The Union role in Socialist Revolution...

[Papa C.]

I have come to the conclusion that an effective revolutionary Union is possibly the key to socialist revolution in today's economy. While some may believe that conditions are not right to start a rebellion I must confess that I think they are, indeed, perfect! The rebellion needs to be organised and realised firstly though, just as it was when Hugo Chavez got into power in Venezuela and built the revolutionary idea into the poor sections of country.

Workers are being exploited everywhere through capitalism or 'progress' as they call it and SIPTU being the Capitalist's bitch through their 'Social Partnership' or Capitalist partnership is no help to anyone. People work a 40 hour week and still find it hard to cover a mortgage, traffic congestion in Ireland has started forced (if even misdirected) strikes.

Ideally the union can gain the support of workers everywhere whereas an armed force can't always do this. Look at the Irish Ferries protest for example where an estimated 150,000 activists turned out on the streets. Look at the nurses pickets. I think it would be an idea to build revolutionary model around a union rather than an army as such and allow the workers to push towards building an army later, closer to the time. Through the union the issues are simple and social and their is no need to speak about global issues that often confuse some workers even though they are still important. It is important, also, to show the similarities between Irish workers' struggles and the struggles all over the world. The Union is fighting on behalf of the workers and, in turn, the workers will give their support to an effective union and become an intricate part of that union. The revolutionary ideal should be thought through the union.

It could also be argued that Union strikes have been the spark that started most rebellions in recent times. The 1916 rising, the war for independence and the recent long war were all built around workers strikes. Just think of the industrial action that went on around those times. The 1913 lock out, the Limerick Soviet/ General strike of 1919, the IRA was involved in strike action in the early 70s which gained them support among workers. The ICA was set up to protect striking workers. All of this is built around workers rights and socialist revolution.

Perhaps this is something we can discuss or think about?

[RedFlag32]

I agree a militant union would be very important in the revolution. Your right in saying that most working class risings in Ireland where through Unions but they were also betrayed by them in the end,thats why it has to be a militant union. The IWU is something i would put my support behind,but in my job,where i work with five guys max,there just isnt a need for me to be in a union,and i think this is the same with alot of people. The IWU where starting a student section and where looking for help,do you think we could lend a hand maybe?

[Papa C.]

I think the IWU is decent union and is something we should throw our weight behind at least.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

I dont really support any union at the moment. I believe their present organisational structures - over time - will lead to degeneration.

How else can we explain the degenerated state of the unions presently?

One good founding leader - the likes of Connolly or Larkin - are exceptions in that they lead through their own personal conviction for militancy. But as time goes on - who's to say the next generation of leaders will be militant?

Its the same with so-called socialist nations. The "revolutionary convictions" dont often last past the founding leadership, or are dismantled as soon as a new leader in a position of power with his own agenda pulls new strings.

IMO, the organisational structure of unions must be totally radical and democratic with no centralised leadership, otherwise in the long run itll end up as a bunch of privi leaders divorced from the struggle of the working class - as is the case now.

One of the failings of Marxists IMO is their lack of emphasis upon power structures - something anarchists have put more attention to. History has given us ample reason not to trust or support centralised leadership whereby the entire revolution - or long term goal - depends on which mere man gets to pull the strings next. Its maddness and will never work.

If new and radically democratic unions were to be created - then of course - they are a mighty tool for the bringing about of revolution. Existing unions should be abandoned or smashed, I dont care when people say "but the union belongs to the workers" - stuff that crap - they are reactionary to the creation of a workers democracy until all workers participate in the decisions - not merely electing a leadership to make decisions on their behalf.

so 1, new structures, 2 new unions and 3 militancy is always legitimate as long as expoitation exists.

Im not sure what your getting at though Caoimhain, what is there to discuss - i dont think anyone could disagree with what your saying. Do you have a proposal of sorts?

And sorry for the rant ;D

[RedFlag32]

RM this might be a bit off-topic but whats your opinion on the Vanguard? It popped into my head when you talked about central leadership etc..

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

RM this might be a bit off-topic but whats your opinion on the Vanguard? It popped into my head when you talked about central leadership etc..

Its a sort of disputed idea. Anyone who argues against it is told "thats not what a vanguard is" on forums.

No, I dont agree with it in the way I understand it. In cases such as 1917, the Cuban revolution, Maos China etc I think its a clear failure that power rests on the enlightened few - and that the revolution fails or succeeds depending on which way the leadership steer. Thats not a democratic workers revolution as far as I can see.

I also have doubts about the vanguards "superior" class consciousness. I cannot understand how something like that makes an ounce of sense.

I think the role of the party, and of those who see fit to put their "social understanding" into action is through agitation of the working class - not leading them.

Also, the idea of a "Marxist" vanguard and of "superior" class consciousness is an idea invented by Lenin - Marx never claimed anything of the sort. I think its a departure from Marxism.

This link is interesting....

www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

The concept of a vanguard party and its effect on conformity

A central tenet of Trotskyist politics is its insistence that a ‘vanguard party’ is required to guide the working class to power. This is conceived as an organization of professional revolutionaries, steeped in Marxist ideology, tightly organised and determined to win the leadership of the working class. The idea was most forcefully advanced by Lenin at the turn of the century (Deutscher, 1954; Cliff, 1975), and justified by reference to the particular needs of a revolutionary movement operating under an autocratic regime (Volkogonov, 1994). As Milliband (1977) has pointed out, this was a departure (Leninists would describe it as an extension) from the original ideas of Marx, who was much more inclined to argue that the task of liberating the working class was the task of the working class itself. Ironically, Trotsky himself initially resisted Lenin’s views (Poole, 1995). He argued that a vanguard party would inevitably seek to substitute its own activity and insights for the activity of the working class. Within the party, meanwhile:

"...the party organization (the caucus) at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee."1

However, during 1917 he finally accepted the Bolshevik model of organization, and defended it with increasing insistence until his assassination in 1940 (Deutscher, 1963; Trotsky, 1975). In the last year of his life he wrote that "...in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable" (Trotsky ,1973, p.141).


From the perspective of this discussion a number of important consequences follow. Firstly, the notion of a vanguard party inherently predisposes its adherents to view themselves as the pivot on which world history is destined to turn. Revolution is seen as the only route by which humanity can avoid annihilation, but revolution is only possible if a mass party is built around a group of ‘cadres’: that is, devotees of the party with a particularly deep insight into its ideology. Thus, Trotskyists are possessed of a tremendous sense of urgency and a powerful conviction of their group’s unique role in bringing about the transformation of the world: what could be described as delusions of historical grandeur. Trotsky himself confided to his diary in 1935:

"...now my work is ‘indispensable’ in the full sense of the word... The collapse of the two Internationals has posed a problem which none of the leaders of these Internationals is at all equipped to solve... There is now no one except me to carry out the mission of arming a new generation with the revolutionary method over the heads of the leaders of the Second and Third International" (Trotsky, 1958, p.54).

This approach leads to the belief that the vanguard party has a level of insight into society’s problem unmatched by anyone else. The grouping under consideration in this paper, the CWI, provides many instances of such a conviction in its publications. An internal document from 1977 averred:

"What guarantees the superiority of our tendency ... from all others inside and outside the labour movement is our understanding of all the myriad factors which determine the attitudes and moods of the workers at each stage. Not only the objective but the subjective ones too."

This conviction is combined with contempt for all other organizations on the left. The closer such organizations are to the group’s own ideological lineage the more likely they are to be the targets of abuse. A CWI International Bulletin in 1975 declaims:

"...we consider that our organizations are alone in upholding the banner of Marxism... we repudiate every sectarian fragment appropriating the name of the Fourth International."

One interviewee (David) told me:

"We were taught to absolutely hate every other political organization that there was. Anybody on the left who wasn’t a Marxist were called left reformists, and we were absolutely convinced that they didn’t have a clue. We looked on them as hopeless people. People outside left politics at all were dismissed as ‘liberals’, but we probably hated them more than extreme right wingers - we used the word liberal as a sort of political swear word. But other Trotskyist groupings were the worst. We just laughed at them in internal meetings. We called them ‘the sects’ and took the view that they were incapable of any development at all. They were good for a laugh at best, but really the attitude towards anybody else claiming to be Trotskyist was that they were the complete enemy of everything we stood for. If we ever had taken power God knows what we would have done to them."


However, an additional feature of Lenin’s conception of a vanguard party is that it was to be governed by the principles of what he termed democratic centralism. It would not be a loose federation, but a tightly integrated fighting force with a powerful central committee and a rule that all members publicly defend the agreed positions of the party, whatever opinions they might hold to the contrary in private. Between conferences the party’s leading bodies would have extraordinary authority to manage the party’s affairs, arbitrate in internal disputes, update doctrine and decide the party’s response to fresh political events.

As Lenin expressed it:

"The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local party organizations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a defined action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult unity of action decided upon by the party" (Lenin, 1977, p.433).

Given what is now known of social influence this approach is almost certainly destined to prevent genuine internal discussion. Firstly, it is not at all clear when ‘full freedom to criticise’ can actually be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The norms of democratic centralism confer all power between conferences onto a central committee, allowing it to become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is in danger of creating such a disturbance, normally presumed to be lethal. The evidence suggests that they are strongly minded to view any dissent as precisely such a disruption, and respond by demanding that the dissident ceases their action on pain of expulsion from the party. It should be borne in mind that the leadership of Trotskyist groupings views itself as the infallible interpreter of sacred texts which are seen as essential for the success of world revolution, which in turn is seen as vital if the world is to be saved from complete barbarism. This ‘all or nothing’ approach to political analysis reinforces the tendency to view dissent as something which automatically imperils the future of the planet, and a justification (perhaps unconscious) of whatever measures are required to restore the illusion of unanimity. The following quotation, from a document written by some members expelled in 1992, suggests that such unanimity was endemic to the CWI method of working:

"The immense authority of the leadership created an enormous degree of trust ... In reality, the leadership of this tendency enjoyed more than trust. It had virtually a blank cheque (even in the most literal sense of the word) to do what it liked, without any real check or control. No leadership, no matter how honest or politically correct, should have that amount of ‘trust.’"... we built a politically homogeneous tendency . Up to the recent period there did not appear to be any serious political disagreements. In fact, there have been disagreements on all kinds of political and organizational matters, but these were never allowed to reach even the level of the CC (Central Committee) or IEC (International Executive Committee). Nothing was permitted to indicate the slightest disagreement in the leadership... There was uniformity, which at times came dangerously close to conformism... The tendency became unused to genuine discussion and debate. To be frank, many comrades (including ‘leading comrades’) simply stopped thinking. It was sufficient just to accept the line of the leadership... We have a situation where the leadership enjoys such trust that it amounts to a blank cheque; where there is uniformity of ideas, in which all dissent is automatically presented as disloyalty; where the leadership is allowed to function with virtually no checks or accountability, under conditions of complete secrecy from the rank-and-file" (their emphasis).

This document, independent testimony from journalists and other observers, and my own interviews and conversations with ex-members supports the view that intense fear of real debate and discussion was a defining characteristic of the CWI. All resolutions at party conferences would either come from the leadership or be completely supportive of its position. If branches or members submitted resolutions which were insufficiently enthusiastic about the general line CWI leaders exerted enormous pressure for them to be withdrawn. They invariably were. The leading role in the elimination of dissent appears to have been played by the CWI’s General Secretary, determined to inherit the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky in modern day Britain. The ‘Oppositionist’ document already quoted above recounts on this issue that:

"To cross the General Secretary would result in a tantrum or some kind of outburst. Comrades became fearful of initiative without the sanctions of the General Secretary. Incredibly, even the opening of a window during an EC (Executive Committee) meeting would not go ahead without a nod from him! Under these conditions, the idea of ‘collective leadership’ is a nonsense... The EC as a whole - which is supposed to be a sub-committee of the CC - is out of control. In 99% of cases the CC is simply a rubber stamp for the EC."

The picture that emerges is of elected bodies usurping the normal democratic rights of members and becoming increasingly removed from formal controls. It was reported in early 1992 that over two years had elapsed between party conferences, during which time the leadership was effectively removed from all practical accountability to the membership for its actions. It also appears that power continued to flow upwards to the General Secretary and the full time staff which he had ample scope to mould in his image. The Oppositionist document quoted above recounts:

"...no decisions of any significance are taken without the full knowledge and consent of the General Secretary, and that the great majority of them are taken, either on his initiative, or at least with his active participation.... The full-timers tend to order and bully the comrades, instead of convincing them. They rely upon the political authority of the leadership handed down from the past, in order to get their way. If you do not accept the targets handed down by the full-timer, you are "not a good comrade", you are "conservative", and so on."

Secondly, Cialdini (1993) reviews a variety of studies which show that when people take a public position in defence of a proposition there is then a strong tendency for their private attitudes to shift so that they harmonize with their public behaviours. In short, if people tell others that they support X (for whatever reason) their belief system will begin to agree that indeed they do support X. The more public such declarations have been the more likely it is that such a shift will take place. This will then contribute to future public activities in line with a now firmly held belief. Such findings suggest that if, in the name of democratic centralism, party members publicly uphold the party line it becomes increasingly difficult to hold a private belief at variance with attitudes publicly expressed. The evidence suggests that it is not possible to have a group of people presenting a conformist image to society at large while maintaining an inner party regime characterised by frank and full discussion. Conformity in public tends to equal conformity in private.

[RedFlag32]

Its also said the failure of the 1798 rebellion was because of a lack of this leadership we say betrays the revolution eventually,so i wonder whats the alternative? Maybe its the handing back of power that doesnt usually happen that is the problem? I personally think some sort of vanguard is needed,maybe not as you understand it,but there exsists in society those who study and understand class history and it is up to those to agitate the workers and show them the way,not lead them but to guide them,a certain amount of "leadership" is inevitable here i think.

[dangeresque]

Dublin IRSP is heavily involved in the IWU, one of leading members is an elected rep in the IWU and works in their office. You should stop by and see him sometime if you want to get involved, it's above the SF offices.

I don't honestly think that unions can play a revolutionary role right now... though we can begin organising for a time when industrial disputes will become sharper.

[dangeresque]

barry said:

RM this might be a bit off-topic but whats your opinion on the Vanguard? It popped into my head when you talked about central leadership etc..

Its a sort of disputed idea. Anyone who argues against it is told "thats not what a vanguard is" on forums.

No, I dont agree with it in the way I understand it. In cases such as 1917, the Cuban revolution, Maos China etc I think its a clear failure that power rests on the enlightened few - and that the revolution fails or succeeds depending on which way the leadership steer. Thats not a democratic workers revolution as far as I can see.

I also have doubts about the vanguards "superior" class consciousness. I cannot understand how something like that makes an ounce of sense.

I think the role of the party, and of those who see fit to put their "social understanding" into action is through agitation of the working class - not leading them.

Also, the idea of a "Marxist" vanguard and of "superior" class consciousness is an idea invented by Lenin - Marx never claimed anything of the sort. I think its a departure from Marxism.

This link is interesting....

www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

The concept of a vanguard party and its effect on conformity

A central tenet of Trotskyist politics is its insistence that a ‘vanguard party’ is required to guide the working class to power. This is conceived as an organization of professional revolutionaries, steeped in Marxist ideology, tightly organised and determined to win the leadership of the working class. The idea was most forcefully advanced by Lenin at the turn of the century (Deutscher, 1954; Cliff, 1975), and justified by reference to the particular needs of a revolutionary movement operating under an autocratic regime (Volkogonov, 1994). As Milliband (1977) has pointed out, this was a departure (Leninists would describe it as an extension) from the original ideas of Marx, who was much more inclined to argue that the task of liberating the working class was the task of the working class itself. Ironically, Trotsky himself initially resisted Lenin’s views (Poole, 1995). He argued that a vanguard party would inevitably seek to substitute its own activity and insights for the activity of the working class. Within the party, meanwhile:

"...the party organization (the caucus) at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee."1

However, during 1917 he finally accepted the Bolshevik model of organization, and defended it with increasing insistence until his assassination in 1940 (Deutscher, 1963; Trotsky, 1975). In the last year of his life he wrote that "...in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable" (Trotsky ,1973, p.141).


From the perspective of this discussion a number of important consequences follow. Firstly, the notion of a vanguard party inherently predisposes its adherents to view themselves as the pivot on which world history is destined to turn. Revolution is seen as the only route by which humanity can avoid annihilation, but revolution is only possible if a mass party is built around a group of ‘cadres’: that is, devotees of the party with a particularly deep insight into its ideology. Thus, Trotskyists are possessed of a tremendous sense of urgency and a powerful conviction of their group’s unique role in bringing about the transformation of the world: what could be described as delusions of historical grandeur. Trotsky himself confided to his diary in 1935:

"...now my work is ‘indispensable’ in the full sense of the word... The collapse of the two Internationals has posed a problem which none of the leaders of these Internationals is at all equipped to solve... There is now no one except me to carry out the mission of arming a new generation with the revolutionary method over the heads of the leaders of the Second and Third International" (Trotsky, 1958, p.54).

This approach leads to the belief that the vanguard party has a level of insight into society’s problem unmatched by anyone else. The grouping under consideration in this paper, the CWI, provides many instances of such a conviction in its publications. An internal document from 1977 averred:

"What guarantees the superiority of our tendency ... from all others inside and outside the labour movement is our understanding of all the myriad factors which determine the attitudes and moods of the workers at each stage. Not only the objective but the subjective ones too."

This conviction is combined with contempt for all other organizations on the left. The closer such organizations are to the group’s own ideological lineage the more likely they are to be the targets of abuse. A CWI International Bulletin in 1975 declaims:

"...we consider that our organizations are alone in upholding the banner of Marxism... we repudiate every sectarian fragment appropriating the name of the Fourth International."

One interviewee (David) told me:

"We were taught to absolutely hate every other political organization that there was. Anybody on the left who wasn’t a Marxist were called left reformists, and we were absolutely convinced that they didn’t have a clue. We looked on them as hopeless people. People outside left politics at all were dismissed as ‘liberals’, but we probably hated them more than extreme right wingers - we used the word liberal as a sort of political swear word. But other Trotskyist groupings were the worst. We just laughed at them in internal meetings. We called them ‘the sects’ and took the view that they were incapable of any development at all. They were good for a laugh at best, but really the attitude towards anybody else claiming to be Trotskyist was that they were the complete enemy of everything we stood for. If we ever had taken power God knows what we would have done to them."


However, an additional feature of Lenin’s conception of a vanguard party is that it was to be governed by the principles of what he termed democratic centralism. It would not be a loose federation, but a tightly integrated fighting force with a powerful central committee and a rule that all members publicly defend the agreed positions of the party, whatever opinions they might hold to the contrary in private. Between conferences the party’s leading bodies would have extraordinary authority to manage the party’s affairs, arbitrate in internal disputes, update doctrine and decide the party’s response to fresh political events.

As Lenin expressed it:

"The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local party organizations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a defined action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult unity of action decided upon by the party" (Lenin, 1977, p.433).

Given what is now known of social influence this approach is almost certainly destined to prevent genuine internal discussion. Firstly, it is not at all clear when ‘full freedom to criticise’ can actually be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The norms of democratic centralism confer all power between conferences onto a central committee, allowing it to become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is in danger of creating such a disturbance, normally presumed to be lethal. The evidence suggests that they are strongly minded to view any dissent as precisely such a disruption, and respond by demanding that the dissident ceases their action on pain of expulsion from the party. It should be borne in mind that the leadership of Trotskyist groupings views itself as the infallible interpreter of sacred texts which are seen as essential for the success of world revolution, which in turn is seen as vital if the world is to be saved from complete barbarism. This ‘all or nothing’ approach to political analysis reinforces the tendency to view dissent as something which automatically imperils the future of the planet, and a justification (perhaps unconscious) of whatever measures are required to restore the illusion of unanimity. The following quotation, from a document written by some members expelled in 1992, suggests that such unanimity was endemic to the CWI method of working:

"The immense authority of the leadership created an enormous degree of trust ... In reality, the leadership of this tendency enjoyed more than trust. It had virtually a blank cheque (even in the most literal sense of the word) to do what it liked, without any real check or control. No leadership, no matter how honest or politically correct, should have that amount of ‘trust.’"... we built a politically homogeneous tendency . Up to the recent period there did not appear to be any serious political disagreements. In fact, there have been disagreements on all kinds of political and organizational matters, but these were never allowed to reach even the level of the CC (Central Committee) or IEC (International Executive Committee). Nothing was permitted to indicate the slightest disagreement in the leadership... There was uniformity, which at times came dangerously close to conformism... The tendency became unused to genuine discussion and debate. To be frank, many comrades (including ‘leading comrades’) simply stopped thinking. It was sufficient just to accept the line of the leadership... We have a situation where the leadership enjoys such trust that it amounts to a blank cheque; where there is uniformity of ideas, in which all dissent is automatically presented as disloyalty; where the leadership is allowed to function with virtually no checks or accountability, under conditions of complete secrecy from the rank-and-file" (their emphasis).

This document, independent testimony from journalists and other observers, and my own interviews and conversations with ex-members supports the view that intense fear of real debate and discussion was a defining characteristic of the CWI. All resolutions at party conferences would either come from the leadership or be completely supportive of its position. If branches or members submitted resolutions which were insufficiently enthusiastic about the general line CWI leaders exerted enormous pressure for them to be withdrawn. They invariably were. The leading role in the elimination of dissent appears to have been played by the CWI’s General Secretary, determined to inherit the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky in modern day Britain. The ‘Oppositionist’ document already quoted above recounts on this issue that:

"To cross the General Secretary would result in a tantrum or some kind of outburst. Comrades became fearful of initiative without the sanctions of the General Secretary. Incredibly, even the opening of a window during an EC (Executive Committee) meeting would not go ahead without a nod from him! Under these conditions, the idea of ‘collective leadership’ is a nonsense... The EC as a whole - which is supposed to be a sub-committee of the CC - is out of control. In 99% of cases the CC is simply a rubber stamp for the EC."

The picture that emerges is of elected bodies usurping the normal democratic rights of members and becoming increasingly removed from formal controls. It was reported in early 1992 that over two years had elapsed between party conferences, during which time the leadership was effectively removed from all practical accountability to the membership for its actions. It also appears that power continued to flow upwards to the General Secretary and the full time staff which he had ample scope to mould in his image. The Oppositionist document quoted above recounts:

"...no decisions of any significance are taken without the full knowledge and consent of the General Secretary, and that the great majority of them are taken, either on his initiative, or at least with his active participation.... The full-timers tend to order and bully the comrades, instead of convincing them. They rely upon the political authority of the leadership handed down from the past, in order to get their way. If you do not accept the targets handed down by the full-timer, you are "not a good comrade", you are "conservative", and so on."

Secondly, Cialdini (1993) reviews a variety of studies which show that when people take a public position in defence of a proposition there is then a strong tendency for their private attitudes to shift so that they harmonize with their public behaviours. In short, if people tell others that they support X (for whatever reason) their belief system will begin to agree that indeed they do support X. The more public such declarations have been the more likely it is that such a shift will take place. This will then contribute to future public activities in line with a now firmly held belief. Such findings suggest that if, in the name of democratic centralism, party members publicly uphold the party line it becomes increasingly difficult to hold a private belief at variance with attitudes publicly expressed. The evidence suggests that it is not possible to have a group of people presenting a conformist image to society at large while maintaining an inner party regime characterised by frank and full discussion. Conformity in public tends to equal conformity in private.

I think that a vanguard can be reactionary if the masses are already in a revolutionary state of mind and a clique tries to hijack the revolution for their own ends. Or as Marx put it, "So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is
not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary."

The problem that all who want a new society face is that workers attain consciousness at a different rate. It would be literally impossible for capitalism to have come into existence (and from it, socialism) if all humans understood social reality equally. So the vanguard could be seen, as Redflag32 argued above as the most class conscious and determined elements in the working class and revolutionary movement.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Its also said the failure of the 1798 rebellion was because of a lack of this leadership we say betrays the revolution eventually,so i wonder whats the alternative?

Well I could argue the same for "centralised" leadership - it betrays the revolution.

I mean - when have Marxists succeeded in a socialist democracy through using centralised leadership? - Im not aware of any success stories. None have lasted past the founding leadership (and its questionable whether they were socialist from square one).

Here's an interesting example where the unions and "leadership" betrayed a potential revolution..... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68

Who knows what might work in future - maybe taking the middle road between Leninism and anarchism - not authoritarian and not leaderless. Workers councils? Federations?

Revolution would rely on the class consciousness of the workers to take their own actions on a community scale - not the "class consciousness of the enlightened few" commanding millions and where a simple change in a dozen men can make and break something which is supposedly a class revolution.

Maybe its the handing back of power that doesnt usually happen that is the problem?

Thats a problem yes. Why would those who steal power wish to give it away?

I personally think some sort of vanguard is needed,maybe not as you understand it,but there exsists in society those who study and understand class history and it is up to those to agitate the workers and show them the way,not lead them but to guide them,a certain amount of "leadership" is inevitable here i think.

I would agree with you to an extent. Its one thing to agitate, its another to lead and command.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

I think that a vanguard can be reactionary if the masses are already in a revolutionary state of mind and a clique tries to hijack the revolution for their own ends. Or as Marx put it, "So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is
not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary."

So there's a clear problem. So what would you propose as a solution?

The problem that all who want a new society face is that workers attain consciousness at a different rate. It would be literally impossible for capitalism to have come into existence (and from it, socialism) if all humans understood social reality equally. So the vanguard could be seen, as Redflag32 argued above as the most class conscious and determined elements in the working class and revolutionary movement.

So it depends on what we mean by class consciousness.

Take Lenin for example - if he was a member of the vanguard of superior class consciousness - where did he get this superior class consciousness from?

What makes him more class conscious than the ordinary worker?

IMO, he wasnt necessarily conscious of his own historical role - that is - to create bourgeois society from feudalism.

He thought he was creating socialism when infact he was serving the historical role of bourgeois revolution. Now we see the outcome - bourgeois society.

So how conscious was he? The revolutions in Nepal, China, Vietnam, Cambodia all served their historical purpose - and it wasnt socialist revolution - rather - an alternative method to achieve bourgeois society.

Why have all so-called socialist revolutions taken place in third world, non developed nations where the means of prodution are least advanced and where feudal laws are most existing?

I think when taken into its historical context - none were socialist - all were bourgeois revolutions. That can even be seen in the organisational structure leading them. Those leading them constitute themselves as a separate class - later to take the role of the bourgeoisie.

[RedFlag32]

barry said:

Its also said the failure of the 1798 rebellion was because of a lack of this leadership we say betrays the revolution eventually,so i wonder whats the alternative?

Well I could argue the same for "centralised" leadership - it betrays the revolution.

I mean - when have Marxists succeeded in a socialist democracy through using centralised leadership? - Im not aware of any success stories. None have lasted past the founding leadership (and its questionable whether they were socialist from square one).

Here's an interesting example where the unions and "leadership" betrayed a potential revolution..... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68

Who knows what might work in future - maybe taking the middle road between Leninism and anarchism - not authoritarian and not leaderless. Workers councils? Federations?

Revolution would rely on the class consciousness of the workers to take their own actions on a community scale - not the "class consciousness of the enlightened few" commanding millions and where a simple change in a dozen men can make and break something which is supposedly a class revolution.



Thats a problem yes. Why would those who steal power wish to give it away?

I personally think some sort of vanguard is needed,maybe not as you understand it,but there exsists in society those who study and understand class history and it is up to those to agitate the workers and show them the way,not lead them but to guide them,a certain amount of "leadership" is inevitable here i think.

I would agree with you to an extent. Its one thing to agitate, its another to lead and command.

But when i talk of a vanguard im not meaning a "centralised leadership" a vanguard to me is a collective. Also we have to remember the individual "leaders" who didnt betray the working class struggle and who were takin out of the struggle through murder or being betrayed by another,im thinking Connolly, Larkin, Costello.Thes men were individuals and they didnt let power ruin them,just think of what would have happened if Conolly had of lived and possibly gained control of the Unions? Larkin also had hundreds of thousands of workers willing to do anything for him,they would have followe him to hell if he asked them to. Im not making an argumanet for "individual leaders" just saying that revolution is never black and white,no set rules.