Talk:Vanguardism

Reply

Historically speaking, I guess it depends on WHICH Leninist party assumes power. Contrary to popular belief, the original Bolsheviks banned only the Black Hundred immediately after the revolution (even the liberal Cadets weren't out of the picture). During the civil war, various parties were banned from and reinstated into the political process, depending on their stance towards small-s soviet power (the councils, not the latter "Soviet power" associated with the Soviet state). [forgot to put my signature] Darth Sidious 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Superficial article -- fix this damned thing!

Is it just me, or is this article largely clueless and fundamentally flawed? It's not completely so -- only mostly so. And therefore a travesty of an encyclopedia article. In other words: this article needs expert attention immediately!

But since I'm tied up with revolutionary matters -- and not the expert I'd like to be on these important, involved details of broad theory -- I ain't gonna get into what isn't what, here, now. Just consider that someone has questioned the competency of the author(s).

I give this article a D+ for theory. B for effort (it's too short, for one thing).

Pazouzou 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two specific points: 1) Is it right to have "grassroots organization" in the header? A vanguard party is by definition a party, which is by definition not a grassroots org? (And a vanguard is by definition not a mass organization). 2) Shouldn't it mention some of the people who shaped Lenin's views on this matter, specifically Karl Kautsky and George Plekhanov? BobFromBrockley 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No answers. I'm acting on (1) and will get around to (2). BobFromBrockley 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's largely clueless. In particular, this: "Lenin's ideas about the proletarian revolutionary party differed from the ideas of Marx. According to Marx, the working class, merely by following its own instincts [citation needed], would gain rational insight into its plight as the downtrodden product of capitalism. This strikes me as incredibly oversimplified and really quite biased against Leninism. I edited in the phrase "[citation needed]" manually, because I can't figure out how to add an official citation needed notice, sorry. But really, the claim that Marx believed in a spontaneous simultaneous uprising of the workers is more than a bit silly, and the fact is that mass Marxist parties existed in pretty much every country of Europe in 1917, not just in Russia, so clearly the vanguard party idea cannot be either solely the invention of Lenin or entirely counter to Marx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.36.154 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Experts needed

The article covers the subject with minimal detail. Now it's accurate after I added bits that show that the purpose of the party is not to wrest control, but to educate the workers. Before the article had indeed been bourgeois propaganda. Nonetheless it still needs work. Someone should read What is to be done? a few dozen times then start editing! Become one with the book, and you're a qualified expert on vanguard parties... (Demigod Ron 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Completely Inaccurate

This is all wrong, and is not at all what Lenin said. The vanguard party is supposed to train workers to think and act at the level of revolutionaries. It's not supposed to act as some sort of dictatorship, its there to built the foundations of the revolution. (Demigod Ron 03:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Then fix it. Anyone can edit, you know. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of some of the recent work by Lars Lih, would it be more appropriate to attribute Lenin's alleged "creation" of vanguardism to Kautsky?

http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm

It must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class-struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party.

Darth Sidious (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In What is To be Done Lenin cites Kautsky and the German Social Democratic Party extensively. However, vanguardism has been seized on by critics as being the theoretical basis for the ills of Communism. Because of this, it is portrayed as a uniquely Leninist idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Vanguard party into Vanguardism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge complete. WTF? (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

---

First of all vanguard party is a sub-topic of the vanguardism, and a major one. Presently, most of the content of both articles overlap in its spirit, if not in letter, so I see no sense in maintaining two separate articles (Wikipedia is not a dictionary - no need to keep a separate article for each "term" if the contents can be easily merged). Of course as usual Vanguard party should be kept as a redirect to Vanguardism, so existing links will still work. Looking at dictionaries and sources, it seems to me that Vanguardism might be a better name than Vanguard party for the merged article, basing on WP:COMMONNAME policy. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the pages should be merged, but I think Vanguard Party should be the primary article. My concern is that the term "Vanguardism" typically has a negative connotation where the article should seek to be objective. This is not in any way an effort to discourage criticism of the Vanguard Party. However much of the article on Vanguardism as it is reads like a polemic against the Vanguard Party or Leninism generally.

Absolutely concur. Vanguard Party seems to be the better, more well sourced article in this dispute. 108.82.100.8 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the Vanguard Party article has some serious issues as well, so I suppose I would be more in favor of a rewrite: Lenin's concept of the Vanguard Party formulated with some historical context, largely around WITBD. Some words on how various political currents have addressed it would also be useful. I think vanguardism in art should probably be separated entirely. -Reddealer (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd concur that the merge should take place, however I disagree with making the content of Vanguard Party the content of Vanguardism. Far from encouraging a critical appraisal of the logical behind Lenin's concept of Vanguardism or the actualities of Bolshevik activities as the supposed Vanguard of the Proletariat, this article unequivocally and without any citations asserts that Marx and Engels were supportive of Vanguardism and erases any mention of Lenin's pessimism regarding the Russian working class; culminating in an article that is reflective of neither Lenin's contemporary Marxist critics nor future Historians. I'm going to tag this article as in dispute and will be back later to make some changes. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin of Term

This article talks about the origin of the concept (which is rather vague), but not about the origin of the term.

Lenin did not use the term "vanguard party" in What Is To Be Done and going by the Marxists Archive (www.marxists.org) used it very rarely elsewhere. In What Is To Be Done his model party is the German Social Democrats.

So who first used the term?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Substantiate your claim . . . please.

Dear West Viginia Editor No. 184.9.175.144:

Please, do not vandalize the article (" ’cause I say so”). Your argument is specious solely because the term “vanguard party” does not feature in Marx's text; the Communist mention is the starting point whence Lenin proceeded. After all, if what you anonymously claim is true, surely, you can substantiate and demonstrate your point. C'mon, abide the Wikipedia rules, and prove your point with facts and a citation.

Regards, Mhazard9 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Proletarians and Communists

The quote that is provided in the article, preceded by the statement "Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx presented the concept of the vanguard party as solely qualified to politically lead the proletariat in revolution; in Chapter II: "Proletarians and Communists" of The Communist Manifesto (1848), they said...", while entirely relevant, is actually a quote saying that a vanguard party is not the role of a communist party, but rather they must help the masses to come into revolution themselves: A vanguard party's goal is not the "formation of the proletariat into a class", or "conquest of political power by the proletariat". As I believe someone has already written in the talk page, Lenin was the first person to come up with the idea of a vanguard party, Marx and Engels were against any such ideas. 58.6.244.131 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The use of this quote is problematic. Marx and Engels are not credited with this idea. It is seen as unique to Lenin. However, the concept of a vanguard party is hard to pin down. The principles of a party line, discipline, and organisation, while emphasised by Leninist parties, were not unique to them. And rather than being opposed to "mass parties", Communist Parties were in fact the largest parties in the world in their heyday. Lenin's concept can be best understood in reaction, not to Marx and Engels etc, but to the particular situation at the time:

• In Russia: a broad revolutionary movement had developed, and the Mensheviks were unwilling to separate the Marxist movement from everyone else. The direction of the revolutionary movement was clearly at stake.
• Globally: ostensibly Marxist parties had developed into broad movements. The German Social Democrats (which were avowedly Marxist until after WW2) included people like Bernstein who rejected the idea of revolution. When the war broke out, the majority of the party supported their government and subsequently condemned the Bolshevik Revolution.

In these conditions there were clearly decisive differences among socialists and within the working class movement more generally. These decisive differences did not exist for Marx and Engels.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

USSR Joke

A joke set at a Komosol course:

Teacher: Comrades, what is the definition of an automobile?

Students (unison): A four-wheeled motorized vehicle driven by the entire working-class through its Vanguard Party.

Does anybody know of a citation for this joke? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw it written on a piece of toilet paper once, but I don't know where that piece of toilet paper is now.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This article reeks of liberalism

By all rights, this whole article should be deleted and redone from scratch. I did my best to redo the introduction and the "foundations" section, but it will be hard work to eliminate the liberal bias from it completely. Funny how everyone who's NOT a Leninist loves to thump "What is to be done?" as if it were the Bible in order to discredit Lenin and his organizational model, when it was written before both the 1905 AND the 1917 Russian Revolutions. Learned experience counts for something, and Lenin's views did change change over time. Besides, "What is to be done?" was never meant to be used as a universal template for party-building. Lenin intended it to be understood in the context of 1902 Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veovis523 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, What is to be Done does not use the term "vanguard" and refers to the German Social Democrats as a model party. It is not extreme in its view of party organisation at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A chronological approach would improve the article

Communist history is a difficult subject, especially for beginners. I would suggest placing the related contemporary applications of Marxism-Leninism in its own section near the end, separate from the history, which need only give a simple chronological description of how Vanguardism emerged from the International, naming major players and publications. If Lenin didn't use the term Vanguardism in his pamphlet, just note that fact without comment. Readers requiring extensive detail or concerned about philosophical controversies in the historiography can go to comprehensive sources elsewhere, and they know that. Concision is easiest and best when there is uncertainty about how to proceed.-Jessegalebaker (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The structure certainly needs improvement, but as most of the material deals with Lenin, I'm not sure that chronology would be very helpful.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Current use

The current use section has no citations whatsoever, and the section's only purpose that I can see is to claim that vanguardism is a feature anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism without any evidence. If it can't be cited then it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.247.151 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's been tagged "citation needed" since 2009, so I think removal would be justified.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Other use

The "Other use" section is very weakly sourced. The kibbutz citation is only a passing reference to term "vanguard". It's as if someone has searched Google Books for the word. The Islamic references don't seem to contain any mention of "vanguard" at all. I think this section should cite thorough analyses of vanguardism in other contexts, not passing references, and we certainly need sources that explicitly refer to the concept.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Similar topics

I think a lot of the similar topics are only superficial and the connection might be best removed or analyzed more. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think they are OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Editorial comment (apolitical)

Formally: In the subheading "Marxism-Leninism", the first sentence is overly long.

Informally: I started thinking about other shit halfway through reading it. Nitr0smash (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankfurt School and Lumpenproletariat

@The Blue Rider, I read the Template:Page needed and it seems like it fits. What is your issue with me using the page needed template, but also, why won't you just add a page number if it is easy to localize for you? It's not easy to localize for me and I'm unable to find the content you're referring to. You added the frankfurt school to the lede without citations on December 25th, 2023 which was reverted on December 27th, 2023 which you quickly reverted, again without providing a citation. I removed the uncited content which you reverted and then added the current source, which is 744 pages and in portuguese. It seems apparent that your claim is controversial and requesting a page number while leaving the edit up is a reasonable request. Please respond to this and I will happily self-revert. There is no mention of vanguardism or lumpenproletariat on the frankfurt school page so this information could be useful if others are able to read it as well. Thanks. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't fit because you're only using it due to not believing in the content. For that reason, I removed it once again and added another source so you see it that it's not fringe. The Blue Rider 00:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider I don't know why you're assuming I'm editing in bad faith, but I assure you I am not. I read the entirety of the second source you provided (Herazo) since it's only twenty pages and I might be able to get to your first source, but giving me even a chapter as reference would help me greatly. That being said, the Herazo paper directly contradicts what you wrote in the wiki.

Per Herazo: "Los infraprivilegiados existen fuera del proceso democrático; su vida es la necesidad inmediata y lo más real para poner fin a instituciones y condiciones intolerables. Su oposición es revolucionaria, incluso si su conciencia no lo es;..."

Marx thought the lumpenproleteriat would be a counter-revolutionary force, but Marcuse thought they could help the revolution. This does not make the lumpen a part of the vanguard as the vanguard is the "the most class-conscious and politically "advanced" sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard" and the lumpenproles per Herazo are revolutionary, but lack class consciousness. Basically Herazo is saying that Marcuse believes lumpen proles aren't inherently counterrevolutionary, but they aren't a part of the vanguard either.

Herazo also shows that the frankfurt school isn't unified in it's understanding of the lumpen proles. Per Herazo: "Marcuse confiaba entonces que el “lumpen proletariado”, grupo social sobre el que Marx guardaba muchas reservas, pudiera con-vertirse en una fuerza que, desde el exterior, atacara al sistema. Es decir, desde su ubicación por fuera del proceso productivo y de la propia sociedad de consumo. Habermas, en contra de esa confianza, consideraba que semejante ubicación por fuera de la actividad productiva era, justamente, lo que restaba posibilidades de éxito a su acción revolucionaria, pues el sistema no dependía de su esfuerzo para su cabal funcionamiento."

This shows that Marcuse believes in the revolutionary potential of lumpen, but Habermas does not and therefore there is disagreement in the frankfurt school on the nature of lumpen. Labeling the section "frankfurt school" and referring to the entire frankfurt school in the wiki isn't what the citation reflects. Also, there is no mention of a vanguard in the Herazo article. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The lumpenproletariad doesn't have a class conscious but they have revolutionary potential that is up to the intelectuals and students to exploit. A vanguard is any group of people that will lead the revolution. The Blue Rider 10:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your statement is factually correct, but if it was, the "intelectuals and students" would represent the vanguard in your example and not the lumpenproles. Like you said, "A vanguard is any group that will lead the revolution" which would not include the people being exploited ie the lumpenproles. Can you elaborate further? I tried to improve the article and not simply revert your edits. You aren't giving me much to work with. @Jack Upland, you've been on the talk page recently, do you have any input? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jack, can you help me out here? Either with the discussion or help with escalating the issue. I'm not too invested, but I'm in an WP:EDITWAR with someone who refuses dialogue and I'm not sure what to do. Thanks - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My statement is correct, or at least that's what I have been taught. The intellectuals and students are independent enough to realize the current wrong capitalistic situation and thus would sensibilize the lumpemproletariad to join them and together they would lead the revolution. I'm fine with the current state of the paragraph. The Blue Rider 12:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you learned that, but please update the article lede and include reliable sources because right now it contradicts what you wrote in the Frankfurt School section. To use the example you gave and using the current wikipedia definition:

"They (the vanguard of students and intellectuals) take actions to draw larger sections of the working class (not the vanguard, but instead the masses and in your example the lumpenproles) toward revolutionary politics and to serve as manifestations of proletarian political power opposed to the bourgeoisie."

The lumpenproletariat cannot be a part of the vanguard if "students and intellectuals" need to (in your words) "sensibilize the lumpemproletariad to join them" because the vanguard does not need to be convinced of anything.

That the article starts out with "in the context of Leninst revolutionary struggle" and then includes non-leninist movements is another issue, but even ignoring that I think the entire section on the frankfurt school should be removed. I'm simply trying to edit in the spirit of wikipedia and improve the article the best I can without edit warring. Please do the same. I don't know why you assumed I was editing in bad faith initially, but you're making it hard for me not to wonder the same. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph already has a source. What the Wikipedia article says is completely irrelevant for adding this paragraph. This is about vanguardism and the referenced material talks about that. The Blue Rider 22:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that I realized, the Lumpenproletariat already talks what I am exactly saying and you were fully aware of that. What are you even on about...just drop it. You even made me think what I learned was fringe... The Blue Rider 22:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)