this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
41 points (100.0% liked)
chat
8215 readers
427 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both are true
Everybody thinks they're the vanguard, nobody thinks they're the proletariat. We need a whole hell of a lot more of one than the other.
The vanguard is the proletariat. They're not separate from the masses, but rather the most politically advanced and organized section of it
The first among equals as it were. Let's put it this way, artists and ditch diggers are equally important in a socialist society but for some reason everyone wants to be artists.
Wow its literally like Animal Farm 1984
What are you talking about, man? You seem to be thinking that a vanguard party is a bunch of pointy head intellectuals pushing up their glasses. It's just the people who are politically aware and actively engaging in organized class struggle. Do you think a ditch digger cannot join or would not be welcomed into a vanguard party?
Read some Mao and free your mind from anticommunist State Department talking points
I'm 100% in favor of vanguardism but ideology doesn't cloud my perception of what it is. My original sentiment was that not everybody is the leader of the revolution, not even most people, not even many people, but everybody is still a revolutionary.
When left libertarians argue that communism is authoritarian do you argue that it's not and that it's actually democratic and blah blah blah or do you say yes, authority is required to maintain a socialist state in the face of reaction? All the guys whose names get letters tagged onto Marxism got that, and all the guys that nobody's heard of who thought differently got killed or subverted.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Outside the context of an actual mass movement for a revolution, this isn't the case. Most people are not revolutionaries, and if they were they'd likely be in the vanguard.
I certainly don't adopt their childish notions of "authoritarianism," a term popularized by the CIA to conflate communist and fascist governments. I don't say "uhh actually authoritarianism is based
"
Socialist states are definitionally more democratic than a bourgeois state because the government represents the interests of the proletariat rather than the tiny fraction of the ownership class. Democracy is not bad or unsocialist. Bourgeois democracy is bad because it is not, in fact, democratic. Authority can be effectively wielded to crush reaction by the democratic, socialist state. The USSR was democratic. Cuba is democratic. China is democratic.
The political compass is not theory.
It's an extremely prominent and recognizable strain of left wing thought.