So how do you deal with the fact that having a vanguard replaces one elite with another and you just end up hoping for...

So how do you deal with the fact that having a vanguard replaces one elite with another and you just end up hoping for the best?

Being the vanguard is a good way to deal with it: you can do your best, instead of hoping for the best.

Then maybe you should being a m-l

An elite in the sense of a hierarchy is harmless and likely to continue to exist for centuries, if not forever, regardless of what social developments we go through and what social arrangements we end up using.

An elite in the sense of an upper class, that has its strength based on material and economic means for political power, is parasitical and an evil on its own.

To say "oh but you're just replacing elites" is to completely miss the point of how social hierarchies work.

"Marxists-Leninists" are revisionists.

this tbh

So the only response here is basically "it will be different because we say it will, trust us"?


Hmmm

Instead of having a seperate organisation (army) for the enforcement of party policy's (cause power grows out of the barrel of the gun) its better to make the population the army by arming the working class so that the enforcment of communism comes from the root of its population. Also voluntary military training for those dedicated would be fancy to atleast get an well trained army that is unable to fight against it own population as the population itself is armed.

elimination of private property eliminates corruption.
Being part of the vanguard is essentially being a very dedicated badly paid civil servant.

I deal with it by not being a Leninist.

If you know your theory, you don't need to trust anyone since you're able to tell the genuine vanguard from the opportunist.
If you don't, well, why would need your trust?

So were the bolsheviks a genuine vanguard?

Before Stalin? Sure.

B-b-b-because the s-s-state just muh-muh-muh-magically whithers revisionist liberal :(

Only, this is a baseless assertion

The state being the instrument of one class's oppression onto the others, how could it not wither away when there are no more classes?

Just as Lenin did?

Because historically it has not

No. Russia was full of worker-run soviets and the provisional government was chock-full of leftists. Lenin was just a crybaby that wanted to become a dictator.

So in other words, the genuine vanguard eventually regressed into another elite after the original leader died.

Historically, the classes have never been abolished.

...

Not after the original leader died: after the revolution failed.

Sure but a closer approximation has been achieved in areas which have sought to abolish both state and capitalism. (I believe)

Using the state to abolish the state is riddled with problems

...

You can't abolish capitalism "in some areas". Capitalism is global and so will be its abolition.

Until then, any communist movement (lead by a vanguard or not, it doesn't matter) can degenerate. The only way to avoid this is to keep moving further to the completion of the Revolution.

Why can't you? you haven't provided any reasoning you have just stated it as an a proiri fact

really makes you think…

Because your area will have to trade with the outside world, thus not being socialist. Not even mentioning the fact that said outside world will go at war with you.

Trading my commie made goods with the outside world does not make me not a commie.

Capitalism isn't markets and trade, although capitalism will almost always feature these things.

The bolsheviks confiscated arms of the population to be used for the front.


Daily Reminder.

This. It's just that we have to educate the masses so that any vanguard will be susceptible to their will, rather than the other way around. It didn't work in the USSR for a multitude of reasons, outside and inside influences, but having individuals with responsibility over others is not going to disappear before a revolution, and probably not before communism.

We don't need to make a small group of dedicated individuals; we need to get as many people involved as possible and create a large one, but the reality of our world means responsibility will always come down to those best suited to tackle it right now.

It makes you a part of a capitalist society.

Well yes, as a matter of facts, it is. Capitalism is a society based on trade.

See, that's what I meant here:
Obviously our goals are different: I want to abolish every form of trade in the entire world, by any means necessary, because I think this is the only way to get rid of classes, while you, you are OK with trade. So with all due respect, how could I ever get your trust and why would I even need it for?

A) socialism is our goal for all mankind, and we shouldn't be content with small pockets holding out against capitalists.

B) capitalists will attack socialist countries economically and militarily, and most likely win until capitalism is overthrown majorly.

Where exactly do you get that from?

What is Historical Materialism? What are means of production?

Comrade, look at private ownership of the means of production, wage labour and the extraction of surplus value, and capital accumulation.

Trade has existed in all economic societies, and capitalism is not based on it, although free trade is an aspect within it.

… derive from trade.

Trade =/= Profit

Most proles and working class are stupid and uneducated and thus need the more educated vanguard group to guide them in the right direction.

How can corruption exists in the absence of private property?