Is a Vanguard party necessary/advisable?

[Invader Zim]

No and no.

The only way I might conceed a role for a vanguard is that if anybody who supports vanguardism be automatically excluded from participation in it.

[Red Star Rising]

What exactly is "organic centralism"? How does it differ from your average, run-of-the-mill centralism?

[Red Star Rising]

This isn't contradictory -- it's dialectical. Again, you could look at this in a glass-half-empty kind of way, and see nothing but possibilities for friction and antagonism in such a dynamic, or you could look at it in a glass-half-full kind of way and see a *mutual reinforcement* among various aspects of the same whole.

And I suppose a lot has changed since 1917, no longer does only 5% of the population receive a proper education. The spectrum is no longer a binary intellectuals/everybody else. There would be far more members of society who are intelligent enough to discuss politics and the spectrum itself is much more varied so a class divide would be much less obvious. This would naturally prevent political elitism when there is mutual involvement in each other's affairs between the people and Vanguard until the two can essentially become one.

[Red Star Rising]

How to make it happen is the difficult part. I'm a noob but a possible idea is perhaps to have a hybrid system of meritocracy and democracy, e.g. public vote out of a bunch of strictly vetted medical experts to select a medical committee which decide medical policy. All accountable to the public and replaceable during the period of the Vanguard.

Why the need to elect a committee? If medical experts can decide who knows the most about medicine why cant they also discuss policy themselves?

[ckaihatsu]

What exactly is "organic centralism"? How does it differ from your average, run-of-the-mill centralism?

I was hoping the quote from post #17 would suffice:

"The communist parties must achieve an organic centralism which, whilst including maximum possible consultation with the base, ensures a spontaneous elimination of any grouping which aims to differentiate itself. This cannot be achieved with, as Lenin put it, the formal and mechanical prescriptions of a hierarchy, but through correct revolutionary politics."

"The repression of fractionism isn't a fundamental aspect of the evolution of the party, though preventing it is.".[1]

My interpretation of this is that the vanguard should strive to arrive at a correct line as a whole, rather than using a more legal-like, adversarial process internally.

So instead of a "diversity" of opinion, with a majoritarian 'in-faction' and potentially several 'out-factions', with friction throughout, the point should be to *streamline* the organization by having everyone find a correct leading-edge in common.

This makes sense to me because if we step back and look at the struggle more macroscopically, this is what *revolution* is supposed to be about, anyway -- addressing those most significant and pressing issues, in a comprehensive way, by the world's working class in its entirety.

And I suppose a lot has changed since 1917, no longer does only 5% of the population receive a proper education. The spectrum is no longer a binary intellectuals/everybody else. There would be far more members of society who are intelligent enough to discuss politics

I would say 'informed and knowledgeable' instead.

and the spectrum itself is much more varied so a class divide would be much less obvious.

I'm not sure what you mean to say with this, but the *definition* of class, and the class divide, hasn't changed at all -- it continues to be about one's objective, real-world relationship to the means of mass production.

This would naturally prevent political elitism when there is mutual involvement in each other's affairs between the people and Vanguard until the two can essentially become one.

Well, the two *are* one, at least to the extent that the people / workers are active on a daily basis in the best interests of their class.

Why the need to elect a committee? If medical experts can decide who knows the most about medicine why cant they also discuss policy themselves?

I appreciate this line since it's anti-specialization -- and, today, especially, with the Internet, matters of health and medicine are / should-be more accessible and understandable by *anyone* who wants to take an interest in such. And that goes for anything else, too, of course.

[Thirsty Crow]

OK so now I think I might be changing my perspective:
- The Vanguard provides the proletariat much greater political legitimacy, when they are recognized as a political party spearheaded by intellectuals they will become a much greater force to be reckoned with.

I'm not sure how this relates to what others have posted, but to me it seems an unacceptable position.
I don't see either how 1) political legitimacy can play a productive role (we're talking about respectability in the mainstream political world, no?) when it is the effective power of the class that's the goal, or 2) how does this political legitimacy lead to the class becoming a much greater force.

It might be that this is a problem of formulation, but it's also problematic to identify in any way the class with its political organ(ization), what you seem to be doing when you write "...when they are recognized as a political party".

[Red Star Rising]

My interpretation of this is that the vanguard should strive to arrive at a correct line as a whole, rather than using a more legal-like, adversarial process internally.

So instead of a "diversity" of opinion, with a majoritarian 'in-faction' and potentially several 'out-factions', with friction throughout, the point should be to *streamline* the organization by having everyone find a correct leading-edge in common.

This makes sense to me because if we step back and look at the struggle more macroscopically, this is what *revolution* is supposed to be about, anyway -- addressing those most significant and pressing issues, in a comprehensive way, by the world's working class in its entirety.

Do you mean that the Vanguard should be formed on and focus on the common Socialist ideal and disregard the more petty disagreements? In order to avoid fracturing of the proletariat and tedious woods-for-the-trees arguments making the vanguard ineffective. Or do you mean "streamlining the organisation" in a more dialectical thesis, antithesis, synthesis way? Or something else entirely?

I would say 'informed and knowledgeable' instead.

I see what you mean.

I'm not sure what you mean to say with this, but the *definition* of class, and the class divide, hasn't changed at all -- it continues to be about one's objective, real-world relationship to the means of mass production.

Just that when there are more knowledgeable people in lots of different fields, when the gap between intellectual/not intellectual is much narrower, the chances of intellectual elitism arising would be smaller. Just throw-away comment really.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, RSR, I think you may have, unintentionally, hit on some of the centrally problematic points with the Leninist notion of the vanguard party. Ima just take this point by point and see if it clarifies anything.

- The Vanguard provides the proletariat much greater political legitimacy, when they are recognized as a political party spearheaded by intellectuals they will become a much greater force to be reckoned with.

Right! So, this raises the question of what constitutes political legitimacy in the context of bourgeois society, and what its practical implications are. Political recognition, in context, means becoming comprehensible within the field of "politics" - differentiated from "everyday life" by a process of violent usurpation of "political" activity. Insofar as a party is obtaining political legitimacy, it is carrying out a task of divorcing itself the terrain on which working class struggle must actually be waged - it carries out tasks of making itself representative of that struggle in the milieu which is its antithesis.

- the Vanguard is a natural formation of the most intelligent Proletarians and their sympathizers to allow for stability and proper prior planning within the movement.

For one, it's a dangerous road to start down confusing "natural" with "good" or "efficacious". Insofar as the political party has presented itself as the "natural" mode of expressing proletarian politics (and this is, I think, a suspect starting point in itself), we need to step back and assess whether this has contained in it some "communist kernel" or is simply a reflection of hegemonic bourgeois notions of "political" activity. Have vanguard parties adequately carried out the tasks of providing "stability" and "proper prior planning"? Or, have they typically tailed behind along behind, playing catch-up at best, and more often, mediator between communist workers and capital? How often has "proper" planning meant sticking to plans that meant subduing "ultra-left" and "adventurist" elements which are outflanking them?

- The Vanguard acts as a beacon to all workers to rally around the cause, the result being greater unity and organisation.

Unity on what basis? Organization to what end? This is true of sports teams as well, but nobody believes the Montreal Canadians represents an ideal form of working class organization.

- The most intellectual Communists who are more familiar with Marxism are less likely to become corrupt and stray from the proper path (not that this is impossible, so democracy would be needed one way or another).

And this - I think - represents the most fundamental error which continues to plague the left generally (not only vanguard groups by any means): the idea that "we" are more intelligent than "them". That the articulation of politics with a particular vocabulary (Marxist or otherwise) constitutes a quantitative superiority to the "vulgar" politics which emerge from struggle.
I don't mean that to "put down" Marxism or any other historically rooted revolutionary communist ideology: simply to say that, at its core, Marxism (or w/e) is valuable primarily insofar as it articulates what one would come to by a sober assessment of real conditions under any name - and provides a common language by which these assessments can be shared. There is always the danger of turning this on its head and imagining a reality that reflects Marxism rather than vice versa. When it is posited that, by virtue of ideology, one is any less corruptible, more intelligent, or more free of the conditions which constitute subjects one starts down a dangerous road toward dogmatism, commandism, and opportunism.

[Red Star Rising]

Right! So, this raises the question of what constitutes political legitimacy in the context of bourgeois society, and what its practical implications are. Political recognition, in context, means becoming comprehensible within the field of "politics" - differentiated from "everyday life" by a process of violent usurpation of "political" activity. Insofar as a party is obtaining political legitimacy, it is carrying out a task of divorcing itself the terrain on which working class struggle must actually be waged - it carries out tasks of making itself representative of that struggle in the milieu which is its antithesis.

Do you mean that , in simple terms, the treatment of the proletarians as a political party immediately abstracts them from their own ground and puts the fight on bourgeois terms?

For one, it's a dangerous road to start down confusing "natural" with "good" or "efficacious". Insofar as the political party has presented itself as the "natural" mode of expressing proletarian politics (and this is, I think, a suspect starting point in itself), we need to step back and assess whether this has contained in it some "communist kernel" or is simply a reflection of hegemonic bourgeois notions of "political" activity. Have vanguard parties adequately carried out the tasks of providing "stability" and "proper prior planning"? Or, have they typically tailed behind along behind, playing catch-up at best, and more often, mediator between communist workers and capital? How often has "proper" planning meant sticking to plans meant subduing "ultra-left" and "adventurist" elements which are outflanking them?

That sounds right, but I'm afraid that some of the really technical stuff sailed over my head :/. Are you saying that the vanguard's bourgeois political notion just makes it irrelevant in the case of revolution? IDK...

Unity on what basis? Organization to what end? This is true of sports teams as well, but nobody believes the Montreal Canadians represents an ideal form of working class organization.

Well if the Vanguard can streamline it's ideology as (I think, I'm not sure) ckaihatsu is saying above, Proletarians could rally to a single goal which would prevent petty divisions and allow a much greater collective strength in the movement.

[ckaihatsu]

Do you mean that the Vanguard should be formed on and focus on the common Socialist ideal and disregard the more petty disagreements?

I take it to be more about the *structure*, and its methodology, that's used by the vanguard organization -- so it might be termed a 'philosophy of methodology' regarding political organization.

We're conventionally conditioned to think of politics in practice as being very contentious, with various 'sides' that have conflicting interests, even ending up in war, etc. But this is actually a description of *bourgeois* politics, at times, whereas the proletariat has *its* struggle in simply realizing its own cohesion and solidarity.

So while some may adopt the majoritarian-minoritarian arrangement in their conception of political organization, the 'organic centralism' approach is instead based on finding what the proletariat's *objective best interests* are, for any given situation, with organizational cohesion to follow from that correct line.

In practice I think this process has historically played out on an *inter-organizational* level, with numerous *splits* and off-organizations as a result of disagreements over revolutionary theory and analyses of real-world events.

In order to avoid fracturing of the proletariat and tedious woods-for-the-trees arguments making the vanguard ineffective. Or do you mean "streamlining the organisation" in a more dialectical thesis, antithesis, synthesis way? Or something else entirely?

Well, I'd say you're addressing this in a rather abstract and vague way -- we'd have to know *what* the arguments are about, and what the basis of disagreements are, or would-be.

I can only repeat that 'streamlining' is / would be based on finding a correct line, in the proletariat's best interests, for any given real-world situation.

I would say 'informed and knowledgeable' instead.

I see what you mean.

I mean to say that a fetish is often made of 'intelligence', whereas (revolutionary) politics is *not* about 'creativity', 'innovation', or 'pathfinding', as much as it is about large-scale *solidarity* and *organization*, on the basis of the working class' best interests. So, given adequate information and knowledge, *anyone* should be able to arrive-at appropriate conclusions for further struggle -- hence organic centralism.


philosophical abstractions

Just that when there are more knowledgeable people in lots of different fields, when the gap between intellectual/not intellectual is much narrower, the chances of intellectual elitism arising would be smaller. Just throw-away comment really.

Okay.

[ckaihatsu]

How often has "proper" planning meant sticking to plans meant subduing "ultra-left" and "adventurist" elements which are outflanking them?

I'll take issue with this, in the abstract -- by definition 'ultraleft' is synonymous with 'rash', 'impetuous', and 'unrealistic', given any certain conditions for struggle. And 'adventurist' means 'small-scale imperialism' -- as what Morsi did regarding Syria once he got into power in Egypt -- so the term really doesn't apply to *revolutionary* politics at all, since it's far to the right of it.

So, by definition, a correct revolutionary line isn't impacted, much less "outflanked", by ultraleft or adventurist politics.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

[Thirsty Crow]

I'll take issue with this, in the abstract -- by definition 'ultraleft' is synonymous with 'rash', 'impetuous', and 'unrealistic', given any certain conditions for struggle.

Really? And what definition would that be? Who did put it forward and on what grounds?

The thing is that this common error is associated with the historical situation in Germany primarily during the WWI aftermath and the connected social upheaval, and it was articulated by Lenin who latched onto the fact that many resolutely internationalist, anti-war, and communist people around the organizations coalescing into the KAPD were quite young (thus the famous infantile disorder). But what's lost is that the argument itself - against participation in trade unions by communists and parliamentary politics was connected to a broader strategic vision that explicitly highlighted that social revolution would be harder won and longer fought for in Western Europe than in Russia, most clearly articulated by Gorter (himself not that young a man back then). Thus issues of deep differences as to strategy were masked as quasi-issues arising from irresponsible (adventurist) and impatient (due to young age and inexperience, allegedly) elements in German communism. Nothing more than a cheap shot and a means of skirting the underlying issues.

[ckaihatsu]

Really? And what definition would that be? Who did put it forward and on what grounds?

That's my understanding -- feel free to provide other denotations of 'ultraleftism' if you like.

The thing is that this common error is associated with the historical situation in Germany primarily during the WWI aftermath and the connected social upheaval, and it was articulated by Lenin who latched onto the fact that many resolutely internationalist, anti-war, and communist people around the organizations coalescing into the KAPD were quite young (thus the famous infantile disorder). But what's lost is that the argument itself - against participation in trade unions by communists and parliamentary politics was connected to a broader strategic vision that explicitly highlighted that social revolution would be harder won and longer fought for in Western Europe than in Russia, most clearly articulated by Gorter (himself not that young a man back then). Thus issues of deep differences as to strategy were masked as quasi-issues arising from irresponsible (adventurist) and impatient (due to young age and inexperience, allegedly) elements in German communism. Nothing more than a cheap shot and a means of skirting the underlying issues.

So 'adventurism' here sounds much like my understanding of 'ultraleftism'.

[Red Star Rising]

I can only repeat that 'streamlining' is / would be based on finding a correct line, in the proletariat's best interests, for any given real-world situation.

What do you mean by "correct line"? What happens when people disagree on what this "correct line" is? What is a "line" in this sense? How does it relate to methodology or structure of a vanguard party? Is a class-conscious anti-capitalist revolution which unites the working proletariat a correct line?

You are being very cryptic from the viewpoint of a newcomer.

[Thirsty Crow]

That's my understanding -- feel free to provide other denotations of 'ultraleftism' if you like.

And as I said, it's completely wrong and based on a historical controversy in the communist movement having to do with complete fabrications put forward by one side in the debate (Lenin and the majority of the Bolsheviks alongside the majority in the International) which masked serious and deep strategic divisions as simple issues of being impatient, rash.

The strategic vision which was smeared in this way was specific in that it advocated for independent communist organizing outside and against the union bureaucracy, against the incorporation of opportunist elements (e.g. the merger with the so called left wing of the Italian Socialist Party), against participation in parliamentary politics and the principle of national liberation.

Of course, this is the historical current, or better yet, currents subsumed under that common category. Nowadays, the picture would need to be more detailed, but these are common to the contemporary communist currents which are usually associated with the term (either through self-identification or through labeling on behalf of other people). Needless to say, again we're dealing with significant strategic and even deeper differences, and not superficial quasi-psychological phenomena such as being rash and impetuous. But the situation is still that of simplifying critical divergences by means of such frankly stupid tricks.

So 'adventurism' here sounds much like my understanding of 'ultraleftism'.

I've no idea how this relates to what I wrote. This empty word has been thrown around within the communist movement of the day to denounce allegedly irresponsible elements which were seen as impatient and stirring up action without any significant basis in working class activity. Yet again, this can hardly be said to be a characteristic mark of the historical formations which were being labeled as ultra-left.

[ckaihatsu]

You are being very cryptic from the viewpoint of a newcomer.

Well, keep in mind that we're discussing *generalities* here -- which I'm comfortable with -- so unless we introduce some specific / historical examples to 'flesh out' these topics, the discussion is going to remain one of categories within the context of other categories.

What do you mean by "correct line"?

Whatever is most efficacious for the world's working class in its efforts to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

What happens when people disagree on what this "correct line" is?

Often organizational splits, and/or differing campaigns in parallel.

What is a "line" in this sense?

A political program -- a particular interpretation-in-common of revolutionary theory and real-world events, indicating a way-forward.

How does it relate to methodology or structure of a vanguard party?

I would say that these are topics in and of themselves, to be addressed by a political program, or line.

Is a class-conscious anti-capitalist revolution which unites the working proletariat a correct line?

*I* would certainly say so, considering the vast abuses of bourgeois rule to-date, and its continuing exploitation and oppression.

Things can get more specific from here, as regarding working-class activity in a particular country, in relation to the specifics of how that country is being ruled, etc.


Also:

Generalizations-Characterizations

[Red Star Rising]

So the Vanguard, rather than setting the path that the revolution takes, would act as an spearhead for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie -something which ALL Socialist hold in common?

[ckaihatsu]

So the Vanguard, rather than setting the path that the revolution takes, would act as an spearhead for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie -something which ALL Socialist hold in common?

Here's from my standing statement on the matter:

[...]

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

[Blake's Baby]

No and no.

The only way I might conceed a role for a vanguard is that if anybody who supports vanguardism be automatically excluded from participation in it.

Only people who don't want to organise should be allowed to organise?

Who will organise the expulsion of those who want to be in the organisation from the organisation that doesn't exist? Only people who don't want to be in it are allowed in by people who aren't in it either.

So the Vanguard, rather than setting the path that the revolution takes, would act as an spearhead for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie -something which ALL Socialist hold in common?

Yeah, pretty much. Marx and Engels in the Manifesto (as much a founding document of the Anarchist movement as of Marxism) wrote how the Communists were those who most clearly understood 'the line of march' - from Ch. 2 of the Manifesto:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch02.htm

The working class is no longer organised into 'parties'. There is hardly a 'proletarian movement' that communists can be part of. But, even so, the communists are those that understand, better than the majority of the working class, what the perspectives are. That's what makes us 'the vanguard'. We're the ones out in front. We've got to the point of deciding that capitalism needs to be overthrown and socialist society constructed, before the rest of the working class has realised it.

[Red Star Rising]

Only people who don't want to organise should be allowed to organise?

Who will organise the expulsion of those who want to be in the organisation from the organisation that doesn't exist? Only people who don't want to be in it are allowed in by people who aren't in it either.




Yeah, pretty much. Marx and Engels in the Manifesto (as much a founding document of the Anarchist movement as of Marxism) wrote how the Communists were those who most clearly understood 'the line of march' - from Ch. 2 of the Manifesto:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch02.htm
I guess I may as well be a vanguardist then.

I guess I may as well be a vanguardist then.

The working class is no longer organised into 'parties'. There is hardly a 'proletarian movement' that communists can be part of. But, even so, the communists are those that understand, better than the majority of the working class, what the perspectives are. That's what makes us 'the vanguard'. We're the ones out in front. We've got to the point of deciding that capitalism needs to be overthrown and socialist society constructed, before the rest of the working class has realised it.

So basically:
http://modernservantleader.com/wp-co...er-800x800.png