When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called “the People’s Stick”.
Statism and Anarchy by Mikhail Bakunin
A concern is the vanguard party ruling over the prolitariate thereby exchanging capital ownership from one minority to another.
Engels argued the imbalance of ownership is natural because a mill is subject to the authority of the water to operate. There is a lack of imagination in justifying a ruling minority after the revolution by saying that’s how capitalist technology works.
What good are my electric tools if I am unable to get electricity from the centralized power plant of the vanguard party? I will need to subject myself to the minority and pay rents. How does Lenin’s vanguard party differ from capitalism in terms of ownership? Does it only work if the vanguard party are benevolent towards the prolitariat?
What we are discussing here is not whether Lenin was correct but rather whether he had an accurate interpretation of Marx and Engles. If you want to argue that Marx and Engles were wrong, and that Lenin was wrong because he was following in that tradition, that’s a completely different position from that of the person I replied to, that Marx and Engles were right and that Lenin was wrong because he deviated from that position.
I’m not really interested in getting sidetracked here from this point into this much broader discussion. I’d be happy to discuss it another time, but for now, we’re talking about whether Lenin correctly interpreted Marx’s writings and followed in his tradition or not.
I realize I expanded the scope by bringing Engels’ “On Authority” into the conversation. I want to remain focused on Lenin’s vanguard party as an implementation of the “dictatorship of the prolitariat”. I agree that Lenin’s ideas were informed by the writings of Marx.
Marx’s “dictatorship of the prolitariat” could be implemented as a vanguard party as per Lenin. Lenin’s iteration could be construed as accurate to Marx’s definition.
However, Marx also referred to the Paris Commune as a “dictatorship of the prolitariat” even without a vanguard party. Therefore my qualm, similar to the original comment, is that Lenin’s vanguard party is a method to extract rents from the prolitariat.
I haven’t read much Trotsky. Thank you for the recommendation. I will give it a read. My fault with Lenin has been the mechanism by which the vanguard party relinquishes power to the prolitariat.
Stalin had Trotsky killed for how out spoken he had been on the USSR and its devolution from socialism to deformed communist state.
one of his books FASCISM What It Is and How To Fight It is a great read, it explains the necessity for a party.
you might also be interested in Council Communism, it side steps the vanguard for a more transparent workers’ democracy.
Lenin had contemporary critiques.
A concern is the vanguard party ruling over the prolitariate thereby exchanging capital ownership from one minority to another.
Engels argued the imbalance of ownership is natural because a mill is subject to the authority of the water to operate. There is a lack of imagination in justifying a ruling minority after the revolution by saying that’s how capitalist technology works.
What good are my electric tools if I am unable to get electricity from the centralized power plant of the vanguard party? I will need to subject myself to the minority and pay rents. How does Lenin’s vanguard party differ from capitalism in terms of ownership? Does it only work if the vanguard party are benevolent towards the prolitariat?
Then you agree with me.
What we are discussing here is not whether Lenin was correct but rather whether he had an accurate interpretation of Marx and Engles. If you want to argue that Marx and Engles were wrong, and that Lenin was wrong because he was following in that tradition, that’s a completely different position from that of the person I replied to, that Marx and Engles were right and that Lenin was wrong because he deviated from that position.
I’m not really interested in getting sidetracked here from this point into this much broader discussion. I’d be happy to discuss it another time, but for now, we’re talking about whether Lenin correctly interpreted Marx’s writings and followed in his tradition or not.
I realize I expanded the scope by bringing Engels’ “On Authority” into the conversation. I want to remain focused on Lenin’s vanguard party as an implementation of the “dictatorship of the prolitariat”. I agree that Lenin’s ideas were informed by the writings of Marx.
Marx’s “dictatorship of the prolitariat” could be implemented as a vanguard party as per Lenin. Lenin’s iteration could be construed as accurate to Marx’s definition.
However, Marx also referred to the Paris Commune as a “dictatorship of the prolitariat” even without a vanguard party. Therefore my qualm, similar to the original comment, is that Lenin’s vanguard party is a method to extract rents from the prolitariat.
Trotsky argued for The Permanent Revolution as a counter to the vanguard. Might be interesting to read.
I haven’t read much Trotsky. Thank you for the recommendation. I will give it a read. My fault with Lenin has been the mechanism by which the vanguard party relinquishes power to the prolitariat.
Stalin had Trotsky killed for how out spoken he had been on the USSR and its devolution from socialism to deformed communist state. one of his books FASCISM What It Is and How To Fight It is a great read, it explains the necessity for a party.
you might also be interested in Council Communism, it side steps the vanguard for a more transparent workers’ democracy.