Toast Rider said:
2. Socialism, as a stage prior to communism, requires a vanguard part or 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (not dictatorship in the sense we'd term it) to protect that burgeoning society/revolution.
remind me to come back to this.
I can’t remember a single instance of Marx using the words “vanguard” or “vanguard party”. In fact, just to be sure, I checked the index of each of the Marx volumes I have on my shelves (Capital vols 1,2, & 3; Grundrisse; the Manifesto; Kamenka’s Portable Karl Marx; & CJ Arthur’s edited selection from the German Ideology). No mention of vanguards or vanguard parties.
This is not surprising. The vast majority of what Marx published in his lifetime was analysis of capitalism. He had very little to say about the transition to communism.
In fact, the term vanguard is introduced by Lenin, who tells us he relies heavily on the Critique of the Gotha Programme. This is a letter written by Marx to some German comrades. It’s really a series of notes and wasn’t intended for publication. Engels had it published after Marx’s death.
It’s said to be the most comprehensive exposition by Marx on what he meant by “dictatorship of the proletariat”. But you’re probably going to be disappointed. The relevant passage is just a few short sentences in this section:
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV
To my mind, far more illuminating are Marx’s thoughts on the Paris Commune. Harry Cleaver agrees. “For Marx, his understanding of working-class autonomy vis-à-vis other classes was spurred by his participation in the revolutions of 1848 and by his studies of the Commune in 1871 and confirmed in his detailed studies of the historical development of capitalism. We find many striking examples of this understanding in Capital, for example, his analysis of worker struggles to shorten the working day.” (Cleaver, Reading Capital Politically, p58)
Here is Marx on the Commune:
“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. “The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.”
The Civil War in France
We know that Marx considered this a model for the dictatorship of the proletariat. And it seems like a type of ad hoc direct democracy, and far less like the disciplined direction of a formal party vanguard that Lenin would have us believe Marx favoured. It seems far more like Gombin’s explanation that:
“in the course of its struggle, the proletariat spontaneously creates the organization it needs. To the leftists, this can only be a non-centralized form like the works committee or the workers' council” (Richard Gombin, Origins of Modern Leftism,
The Origins of Modern Leftism - Richard Gombin ).
Indeed, Cleaver again reminds us that after Lenin, from the Bolshevik point of view, we were supposed to be reading Marx through the filter of Lenin’s interpretations. If we read him at all.
“In the Soviet Union itself, following the defeat of the 1917 revolution, the study of Capital in all forms, political economy or otherwise, was rapidly sterilized. […]
The study of Marx’s works was replaced by the recitation of his major interpreters: Lenin and Stalin. As the Bolshevik party turned from the seizure of state power to the development of the socialist solution to revolution— the planned orchestration of accumulation — it moved to dismantle any independence of the worker soviets and to impose a new discipline of work and maximized production. In this movement the Leninism of centralized party power was emphasized over their Marxist analysis of the nature of exploitation in class society. Marx’s works, especially Capital, were after all an analysis of capitalism and had not capitalism been overthrown in the Soviet Union and later in China? What relevance could Capital have for the development of socialism? Better to focus on the writings of the new architects of socialism. Stalin, for one, explicitly argued that Leninism was the fullest development of Marxism and that the study of Marx’s texts could be dispensed with.” (Cleaver, pp34/35).
So Let’s look at what’s actually said in the Manifesto:
“The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” (
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels )
First, we should note that there is some ambiguity about the term “party” during this era. It did not necessarily mean a particular organisation. He and Engels here may just have meant “communists”. And while it clearly does say the communists are the “most advanced and resolute section of the working-class” and “theoretically advantaged” (and I admit there is the kernel of something troubling there), he clearly goes on to say the aim is conquest of power
by the proletariat.
As Steve Wright puts it, “while groups of revolutionaries should do all they could 'to foster self-initiative and self-action' in the class, spontaneous actions of dissatisfied masses will, in the process of their rebellion, create their own organisations, and that these organisations, arising out of the social conditions, alone can end the present social arrangement” (Steve Wright, (1991), Revolutionary Traditions: Council Communism
Steve Wright: Revolutionary Traditions - Council Communism (1991) ). Compare this to Marx’s description of the Paris Commune. And contrast it with Lenin’s vanguardism.
The aim is not vanguard party leadership (of which there is no mention); not party power as proxy for the class; but workers’ power.
Paul Mattick puts it like this:
“First is the question of the seizure of power by the workers. The principle of the masses (not party or vanguard) retaining power must be emphasized. Communism cannot be introduced or realized by a party. Only the proletariat as a whole can do that. Communism means that the workers have taken their destiny into their own hands; that they have abolished wages; that they have, with the suppression of the bureaucratic apparatus, combined the legislative and executive powers. The unity of the workers lies not in the sacrosanct merger of parties or trade unions, but in the similarity of their needs and in the expression of needs in mass action. All the problems of the workers must therefore be viewed in relation to the developing self-action of the masses.” (Paul Mattick, The Masses & The Vanguard,
The Masses and The Vanguard by Paul Mattick 1938 ).