Vanguard party?

[(A)]

I see it as a *logistical* necessity -- overall there could be a 'cat-and-mouse' dynamic all over the world in terms of actions and counteractions, in an ongoing situation of active class warfare.

The ruling class is far fewer in number so it's relatively easier for them to coordinate and maneuver -- the working class has to be relatively *as*-focused, while being far more numerous. The possibilities for complication would theoretically be more likely for the proletariat -- hence the need for some kind of 'focusing' mechanism, if you will, the *vanguard* or *vanguard party*.

I wouldn't want to see substitutionism happen any more than anyone else, so, in line with 'revolution', massive numbers of workers would have to be actively involved in reviewing what their 'vanguard' is doing, etc. In the context of proletarian interests we might see 'the vanguard' as a kind of *civic service* -- perhaps everyone working-class would devote 2 years of their life to serving in it, as a common unwritten social practice, which would also cut against potential substitutionism.

Also consider that if, at *any* point there had to be negotiations with the bourgeoisie for whatever reason, there would have to be a relative *consensus* and a single point of contact with them. A vehicle that would already be in operation, and relatively more 'executive' in function than the larger internal culture of class-warfare debating and discussing, would be necessary.

Supporting a system that needs review is what Liberals do; its not for Revolutionary's.
The idea of Platformism is to promote revolutionary organization and order. Making it so the working class wont need to substitute itself. The vanguard will still play a leading roll in the revolution; but as its vanguard; not its new government.

Hey -- I *hear* you. What you're describing is what I'd *like* to see, but the actual world may not be so obliging.

What if using the already-existing state bureaucracy would confer a clear *advantage* to the class struggle, all other things being equal -- ?

What if an interim 'socialist order' -- exactly by your description -- would *also* be a clear advantage -- ? (Etc.)

Perhaps these practices would increase the 'risk' of a 'runaway revolutionary elite', but maybe that risk would be worth it.

I agree socialist states will probably pop up but the Revolution has to cast those down as well. The risks are two great that during a revolution large parts of the world will become socialist states and the revolution will stagnate just as it did in the past.
The same forces faced by the USSR will be faced by any future socialist state. The revolution has to be world wide and of the class. I think supporting the idea of a vanguard party is to Liberal and that only Anarchy can bring about Communism.

I don't disagree with your premises or concerns -- I see the great unknown variable here to be *actual conditions*, so I'd be open to a certain *flexibility* in strategies and tactics over the long-term.

(As an aside I'll just note that, via dialectics, as soon as the bourgeoisie's power disappeared, that -- to me -- would in-practice basically *be* communism, because all of society would be 'internal' to a post-capitalist / post-oppression / post-exploitation *reality*. I think people could figure out the rest almost-instantaneously, given today's productivity prowess.)

My point is that the current global market place will simply be transformed into a new socialist market free from exploitation as long as said stateless conditions are met.
Other systems such as yours will form in communes and the best system will eventually be implemented by a willing society.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I was referring to the fact that Trotsky nor Luxemburg never said that the vanguard was the reason any past failed revolutions failed.

Yeah, which is what I said, but which your own (quoted) statement contradicts.

Rosa had passed before Stalin even took power.

I'm well aware of this.

They did however see flaws in the system that someone here wont acknowledge.

True, perhaps, but they saw flaws, they didn't just dismiss it in a "Hulk no like vanguard, Hulk smash!" knee-jerk, immaterial sort of way.

I know their where many many challenges faced by the Soviets; But it was Leninism' His vanguard and its party that took power from the workers; formed a centralized government; Attacked and exiled members of the revolution, allowed for the rise of Stalin... I dont know what people say ruined the revolution and allowed for the formation of the new state.

This is just repeating the same reductionist approach I mentioned above.

If it helps to quote The Russian Revolution itself, then:

This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
Doubtless the Bolsheviks would have proceeded in this very way were it not that they suffered under the frightful compulsion of the world war, the German occupation and all the abnormal difficulties connected therewith, things which were inevitably bound to distort any socialist policy, however imbued it might be with the best intentions and the finest principles.

The problem, at least as identified here (one can disagree, of course), isn't that "the Russian revolution faced problems, but the vanguard was the nail in the coffin." It's that the vanguard developed in the form it did precisely because of the problem of Russian conditions at the time.

[(A)]

I dont mean to say that the Vanguard was somehow uninfected by the times; but instead Vanguardism was an success.

It succeeded in its goals of creating a socialist state and fighting off "left-wing communists" and revolutionary such as the Anarchists.

Vanguardism is not a problem because it does not work its that it is not Anarchist. It succeeds at creating failed socialist states and killing millions. It is great at turning people away from Socialism and communism and Anarchism; despite never accomplishing any of the above.

Should we support and be of the vanguard; of course;But the goals of the vanguard should not be to create a new Socialist state but to destroy all forms of government.

The idea that Capitalism is the cause of all evil and not simply a symptom or method of the problem is not one I share.

[ckaihatsu]

Supporting a system that needs review is what Liberals do; its not for Revolutionary's.

Allow me to rephrase: If the vanguard / party happened to be in 'proactive' mode, and was making (fast-paced) decisions on behalf of the whole working class due to extant circumstances that *require* such a pace, there would have to be 'checks-and-balances', or 'review', from the larger proletariat to make sure that there *was* no 'runaway elite'-type substitutionism.

The watchword here is 'two-way street'.

The idea of Platformism is to promote revolutionary organization and order. Making it so the working class wont need to substitute itself. The vanguard will still play a leading roll in the revolution; but as its vanguard; not its new government.

Agreed, however you may want to conceive of the vanguard.

My only concern with 'platformism' is that, absent a (situational) (executive-type) vanguardist hierarchy, something solely ground-based and lateral may not be *quick enough* to respond-to -- and even 'lead' -- real-world developments.

These are simply *material dynamics* -- sheer lateralism globally would take *forever* to coalesce into a single decisive point of policy, and practice, for the sake of overrunning / overruling whatever moves the bourgeois states happen to be doing.

I agree socialist states will probably pop up

I *don't* agree that 'socialist states will probably pop up' -- you're putting words in my mouth.

I *don't* advocate any kind of constrained socialism-in-one-country, and I don't think that a single worldwide vanguard would *lend* itself to this kind of formulation -- one or more 'socialist states'.

but the Revolution has to cast those down as well. The risks are two great that during a revolution large parts of the world will become socialist states and the revolution will stagnate just as it did in the past.

This is another one of your empty assertions -- you're not *explaining* how today's real-world conditions would possibly *encourage* a stagnation of the revolution -- as the capitalist militaries' invasions of the Russian Revolution did 98 years ago.

Therefore you're just being pessimistic / fatalistic, of your own opinion-making, based on nothing else.

The same forces faced by the USSR will be faced by any future socialist state. The revolution has to be world wide and of the class.

You're *presuming* that a future revolution would automatically stagnate and turn into 'socialist states'.

I think supporting the idea of a vanguard party is to Liberal and that only Anarchy can bring about Communism.

This position of yours is based on the presumption that 'vanguard' = 'substitutionism':

A vanguard would be tying to substitute the revolution. Let the state fight the war for you because the class cant handle it itself. [...]

You're showing your ideology to be *very* opinion-based, and even *demagogic* -- here are your own words, from a different thread:

Marxism is based in science [...]. Anarchism is based in morality [...]

---

My point is that the current global market place will simply be transformed into a new socialist market free from exploitation as long as said stateless conditions are met.

'Predictions' now, extrapolated from your own demagoguery -- ? I'll pass.

Other systems such as yours will form in communes and the best system will eventually be implemented by a willing society.

More presumptuousness on your part -- more *likely* is that the socio-political inertia of the revolution itself would pass-on distinctive qualitative characteristics to the post-revolution society.

(If the revolutionary movement had a 'leading-edge' vanguard then centralized planning for the post-capitalist social order would most likely follow afterwards.)

[(A)]

A revolution must be of the worlds working class against every polity; every government; every state and every party.

One polity fighting another is not a revolution it is a war. Wars stagnate and demonize the opponent. Look what america did to the USSR's name.

Every victory for the vanguard party would be another loss for the revolution because each and every state they conquer would become a new nation for the
enemy to demonize and rally against. Eventually they could even warrant the unleashing of atomic weaponry.

The Revolution is *internal*. The people of a state rising up and casting down the state.
The continuous Revolution is the people of the state continuing to cast down any and all states, party's (Vanguard included), governments and polity's.

[ckaihatsu]

A revolution must be of the worlds working class against every polity; every government; every state and every party.

One polity fighting another is not a revolution it is a war. Wars stagnate and demonize the opponent. Look what america did to the USSR's name.

Every victory for the vanguard party would be another loss for the revolution because each and every state they conquer would become a new nation for the
enemy to demonize and rally against. Eventually they could even warrant the unleashing of atomic weaponry.

The Revolution is *internal*. The people of a state rising up and casting down the state.
The continuous Revolution is the people of the state continuing to cast down any and all states, party's (Vanguard included), governments and polity's.

At this point, D, you're just showing *discrimination* against a vanguard that happens to formalize into a party.

Considering that you don't have any special knowledge about the future, all you're doing is *stereotyping* a vanguard party into whatever bad thing you're thinking of at the moment -- it's *bias* on your part. You're implying that you *know* what it would do, which means that you're trying to foist your political nightmares onto others.

A better path would be to express concerns about any negative potentialities (which you've gone overboard with), and also express *enthusiasm* about *positive* potentialities, which could also be discussed.

[(A)]

Wow thanks for the laugh.

I am not claiming to know the future I am standing against a set of ideals based upon the fact that those ideas stand in direct opposition to my positions.

We are all discriminating here; that why we are leftists. We are not neutral on any position. I just stand against the idea of a workers state.

The only use for power is exploitation.

Moving Beyond Organizing to “Seize Power”

This also means that, like the Zapatistas, we need to refuse the history and traditions of left organizing that seek to “seize state power” and which claim the “leadership” of the working class. These forms of organizing end up replicating all the old shit – relations of hierarchy, command, top-down relations, forms of oppression, and of stifling grass roots and direct action initiatives and creativity. Instead we need to find ways to organize that facilitate and catalyze working class and oppressed people’s self-activity and their own power (“power to” as opposed to “power over,” to use John Holloway’s expression) and to facilitate the circulations of struggles to undercut and deconstruct the ‘power over’ of capital, bureaucratic and state relations, and various forms of oppression. These developments create new spaces for making actual the politics of revolution – but revolution no longer understood as the moment of insurrection, or of “seizing power” but as a long, and ongoing process of contestation and transformation in many different social sites and settings. It is not just capital and the state in a narrow sense that are the problem, but all forms of oppression and exploitation. An important part of the struggle involves a struggle against ourselves and for the transformation of ourselves since we are also implicated in capitalist relations and quite often relations of oppression (or “power over”).

—	The Politics of Revolution: Learning from Autonomist Marxism - Gary Kinsman

[ckaihatsu]

Wow thanks for the laugh.

I am not claiming to know the future I am standing against a set of ideals based upon the fact that those ideas stand in direct opposition to my positions.

We are all discriminating here; that why we are leftists. We are not neutral on any position. I just stand against the idea of a workers state.

The only use for power is exploitation.

Well, maybe to tie a bow on all of this (heh), I'll note that there's a distinction between being *partisan*, and being *discriminatory*.

You're treating the potential vanguard / party as *definitely* becoming elitist -- detached from the larger working class.

Since you're making all of it sound like a foregone conclusion when we're not even *there* yet -- *that's* discriminatory. You're stereotyping, especially with "predictions" like these:

Every victory for the vanguard party would be another loss for the revolution because each and every state they conquer would become a new nation for the
enemy to demonize and rally against. Eventually they could even warrant the unleashing of atomic weaponry.

[(A)]

The goal of the Vanguard is to create a Workers state.
A workers state is not something that I think should be advocated for as it is a Liberal notion of governance that is against the principles of Communism and Anarchism.

At this point I am not arguing that the vanguard should not take power from the working class; but that the goal to seize state power is counter-revolutionary and liberalist in the first place.

I think its ironic that the USSR made their flag Red and yellow; Yellow being the color most associated with Liberalism.

But your right we can wrap this one up if you want. If you have no more points to argue we can work on the other two threads lol.

[ckaihatsu]

The goal of the Vanguard is to create a Workers state.
A workers state is not something that I think should be advocated for as it is a Liberal notion of governance that is against the principles of Communism and Anarchism.

Instead of just talking *about* a workers state, D, you may want to *define* what you yourself mean by the term.

Though, by now, it's obvious that you're simply conflating the terms 'workers state' and 'socialist state', so that you can project a sense of dread onto both terms by very-loosely associating them with the former USSR / Stalinism.

Also, just because you *assert* liberal- / bourgeois-type governance as being the *only* type of governance you can conceive of, doesn't mean that you're correct. Hence you may want to *revisit* the term 'workers state'.

At this point I am not arguing that the vanguard should not take power from the working class;

But the vanguard / party should *not* take power from the working class -- it should be a two-way street, as much as possible.

Depending on actual events the vanguard may be relatively more *agile*, but it shouldn't be striving for *complete control* over the direction that the proletariat takes.

but that the goal to seize state power is counter-revolutionary and liberalist in the first place.

Nope -- these are more baseless assertions from you.

I think its ironic that the USSR made their flag Red and yellow; Yellow being the color most associated with Liberalism.

But your right we can wrap this one up if you want. If you have no more points to argue we can work on the other two threads lol.

It's looking like the plate may stay full for awhile longer....


= /


= )

[(A)]

Just because you dont understand the base does not make my arguments baseless.

Liberalism is the idea that the people in society cant govern for themselves so require a government to set and enforce the rules but that the rule of the government should be of the people.

In your case the people are the working class and their laws are the ones that need to be followed. This stops being External with the formation of a Workers state/Party/government and becomes internal as the Workers
have created a republic. A System of government Force; with freedom and law.

The revolution is not to end Capitalism but to end the means by which capitalism exists and by which Communism can not.

The goal of the revolutionary working class is to cast down everything that stands in the way of Communism!

The baselessness here is the idea that capitalism is what solely stands in opposition to Communism while actively promoting the means by which communism can not exist. A society held with Force.

[ckaihatsu]

Just because you dont understand the base does not make my arguments baseless.

No, this has nothing to do with me -- whenever you make an assertion that you don't provide any reasoning for, that's a baseless argument.

Many facts about the world are common knowledge, so you wouldn't have to explain in detail how the sun shines -- it just *does*, for the purpose of any plain discussion.

But just putting forth contentions isn't enough, because people like myself will *not* find your assertions to simply be self-evident. Without a basis of reasoning I'll just dismiss your vacuous statements as being baseless, since they often are.

Liberalism is the idea that the people in society cant govern for themselves so require a government to set and enforce the rules but that the rule of the government should be of the people.

Historically this kind of populism / liberalism derives from an enlargement of the political pool of participation, from the *nobility* and its elitist, exclusionary, property-based privileges over the commoners / peasants.

But to *revolutionaries* the critical question is 'What is the material basis for any given claim to political participation -- ?'

'People' anywhere can *claim* involvement in everyday day-to-day goings-on around government, but if they lack ownership of private property they're not going to be as represented by status-quo capitalist governance, compared to if they *did* own significant capital interests. (Consider environmental concerns, as a for-instance.)

In your case the people are the working class and their laws are the ones that need to be followed.

In 'my' case -- ?

(As though I come along, here in the 21st century, and all of this class-analysis stuff is chalked-up to *my* inventiveness...!)

This stops being External with the formation of a Workers state/Party/government and becomes internal as the Workers
have created a republic. A System of government Force; with freedom and law.

With or without a formal / organized vanguard / party, all matters of class struggle and revolution would be *internal* to the world's workers themselves, regardless.

The revolution is not to end Capitalism but to end the means by which capitalism exists and by which Communism can not.

Of *course* the revolution would be to end capitalism, decidedly and decisively.

The goal of the revolutionary working class is to cast down everything that stands in the way of Communism!

This is better.

The baselessness here is the idea that capitalism is what solely stands in opposition to Communism while actively promoting the means by which communism can not exist. A society held with Force.

This is your blanket, abstract aversion to anything regarding 'authority', regardless of its social composition. Any potential exercise of authority would be *very* different, capitalism vs. socialism, as for the proletarian overthrow of bourgeois rule, particularly.

[(A)]

Of *course* the revolution would be to end capitalism, decidedly and decisively.

Yet retain the state system that allowed for capitalism in the first place? The focus on capitalism and not the systems that predate capitalism and allow for capitalism is what I dont understand. Its almost like you think
all ills are caused by capitalism without any thought for the history of how capitalism came to be. You demonize capitalism for its exploitative and harmful nature yet except the existence of Exploitative and harmful systems of
hierarchy?

What is the material basis for any given claim to political participation

Force+Law. The use of legitimized violence to maintain the ownership over the means of production.
That is the material basis for all property and political power.
A state owns all land within its borders and manages it threw government. Only when all states are eliminated will this ownership end. The ownership of the means of production must end before communism can begin.

No states: As in no ownership of the land nor citizenship of the people.
No Class: No hierarchy of gender, race, religion, orientation.
No Money: No labor backed currency, fiat money, expectation of immediate return, investment, gold backed currency, rent, tax.

Communism is Anarchy.

[Comrade Baugher]

The only problem with vanguardism is that it doesn't leave much room for criticism among comrades or from other parties. Criticism is what makes organizations adapt and improve themselves.

[ckaihatsu]

Of *course* the revolution would be to end capitalism, decidedly and decisively.

Yet retain the state system that allowed for capitalism in the first place?

Look, D, your anxiety and fearfulness regarding any kind of *organization* whatsoever (vanguard, party, government) on behalf of the working class is becoming *clinical* in expression. Why shouldn't the world's working class develop its own vehicles of internal organization -- ? Because there's a chance it won't be successful -- ? Then why bother trying *anything* to begin with -- ? You're just being a naysayer and fatalist with this anti-organization line of yours.

Here's from the other thread, for clarification:

I agree that no state (a bureaucratic-hierarchical authority) would be required, nor would money / currency, or the class-division.

---

The focus on capitalism and not the systems that predate capitalism and allow for capitalism is what I dont understand.

There *are no* 'systems that predate capitalism and allow for capitalism'. It *is* capitalism and the class divide itself that is the 'system'. Do away with the economic paradigm / institution of private property, by whatever means, and you'll also see the end of capitalism and its state.

Its almost like you think
all ills are caused by capitalism without any thought for the history of how capitalism came to be.

It's the *class divide* that's the problem -- you can elaborate, though, on the history of capitalism if you think it's somehow relevant.

[C]lass is one's relationship to the means of mass production -- either one *owns* or otherwise *controls* what society produces, or else one *works* under such private-based control.

---

You demonize capitalism for its exploitative and harmful nature yet except the existence of Exploitative and harmful systems of
hierarchy?

No, I don't, and you have nothing from me along these lines -- again you're just throwing out baseless contentions and accusations.


---

What is the material basis for any given claim to political participation

Force+Law. The use of legitimized violence to maintain the ownership over the means of production.

Incorrect -- you're basically describing Bonapartism, which is *not* a normal state of political affairs.

Yes, the establishment *benefits* from its monopoly on violence, but it can't *rely* on violence as an everyday tactic because any country's population wouldn't be able to stand it / support it with their numbers.

It's the *economic* relations of productivity that is a regime's everyday base of political support, in general. Again:

[C]lass is one's relationship to the means of mass production -- either one *owns* or otherwise *controls* what society produces, or else one *works* under such private-based control.

---

That is the material basis for all property and political power.

Your understanding is that of a sheerly *autocratic*, repressive wielding of power, which, again, would be unsustainable if it were to be the norm -- the system of capitalism stumbles along because it's mostly politically *stable*. Certain sectors of the population are *bought off* with decent and usually-improving standards of living, as we think-of when we think of the 'middle class'. The *very* rich benefit *greatly* from capitalist economics, without your nightmarish 'force and power and violence' theory.

A state owns all land within its borders and manages it threw government. Only when all states are eliminated will this ownership end. The ownership of the means of production must end before communism can begin.

No states: As in no ownership of the land nor citizenship of the people.
No Class: No hierarchy of gender, race, religion, orientation.
No Money: No labor backed currency, fiat money, expectation of immediate return, investment, gold backed currency, rent, tax.

Communism is Anarchy.

No prob, except that, again, my 'labor credits' is *not* currency.

[T]hey're *not* money / currency because they're not exchangeable for materials of any kind. Non-exchangeability means they're not money.

They can only apply to various / arbitrary people's own labor hours -- yes, it's value, no it's not exchange-value.

They're meant to address the realistic post-capitalist issue of 'What if there's great unmet *need* for something to be produced, but *no one* wants to do the work required to make it happen, on a strictly voluntary / uncompensated basis?'

[(A)]

I have no fear of the state anymore; I used to; when I thought their brutality had legitimacy. But now I know that government has no real legitimacy and that I have the moral right to defend myself against the state.
As the saying goes; No matter who you elect, I am ungovernable. Anarchism has given me peace of mind.

There *are no* 'systems that predate capitalism

So before capitalism their was nothing but savage men from caves living in abject chaos... and then their was capitalism.

The "capitalistic era" according to Karl Marx dates from 16th century merchants and small urban workshops.Marx knew that wage labour existed on a modest scale for centuries before capitalist industry.

Capitalism is the economic power of the state being gifted to the members of the state. I am not anti-capitalism becuase capitalism is the sum of all evils; I am Anti-capitalist because I am anti-Statist.
Capitalism is nothing without the state. Without the state Capitalism would either cease to exist or form a new state system; advocated for by "An"caps that we call Neo-Feudalism.
Why? because Capitalism is an extension of the Hierarchy of material production.

State owns all land within its borders
V
State gives property rights to the people
V
Capitalism/liberalism

State owns all land within its borders
V
State keeps land for itself
V
Totalitarianism/fascism/feudalism

State owns all land within its borders
V
State keeps land but gives property management to the workers
V
State Socialism/Liberalism

State does not exist nor do borders
V
People manage the land and production themselves cooperatively
V
Communism

[ckaihatsu]

The only problem with vanguardism is that it doesn't leave much room for criticism among comrades or from other parties. Criticism is what makes organizations adapt and improve themselves.

This is far from being a *given* -- it would all depend on how such a vanguard / party actually *operated* in the real-world. (Consider RevLeft as a kind of proto-vanguard, for example.)

- - - Updated - - -

The focus on capitalism and not the systems that predate capitalism and allow for capitalism is what I dont understand.

There *are no* 'systems that predate capitalism and allow for capitalism'. It *is* capitalism and the class divide itself that is the 'system'. Do away with the economic paradigm / institution of private property, by whatever means, and you'll also see the end of capitalism and its state.

So before capitalism their was nothing but savage men from caves living in abject chaos... and then their was capitalism.

No, I'm not saying this.

[Y]ou can elaborate [...] on the history of capitalism if you think it's somehow relevant.

And, again:

[The establishment] can't *rely* on violence as an everyday tactic because any country's population wouldn't be able to stand it / support it with their numbers.

It's the *economic* relations of productivity that is a regime's everyday base of political support, in general.

[T]he system of capitalism stumbles along because it's mostly politically *stable*. Certain sectors of the population are *bought off* with decent and usually-improving standards of living, as we think-of when we think of the 'middle class'. The *very* rich benefit *greatly* from capitalist economics, without your nightmarish 'force and power and violence' theory.

[(A)]

(Consider RevLeft as a kind of proto-vanguard, for example.)

Your not helping your argument...

[The establishment] can't *rely* on violence as an everyday tactic because any country's population wouldn't be able to stand it / support it with their numbers.

BULLSHIT. Violence is an everyday reality for most. The U.S. has been at war for 222 Out of 239 Years
Every day people across the world are subjected to brutality and in most places support the system of their abuse.

The vanguard of Russia made it very clear that their violence was "legitimate" and non-optional.
This is why I use the term Liberal to describe state socialists because it is the same philosophy of Liberty, order and democratic rule and that does not work.

[ckaihatsu]

(Consider RevLeft as a kind of proto-vanguard, for example.)

Your not helping your argument...

How so -- ?

[The establishment] can't *rely* on violence as an everyday tactic because any country's population wouldn't be able to stand it / support it with their numbers.

BULLSHIT. Violence is an everyday reality for most.

I don't think this is true.

The U.S. has been at war for 222 Out of 239 Years
Every day people across the world are subjected to brutality and in most places support the system of their abuse.

Yes, I'm aware of the effects of imperialism, but you're talking about *domestic* violence, for the sake of propping up the ruling class. Police brutality and the prison system isn't enough, I'd say, to keep *everyone* in line if that was the goal: To rule by threat of violence. You're ignoring the entire *economic* component, which does benefit many into complacency and out of struggle.

The vanguard of Russia made it very clear that their violence was "legitimate" and non-optional.

You may want to elaborate on this.

This is why I use the term Liberal to describe state socialists because it is the same philosophy of Liberty, order and democratic rule and that does not work.

It's understandable, but it's not really accurate, considering actual historical developments -- really the state-capitalism that you so despise resulted from an *imploded revolution*, due to foreign military invasions.

In other words it wasn't a bunch of *liberals* that said 'Let's form our own state'. The history shows a *real* proletarian revolution that was subsequently pressured from without, and distorted.

[(A)]

If RevLeft was the vanguard we would be fucked. Might as well give up now if this is how the most advanced and professional revolutionary's act and interact.
Its an OK place for a little debate but a real vanguard would be working towards something and have some semblance of Solidarity.

The states existence is violence. In the same way that rape is an act of violence the involuntary relationship between state and Citizen; Land owner and serf; Capitalist and Worker is an act of violence that is only
maintained by force. The continued existence of involuntary relations after the fall of capitalism would be a continuation of what capitalism is. That is why I am Anti-statist because the relation between worker and Owner is
the same relation between state and citizen. Anarchy is a state of freedom where the society manages itself. Communism would be a state of anarchy. No States, class or property.

What you are advocating for is not self management because you expect people to adopt a bureaucratic system that will manage the resources for them based on lists of what is needed.
Sounds like that super computer socialism where everyone just obeys the material distribution of the computer. Why not just go with that?