Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SPGB

Gravediggers said:
It does, in a literal sense, but its application in a meaningful sense depends on what is the object of the vanguard.

If for example a group have an idea, notion, opinion or theory that they think needs the attention of the wider community, e.g. the possibility of climate change being caused by an increase in human activity. To support their theory they would accumulate evidence to that effect on the assumption the wider community would recognise the dangers for not cutting back on their activity by force of argument and weight of evidence and come to accept that something needs to be done. This is a minority 'vanguard idea' leading others to a con sensus view which reflects a majority opinion. This is perfectly acceptable behaviour and depends on the argument being approved through voluntary agreement and goes on all the time.

If on the other hand, for example a group seek to impose their idea, notion, opinion or theory through the use of lies, deceit, manipulation or dictatorship this is unacceptable behaviour and vanguardist.

Make your own mind up on which group the SPGB adhere to.
Click to expand...

Vanguardism is a Leninist praxis. As the military connotations of the word suggests, one group is organised to lead, and their activity is leading 'in the battle'. Ideologically as well as organisationally the SPGB is more or less anarchist. The latter is what is decisive when considering whether they are a 'vanguard'. So what's being criticised is mere elitism at worst.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10682772&postcount=798

ie? The IWCA of which Butch Louis etc are 'supporters'?
Click to expand...

Resistance

I looked at the link above which I reproduce below

Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
The reason why Gravediggers and others are getting upset by being called "vanguardists" is that they and you are using different definitions of the term "vanguard party". On your definition any propagandist or educational group or any group that wanted to convince others of their point of view would be a "vanguard party". In fact insofar as you want to convince anybody you would be a one-person vanguard party,

But this is not the sense in which the term has been used in leftwing political circles. Here it goes back to Lenin who introduced the idea into the working class movement. He held that, because workers left to themselves were not capable of developing a socialist consciousness (ie working out socialism for themselves) but only of developing a "trade-unionist" consciousness, they needed to be led to socialism by an enlightened minority, an intellectual elite organised as a centralised and highly disciplined party.

All Leninist and Trotskyist groups are organised on this top-down basis and all set out to lead the working class. For instance, see this from a Trotskyist vanguard party group:


No wonder people get upset when such elitist views are attributed to them!

I think Jean-Luc is essentially correct though I would quibble with his suggestion that Lenin argued (in What is to be Done), in support of Kautsky, that workers could not become socialists by themselves and that socialist consciousness had to be brought to them from outside by "bourgeois intellectuals" like Marx - a fairly common misunderstanding. Lenin qualified this remark in a footnote in WITBD as follows

This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge

Curiously, and not a little confusingly (Lenin was a very confused and sloppy thinker at times!) he also maintained that the working class "spontaneously gravitates towards socialism" but "bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree". Why that "bourgeois ideology" would not impose itself even more forcefully on the "bourgeois intellectuals" as one might expect from their presumably more vulnerable position of being "bourgeois" themselves. Lenin omitted to say. Afterall did not Lenin's materialism (a rather crude and mechanical version of materialism IMO) lead him to argue that consciousness is the product of material circumstances. If so , how did bourgeois intellectauls come to be the fountainhead of ideas that radically challenged the very bourgeois basis of society?

But all that is by the by. This thing about vanguardism really needs to be clarified once and for all. One of the most useful definitions of vanguardism Ive come across is from Keith Graham's The Battle of Democracy: Conflict, Consensus and the Individual, (Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton, 1986, p.207). Graham argues that Vangardism is the doctrine "that a given group's emancipation depends cruciallly on some other, much smaller group's leadership, guidance or domination in some stronger form". In political terms this entails the smaller group capturing political power on behalf the larger group ostensibly with the aim of emancipating the latter.

By that yardstick, Leninism clearly falls into the category of a vanguard theory of political action. I earlier supplied several quotes from the man himself supporting this interpretation. The SPGB on the other hand cannot possibly be accused of espousing vanguardism as defined in this way since it makes it abundantly clearly that it is not interested in capuring power on behalf of the working class but sees itself as a simply a tool through which workers emancipate themseves in a socialist revolution and only then when they are a socialist majority.

I cannot think of any other useful way in which one could be called vanguardist. Propagating a set of ideas which one believes to be more sound than others is hardly grounds for calling someone a vanguardist as Jean Luc points out. If that were the case then every single person on the planet could be considered a "vanguardist" since as far as I know no one sincerely holds an idea that they believe to be unsound and unjustifable. Their holding the idea in itself is ipso facto proof that they believe it to be sound and superior to ideas that appear to contradict it.

Given that, to argue that simply by promoting a set of ideas that one believes to be superior to some other set of ideas is "vanguardist" is frankly absurd. If this is something everyone does as a matter of course then such a definition of vanguardism is utterly trite and meaningless. If the only colour we could see was red, then red as a concept would be meaningless. Its meaningfulness derives from contrasting it with other colours. Ditto with vanguardism
 
robbo203 said:
,snip.

Given that, to argue that simply by promoting a set of ideas that one believes to be superior to some other set of ideas is "vanguardist" is frankly absurd. If this is something everyone does as a matter of course then such a definition of vanguardism is utterly trite and meaningless. If the only colour we could see was red, then red as a concept would be meaningless. Its meaningfulness derives from contrasting it with other colours. Ditto with vanguardism
Click to expand...

It's a joke really isn't it - you're not serious about your politics at all. If you were you wouldn't dare argue that what constitutes vanguardism is all outside of the the SPGB and vice versa - therefore the SPGB is not VG by definition. Kiddy stuff.

But you're not serious. You're interested in dogma.
 
By that yardstick, Leninism clearly falls into the category of a vanguard theory of political action.
Click to expand...

So there's more to vanguardism than just leninism -at fucking last. Unluckily for you that then is the last nail in your coffin.

But you've nailed yourself shut already haven't you?
 
butchersapron said:
It's a joke really isn't it - you're not serious about your politics at all. If you were you wouldn't dare argue that what constitutes vanguardism is all outside of the the SPGB and vice versa - therefore the SPGB is not VG by definition. Kiddy stuff.

But you're not serious. You're interested in dogma.
Click to expand...


You know, try as I might I cannot work out what the fuck you are talking about. Cut out the snidey comments. If you are interested in a serious discussion define what you mean by vanguardism and we can go from there. OK?
 
I've told you, over and over. That's the whole basis of your rejection of my claim - that i'm on about a different sort of vanguardism.

Please, grow up.
 
robbo203 said:
Resistance

Given that, to argue that simply by promoting a set of ideas that one believes to be superior to some other set of ideas is "vanguardist" is frankly absurd. If this is something everyone does as a matter of course then such a definition of vanguardism is utterly trite and meaningless. If the only colour we could see was red, then red as a concept would be meaningless. Its meaningfulness derives from contrasting it with other colours. Ditto with vanguardism
Click to expand...
Absurd, but this does seem to be butchers position.

" On your definition any propagandist or educational group or any group that wanted to convince others of their point of view would be a "vanguard party". In fact insofar as you want to convince anybody you would be a one-person "vanguard party"." Originally Posted by Jean-Luc


As soon as you mention "contradictory levels of consciousness", up goes the cry "Vanguard". And yet at the same time they do themselves seem to accept the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10709371&postcount=1226

There seems to be at point blank refusal to discuss, such anomalies, and their views in any depth, whilst nitpicking anything they disagree with. For example, do a search for threads with anarchism in the title and you'll see non-anywhere as near as long as this one. Which to me gives the appearance of people who are very reticent to discuss what they stand for. Strange, for people with so robust opinions.
 
butchersapron said:
I've told you, over and over. That's the whole basis of your rejection of my claim - that i'm on about a different sort of vanguardism.

Please, grow up.
Click to expand...

Yes and Ive asked you before for a concise definition of this "different sort of vanguardism" not some vague assertion. Unless Ive missed something, you have not obliged.

BTW please try to be a little more temperate. You are not doing yourself any favours with your impulsive insults. They are getting terribly boring
 
robbo203 said:
Yes and Ive asked you before for a concise definition of this "different sort of vanguardism" not some vague assertion. Unless Ive missed something, you have not obliged.

BTW please try to be a little more temperate. You are not doing yourself any favours with your impulsive insults. They are getting terribly boring
Click to expand...

You've had a definition, you've attempted to respond to it. Don't play dead.
 
robbo203 said:
Yes and Ive asked you before for a concise definition of this "different sort of vanguardism" not some vague assertion. Unless Ive missed something, you have not obliged.

BTW please try to be a little more temperate. You are not doing yourself any favours with your impulsive insults. They are getting terribly boring
Click to expand...
watch it. As soon as you start asking him questions, about what he stands for, he will flounce.
 
Any of the ones in which you done battle with the beast of my understanding of what vgism is. - what were you fighting otherwise? Or the many posts in which I outline what vgism and why the spgb is a classic example of it. If you mean tie it up and put a pretty little bow around it so that you can then squawk reforism, then no.
 
butchersapron said:
Any of the ones in which you done battle with the beast of my understanding of what vgism is. - what were you fighting otherwise? Or the many posts in which I outline what vgism and why the spgb is a classic example of it. If you mean tie it up and put a pretty little bow around it so that you can then squawk reforism, then no.
Click to expand...

So what it then Butchers? A brief definition would suffice. Then we can look at your argument. I have no idea what you mean by "vanguardism" from your past contributions becuase you really havent made this clear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Newcastle SPGB meeting this Saturday, 22nd May
Replies
9
Views
689
whichfinder
W
W
Glasgow SPGB meeting next Wednesday, 19th May
Replies
0
Views
397
whichfinder
W
W
Norwich SPGB meeting this Saturday, 15th May
Replies
0
Views
386
whichfinder
W
kenny g
Fun, games and bun fights at the SPGB Clapham HQ
Replies
1
Views
376
charlie mowbray
C
kenny g
Fun, games and bun fights at the SPGB Clapham HQ
Replies
24
Views
1K
butchersapron
B
Back
Top Bottom