Historically vanguards only ever derive any form of power or legitimacy through popular support from the broader working classes. Had vanguards not been popularly supported, they would have failed. You can see examples of supposed “vanguards” that do fail, such as the Gonzaloist CPP Shining Path, which slaughtered peasants and alienated themselves from the working classes.
Historically vanguards derive power thru the threat of violence. Sure, for a vanguard to initially gain power, some level of popular support is important. But often the opposition to the bourgeois is more important than actual embrace of the vanguard. And once the full might of the state is in their control, with it’s propaganda and threat of violence, a mandate from workers becomes unimportant.
This doesn’t track with the experience of socialist states, though. Popular polling in AES states shows remarkable support for the vanguard party because of the real material gains made by socialism. The mandate from the working class is essential precisely because of the nature of running an economy where public ownership is principle. State violence is used, of course, but against fascists, sabateurs, slavers, capitalists, landlords, etc. who resist collectivization and undermine the socialist system. It’s state violence wielded by the working class against enemies of the working class that protects the gains of socialism.
No, it has “I give enough of a shit to actually look into history and verify that what I am saying is correct” energy. I care far less about sloganeering and far more about genuinely learning about and from socialist movements, for the purpose of achieving socialism in real life.
The Vanguard chose themselves and if you don’t like it, straight to Lubyanka
Historically vanguards only ever derive any form of power or legitimacy through popular support from the broader working classes. Had vanguards not been popularly supported, they would have failed. You can see examples of supposed “vanguards” that do fail, such as the Gonzaloist CPP Shining Path, which slaughtered peasants and alienated themselves from the working classes.
Historically vanguards derive power thru the threat of violence. Sure, for a vanguard to initially gain power, some level of popular support is important. But often the opposition to the bourgeois is more important than actual embrace of the vanguard. And once the full might of the state is in their control, with it’s propaganda and threat of violence, a mandate from workers becomes unimportant.
This doesn’t track with the experience of socialist states, though. Popular polling in AES states shows remarkable support for the vanguard party because of the real material gains made by socialism. The mandate from the working class is essential precisely because of the nature of running an economy where public ownership is principle. State violence is used, of course, but against fascists, sabateurs, slavers, capitalists, landlords, etc. who resist collectivization and undermine the socialist system. It’s state violence wielded by the working class against enemies of the working class that protects the gains of socialism.
This has real “we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing” energy.
No, it has “I give enough of a shit to actually look into history and verify that what I am saying is correct” energy. I care far less about sloganeering and far more about genuinely learning about and from socialist movements, for the purpose of achieving socialism in real life.