Vanguard party's

Leftcoms and others talk about how the vanguard shouldn't impress its own ideology on the workers but instead let it develop its own. This makes no sense. The vanguard is the proletariat developing its own ideology. The vanguard is just the most class conscious members of the proletariat. The whole idea of somehow interfering with class struggle also makes no sense. Just because you know that you're participating in class struggle doesn't mean you aren't part of the proletariat. Does this make sense or am I just misunderstanding the argument?

The International Communist Current and Bordigists, left communists with the theory closest to mattering at all, don't reject the vanguard party. The rest are only some council-communists (which is entirely dead as a Marxist tradition), and the ultra-left "modernisers" (Bordigist term) who critically see themselves as having superseded the entire left-communist and historical ultra-left traditions.

Sounds pretty goddamn bourgeois to me.

Then why can't the vanguard agitate other workers? it would simply be one portion of the working class (the most class conscious one) recruiting others.

So the vanguard party is like a proletarian aristocracy?

What do you mean?

Op is suggesting what I've read in pro-aristocracy books back when I was a reactionary

It saw individualism in embracing the people instead of the capitalists who neglect and exploit.

It's more like a plutocratic intelligensia who claim to be for "da workers ::DDDDD". It's actually pretty bullshit and the reason Tankies love their hero cults.

In theory I suppose a lot of leftcoms pose this to be correct. Though I agree that most if not all decent leftcom people and groups are almost completely inept at agitation. This is a problem shared with the rest of the left which does involve mobilized workers yet as a whole can't come to make anything decent out of the situation for any potential organizing for the reemergence of the communist movement, etc..

If they are workers themselves then yes they represent the most class conscious workers.

I understand the problems with it. Authoritarian leftism and libertarian rightism are symmetrically contradictory. Both want to end one class and replace it with another.

Ok. So then what differentiates you from Leninist's beside "2 hell wid democragy :–D"

This is a spook and I damn it to the bowels of hell.

Understanding communism is being conscious of your class and class struggle.

I can only see a vangaurd party system to work if the power is decentralized, and the workers directly owned the means of production and not the state.

A socialist system needs to be united not dictated.

Yeah, I too hate worker self-determination and democracy.

The proletarian state is just the workers organized as the ruling class.

Everybody is conscious of it. The idea that a group of heroes who are "the most conscious" of it should be the representatives and planners of your movement is spooky af and has constantly failed and is the reason libertarian socialism is the answer.

Yeah! And vanguardism gives them a president and a congress and everything! Just like the big kids.

I'm sorry to bring a Asserite quote in but…

an acknowledgement of the theoretical (arguably leninist) contributions of the communist left from the comintern to modern day, of stalinism and the ussr, the communist programme, invariance, tactics, and so on.

Not everyone is conscious of it. Lumpenproles certainly aren't. Even Makhono and Rosa believed in a form of vanguard.

Ruling class over who?

Democratically recallable workers aren't bureaucrats. Read State and Revolution.

I will during work.

Well in original Marxist theory capitalism was supposed to kind of stay around for a while but just with the proletariat at the helm. I suppose without any classes world wide then you just get a proletarian semi-state which is constantly withering without a ruling class.

Recallable workers. Not bureaucrats. Read Lenin.

It's one thing for a group of people to form a party and sink into the collective when their representation and image are no longer necessary for the group to exert their democratic influence. It's another for them to start being dictators.

Read Orwell, lol.

They aren't supposed to be dictators. They are just supposed to be a normal political party after the revoultion.

READ LENIN
E
A
D

L
E
N
I
N

We can play the word game all day.

I wish the state to be built up by the worker and not top down. Vocation Councils to Legislative Council to executive. We need the economic sphere not in the hands of the state. But rather the worker shape the state into their biding.

You see centralism as something that could only be imposed from above and not through a voluntary democratic combining of many local powers.

I am for localism forming the higher.
Does Lenin support this? I'm new.

Yes.

Good. Thanks. I'll do some more reading.

Lenin was a retard who essentially handed his party down to an autocratic madman.


Because it wasn't. Lenin preferred Stalin over the democratic socialists who would not have besmirched the name of communism.


Well he fucked up big time there.

Leftcoms don't reject Vanguardism, what are you talking about?

They reject it doing anything ever.

Because it shouldn't without the will of the people. It shouldn't even exist after the revolution, if it was needed in the first place. Is apolitical vanguardism a thing? That's what it would be.

True. But your insulting the man not his theory's.

They are the origin of modern democratic socialist theory, so I think they probably took it pretty seriously. Stalin definitely took everything he believed in seriously, ie that peasants are really fucking easy to deceive for some easy money and fame.

Stop being paranoid. I was being critical of the USSR with that post.

The Mensheviks planned on introducing a bourgeois democratic state so they could achieve socialism some time in the far future. The SR's were agrarian socialists and just wanted to give the peasants land.

gulag urselves immediately

I'm fine with this. Jefferson and Paine were pretty smart guys. Shame America didn't use more of their ideas, like democracy.

I believe you user.

...

A vanguard party is a bad idea. The Soviet Union should have taught you that. Socialism will only succeed with a decentralized power structure with power concentrated in towns and small communities with the state acting only as a guide. Mixed with a provision abolishing capitalist modes of production and replacing existing structures with worker-coops. That is the only way socialism will succeed. You are a fool for believing in a failed ideology.

...

there's nothing on this board that pisses me off more than those fucking bookchin pictures. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was just one shill doing this

What if it looks like the democratically recallable workers and their electorate aren't going to go further than establish a bourgeois-democratic state? Are you then justified in seizing power from them for their own good? Because that's something Lenin was perfectly happy to do before Stalin had ever dreamed of taking the top job.

Nice meme, kid.

Thanks dad!

Book shills please leave.

Can you have a vanguard party that does not attempt to seize the state, inheriting the militarism and bureaucracy of capitalism and thus using it to repress dissent and impose the vanguard's will on the proletariat?

Read State and Revolution. The state is not to be seized but smashed and replaced.

Different guy, but thanks for letting me know that I should post these more often