Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:47:33 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Richard=20Bailey?= <redrich2000-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Why People Join Vanguard Organizations?


> 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?

No model has worked to date. The closest example is
Russia and leaving aside what you think about what
happened after the revolution temporally, the
Bolshevik Party clearly defeated the social democrats
and led a successful seizure of power by workers.

This is why I think this model of organising should be
the starting point. Obviously we then have to consider
whether what happened next was an inherant failure of
this method of organisation or a product of a
particular set of material circumstances. I think it
was the later, no doubt many of you disagree.


> 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 is semantics. Whatever term you use there is a
section of workers who agree we need a revolution and
others who don't. The ones who do think we do need one
need to try and convince the rest. The point is not
what we term them, but how best theyb should organise.


> 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.

Are you referring to 1956? That was stalinism and had
nothing whatsoever to do with vanguardism or leninism.

> 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. 

The International Socialist Tendency do not support
any of these regimes. These positions are not symptoms
of "vanguardism" but rather of orthodox trotskyism (or
soft stalinism) 

> 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?  

My opinion is these types of problems can characterise
any organisation, including a leninist group, however
they are not inherant. This type of organising will be
more likely when the level of class struggle is low
and when the organisation in question has little or no
real roots in the working class.

> What do you have to say about the question of the   
> Bolsheviks and what they did with the Soviets?

This is a very big question. I think every step away
from workers' democracy the Bolsheviks took was
understandable given the circumstances. That does not
mean they were right, just that they were result of a
party that was itself degenerating (the party was
increasingly made of bureaucrats from the old regime
and later of NEP men) trying to hang on and not of any
essential flaw in Leninism.

If you can stand it Tony Cliff's Lenin Vol.3 is a very
good history of the degeneration of the revolution and
of the party.

> 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.

This is definately a problem. But I think it comes
from a lack of any real connection with workers and
struggle. Lenin's idea of democratic centralism was
more to do with the realtionship between the party and
the class in struggle, not internal operations. The
party must not only shape the class but be shaped by
it as well. If you take the class out of the equasion
it creates all sorts of problems including a lack of
political humility.

Richard B

____________________________________________________________
Nokia Game is on again. 
Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new
all media adventure before November 3rd.


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