Is a Vanguard party necessary/advisable?

[Red Star Rising]

Basically what the title says. I would like to hear both points of view on this so to hopefully help me come to a final conclusion. I always thought that Vanguardism just created another class divide but I'm not really sure where I stand on this

[BlackLenin]

Under the Tsar, the workers worked in appalling conditions, for extremely long hours (I believe that Lenin said the average work day was 14 hours, but I forgot where I saw this quote). What little time the workers had, they spent with their families and leisure time, not studying Marxist ideology. Lenin saw the need for a party whose sole purpose was to liberate the working class and bring about socialism. As for the class divide, the Vanguard was not suppose to be something separate from the working class, but a integral part of the working class that leads the fight to socialism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Basically what the title says. I would like to hear both points of view on this so to hopefully help me come to a final conclusion. I always thought that Vanguardism just created another class divide but I'm not really sure where I stand on this

It's a tough nut to crack. Yes, I do believe in a natural vanguard of peoples whom are knowledgable of this sort of stuff taking a leadership position in the same way a cobbler would take a leadership position in crafting a boot. I don't like the typical vanguard composed of 'professional revolutionaries' leading a mass of 'useful idiots' to prosperity. That's incredibly insulting and demeaning and further, does engender an attitude of some people are more equal than others and I think it's this attitude exactly that needs to be combated otherwise were doomed to the same historical failures and mutant forms of unequal and oppressive forms of social organization.

[Red Star Rising]

It's a tough nut to crack. Yes, I do believe in a natural vanguard of peoples whom are knowledgable of this sort of stuff taking a leadership position in the same way a cobbler would take a leadership position in crafting a boot. I don't like the typical vanguard composed of 'professional revolutionaries' leading a mass of 'useful idiots' to prosperity. That's incredibly insulting and demeaning and further, does engender an attitude of some people are more equal than others and I think it's this attitude exactly that needs to be combated otherwise were doomed to the same historical failures and mutant forms of unequal and oppressive forms of social organization.

What is the difference between Communist intellectuals and "professional revolutionaries"? Not all revolutionaries are knowledgeable, but I would hope that the people who comprise the Vanguard would be interested in pursuing revolution. Not to the detriment of Socialism of course though.

[Blake's Baby]

Depends what you mean by a 'vanguard party' really. Do you mean, people who are revolutionaries (ie have come to an understanding that capitalism needs to be overthrown and the working class needs to administer society leading to total social transformation) before the revolution, should

1 - 'get together and organise'?

Or do you mean that they should

2 - 'lead the working class' into the revolution/organise the revolution?

Or do you mean that they should

3 - 'become leaders of society after the revolution'?

Because if you mean 1 - then yes, that sort of vanguard is both necessary and inevitable. People with a revolutionary consciousness under capitalism are compelled to try to find others who share their general perspective, and then argue a lot about how exactly it should be accomplished. Even RevLeft could be seen as expressing in a partial way the drive of revolutionaries to organise together.

As for parties who then think it's their job to go around leading the working class, no, not so much.

As for parties that think it's their job to lead states with red flags, absolutely not, that's the politics of the bourgeoisie.

[Art Vandelay]

I think that's probably a question you are going to have to answer for yourself, through reading the texts associated with the topic, by reflecting on your own political activity, etc...but since you posed the question I'll do my best to respond.

In my opinion yes, it is necessary. I think its really important to clarify what a vanguard party is, given all the misinformation about it, before even discussing the why of the matter. The vanguard is simply the most class conscious and politically advanced sections of the working class, organized to serve as bastions of proletarian political power and to draw in larger sections of the working class, by peeling them away from bourgeois hegemony. It is not an organization which exists independantly of the proletariat as a whole, as it is an organization which arises organically out of the proletariat. Folks can talk about the vanguard being an elitist group of individuals, who attempt to place themselves at the head of the proletariat to lead the foolish masses to victory, until they are blue in the face, it's simply not accurate; all they accomplish, is convicting themselves of having no understanding of the concept they are attempting to pass judgment on. Vanguardism is not Blanquism.

As to why it is necessary, I think there are primarily two reasons during non revolutionary periods. (1) to protect the Marxist programme and method from the influence of class alien forces, and (2) to propagandize in a organized and systemic fashion, with the goal of helping proletarians overcome false consciousness, to bring to light the realities of the capitalist mode of production by consistently drawing sharp class lines, to develop cadres capable of influencing the situation when it reaches its desicive moments, etc. And finally a vanguard is necessary because the proletariat must constitute itself into a political party, as a class for itself, if it wants to pose a serious threat to the continued existence of capital.

[Red Star Rising]

It seems that a Vanguard has obvious benefits then, especially early on and during the revolution. But what is to stop those intellectuals seizing power for themselves and becoming a new political elite like in the USSR? Perhaps a written manifesto or constitution which specifically states that should such a thing ever happen, the proletarians arise against the new bourgeoisie. The Vanguard seems most necessary to act as guidance and protection for those who are not as knowledgeable, but the masses need to be educated and knowledgeable to keep it in line. The problem I have with it is that it creates a separation between workers and the intellectuals, meaning that the workers may just end up following the Vanguard in the wrong direction because "well, they know their stuff, they must know what they're doing."

[Five Year Plan]

It seems that a Vanguard has obvious benefits then, especially early on and during the revolution. But what is to stop those intellectuals seizing power for themselves and becoming a new political elite like in the USSR? Perhaps a written manifesto or constitution which specifically states that should such a thing ever happen, the proletarians arise against the new bourgeoisie. The Vanguard seems most necessary to act as guidance and protection for those who are not as knowledgeable, but the masses need to be educated and knowledgeable to keep it in line. The problem I have with it is that it creates a separation between workers and the intellectuals, meaning that the workers may just end up following the Vanguard in the wrong direction because "well, they know their stuff, they must know what they're doing."

What's to stop anybody seizing power in any situation? Power isn't the result of a desire to seize it by individuals. It's the result of the class configuration on the society, specifically the balance of class forces within it.

[Slavic]

What's to stop anybody seizing power in any situation? Power isn't the result of a desire to seize it by individuals. It's the result of the class configuration on the society, specifically the balance of class forces within it.

Or more specifically, who ever has the most guns and are willing to use them.

[Art Vandelay]

Or more specifically, who ever has the most guns and are willing to use them.

The proletariats power does not 'grow from the barrel of a gun,' but from their collective relationship to the means of production.

[Zoroaster]

The vanguard is dead. It only led the workers to misery and defeat, such as Russia, Cuba, China, etc.

[Five Year Plan]

The vanguard is dead. It only led the workers to misery and defeat, such as Russia, Cuba, China, etc.

I don't think you're using vanguard here in the same way that Leninists do. For more on this, see Old Bull Lee's post above.

[RA89]

I think it is. Without someone making important decisions everyone will be pulling into different directions and nothing significant will get done.

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.

This will still require lots of compromises/agreements from rival camps though so I don't know if it's realistic.

[bropasaran]

For an anarchist perspective, go trough these essays:

H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html

H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech51

H.5.2 Have vanguardist assumptions been validated?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech52

H.5.3 Why does vanguardism imply party power?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech53

H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech54

H.5.5 What is "democratic centralism"?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech55

H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose "democratic centralism"?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech56

H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech57

H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech58

H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech59

H.5.10 Why does "democratic centralism" produce "bureaucratic centralism"?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech510

H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of vanguard parties?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech511

H.5.12 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech512

[Atsumari]

I can understand why the vanguard was advocated given the situation of revolutionary leftists prior to the October Revolution, but at least according to the 1st generation of CPUSA, it proved to be a complete disaster which probably led to its failure in the end.

[Abrad2]

No, political parties lead to class division class division leads to tyranny. Let the workers organize independently.This is a simple, simple concept that should not be ignored

[ckaihatsu]

It seems that a Vanguard has obvious benefits then, especially early on and during the revolution. But what is to stop those intellectuals seizing power for themselves and becoming a new political elite like in the USSR?

This whole construction is a misconception / red herring to begin with -- there's no actual material base of power in 'the intellectuals', presumably academia, the way there is with the *class* division. That leaves this whole concern to be one of 'glass-half-emptyism' at best:

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

Perhaps a written manifesto or constitution which specifically states that should such a thing ever happen, the proletarians arise against the new bourgeoisie.

Today's world has brought about far more tangible, hands-on production processes than those that existed in the 17th and 18th centuries -- we don't have to resort to abstract, gauzy, vague statements of an idealistic bent when we can just specify that 'this' is how a collective political sentiment can be arrived-at, and 'that' is how things can be run to effect what we need in common.

In other words we can simply have certain practices for how mass production is done that benefits the public good -- processes, protocols, and policies. If you haven't noticed already, the average person of today's world is far more empowered and technically capable than those of centuries past, so the question isn't / shouldn't be one of abstracted power "representation" anymore, but more of *involvement*, and how to ensure a broad-based participation over as much as possible.

The Vanguard seems most necessary to act as guidance and protection for those who are not as knowledgeable, but the masses need to be educated and knowledgeable to keep it in line.

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.

The problem I have with it is that it creates a separation between workers and the intellectuals, meaning that the workers may just end up following the Vanguard in the wrong direction because "well, they know their stuff, they must know what they're doing."

Nothing is absolutely pre-determined with this arrangement -- the question you're indicating, then, is how much substitutionism would be allowed, basically.

I think it is. Without someone making important decisions everyone will be pulling into different directions and nothing significant will get done.

Your continued pessimism aside, it may be helpful to view the vanguard, or leading-edge, as a 'clearinghouse' of direction-forward in regards to society and its social production. I've been pleased to come across the concept of 'organic centralism' relatively recently:

"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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_centralism

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.

This will still require lots of compromises/agreements from rival camps though so I don't know if it's realistic.

More day-to-day involvement from a broader base equals less substitutionism -- I would ask, in *any* social order, how "reps" are judged to be competent -- is it determined by the size of their family's political lineage, or maybe by the length of their stride when they walk -- ? The only way to hold others in check is through one's own due diligence, so that others can be trumped with better directions in policy, relative to the status quo.

[Thirsty Crow]

Basically what the title says. I would like to hear both points of view on this so to hopefully help me come to a final conclusion. I always thought that Vanguardism just created another class divide but I'm not really sure where I stand on this

First of all, I think there's a necessity for clarity on what is understood as the vanguard.
The vanguard political organization of the working class basically comprises of communist workers and sympathizers (this means that the vanguard of the class at any point in time are the individuals and groups holding communist positions; though it is clear that at times of intense counter-revolution and/or capitalist development this vanguard will be absolutely irrelevant and powerless); the very rhetoric of the vanguard does not presuppose that this formation is to capture state power and wield it in the name of the class. From anarchists to Stalinists, there is but a very few currents who genuinely do not advocate for a communists' political organization.

The thing is that I don't think that the situation briefly described above can be avoided at all, that certain groups of communists come together and collectively engage in political action. This means that I believe the emergence and activity of the vanguard political organization are practically inevitable. Conversely, this also means that I find those genuinely anti-political currents (don't mistake parliamentary political activity for any political activity possible) nonsensical in that aspect of denouncing any political organizing.

The more problematic issue is what kind of political activity and organizing are we talking about and advocating as possible, and appropriate for escalating class struggle up to the point when working class political power is a real possibility, with a host of other connected questions such as the relationship between communists' organization(s) and quasi-communist organizations, the issue of international organizing in the form of the international party and so on.

[Red Star Rising]

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

[Blake's Baby]

No, political parties lead to class division class division leads to tyranny. Let the workers organize independently.This is a simple, simple concept that should not be ignored

And what is that 'independent organisation', if not a vanguard?