I even need to bring up a list of "containment" wars, the Red Scares, amongst other things that led to the US going against its very ideals? Nevertheless, that was not the point, the point was that the USSR was feared.
I was speaking of the firsts in space but for the sake of argument since I can't skip this easy shit, Capitalist nations outnumber Socialist nations in number, years of existence, and advancement (from before the USSR became the USSR). Socialist islands in a sea of Capitalism. Imagine if the USSR were to had taken place in Western Europe (historically wealthier than Easter Europe) or the US and other countries. Given where they took place and the conditions they faced, their achievements are miraculous. So please.
I do not give a shit about "revisionists". I am not your ordinary Marxist-Leninist, I do not care if they are revisionists. Krushchev contributed a lot to the Socialist cause from housing to the firsts in space. Brezhnev was an issue. Gorbachev had a good idea that should have been started from before with economic liberation in the form of decentralization and cooperatives. He just fucked up like an idiot.
Anyway, you ask how did that help Socialism? Quite simple, that showed the capabilities of Socialism as a proper competitor in space and technology. It showed that Soviet Socialism was capable of staying up with the times and outperform other Capitalist nations in that aspect. It also allowed them to gain a lot of influence and fame, two very essential things for the spread of an ideology.
Of course they were authoritarian! They had something called a fucking REVOLUTION. A revolution is inherently authoritarian. Now if that revolution was to succeed, it needs to be authoritarian. If those revolutionaries want to secure their and ensure that what they have fought for is not lost, they must become authoritarian.
Also they did establish Socialism, specifically a form of Soviet Socialism.
Sure you are, kiddo. I especially like that tendency there of yours that says "Anarchist".
History has shown it's most effective at what? Certainly not at establishing socialism.
Do you know what Stalin did during his rule?
A super power? Nonsense. A militaristic machine that was utterly destroyed after he idiotically invaded numerous countries based on a debt-ridden economy of racism, ethnic discrimination, genetic discrimination, etc. etc.?
How does it's eventual end make it a non-super power? Did not the USSR also end?
That specific form of government was not socialism. It was state capitalism and a dictatorship.
I'm pretty sure the "Iron Curtain" with spies filling their ranks made the US fear the Communists much, much more than the Communists feared the US.
Stalin was quite over-paranoid about the opposing countries. That is one of the contributing factors to his and the Bolsheviks authoritarianism.
The Red Scare was more about suppressing communists within the US, not against the USSR.
Their rapid industrialization came at a price of millions of people, the permanent scarring of the communist movement. Plus, industrialization did not occur under socialism but under state capitalism. That's hardly miraculous.
How was the USSR socialist? The workers did not directly control production.
They didn't have socialism, only in name.
No, it is not. A socialist revolution and the dotp's job is to apply democracy, not eliminate it.
"But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished."
- Rosa Luxemburg
Soviet Socialism is to Socialism as National Socialism is to Socialism.
Anarcho-communist. Yes, it's a real ideology.
