So, that Vanguard Party ...

Comrades,

I think that it's time to write another entry in this little blog of mine I wrote my last one about how I've been coming around to the idea of a revolution, but this one is going to be about how I'm coming around to the idea of a vanguard party.

First things first ...

Let me re-state what I've said on this site before. First and foremost, I'm a gradualist, and I would love to see capitalism evolve into socialism from the bold, democratic action of a class-conscious proletariat. I'm a democratic socialist, not a social democrat: I want to abolish the capitalist mode of production, but I want to do so in a non-violent and preferably evolutionary manner. However, I'm also not naïve: I realize that the bourgeois may cave to some of the proletariat's demands so as to pacify them, and we may end up with a sort of progressive, social democratic system instead. The whole problem of trade union consciousness might come into play and, once the proletariat gets a couple of its immediate reform that it wanted (healthcare, better hours, social security programs, etc) it could quite possibly get very complacent and give up the push towards complete socialism .... hence why I've come around to the idea of a vanguardist organization to help educate and organize the proletariat so that will actually have the will and power completely abolish capitalism.

So new things, I guess ...

I would prefer to see the vanguard party be non-revolutionary. I know that that sounds bizarre, so let me explain: I want a peaceful, non-violent, evolutionary approach to socialism (yes, I'll admit that I have my revisionist tendencies, but I think that it is necessary to view and apply Marx's theories in accordance with the current material conditions ... perhaps as I learn more this may change) wherein the vanguard party to educate and organize the proletariat so that it will not loose vision of actual socialism, so that it will hold fast the idea of what they are really fighting for - of there democratic reforms being a means to socialism, not being and end in and of themselves.

And thus is the crux of my problem: I want socialism, but I want it done through gradualist and reformist means. There is a distinct possibility of proletarian complacency with its achieved democratic reforms ending up in mere social democracy, yes, but I think that a proactive political party (the vanguard party) could organize them to keep pushing forward and never letting go of the vision of their final goal.

But I recognize that this may be rather idealistic, so I think that it is far more likely that there will be a revolutionary transformation to socialism than a evolutionary one. I'm still a pacifist and love the famous quote "peacefully if we may, forcibly if we must" because it sums up what I'm thinking so eloquently.

A revolution is going to have to be lead by a vanguard party - not only am I skeptical in thinking that the proletariat may obtain class consciousness (I think Lenin's idea of trade union consciousness is far more accurate) and that it may require vanguardism to inspire a mass movement, but the (very probable) existence of bourgeois, bourgeois-sympathizing, and anti-revolutionary forces will attempt to quell the revolution, and a centralized organization will be needed to repel them.

However, my support for a vanguard party is tamed by two lingering questions.

1) I subscribe to the argument that I often hear other Marxists say regarding the Russian Revolution - that the reason that it did not successfully reach socialism is because the vanguard party attempted to surgically insert itself into the historical process, rush the not-yet-fully-developed Russian proletariat from agrarian-feudalism into socialism without passing through capitalism and developing the necessary productive forces to overcome scarcity. So my first question is how do we ever know when we are at the right historical moment in the dialectic process to commit the revolution?

2) I am not authoritarian, I am libertarian (not in the sense of contemporary libertarianism, vis-à-vis classical liberalism, but instead as anti-authoritarianism). I do not like authoritarian, totalitarian, or oppressive institutions. Part of my awakening to socialist consciousness is the realization of the inherent oppression in capitalism, and the desire to abolish both. I do not, though, want to have the vanguard party that is leading the proletariat into socialism to become the de facto ruling class in the new society. I do not want to exchange bourgeois oppressors for party-élite oppressors. My second question then is whether or not the vanguard party may establish itself as a authoritarian regime and institute a new condition of oppression.

Perhaps a temporary, short-term vanguard party-run "state" is necessary to centralize the means of production and prepare them for socialist democratization, protect the developing society from bourgeois retaliation, and so on. I accept that. However, what I do not accept is vanguardism that may result in a Stalinist dictatorship, and I do not want a party-run "state" to last in the long term. If it is a means to socialism, so be it; if it is the end in itself, then I'm not so keen on it.

I wonder if (with the State having been abolished in the proletarian revolution and it fundamentally transforming from an institution of class-rule to purely administrative matters) the party might not exist at all. I mean this: political parties are interest groups inside the system, and, if the system is gone, then that party is no longer a "party". It's entire purpose - changing, controlling, altering, etc the system - is gone because there is no system for it left to change.

I'm also not a fan of democratic centralism - if anything, the vanguard party needs to be democratically-run. If the party is not completely democratic, then I think that it's doing a disservice to the proletariat ... I don't think that it's appropriate for the party élite to adopt a "more righteous than thou" or a "we're more enlightened so we know what's best for you" mentality and dictate the orders for the party from the top-down. It should be bottom-up and people-run.

It seems that I'm coming around to vanguardism, so long as it is done in the right historical moment and does not lead towards a new vanguard-élite oppression.