• novibe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    There’s a weird misunderstanding of what a “vanguard” is, in both left anti-communist and communist circles.

    A vanguard is not a self-defined group that rules over the proles and directs them towards a revolution and governs once it’s won.

    Vanguards are not things that exist in the present. Vanguard is just a term to help understand a revolution after it happens.

    When a revolution happens, the most politically advanced (in class consciousness and left theory) individuals and groups that participate will steer the people towards socialism. They will lead, by example, on who to fight, how and why.

    During the revolution, they aren’t called anything and specially not by themselves.

    But after the revolution, when analyzing it, those people are then called the vanguard of the revolution.

    Any communist that says they want to “form and participate in a vanguard party” has no understanding of revolutions and left theory.

    Any left anti-communist that derides vanguards for being authoritarian and “replicating state oppression” also have no understanding of revolutions or left theory.

    Honestly we would all be better off just not using the term vanguard at all anymore.

    • flora_explora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 days ago

      Hm, so if you don’t want to use the term vanguard anymore, how are you going to talk about the seizing of power by a small authoritarian group during a revolution? And what would be your solution to prevent this from happening?

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        That doesn’t happen though. What we saw were rightwing counterrevolutionaries taking over the USSR, China etc.

        But historically it’s a great mischaracterization of all socialist revolutions to say they were “overtaken by authoritarians”.

        All revolutions are “authoritarian”.

    • Bababasti@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 days ago

      Any left anti-communist that derides vanguards for being authoritarian and “replicating state oppression” also have no understanding of revolutions or left theory.

      You know, you can be anti-authoritarian and still be a communist. Anarcho-Communism is a real thing.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        Idk man, if you are against all communist movements in history you’re an anti-communist to me 🤷‍♂️

        • dogbert@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          No! Real communism is when you theorize and speculate on the internet! China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. those countries were fake communism!

    • ThunderQueen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      You might be surprised how many m/l communists actually aspire to be the vangaurd and call themselves as such.it is very sus. Reads as power hungry to me. Lile, it gives “volunteers for ice” kind of vibes but from the other side. I dont trust people like that to let go of power once they have it

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        Idk man I think there’s as many people like that as “anarchists” who live under bridges and dump dive.

        It’s just that libs and left anti-communists usually see any type of real actual action and revolutionary practice as “evil”.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Any communist that says they want to “form and participate in a vanguard party” has no understanding of revolutions and left theory.

      So, did Soviets get the concept wrong? It’s often claimed dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean an actual dictator, yet there it was.

      What do we call the Soviet concept of vanguard if not vanguardism?