Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 17:52:54 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Re: Vanguardism and 2 Clarifictions to Hugh


Carlos, because of his closer involvement, corrected my account of the
events in Nicaraguea, and gave a much more concrete picture, for which many
thanks. The account of what happened in Argentina is a bit more
problematic, but helps give a more concrete idea of how to emerge from a
clandestine to a more open struggle.

Then  Carlos asks:

>    Now, my question is: what any of these two facts have to do with
>    vanguardism?  IMO, nothing.  The first was an act of princippled
>    internationalist action.  The second a "try-out", safe, vehicle to
>    investigate the response from the dictatorship  (even though they
>    wwere careful, one comrade was assasinated and couple others
>    kidnapped).

And I can't agree. Nicaragua and the  brigades was *not* just an act of
principled internationalist solidarity, important as that aspect of it
might be. It was putting party resources at the disposal of the working
class and oppressed masses where the fight was at its most acute. I can't
see any problem with labelling that as vanguard intervention. The Argentine
experience was initiated to respond to three elements of social movement:
the fight against the dictatorship, the fight against British imperialism
and the resurgent workers' movement after years of repression under the
dictatorship. It was oriented towards the most active participants in the
three (often combined) struggles. It was much more than a 'try-out'
'investigation of the response of the dictatorship' in my understanding, as
it was intended to be part of the anticipated explosion in the workers' and
popular movement following the fall of the dictatorship.

I'd welcome further discussion on this, because it's a key experience for
the working class, especially in Latin America. For instance, I think the
'gamble' of MAS paid off in the enormous attraction it exerted immediately
after the dictatorship. The problem is, what forces and what principles
were involved when MAS ran into crisis. Two huge factors were the death of
the leader of this tendency, Moreno, and the collapse of Stalinism in the
ex-Soviet Union.

To revert to the 'vanguard' question. It seems as if 'vanguard' and
'vanguardism' are just 'taboo' words to be avoided because they rile
people. I think, however, the distinction the words label, as between the
cutting-edge forces in the class - the sectors involved in the most
militant and most conscious class struggles - and the less aware, less
combative masses, is central to the Bolshevik tradition. I don't think Marx
would have had any trouble using it, as he was perfectly aware of the need
to build the class party on the basis of its most active and conscious
sectors. What's more, this forum of ours is hardly a mass meeting, where
terms used in internal discussions are not always very useful.

Change the word, if you like, to something like 'leading sectors' or
'leading forces', but discuss the *concept*, not the unpopularity factor of
a *word*. This is falling into the trap set by counter-revolutionary
propaganda when it denigrates 'communism', 'bolshevik', 'socialist' and so
on. We mustn't let the class enemy dictate the terms in which we discuss
our class interests. Bourgeois public opinion is a factor to be reckoned
with in the working class as a whole and our contacts with it, obviously,
but it's a big step from taking something into account to letting it set
our agenda and dictate the ideas we use.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------