You took the words right out of my mouth Wonton. ^_^
Results 21 to 40 of 246
The "revolutionary" vanguard is anything but. It's counter-revolutionary, if you ask me. In fact, Leninism as a whole (along with Stalinism and Maoism) has unfortunately turned into a pathetic excuse for a few opportunistic elitists to grap power, or, quite possibly, always was. Really, just look at the Leninist nations throughout history, ande you'll see a deffinate trend: dictatorship, totalitarianism, and, most ironically of all, class division
That's why I consider myself an Orthodox Communist.
Besides, the last thing the movement needs is a group of self proclaimed "intellectuals" telling us what to think. I am my own ruler. I have no slave master.
Au contraire, red; I think it would be best if we kept the word as it is, clearly define it as it was meant, and expose it for what it is: an authoritarian sham. Changing the word wouldn't change its core meaning, the thing that really counts. It would be like changing the name Communist because the US"S"R and "P"RC
gave it a bad rap. Why lie to the people we're trying to help (esspecialy when it's such an awful one)? Why sugarcoat it? So they'll like it more?
Discuss.
You took the words right out of my mouth Wonton. ^_^
<span style=\'color:red\'>Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03</span>
Just like I take hearts from the ladies.Originally posted by emokid08@Apr 18 2006, 05:40 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth Wonton. ^_^
Discuss.
I think the general feeling is that the 'vanguard' is exactly what YKTMX says it is: an organization to lead (as in, have power over) the masses.
So if you don't support this, then why hold on to the 'vanguard' label at all?
Ultra-democracy is a very precise definition. Any bourgeois person could see what we mean. Why not use this word?
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
This advice is superfluous; those who still do imagine themselves in the corner office of the 50th floor of the Ministry of Proletarian Security will keep the word "vanguard" and vehemently insist on its "historical necessity".
I'm thinking of people who "want to get away from that" without trashing the obvious fact that there will be divisions in the working class at the time of the revolution and likely for some time afterwards.
We anticipate that for the most part, the working class will be revolutionary and pro-communist; but there will be some "less revolutionary" elements and even some outright reactionary elements. They may be a minority and even a small minority, but they will certainly exist.
Therefore, you will find people arguing "for a vanguard" even when they don't mean it in the sense that the word was used in the last century.
It's to them that my advice is offered; get rid of that word and pick some new ones that describe what you really want.
For example, they might say that they want an organization of conscious communists to "represent the future" in the present struggle...representation does not imply the power of command. It's a voice...not an order.
What I think we really have to be alert to is any hint of ambition...the people who "imply" that their "understanding" conveys a "right to leadership" and, of necessity, a "right to command".
People can do that without ever mentioning the word "vanguard"...and almost certainly will try.
Watch for it!
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Be careful when Leninists argue that they have established revolutionary situatuns
They try to differentiate their revolution from a bourgeois one, by telling us anarchists how we have failed and how they have had success. However, they didn't do anything remarkable in that sense, considering there has been many succesful bourgeois revolutions.
So if anything, leninism has been proven a failure in its relation to socialism. However it has been a success in establishing capitalism.
There is nothing revolutionary leninism has established at all.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
firstly what most of you fail to recognize is that Lenin realized that capitalism must come first, he just wanted to get through it as fast as he could and bring about communism, with the majority of the revolutionary forces coming from the peasantry no wonder, things didnt get into communism duh people duh. He realized that capitalism HAS to be achieved before socialism, hence such things as the NEP and so forth, workers councils were set up, reactionaries knocked em down. I disagree with many of what lenin said, but on this point, he followed the "orthodox" marxist line, must have capitalism first, and especially in such a regressive and oppressive society such as russia at that time, authority to that degree was needed to bring about capitalism, who knows without that they could still be more feudal than today, look into things before you talk.
and talking of spontaineous uprising of the workers is a moot point, the workers as a majority of them will not rise up on their own, they in some cases need to be opened up to the idea of their situation. This is done by communists, in fact by the mere position of us being communists, we tell people about communism, thats bringing people of their situation without you even knowing it. so unless emokid you have never tried to get a worker or a fellow youth to recognize his position in society, as well as how society functions you do not advocate spontainety. some workers will come to the movement, on their own (unlikely albeit) but many need to be opened up away from the bourgeois media that controls all aspects of their lives.
having a revolution without organization leads to failure, there needs to be some kind of organization, as well as some kind of "authority" as if there isnt we would have some crap like RAAN, a "network" where no one knows what the hell to do, as no one is "in charge"
Another fucking liar.
I never said anything like that.
I said the vanguard leads class struggle in a Marxist direction.
To which you've added, completely of your own volition, "having power over the masses".
Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly "world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives.
Karl Marx
Excuse my wording then, general and spontaneous uprising have managed to overthrow the old regime and attempt at a new system. Those are some examples that failed, sure, and I can list some examples of instances where revolutionary vanguards failed to procure any sort of revolution. That's besides the point, which is that whether there is such a vanguard or not, it's necessary for the masses to step up themselves. If they don't really want any revolution, it's largely pointless for any vanguard, which seemingly wants to be the spark that ignites the revolution, which is an amiable goal, but retaining any control or influence once a revolution has started is hollow. I'm not "habitually lying", misinterpreting something is just that, a mistake, and isn't contorting words to fit my own agenda.
"Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience & through rebellion."
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism.
So your 'vanguard' will have no real power over the proletariat?
And to be fair, it wasn't me that actually added 'having power over the masses'. The Leninist vanguards of the past added this. Your's is ultimately an ahistorical assertion that 'things will be better this time'.
Well, yes, you as a Leninist assert the need for authority.
We just can't do it without our benevolent leaders!
Well, that is bullshit. We can have organization without this 'authority' or 'rule'. This can either take the form of a network like RAAN or an ultra-democratic organization, or perhaps an organization which uses demarchy.
In any of those cases, there is no real authority. True enough, a lot of people will be suggesting a lot of things. But none of them will actually have the power of command of the people.
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
Just like Demarchy implies multiple, seperated in process, unaccountable, mini-bureacracies ay RSTK?
Its more like a burearchy.
Though demarchy seems attactive at first because it speaks of the abolishment of elections, and a certain degree of autonomy.
Autonomy is an attractive word, yes.
But this autonomy is according those who are drawn out of the computer system.
(Which can easily be rigged). Never the less the "autonomous" bodies make decisions separate from eachother to the point that it can't be taken into account what decissions affect the other bodies; the elements of the environment aren't
separate from eachother, however this process tries to assure this separation. Though these bodies have term limits, you just replace
one group of despots for another, only more frequently
On top of that theres a great wall dividing those affected by the decisions, and those who make them!
I know, I know... but it's got an "archy"!
How about Democracy, in the USA we live in a Democracy
It doesn't matter what word(s) you decide to use, you'll have to define them precisely within the context of things.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]"We can do anything by working with eachother!"[/FONT]
Oops. Sorry, I misread your post. :blush: My apologies.Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 18 2006, 06:54 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 18 2006, 06:54 PM)This advice is superfluous; those who still do imagine themselves in the corner office of the 50th floor of the Ministry of Proletarian Security will keep the word "vanguard" and vehemently insist on its "historical necessity".
I'm thinking of people who "want to get away from that" without trashing the obvious fact that there will be divisions in the working class at the time of the revolution and likely for some time afterwards.
We anticipate that for the most part, the working class will be revolutionary and pro-communist; but there will be some "less revolutionary" elements and even some outright reactionary elements. They may be a minority and even a small minority, but they will certainly exist.
Therefore, you will find people arguing "for a vanguard" even when they don't mean it in the sense that the word was used in the last century.
It's to them that my advice is offered; get rid of that word and pick some new ones that describe what you really want.
For example, they might say that they want an organization of conscious communists to "represent the future" in the present struggle...representation does not imply the power of command. It's a voice...not an order.
What I think we really have to be alert to is any hint of ambition...the people who "imply" that their "understanding" conveys a "right to leadership" and, of necessity, a "right to command".
People can do that without ever mentioning the word "vanguard"...and almost certainly will try.
Watch for it!
Discuss.
I believe that I have stated before that I am in favor of organization, networking, education, etc. But these organizations don't need leadership or an "Inner Party". Everyone will draw on each other, lead and learn from each other.
If there is authority, then most likely that authority will want to maintain it's position over it's followers after the revolution.
The workers will achieve revolution through SELF LIBERATION acted out COLLECTIVELY. The liberation that takes place has to be SELF LIBERATION, or it's not really liberation,then, is it?
The Revolution cannot be created by some vanguard seizing power, but rather only by the self-liberation of the oppressed and exploited.
Direct action (acted out by the organized and networked/educated masses) and self liberation will spawn the revolution and free all of society.
<span style=\'color:red\'>Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03</span>
Go for it.
Sorry, but you still seem to be failing to understand the argument.
No one is saying the "vanguard" can create revolutionary situations out of thin air. The aim of the vanguard is to lead the revolutionary struggles in revolutionary socialist directions. The problem with revolutionary situations that have arose since the Bolshevik revolution is that there has either been no class conscious vanguard, or there has been, but they've placed greater importance on the foreign policy needs of the Soviet Union than on their own class struggles.
The problem therefore for socialism in the 20th century was a lack of vanguard parties, not too many.
Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly "world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives.
Karl Marx
Common assertion.
Umm, 2 examples, perhaps?
One will be fine, though.
Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly "world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives.
Karl Marx
I don't think this is accurate. Demarchy is where we have specific organizational jobs done by randomly selected people. There really is no 'bureacracy'.
This isn't autonomism at all. Autonomism is simply decentralization. Networks are autonomous by their very nature, for example. There is no 'central command', but rather a bunch of small groups. So what we have is a large number of groups with similar principles and goals fighting autonomously for what they want.
This is another inaccuracy. The US is a so-called democratic republic.
Democracy is rule by the people.
Russia? China? And every other 'Marxist-Leninist' state of the 20th century.
These despotisms didn't just 'happen'. They were a result of the authoritarianism of the vanguard. The vanguard, and Lenin wrote as much, served as the 'head' of the movement. It was the 'most advanced'; in other words, it was the 'best'. The power each vanguard attained flowed naturally from this.
Why didn't you bother answering my first question?
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
did i use the word leader once? umm no i dont think so, try again. your enveloped by the stigma that ALL types of authority are bad, listen nothing will get accomplished without organization, and by the very nature of organization implies some kind of authority. i doubt when the time comes every single worker will join it, yet many many will. even if it is a majority they are exhibiting some kind of authority over the current govt and state structures. they are imposing the will of the people on the govt, Revolutions are authoritarian for that reason. I am no leninist, i will not fall into your clap trap about victimizing leninists and pushing them in a corner and discrediting all what they say, anarchists love to do that, but sorry i wont fall for it. I have said nothing leninist, ive said that i disagree with much of what lenin says, but one must not discredit what he did. as Kuhn said, you have to analyze the events in their proper contexts, of course it is easy for you to judge it, from your pedastool, but the real world thinks otherwise. so basically for your revolution to be completely anti-rule or authoritarian, every single person on earth must comply, as if even one does not support you, you are exhibiting your ideas over his, in terms of imposing the system of anarchism, whatever the fuck that means. Oh your successful RAAN or Ultra-democratic organizations how foolish of me, what great organizations.
oh bringing up demarchy, that doesnt even ilicit a response, everybody put your name in the hat now, 5th grade anyone?
like i said above unless every person joins the revolution, the revolutionaries will have power of command over those that dont agree, or who are fighting against you. its just that simple anomaly.
HA! Are you serious? You GOT to be kidding me!
<span style=\'color:red\'>Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03</span>
No it doesn't. And this was my point in bringing up networks and ultra-democratic organizations. The latter type does not exist yet, so far as I know. However, several networks exist, without any authority in the organization.
But, I see you, like a lot of anti-anarchists, like to play the definition game. "I didn't really mean that!"
Well, alright. Do you want (official) hierarchy within the organization?
That is a better question, I think.
You are probably right that revolution is an authoritarian act. We (we as in the proletariat) are, after all, imposing our will.
However, we were talking about authoritarianism within the organization. Not during the revolution.
Well, that is demarchy. No 'professional leaders', just regular people. That's the point of random selection.
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
oh and democracy is
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
In america we have a capitalist democracy, i.e. indirect democracy within a capitalist paradigm
what your supposedly advocating is direct democracy, we have a democracy in the US, just a really fucked up one, democracys arent always laddy da shit.
