The vanguard is not a different group. The vanguard is the part of the group that ends up doing something first.
It’s not separate from the group, and it’s often not even distinguished from the group in any way aside from the fact that it was motivated enough to act first.
That’s like saying that the bourgeois are just the workers that did really well for themselves.
No, it’s not. It’s like saying that the leaders and organizers within the working class will lead the working class and ensure that the means of production are managed after they are seized. Someone (an individual or a group) has to do it, and they should know what they are doing.
The person I responded to said “a different group”. My point is that it’s a subset of the larger group. Yes, it’s possible to take advantage of the situation and try to grab power afterward. If that subset seized it to enrich themselves, they are class traitors - they are of the working class but betrayed them. However, some person or group needs to literally lead and manage, usually democratically. It can’t be literally the entirety of the working class.
All of this is just twisting terms and concepts to try to sow distrust in communist or socialist theory, assuming there will always be some secret group of elites scheming to take everything for themselves the moment the means are seized.
Anyway seized they should be.
It doesn’t help the working class if a different group like the Vanguard seize them instead.
The vanguard is not a different group. The vanguard is the part of the group that ends up doing something first.
It’s not separate from the group, and it’s often not even distinguished from the group in any way aside from the fact that it was motivated enough to act first.
That’s like saying that the bourgeois are just the workers that did really well for themselves.
No, it’s not. It’s like saying that the leaders and organizers within the working class will lead the working class and ensure that the means of production are managed after they are seized. Someone (an individual or a group) has to do it, and they should know what they are doing.
The person I responded to said “a different group”. My point is that it’s a subset of the larger group. Yes, it’s possible to take advantage of the situation and try to grab power afterward. If that subset seized it to enrich themselves, they are class traitors - they are of the working class but betrayed them. However, some person or group needs to literally lead and manage, usually democratically. It can’t be literally the entirety of the working class.
All of this is just twisting terms and concepts to try to sow distrust in communist or socialist theory, assuming there will always be some secret group of elites scheming to take everything for themselves the moment the means are seized.