Epoch of the Marxist Youth

For aspiring and studying marxist youth to come together and discuss the true way forward
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Vanguard Parties

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Shabazz Freeman
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 373
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Bay Area

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:31 pm

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:
Shabazz Freeman wrote:
The extreme policies adapted during that time were abolished at the civil war's conclusion. They weren't elevated above the people, they were the organizing authoritarian force against the rich peasants and capitalist-they were the weapon of the poor peasants and workers, not elevated above them.

The Bolsheviks got better rations. Is that not being raised above? That's a pretty big problem as far as i'm concerned.

Im not sure what time period this was and before lenin i know it is directly counterposed to the soviet constitution BUT I do know that Trotsky analyzed the general want by explaining customers at a store. When there is plenty of produce and such to purchase, customers feel free to come and go as they pleased. When there is scarcity, they feel inclined to stand in line, when there is a line there is the need for someone of the state to keep order, and the officer already KNOWS who is going to get something and who isn't including himself. And because of the civil war devastating the revolutionary proletariat and nearly destroying the industrial means of production, the production of goods greatly declined and plunged the USSR into a state of scarcity. This plus the failure of the German Revolution lay the grounds for the degeneration of the USSR and pave the way for Stalin and the bureaucracy to depart from marxism while still claiming he is theoretically correct while destroying the left opposition.

Quote :
It's not that they are reactionary, it's that they are a heterogeneous class unlike the homogeneous proletariat and bourgeoisie. By "heterogenous" i mean to say that they do not have a united class interest. The peasantry are petty bourgeois. The poor peasants suffer and sympathize with the workers while the well off peasants seek to make more profit and aspire to become true bourgeoisie.

But nowadays capitalists have taken many steps to make the workers they employ have more stake within the capitalists' companies. So you could argue that the proletariat has no more and no less at stake than the peasantry in a capitalist society. Some peasants own land, some proletarians own stock. I don't think the proletariat has what it takes to lead revolution based on this.

Well to be honest, I poorly explained my point. The economic dream of the peasantry is to develop successful land, employ more workers and grow. The Privileged peasantry strives towards this and grows and continues to aspire to become the bouregoisie. The poor peasants that are ruled by the land lords have nothing and may not even beable to produce a surplus to make a profit off of it and BECAUSE of that the poor peasantry is more easily swayed by the two classes depending on what each has to offer. The bourgeoisie had land reforms and the Proletariat had the abolition of the landlords altogether. After the feb revolution, the antagonisms between the rich peasantry and the poor peasantry became distinct, the proletariat fought to champion the causes of the poor peasantry and expropriated the rich peasantry in the name of the proletariat and peasantry during the civil war. Im not saying the peasantry can't be involved in the revolution, im saying that the right part must be mobilized behind the class conscious revolutionary proletariat.

Now about the Proletariat, tbh if they have a substantial amount of stocks then they are technically no longer the proletariat because they have something else to sell besides their labor. In defining the petty bourgeoisie as a heterogeneous class we realize that there are many many class interests. Some that aspire to become the bourgeoisie and others that sympathize with the proletariat. But the uniting description of the petty bourgeoisie is that they do not have a major influence/ownership in the means of production. The "sympathizers" and revolutionary youth like us must mobilize behind the working class in fighting for the revolution for it is the proletariat the revolution must be based off of/lead by



Quote :
In the other nations they did have a socialist revolution and overthrew capitalism but because they were peasant based and did not have their roots in the proletariat they ended up creating a bureaucracy.

And what has the proletarian revolution created so far? I don't think comparing success rates is going to make any difference as to choosing who leads the revolution.

Yes but the qualitative difference in the workers' state pivots at the point where it is run by the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry which is something marxists must learn from

Quote :
Well if they were true communist it would be easy for them to give up power. I would personally.

Not that i don't believe you, but we are products of our environment. So once they are in a place of authority, by coincidence or not, could you really count on anyone to give that up. I don't believe anyone has ever done that... ever.
Yeah it is not merely a matter of ideals and whatnot, it is abolishing the material conditions that lead to corruption and bureaucratic regimes-scarcity

Quote :
I guess you would just have to make examples out of them if you know what i mean.

Hopefully that's a joke.
yeah engels and marx defeated the whole commune example thing a long time ago lol
Thats utopian socialism you are talking about

Quote :
so in some cases a vanguard party can be very effective, if everyone in it was truly dedicated to the cause?

I'd say they're efficient, and can probably react quicker to certain circumstances, but they haven't been all too effective, though what has?

They have been very effective, the fought off the civil war at the expense of being essentially decimated and destroyed at the end of it.

Quote :
Yes but the vanguard would organize it otherwise it would fail against a military.

I don't think this is true. I think the working class can organize itself to fight. Just because we oppose authority doesn't mean we want the army to consist of a bunch of privates doing whatever they think is best. There can be organisation without there being heirarchical authority. I also don't think, even if they are without regard for others, that the bourgeoisie would engage in such a massacre.

I think there is a misunderstanding, the vanguard IS the working class organization, not a seperate body from above that has no roots in the working class
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://themarxistyouth.forumotion.com
Anarchist.Dagger
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 89
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:51 pm

solpacvoicis wrote:
hm, well, what i didn't add was reviewing the data gained from the experiment - the point i was trying to make was that you shouldn't assume a socialist revolution will be successful OR unsuccessful....thanks for catching that though =D

My mistake then.

Quote :
Im not sure what time period this was and before lenin i know it is directly counterposed to the soviet constitution BUT I do know that Trotsky analyzed the general want by explaining customers at a store. When there is plenty of produce and such to purchase, customers feel free to come and go as they pleased. When there is scarcity, they feel inclined to stand in line, when there is a line there is the need for someone of the state to keep order, and the officer already KNOWS who is going to get something and who isn't including himself. And because of the civil war devastating the revolutionary proletariat and nearly destroying the industrial means of production, the production of goods greatly declined and plunged the USSR into a state of scarcity. This plus the failure of the German Revolution lay the grounds for the degeneration of the USSR and pave the way for Stalin and the bureaucracy to depart from marxism while still claiming he is theoretically correct while destroying the left opposition.

This problem with the rations was going on as early as 1918 through 1920, and it didn't stop after the civil war. This, besides the immense amount of strikes in '19, '20 and '21. So all this may be so, but a lot of things during the USSR didn't go as planned. Maybe it wasn't just bad luck, but a problem with the plan; something that made it unachievable.

Whether or not that's the case (who knows), i think once it gets to the point of martial law to supress the thousands of protestors, it's time for a change.

Quote :
Im not saying the peasantry can't be involved in the revolution, im saying that the right part must be mobilized behind the class conscious revolutionary proletariat.

Then why would the land-owning peasantry be considered peasants? It seems they would be bourgeois like the proletarians who own stock. Whatever, that's not important.

I still don't see why the proletariat should have any leadership role. It seems to me that to
serve all the toiling masses, you'd need the input of all the toiling masses. I don't think the proletariat knows the needs of the whole working class.

And starting that kind of heirarchy seems to lead us back where we came from. This just leaves the door open for those kind of discrepancies like what happened with the rations in Russia.

Quote :
yeah engels and marx defeated the whole commune example thing a long time ago

Could you explain this, for my sake?

Quote :
I think there is a misunderstanding, the vanguard IS the working class organization, not a seperate body from above that has no roots in the working class

That i would have no problem with, but this doesn't seem to be the case, historically. And it is self-evident that this was not the case in Russia. They may have had roots in the working class, but it didn't take long for those roots to be pulled.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Mighty Mighty Bosstone!
Radical
avatar

Posts : 28
Join date : 2008-07-21

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:29 am

The idea is that the Vanguard Party will organize and ultimately mobilize the Proletariat for the revolutionary steps to seize the means of production and build a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It will then manage the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and help counteract any bourgeois reaction to the Communist victory. Throughout this, strong democratic principles within the Communist party are stressed -- this is known as Democratic Centralism. 5 main qualities of Democratic Centralism as according to the typical description of the idea from the constitutions of most Leninist organizations:

Quote :
1. Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.
2. Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.
3. Strict and conscious discipline in the party—the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.
4. Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.
5. Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create.

Now, the problem is, as stated by solpacvoicis:

Quote :
also, vanguard parties can easily become corrupted, how would one prevent this from happening?

Simple. Since all aspects of the party organs 1. work in a collective and cooperative manner at all times 2. are elected from top to bottom a potential betrayal of the working class would be very easily identified and the second part of the first principle, the systematic renewal of their composition, could be put in to play, meaning the usurper of the Vanguard Party's assumed power would be very quickly replaced. At the core of the Vanguard Party is professional revolutionaries, who are dedicated and have shown they are dedicated to the revolutionary cause, and all who show their intention to be contrary to the eventual abolition of the Vanguard Party (and the Proletarian State) when necessary would be cut from the position of power immediately. Further, in the 4th principle of Democratic Centralism it states all decisions of upper structures are mandatory for lower structures -- this is a step against corruption. As said, at the top is the professional revolutionaries, the dedicated, the leaders, the ones who have brought the proletariat to their position of triumph. Therefore, if their decisions are mandatory to the lower party members, corruption from these lower structures is automatically prevented and suppressed. If corruption was to rise in the higher structures of the party, the other members of this higher structure could easily eject this member and all accomplices from the party with relative ease. It is an effective political process that has all the bases covered as far as inner-party defiance.

Quote :

however, i would like to point out, a much more direct way would be a global uprising lol XD

Who said a revolution based on Vanguardist principles wasn't a global uprising, anyway? It simply organizes this uprising and makes it effective and because of the structure of the party democratic and effective in the removal of reactionary forces.

Quote :
=O not so, there are many ways to acquire weapons, and guerrilla tactics are effective against armies =D

I don't think it's about the literal struggle against the bourgeois, the actual fighting to occur during a revolution, I think that a Vanguard Party keeps the proletariat itself away from inward-fighting, betrayal, reactionary influences. The Vanguard Party is, in principle, an ideological weapon. It is the core organization and the methodological approach to party democracy and the bringing about and maintenance of an effective dictatorship of the proletariat.

Quote :
there's no need for strict organization, people just need to organize themselves into task forces and destroy weapons and facilities of the army....

This would work if absolutely everyone was devoted to the cause -- on the contrary, many reactionary forces will face the proletariat from the inside. Corruption would loom over them and could attract the decentralised party into very murky and I daresay un-Communist waters.

Quote :
a vanguard party might make organization easier, but is it worth it to create another hierarchy?

It's not a hierarchy, it's the effective utilization of Communist strengths within the proletarian revolution.

Quote :
um, if we are talking about democratically centralized vanguard parties, and this vanguard party, not elected or controlled by the people, organizing them....then it is different from a decentralized democracy....

I think you forget the professional revolutionaries are professional revolutionaries because they have the interests of the proletariat at heart, and are proletarians themselves. The structural makeup of a Democratic-Centralist Vanguard Party is effective and Communist, and healthy for the triumph of proletarians in the event of a workers' uprising.

Quote :
but when you talk about tactics or method, what if that decided method isn't going well, will it be treason to criticize what has already been decided?

Of course there's a freedom to criticize -- what the idea that upper party organ decisions are mandatory for the lower party organs means that once something is decided by way of Democratic Centralism it should be hastily implemented. This doesn't mean that there cannot be criticisms, further debate, even total changes in plans. It's more flexible than I think you anticipate.

Quote :
Che focused on organizing the peasantry and so the peasantry lead it

That doesn't mean it wasn't a revolution with Socialist intentions. In countries where the peasantry is extremely prominent in the population, the Communist will indeed have to follow the idea, "When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade". I think that there should be a unity of all laborers, with a leadership of the Vanguard Party which would be composed of the working class with the strongest influence in the particular revolutionary situation. China, for instance, was based almost entirely on the labor of the peasants and as they too were oppressed in the basic, classical Marxist sense (economically exploited) they made up the Vanguard Party and the revolution was ultimately successful (what happened afterwards is another story entirely, one irrelevant to the subject at hand...)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anarchist.Dagger
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 89
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:28 pm

Mighty Mighty Bosstone! wrote:
Now, the problem is, as stated by solpacvoicis:

Quote :
also, vanguard parties can easily become corrupted, how would one prevent this from happening?

Simple. Since all aspects of the party organs 1. work in a collective and cooperative manner at all times 2. are elected from top to bottom a potential betrayal of the working class would be very easily identified and the second part of the first principle, the systematic renewal of their composition, could be put in to play, meaning the usurper of the Vanguard Party's assumed power would be very quickly replaced.

Okay, a few things. Even if a potential betrayal can be dealt with sufficiently without it doing irreparable damage to the revolution, it isn't enough to justify a vanguard, to me. There's still the question of, 'how can the vanguard possibly act in the working classes best interest when they are such a limited number?'. Ideally, i understand that the vanguard would cater to the needs of the masses, but in some cases it just may not be possible, and in others the members of the vanguard were not in the same environment as the workers, so they would have no way of knowing their needs. I mean, i'm sure Lenin agrees with you, and even he couldn't put this into practice effectively enough (not very effectively at all, in my opinion).

Also, how would you kick certain members out of the vanguard if they have usurped assumed power? I think we can all agree that if it is assumed by the majority that the vanguard has some sort of authority, then the vanguard has authority (or, if you don't like calling it that, you must at least concede that this "authority" is influential). So if the peole now believe he/she's in charge, then that's who they'll 'obey' (couldn't think of a better word, i'm not tryin to be dramatic). Authority only has roots in the beliefs of the public. It's not a tangible thing, so it can't be stolen like a television. The only way to usurp authority is to make people believe you have usurped authority.

Quote :
At the core of the Vanguard Party is professional revolutionaries, who are dedicated and have shown they are dedicated to the revolutionary cause, and all who show their intention to be contrary to the eventual abolition of the Vanguard Party (and the Proletarian State) when necessary would be cut from the position of power immediately.

You think you'd find out? I mean, if these are professional revolutionaries, they know by now the goals of communism. If they didn't want the abolition of the vanguard, they would keep quiet about it, i think.

Quote :
Further, in the 4th principle of Democratic Centralism it states all decisions of upper structures are mandatory for lower structures -- this is a step against corruption. As said, at the top is the professional revolutionaries, the dedicated, the leaders, the ones who have brought the proletariat to their position of triumph. Therefore, if their decisions are mandatory to the lower party members, corruption from these lower structures is automatically prevented and suppressed.

I don't think that's correct. We have a system like that now, and there is still corruption. In fact, i'd almost bet that heirarchy is the reason for it, or at least one of multiple reasons. I don't believe a civilization without authority could exist if the means to produce it involve authoritative measures.

Quote :
It's not a hierarchy, it's the effective utilization of Communist strengths within the proletarian revolution.

But paragraphs before, you said that the lower party members must adhere to the orders of the higher members... That's what a heirarchy is, verbatum.

Quote :
Quote :
um, if we are talking about democratically centralized vanguard parties, and this vanguard party, not elected or controlled by the people, organizing them....then it is different from a decentralized democracy....

I think you forget the professional revolutionaries are professional revolutionaries because they have the interests of the proletariat at heart, and are proletarians themselves.

But that doesn't mean they won't change. People are products of their environment. And if the revolutionaries' environment changes and becomes more favourable for them, they're feelings may change about the revolution. Or, they may be too optimistic if they are viewing the revolution from their isolated point of view.

Quote :
Quote :
Che focused on organizing the peasantry and so the peasantry lead it

That doesn't mean it wasn't a revolution with Socialist intentions.

That's not what he was getting at. He was merely stating that the industrial proletariat doesn't have to lead.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Mighty Mighty Bosstone!
Radical
avatar

Posts : 28
Join date : 2008-07-21

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:12 am

Quote :
There's still the question of, 'how can the vanguard possibly act in the working classes best interest when they are such a limited number?'.

The vanguard is only of a limited number in a formal sense, or 'on paper'. The professional revolutionaries that compose the party in an official sense are not the only ones working on the proletariat's behalf. It's not that their representatives, it's that they are the most advanced branches of the proletariat and are placed in a prominent position to organize the proletarians as such. However, to quote a popular Marxist quote (the name escapes me, I believe it's Trotsky? I couldn't find it on google) "The working class revolution must be an act of the working class itself." The working class works in its own interest, and I think you may forget the heritage of the professional revolutionaries is quite obviously proletarian.

Quote :
Also, how would you kick certain members out of the vanguard if they have usurped assumed power? I think we can all agree that if it is assumed by the majority that the vanguard has some sort of authority, then the vanguard has authority (or, if you don't like calling it that, you must at least concede that this "authority" is influential). So if the peole now believe he/she's in charge, then that's who they'll 'obey' (couldn't think of a better word, i'm not tryin to be dramatic). Authority only has roots in the beliefs of the public. It's not a tangible thing, so it can't be stolen like a television. The only way to usurp authority is to make people believe you have usurped authority.

Well, let's use an example. Let's say there is a vanguard party-lead proletariat that has just recently successfully seized the means of production from the bourgeois and is now building dictatorship of the proletariat. Democratic Centralism is being executed correctly and as intended. One professional revolutionary begins defying the decisions of the higher structures of the party. For your sake, he has made the lower structures of the party believe he has usurped the authority of the higher structures of the party (the professionals).

Here's something I think we're all forgetting here: the working class, especially after the empowering experience of a Socialist revolt, is not a manipulatable flock of sheep. I'm sure if the revolution was executed successfully the workers know what their goals are and that they can and will achieve these goals. Additionally, any threat to these goals should be suppressed. Further, they should all have at least a basic understanding of the new Socialism implemented (I'm not saying every farmer has to dabble in Marxist theory, mind you) and will understand this threat to the building of Socialism can and should be removed. Bam, the public has drained the authority right from this threat. They can easily be expelled from the inner circles of the vanguard.

Additionally, if it comes down to force, it comes down to force. The bottom line is if everything is done right the working class will have their heart in the right place.

Quote :
But paragraphs before, you said that the lower party members must adhere to the orders of the higher members... That's what a heirarchy is, verbatum.

Not exactly. The higher members are workers as well. In relation to the means of production no one is any better than any one. It's all about the role in the party; the professional revolutonaries would sure do well, ya know, being professional revolutionaries, wouldn't they?

And you did ignore that I and Shabazz did state that there are extensive rights to criticise.

Quote :
But that doesn't mean they won't change. People are products of their environment. And if the revolutionaries' environment changes and becomes more favourable for them, they're feelings may change about the revolution. Or, they may be too optimistic if they are viewing the revolution from their isolated point of view.

That's true, it is. This is really the only place you've got me caught. I'll devote some thinking to it and introduce some measures that could be taken at a later time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anarchist.Dagger
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 89
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:17 pm

Mighty Mighty Bosstone! wrote:
The vanguard is only of a limited number in a formal sense, or 'on paper'. The professional revolutionaries that compose the party in an official sense are not the only ones working on the proletariat's behalf. It's not that their representatives, it's that they are the most advanced branches of the proletariat and are placed in a prominent position to organize the proletarians as such.

What amount of professional revolutionaries would the vanguard be comprised of, ideally? I would just like to know why you believe that they are not limited in numbers, except on paper. And i also have a problem with that last sentence. It's another sign of the beginning of a heirarchical society. You would have the vanguardists labelled advanced and allowed to organize the whole of the proletariat. Again i say, how can you create an egalitarian society while employing methods contradictory to egalitarianism.

Quote :
However, to quote a popular Marxist quote (the name escapes me, I believe it's Trotsky? I couldn't find it on google) "The working class revolution must be an act of the working class itself." The working class works in its own interest, and I think you may forget the heritage of the professional revolutionaries is quite obviously proletarian.

We agree here, but i do not think a vanguard raised above the proletariat as such, will have any luck involving the proletariat in the tasks of the revolution. I think this will merely breed resentment towards those in a position of, again, assumed power. The only way i can see the vanguard functioning in a sufficient manner would be to put strong emphasis on the role that the rank and file must play in their own revolution. If at any time it seems to the people that the vanguard is getting special treatment, then there is no longer the principle of egalitarianism at the forefront of the movement.

Quote :
Well, let's use an example. Let's say there is a vanguard party-lead proletariat that has just recently successfully seized the means of production from the bourgeois and is now building dictatorship of the proletariat. Democratic Centralism is being executed correctly and as intended. One professional revolutionary begins defying the decisions of the higher structures of the party. For your sake, he has made the lower structures of the party believe he has usurped the authority of the higher structures of the party (the professionals).

Here's something I think we're all forgetting here: the working class, especially after the empowering experience of a Socialist revolt, is not a manipulatable flock of sheep. I'm sure if the revolution was executed successfully the workers know what their goals are and that they can and will achieve these goals. Additionally, any threat to these goals should be suppressed. Further, they should all have at least a basic understanding of the new Socialism implemented (I'm not saying every farmer has to dabble in Marxist theory, mind you) and will understand this threat to the building of Socialism can and should be removed. Bam, the public has drained the authority right from this threat. They can easily be expelled from the inner circles of the vanguard.

I think you have far oversimplified this method, as well as misunderstanding my meaning in the portion of my post you were responding to. To usurp authority takes more than just getting other people in your party to believe you've usurped it. Rather, the majority of the people who are influenced by this authority. If it is the people who believe this reactionary is now in charge, then he is in charge; no amount of professional revolutionaries could change that (well, i suppose bullets would take care of it, but that's another matter). I think we all remember Stalin.

And if the people want the reactionary removed, then he never really usurped anything. I also think you are underestimating how apt the rank and file is to having their ideas manipulated by those in charge (or those assumed to be in charge [synonymous as far as i'm concerned]). I think America proves my point sufficiently.

Quote :
Additionally, if it comes down to force, it comes down to force. The bottom line is if everything is done right the working class will have their heart in the right place.


I think that's a bit too hopeful.

Quote :
Quote :
But paragraphs before, you said that the lower party members must adhere to the orders of the higher members... That's what a heirarchy is, verbatum.

Not exactly. The higher members are workers as well. In relation to the means of production no one is any better than any one. It's all about the role in the party;

Hierarchy: A body of persons having authority. Again, authority only exists so far as people believe it exists; so if the higher revolutionaries are able to give orders, that must be followed, to those in the lower echelon of revolutionaries, technically, they have authority.

Quote :
the professional revolutonaries would sure do well, ya know, being professional revolutionaries, wouldn't they?

You would think so, but so far that hasn't seemed to make a difference, as far as i can tell.

Quote :
And you did ignore that I and Shabazz did state that there are extensive rights to criticise.

Because i didn't find that significant enough to respond to. Criticism has no effect on reality. Nothing changes just because of criticism. So excuse me if i'm not inclined to give a shit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
bolshevik
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2008-07-06
Age : 27
Location : ameriKKKa

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:20 am

it is easier all together to let the workers form councils, i mean it is the proletarian revolution, shouldnt the proletariat be at the helm?

_________________
We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shabazz Freeman
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 373
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Bay Area

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:23 am

Anarchists don't think the working class should lead the revolution
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://themarxistyouth.forumotion.com
bolshevik
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2008-07-06
Age : 27
Location : ameriKKKa

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:25 am

anarcho-syndicalist sympathizer.
council communist at heart, honestly revolution lead by a party will most likely lead to dictatorship.

_________________
We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shabazz Freeman
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 373
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Bay Area

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:31 am

*sigh* you need to read my class and see if you feel the same way
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://themarxistyouth.forumotion.com
bolshevik
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2008-07-06
Age : 27
Location : ameriKKKa

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:40 am

i read it, i read both.
i support bolshevism shabazz, hahah but if the vanguard is to exist dont you think that it should be comprised of half proletariat, and half revolutionaries?

_________________
We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shabazz Freeman
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 373
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Bay Area

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:46 am

Im not sure what you are saying...

It's the Workers Vanguard party...
What is your historical basis for claiming that Vangaurd parties lead to "dictatorships"
hehe, it could be the dictatorship of the proletariat which is the only way forward towards socialism and communism.

But I'd like SOMEONE to explain their justification for claiming that the USSR's degeneration can be attributed to Vanguard parties when history explicitly shows that the Party died on the front lines next to the proletariat and was virtually robbed of party leadership during the civil war. Not only that, the Stalinist bureaucracy purged the soviets and party of all of the party members that posed a threat to bureaucratic rule.

You can't. There is no historical proof of it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://themarxistyouth.forumotion.com
bolshevik
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2008-07-06
Age : 27
Location : ameriKKKa

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:54 am

are you familiar with council communsim?

i know the that the degeneration of the the ussr was at the fault of stalinist purges, i should have worded it better.
what i meant was it is easier for power to pervert under the vanguard then per se the workers council.

_________________
We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shabazz Freeman
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 373
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Bay Area

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:01 am

You mean SOVIETS?

yes that is how things will be organized after the revolution. Im not doubting that.

and actually no, they follow the same basic principle. Democratic centralism in the party leaves no room for rouge power mongers...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://themarxistyouth.forumotion.com
bolshevik
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2008-07-06
Age : 27
Location : ameriKKKa

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:04 am

exactly, im saying that the soviets should be at the helm of the revolution, or at least reform the vanguard a bit.
they follow the same prinnciple, but one thing im not familiar with democractic centralization of the vanguard, how often would officals be changed, as need be?

_________________
We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shabazz Freeman
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 373
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Bay Area

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:10 am

Immediate recall if they must.

The Workers Vangaurd should be at the helm of the revolution, NOT the soviets. Had that happened you would have had the mensheviks and social democrats urging the proletariat NOT to take state power.

The bolsheviks fought to win the majority of the Soviets and to ferment class struggle in the face of the compromisers.

Proletarian revolution=Proletarian leadership and the Vanguard party is an organ and tool of the working class
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://themarxistyouth.forumotion.com
bolshevik
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2008-07-06
Age : 27
Location : ameriKKKa

PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:17 am

alright i can see that, how ever the soviets were part of the bolsheviki.
and shabazz bolshevik means majority.
i would just feel more comfortable if the vanguard and the soviets were to possibly work by side, so power is not fully granted to one party.

_________________
We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Vanguard Parties   

Back to top Go down
 
Vanguard Parties
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Cardfight! Vanguard Zodiac Time Beast decklist (November 2016.)
» Cons of Censorship
» New parties started
» The vanguard Party after complete victory is achieved
» STATEMENT BY JUDGE IN THE LIBEL TRIAL! READ NOW!!!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Epoch of the Marxist Youth :: Critical Marxist Thinking :: Party Discussion-
Jump to: