Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Seay <entheogens-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Why People Join Vanguard Organizations?


--- Richard Bailey <redrich2000-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:

> Lenin called those who have reached revolutionary
> consciousness the "Vanguard" of the class. His


Let's examine this.  At face value this sounds
innocent enough, but can we explore the contradictions
and the historical manifestations of this to present
(and maybe you, Chris and others can give examples pro
and against what I am about to say).  The vanguard
model to date has not worked in my opinion.  Does it
just need some restructuring or does it need to be
abandoned completely?

First of all by calling these workers the most
advanced
and creating an "advanced" organization, it  implies
that that group does know what is best.  It already
creates a sort of hierarchy...does it not..a sort of
alienation?
Not only that, it is by definition
exclusionary...since we are the vanguard any other
groups tend to be viewed
as retrograde tendencies.

This turns into a rather comical situation in the
United States where you have legions of different
vanguard parties, each claiming to be the "vanguard"
while having a miniscule membership and very little
real influence on the working class movement (even
though a lot of them have illusions of grandeur...in
reality it is just that...an illusion)

And what's worse is that when these "vanguard" people
have the power of the state at their disposal they can
then crush "retrograde" tendencies...such as in
Hungary.

And look at the positions these groups take.  They
defend North Korea, because after all they are
deformed workers states, etc...when workers rise up
in those countries to revolt, often these groups will
defend the govts against the workers by saying that
"capitalism will not be good for the workers" and
things of this sort.  So, they give support to the
"vanguard" in those countries.  

I understand that Lenin said we should listen to 
all workers, but given the hierarchical structure of
vanguard parties, has that really happened?  Dont you
think that it is the case that the flow of command is
top-down...Is the vanguard model capable of
understanding and implementing all the desires of the
"constituency" of its organization?  Isn't the
vanguard model therefore more prone to having "idees
fixes"...sclerotic ideas that they impose on the
workers movement rather than being open to learning
from the multitiudes revolt and desires?  What do you
have
to say about the question of the Bolsheviks and what
they did with the Soviets?


> Again this is a mischaricterisation. Most Leninist
> groups are far less organised than you give them
> credit for. Some decisions are made at the top but I
> can promise you if the membership is not convinced
> of
> these decisions they are not put into practise.

Oh, I am sure that group members give consent to much
of what is handed down from New York...but I do wonder
(and this applies not just to vanguard groups but to
all groups...Chris, by the way, I am encountering this
with the News and Letters people) how we can get
beyond
this problem of group think...I mean a  group has a
certain orientation and will tend to define itself and
create a sort of group ego...It seems very important
that people maintain an extremely critical attitude. 
Often this does not happen.

Thomas


===="The tradition of all the dead generations
 weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living"

-Karl Marx

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---