There’s a weird misunderstanding of what a “vanguard” is, in both left anti-communist and communist circles.
A vanguard is not a self-defined group that rules over the proles and directs them towards a revolution and governs once it’s won.
Vanguards are not things that exist in the present. Vanguard is just a term to help understand a revolution after it happens.
When a revolution happens, the most politically advanced (in class consciousness and left theory) individuals and groups that participate will steer the people towards socialism. They will lead, by example, on who to fight, how and why.
During the revolution, they aren’t called anything and specially not by themselves.
But after the revolution, when analyzing it, those people are then called the vanguard of the revolution.
Any communist that says they want to “form and participate in a vanguard party” has no understanding of revolutions and left theory.
Any left anti-communist that derides vanguards for being authoritarian and “replicating state oppression” also have no understanding of revolutions or left theory.
Honestly we would all be better off just not using the term vanguard at all anymore.
Any left anti-communist that derides vanguards for being authoritarian and “replicating state oppression” also have no understanding of revolutions or left theory.
You know, you can be anti-authoritarian and still be a communist. Anarcho-Communism is a real thing.
Idk man, if you are against all communist movements in history you’re an anti-communist to me 🤷♂️
No! Real communism is when you theorize and speculate on the internet! China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. those countries were fake communism!
This comes from the unfortunate viral idea that communism has stages.
Some people get really attached to this idea, and either become super against it or super for it. Then they end up wanting to either fully concentrate on “lower stage communism” and idolize militaristic aesthetics of early communist revolutions, and the perceived “toughness” and “authoritarianism” they had. In the extreme this becomes shit like the ACP.
On the other hand, others completely forgo any large scale timeline thinking, and start fantasizing and theorizing about a possible quick jump to “stateless, classless, moneyless” society (which is in itself a misinterpretation of what communism is but that’s another thing completely) in a single revolutionary moment and process.
There are no stages, communism is not total anarchy either. Communism is the means and methods the working class uses to abolish itself. This should start with a revolution, and continue until it’s finished. This process likely would take many generations. And it would be one continuous revolution. This is communism, this state of affairs. Of the long revolution of self-abolishment of the working class.
What comes AFTER, is a stateless classless moneyless society. What is dissolved first and when depends on the revolution, but it wouldn’t all be at once, or it would. Who knows.
The means and the ends should be in alignment.
Hm, so if you don’t want to use the term vanguard anymore, how are you going to talk about the seizing of power by a small authoritarian group during a revolution? And what would be your solution to prevent this from happening?
So what you’re describing is a concept called Blanquism, which predates the concept of a vanguard party.
That doesn’t happen though. What we saw were rightwing counterrevolutionaries taking over the USSR, China etc.
But historically it’s a great mischaracterization of all socialist revolutions to say they were “overtaken by authoritarians”.
All revolutions are “authoritarian”.
You might be surprised how many m/l communists actually aspire to be the vangaurd and call themselves as such.it is very sus. Reads as power hungry to me. Lile, it gives “volunteers for ice” kind of vibes but from the other side. I dont trust people like that to let go of power once they have it
Idk man I think there’s as many people like that as “anarchists” who live under bridges and dump dive.
It’s just that libs and left anti-communists usually see any type of real actual action and revolutionary practice as “evil”.
This assumes that a vanguard is a separate class, when what it really is, is an advanced segment of the working class. That said, I wanna inject some good faith complexity here.
A Maoist critique of a a vanguard would assert that, by being the most advanced segment of the working class, a petty bourgeois element can exist within a party.
In the maoist view, since class struggle persists under socialism, that petty bourgeois element can, wittingly or otherwise, lead the socialist state back to capitalism. And as such, this needs to be struggled against.
The solution to this isn’t to discard the concept of a vanguard, after all most socialist revolutions, which have seized power, have featured them.
Rather, Maoism has the concept of The Mass Line, wherein the party seeks to intimately involve itself with the masses. And the Cultural Revolution, where the class conscious masses are unleashed on the party itself, to keep it in check. Hence the Cultural Revolution slogans like, “its right to rebel” and “Bombard the headquarters”
I’m not a Maoist (I find the maoist position on AES to be lacking), but it’s a tradition I have respect for. There’s this big emphasis on the dialectic between top-down and bottom-up power that’s really worth exploring, I think. I once heard it jokingly called “Anarcho-stalinism” and I hope you can see why lol
Anyway seized they should be.
It doesn’t help the working class if a different group like the Vanguard seize them instead.
The vanguard is not a different group. The vanguard is the part of the group that ends up doing something first.
It’s not separate from the group, and it’s often not even distinguished from the group in any way aside from the fact that it was motivated enough to act first.
That’s like saying that the bourgeois are just the workers that did really well for themselves.
That’s like saying that the bourgeois are just the workers that did really well for themselves.
No, it’s not. It’s like saying that the leaders and organizers within the working class will lead the working class and ensure that the means of production are managed after they are seized. Someone (an individual or a group) has to do it, and they should know what they are doing.
The person I responded to said “a different group”. My point is that it’s a subset of the larger group. Yes, it’s possible to take advantage of the situation and try to grab power afterward. If that subset seized it to enrich themselves, they are class traitors - they are of the working class but betrayed them. However, some person or group needs to literally lead and manage, usually democratically. It can’t be literally the entirety of the working class.
All of this is just twisting terms and concepts to try to sow distrust in communist or socialist theory, assuming there will always be some secret group of elites scheming to take everything for themselves the moment the means are seized.
as long as they gwt seized
If the Vanguard seize the means of production, then the Working class still need to seize the means of production or we’re still at square one.
i think this would be the proper way. ideally the vanguard would slowly transition power to the Working class willingly. i think the working class in its entirety is not conscious enough to organize a revolution.
And ideally capitalism would wither away and die on its own accord. The vanguard is not credible enough to wield authority over the working class.
sure thats one way of viewing it. if push come to shove the working class always has the power to overthrow the vanguard. yet large populations are generally to stupid to do so due to all the propaganda and reeducation (see the USA currently). first one would need to remove capitalism from the equation, and create political education that is systemically impossible to manipulate or censor. after that the working class will gain consciousness over time.
That is true, but it’s a huge undertaking to do even once, let alone twice in ‘rapid’ (10-30 years) succession once it turns out the vanguards have become the oldguards.
Systemic change need to happen naturally from a grass-roots level if it is to truly last as an alternative to the status quo. It needs to be something that all people feel heard and supported in, and want to see succeed.
This is one of the beauties of anarchism in that it promotes local groups to flourish, and to make the changes they need to suitable for their needs and environs. You can start working on secondary support systems without needing to wait for the revolution.
systemically impossible to manipulate or censor
I hope you have some ideas because I have serious doubts that’s possible in any political/economic system.
It’s in the interests of the Vanguard for Revolution to never end. I consider it unlikely that they would willingly transition.
This post kinda proves that anarchists do not read theory lol.
Too busy doing praxis instead of larping.
IRL people I’ve met doing things like Mutual Aid or homeless outreach are more likely to be Anarchists then any other Leftist
Correction, staunch anarchists ONLY read anarchist theory
oh look, another communist vs anarchist meme… yep, they should fight each other, not the capitalists….
and of course i need to mention that the USSR was only communist in name and are nearly the worst possible example of communism….
Elmer Fud strikes againThis is tankies. No serious communist thinks a vanguard is the right path forward
I got plenty of criticism for everyone who needs it, not sparing anyone. And the communists I see shitting on anarchists in the Fediverse are frequently also the ones calling for leftist solidarity.
