The Union role in Socialist Revolution...

[dangeresque]

redflag32 said:

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.

All those examples you've provided (and we could find many more if we wanted) have leadership in common. Without centralised leadership, there can't be a successful strike, armed campaign, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a successful struggle that didn't have centralised leadership.

That doesn't mean we should blindly trust leaders. I think it's good that so many revolutionaries are distrustful of leaders. The original communist programme of no professional police, soldiers, and all power resting with the armed universal workers militias would help prevent cliques from seizing power as they did in the USSR.

It'll also be important that the leadership is accountable and subject to recall, and that it's decisions are under control and input from the masses as in Cuba.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

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.

Well thats fair enough. As I said - people have different concepts of what role a vaguard takes.

Im not arguing against leadership, but certain kinds of leadership.

Socialism may not be over within the lifetime of one man or one generation, but may take 2, 3 or more generations until the state withers away for communism, the ultimate goal.

So whatever sort of structure is in place, it would wanna be that when the founding leadership die (the likes of connolly, Lenin, Mao etc etc) that the new generation to take their place (those who have not fought for socialism or may have other ideas - more succeptable to corruption) do not destroy things. I think the best way to do that is to not give them too much power - or any - give it directly to the working class - which socialism is supposed to be about.

[RedFlag32]

barry said:

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.

Well thats fair enough. As I said - people have different concepts of what role a vaguard takes.

Im not arguing against leadership, but certain kinds of leadership.

Socialism may not be over within the lifetime of one man or one generation, but may take 2, 3 or more generations until the state withers away for communism, the ultimate goal.

So whatever sort of structure is in place, it would wanna be that when the founding leadership die (the likes of connolly, Lenin, Mao etc etc) that the new generation to take their place (those who have not fought for socialism or may have other ideas - more succeptable to corruption) do not destroy things. I think the best way to do that is to not give them too much power - or any - give it directly to the working class - which socialism is supposed to be about.

I read a great quote which i cant recall exactly but went something like this "the only way to stop the abuse of power is to give no man more power than the next"

[RedFlag32]

dangeresque said:

redflag32 said:

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.

All those examples you've provided (and we could find many more if we wanted) have leadership in common. Without centralised leadership, there can't be a successful strike, armed campaign, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a successful struggle that didn't have centralised leadership.

That doesn't mean we should blindly trust leaders. I think it's good that so many revolutionaries are distrustful of leaders. The original communist programme of no professional police, soldiers, and all power resting with the armed universal workers militias would help prevent cliques from seizing power as they did in the USSR.

It'll also be important that the leadership is accountable and subject to recall, and that it's decisions are under control and input from the masses as in Cuba.

I see a role for "leadership" and a vanguard during revolution. To me the vanguard should be collective,but that doesnt mean it cant have a leading influence of some sort. Democratic leadership maybe? I think we are all a bit frieghtened of leadership as it has bitten us from behind so many times,but i do think its crucial,as i said before the military operations of the 1798 rebellion failed basically because of the lack of leadership (amongst other thins),we will inevitably have to confront the capitalists and some sort of de-centralised leadership/vanguard will have to be a guiding light.

[dangeresque]

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.

This is a quote from a discussion about the role of the vanguard (and it was a good convo imo). But anyway, it inspired me to start a poll about Cuba, because I think there are a variety of opinions here about the subject

theplough.proboards57.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1184870457&page=1

[dangeresque]

a good definition of the vanguard imo:

Bolshevism is the revolutionary method of Marxist organizing. It is based on the principles of a democratic party, acting in unison (democratic centralism), to influence events and drive the battle forward in the class struggle.

At every instance of clash between proletarian and bourgeois during the years leading up to the revolution of 1917, you will likely find the Bolshevik party taking up the cause and doing mass agitation work to drive the clash even further. Whether it's small battles for wages and conditions, or general strikes, or struggles for modest reforms, the Bolsheviks stepped in and took up agitation wherever the working class fought.

This was the only way to drive the most democratic revolution in human history, and any slander you hear that tells you otherwise is just that, slander.

foinse