Haha trust me dude the vanguard won't become the new ruling class


Other urls found in this thread:


The post that destroyed MLs

You don't know what class means.


And you should know, tankies are the experts on not knowing what the fuck class means.

Not an argument

yeah, this is pretty much why vanguardism, and leninism is the biggest meme in existence.



Anarchofags are hopeless.



Tankies are hopeless.

Small group of middle class intellectuals with a tiny proletarian minority seize control of the state*



wow this rly made me think


Wow, it's almost as if tankies are retards who haven't read Marx OR Lelnin!


I prefer the awful status quo to the even more awful idea of vanguardism. It's like some of you want something even worse than capitalism as long as the big guy in charge tells you "I swear it's not capitalism".

I love trashing on tankies but the smug narchos who have a history of nothing but inevitably centralized quasi-dictatorships and states-not-a-state to their name also need to check themselves: libcom.org/library/anarchism-spanish-revolution.

Just because they are proletariat doesn't mean they are Marxists. So handing it to the proletariat doesn't = Marxism or revolution.



I'm sure handing the means of production to basic bitch republicans who are also workers will turn out great.

You need an educated work force who understands revolution to control the means of production. Otherwise, you'll just get normies to control it and will privatize it when times get tough.

what the fuck nibber


t. red SJW
big news, poor people that cannot afford education tend to be ignorant, I'm astonished

Great idea, let's elect a selective group of people to tell other people how to think! What could possibly go wrong?

Well, that was the case in China, Russia, ect where a big portion of the populace could not read.

Look, the people need to be educated on the purpose of revolution and why the pursuit of a stateless, moneyless society is justice.

The vangaurd party are the training wheels for revolution, so that one day they won't need it and can truly rely on themselves.

You mean teach them Marxian thought? You mean teaching them that they should pursue a moneyless, stateless society? Oh no, the indoctrination on how to be self reliant in the future. The horror!

what if I'm a narcho and agree with the leftcoms that socialism has never been achieved (neither in the USSR or catalonia)

t. Big Brother

Education implies that someone is being educated, and therefore cannot contest the material they're being taught. Muh power to the people.


You know you're gonna form another cult if you do it like this, right?


Then how would you do it? Just give it to all of the proletariat who may or may not be marxists?

Yes, because why the fuck would you be swimming in pure ideology like that. You cannot claim to be an advocate of "le people" if you literally have to force them to do what you want. It's no different from Fascism in terms of amount dogmatic thought.

High octane liberalism


How? Means of production have to be control of somebody. Is it liberal to have them be democratically owned by the people who work there? It can't be if there's no freedom in expressing how you feel about the system, Marxist or not.


It's liberal as shit to give away the keys to the socialist kingdom because you're spooked by the ideal of liberal universal democracy.

This is your brain on ML.



You're assume the proletariat will magically rise up and overthrow capitalism. They won't.

Capitalism isn't just an economic structure, it is also culturally and politically structured. You have to deconstruct the ideas they were once taught by capitalists.

The MLs aren't speaking ideally but realistically. The world is a mess and has a shit ton of problems. You can't just solve all our problems by giving them direct control of the means of production. It's going to be a long hard road to fix these problems.

I would like to give the workers direct control but I know it won't end well. Revolution and war brings chaos even after it. We need to restore peace and order. The world is full of hard and complex problems. It has food problems, water problems, education problems, ect. You are trying to make a world that is extremely far from perfect and expect it to be a utopia in a day.

It's a figure of speech you dumb bastard

To be fair, they didn't. Most of them were killed by Stalin whilst bureaucrats and previously low-ranking nobodies became the new ruling class.

I believe there is a necessity for a vanguard to essentially train society and aid in building the framework for socialism before any revolution starts. The population of Russia, despite being barely able to read, write, spell or bathe for example, was already predominately socialist and had already begun building a framework for socialism via the Soviets. It may have been necessary at the time for the educated members of the new state to literally and figuratively teach them the ABCs, and guide them along the way, but with the educated populace of the modern day and modern communication, this is a non issue outside of ameriblobistan and the third world. The material conditions that made a Leninist style vanguard a necessity, the extreme poverty, the extreme lack of education and the general lack of communications ability between workers simply are no longer a major factor.

Having a central vanguard with total power over a nation is a recipe for disaster. Even if you venerate Stalin, the vanguard system still allowed revisionists who introduced internal markets to flourish. Going outside of the ML states, the Ba'athists of Iraq had their revolutions destroyed due to the incredibly centralized and vanguardist nature of the system. allowing an easy means for Saddam to gain power and turn Iraq into his personal playground.

Additionally, if your vanguard does not have some form of popular support, you're opening yourself up to a whole slew of internal issues. Look at what happened with Sankara, or the Afghanistanis, then look at similar methods taken with Cuba, where the vanguard enjoyed popular support. In the modern day and age, I think in a society where socialism had such popular support, the Leninist style vanguard would be self defeating and potentially even a threat to its self.

That's like, your opinion, man.

Nice spooks you got there. Especially so that once means of production are seized, these spooks will become irrelevant.

That's like, your opinion, man.

Therefore, we must elect a group of intellectuals to control the stupid masses. Thanks, Porky.

Because every revolution must be as violent as Russian Revolution, we would never have it otherwise!

So much for stateless society if we're going to enforce a state.

But I never said that, it's again, just your flawed perception :^)

Which is funny, since Lenin envisioned the vanguard to be a natural byproduct of ideological struggle, meaning, that in every party a most class-conscious element would emerge.

In other words, there's no need "to force" the vanguard, just as in anarcho-groups: it naturally becomes what it is.


I agree

The Vangaurd party won't be as needed in the first world. We have well educated people who can think for themselves.
What I am worried is about the third world who are not educated and has lacked equal opportunity for hundreds of years.This leaves open for power vacuums and exploitation. The Vanguard party is mostly needed in the worst parts of the world to help them develop. You can't just leave them without education, and tools.

In that sense, actually correct. But people just need to be taught how to read and write and rest of research can do on their own. Main key is centralized planning because industrialized power is much more competent than agrarian one, as for Vanguard, that depends how chaotic the country is, I just don't think its a requirement.

I was thinking more internationally. I don't see how you can build a pure internationalist system without central planning connecting the world.

I don't see internationalism as necessary, since point is for people's ownership of production, not state's. Best kind that would inspire revolutions across the world is to create a communist society that can outperform capitalist social standards, which will create an outcry for people demanding the same rights.

To add on, third world generally either has all the attention or none of it. Communist uprising would attract a lot of spectators, central planning or not.


And anarchists wonder why they never win

You know I'd prefer other kinds of socialism over explicit vanguardism, but this is just wrong.
I'd prefer a good leninist over current establishment, that's for sure. Maybe one that's a tad less sectarian tho.

truly a socialist project worth fighting for :DDDD

Nazis were better socialists than Marxist Leninists

This is dumb. Are you suggesting that the proletariat aren't subject to capitalist ideology? How are they going to learn about a different way to organize society if not for the more "educated" proles showing them a different way? Osmosis?

Djilas was right!

How can we know when "an educated work force who understands revolution" is actually an educated work force who understands revolution?


Amazing to know that some people actually believe that.

Im not worried about marxist-leninist their ideology is dead.

The vanguard is simply the most class conscious members of the proletariat. They are just another political party not the only party in the state.

The function of the state will become indistinguishable from the functions of society it self as conflict in society ends along with class.

Every faggot that thinks he has authority to control mass consensus should be just put in the gulag. Thet includes Lenin.