Why do you need a vanguard? Doesn't it merely replace one bourgeois class with an another...

coops are anarchism praxis, and coops have done more to liberate the proletarian than any forced labour red fascist state

...

A vanguard sucks but it's what we have to work with so far. You got practical alternatives, the comrades of the world are all ears.

Also that is happening in the west as well. Lots of workers now have to take two jobs in order to pay for their expenses.

You can get free sex changes in Cuba, it has my seal of approval.

doesn't stop them from working clearly :^)

yes, because both are capitalism

The US is hardly a bastion of quality healthcare

No? Who in the party owned private property? Who pursued capital accumulation as their primary motive? Who subsisted on the appropriation of surplus value from the working class? There were many problems, but the party officials were certainly distinct from the bourgeoisie.

Yeah, this. How many people in the US have to work for bullshit companies like Uber or Lyft in their spare time just to make ends meet?

Cuba can at least guarantee no one goes homeless, unlike the US, where empty homes our number the homeless population 6:1. Cuba also has great standards of medicine and an incredibly high literacy rate.

nigga have you not read Bakunin

He himself knew a sort of anarchist vanguard has to guide revolution, just not attempt to take over

Oh, it's this retard again. Never mind.

Alright then, here's the solution. Every worker installs an app, which tells him or her what to do for the cause. That way, every single participant in the movement is part of that active, dedicated vanguard. Everyone is part of the elite, thus there's no elite. Boom. It's fucking foolproof.

Who decides what the app will suggest? The dialectical materialist hyperdrive chip inside our iPhones? That's just a cyber-vanguard.

I wouldn't object if the app was actually programmed to follow the discourse of matter, but who gets to program it? I don't want to be walking a party line running on some weak-ass Trotskyist bullshit or a crypto-cyberporky's market "socialist" ponzi scheme.

So that's the thing. On some level, we all surrender not just to the vanguard by engaging in any kind of revolutionary activity, but we'll surrender ourselves to what that vanguard claims to stand for. We have nothing to lose but our chains and our naivety in all situations.

you need to read more

anarchism is just a state of being and you've achieved it im sure

it all came to me, too, after hakim bey taught me about diddling kids

We need some prominent anarchist posters who aren't retarded so the ideology isn't most usually represented by a literal capitalist.

why don't you start reading book and participate then

I do not advocate for coops as a goal, but they are undoubtedly prefferable than capitalist firms

retards like you is the reason why people belive the cooperative movememnt is the final goal

Okay then, how about this. The list of tasks that the app dispenses follows a programme voted on by the very users of the app. Twice as foolproof.

Then you just delude yourself into another horizontalist scheme which we've already seen continually and consistently ends up needing to be abandoned in order to have efficiency, rapid and critical decision-making. If you think the CNT-FAI abandoned its anarchist principles to make work camps and repress all worker activity not in line with them by choice, you're forgetting the point: that they did so by necessity.

The vanguard is simply the most class conscious of the proletariat. Should not be an actual organized group

Lewis literally believed that Huey Long was a bigger threat to America than Adolf Hitler.

Please don't use windows phones.

Well alright then, we add "create Gulag" to the list of tasks by default, whether it's voted on or not. Thrice as foolproof.

Depends on what you mean by vanguard. There's nothing wrong with a group of intelligentsia, the problem arises when this group takes control of the state. It's important to have a program that prevents/forbids that

Just become a communalist tbh fam

But wouldn't they tend to congregate in order to better organize, discuss and brainstorm? Unless they were kept completely anonymous from each other, I suppose.

...

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

i don't agree with the message at all but this is pretty hilarious.

Good!

must've come up with it while watching nickelodeon to analyze programming for subliminal cuck messages

the ancap-nil strikes again!

you should read the history of Venezuela

>the fucking Russian Federation
An-Nihilism once again proves itself to be the politically illiterate meme-tier flag.

im too lazy to change russia for the soviets

Bookchin argues that all successful revolutions had a core of militants with a solid grounding in theory. It's arguably communalisms main connection with Leninism

Even the anarchists beloved Catalonia had a vanguard, in the form of the militias various leaders, their main fault was not accepting this fact, which led to power being placed back in re hands of the reactionaries.

This is what anarchists don't understand about power, it can't be dissipated in society, the smart thing to do is place it in accountable recallable and representative hands. This is also why communalism has in its relatively short time period achieved more tan anarchism has in the last 70 years. We don't deny the existence of power, nor do we fetishise it as the tankies do

This tends to trigger anarkiddies who don't understand that smashing windows is not in itself evolutionary. And that the black block will never be anything but a group of weekend warriors at worst, useful idiot shock troops at best. But it's not like those individuals are capable of achieving their goals, atomized lifestylists that they are.

I'm of course criticizing anarkiddies, most genuine social anarchists (while misguided, and grasping to an outdated ideology) are worthwhile individuals with a basic understanding of theory. Same goes for the ML/tankie divide

It's consistently the worst flag.

Like jfc I prefer tankies defending Assad to dumbass "coops are socialism! :DD" shit

irony is off the charts!

Who said anything about "real", it just isn't.

What's the leftcom solution then? please given an intelligent, concise and direct answer. You may convert me with this answer.

Do you even know the history of both Venezuela and NK?

...

...

Just because DFSNS utilizes cooperatives doesn't make them socialist, nor is it part of DemCon to keep them indefinitely as you would. Cooperatives are already subject to planning through the assemblies anyways.

Capitalism is a mode of production ; its very nature is social. Thus its collapse will precisely take a social form, namely: a vanguard party leading the revolution.

Only indirectly, through alienation.
The material relations between people are replaced by social relations between things.

That does not follow at all from:
You're missing like 16 steps there

Nor was it intended to.

So you meant to not address the question?

Kek. I guess Holla Forums actually was right.

I find it disingenuous when people argue for a vanguard party referring to Lenin. At the time, illiteracy was widespread in Russia. There is a gap between more and less informed people today, but it is something else from that. Please don't read Lenin without considering the historical context.

1933 Trotsky wrote in 'The fourth internationale and the USSR' (on page 13): A class is defined not by its participation in the distribution of the national income alone, but by its independent role in the general structure of economy and by its independent roots in the economic foundation of society. Each class (the feudal nobility, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, the capitalist bourgeoisie, and the proletariat) works out its own special forms of property. The bureaucracy lacks all these social traits. It has no independent position in the process of production and distribution. It has no independent property roots. Its functions relate basically to the political technique of class rule. The existence of a bureaucracy, in all its variety of forms and differences in specific weight, characterizes every class regime. Its power is of a reflected character. The bureaucracy is indissolubly bound up with ruling economic class, feeding itself upon the social roots of the latter, maintaining itself and falling together with it…. Nevertheless, the muh privileges of the bureaucracy by themselves do not change the bases of the Soviet society, because the bureaucracy derives its muh privileges not from any special property relations, peculiar to it as a “class”, but from those property relations which have been created by the October revolution, and which are fundamentally adequate for the dictatorship of the proletariat."
Besides some wryness Trotsky himself admits that a "dictatorship by the bureaucracy" in the Soviet Union is impossible. Bureaucracy can never and nowhere become an independent class. It thus cannot constitute its own dictatorship. This is the unambiguous marxist and leninist standpoint, and if Trotsky later rants against the supposedly existing "dictatorship of bureaucracy", this too only is further proof of him willingly throwing Marxist insights over board for his power struggle while turning against Marxism. In the same paper, in which Trotsky argues that the bureaucracy doesn't constitute an own independent class and thus cannot carry out the functions of a ruling class - the dictatorship - he goes on to claim the roughly opposite (page 16/17): 'Yet the development of the bureaucratic regime can lead to the emergence of a new ruling class; not on the organically way of degeneration, but through counterrevolution.' What does this mean? There'll emerge a new class that will take rule and wields the dictatorship. Should the bureaucracy develop to the new ruling class? How does it become the new ruling class? Trotsky says, not on the organic way of degeneration but through counterrevolution. Who's to perform the counterrevolution? The bureaucracy?

For what purpose? Supposedly it already exercises its dictatorship over the people. Should it conduct the counterrevolution to overthrow its own rule? All of these are very complex riddles. However: we know that bureaucracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't an independent class just as much as it isn't under capitalism. So how can it, who can only be a tool of the ruling class, conduct a counterrevolution out of its own resources and how can it become an independent class after the victory of its counterrevolution? We know from Trotsky himself that bureaucracy can only be the clerk of the bourgeoise, even under fascism. Talk about the bureaucracy, in the Soviet Union out of all, making a counterrevolution or that it must become the ruling class after the victory of its counterrevolution, is utter nonsense judged from a marxist perspective. Yet Trotsky needs such intricate constructions to justify his fight against the Soviet Union. What he's pretending to to fight doesn't even exist. His struggle is aimed against the bolshevik party, the first workers state, his struggle serves the regression, the counterrevolution."

Soviet Democracy and Stalin - Theory and Practice in the Soviet Union 1917 - 1953
by Michael Kubi

Stop with this shit meme.

He's talking about surgeons driving taxis *instead* of doing what they studied for because it's more profitable, not having two jobs.

I'm pretty sure that this happens in other countries, but not with surgeons.

Cappies BTFO