Those can be good! But you really should read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, they have some great works. Funny enough, Mao took a lot of inspiration from Anarchism as well, even though he was still a Marxist-Leninist.
Im not personally a fan of the entire concept, I dont belive a vanguard is necessary and in many cases actively harmful. State socialism is very easily corrupted and imo the state should not own the means of production.
The way I see it, and the way Lenin outlined it, the Vanguard is just the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. It doesn’t need to be formalized to be a vanguard, all revolutionary classes will have a segment that is generally the most advanced, the generally most backwards, and the average between them. The benefit of formalizing the vanguard is that it can be structured and organized democratically, the consequence of not formalizing the vanguard is to ensure unaccountability. A good essay on this concept from the feminist movement is The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
So, the question in my opinion isn’t if the vanguard is necessary, it’s if formalizing it is necessary, and history has shown that formalized Vanguards have resulted in longer lasting success and more efficient work. As for State Socialism, I think this is a difference in goals. Marxists want a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, Anarchists want a fully horizontalized and decentralized network of cells such as cooperatives or communes. The Marxist critique of the Anarchist model is that that doesn’t actually abolish classes, as it turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie interested in the success of their own unit more than the global economy.
I prefer Anarchist figures personally :3
Those can be good! But you really should read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, they have some great works. Funny enough, Mao took a lot of inspiration from Anarchism as well, even though he was still a Marxist-Leninist.
Im a fan of Marx and Engels, less of Lenin and Stalin (especially their views on the Vanguard), and not too big of a Mao fan.
What’s wrong with their views on the vanguard?
Im not personally a fan of the entire concept, I dont belive a vanguard is necessary and in many cases actively harmful. State socialism is very easily corrupted and imo the state should not own the means of production.
The way I see it, and the way Lenin outlined it, the Vanguard is just the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. It doesn’t need to be formalized to be a vanguard, all revolutionary classes will have a segment that is generally the most advanced, the generally most backwards, and the average between them. The benefit of formalizing the vanguard is that it can be structured and organized democratically, the consequence of not formalizing the vanguard is to ensure unaccountability. A good essay on this concept from the feminist movement is The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
So, the question in my opinion isn’t if the vanguard is necessary, it’s if formalizing it is necessary, and history has shown that formalized Vanguards have resulted in longer lasting success and more efficient work. As for State Socialism, I think this is a difference in goals. Marxists want a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, Anarchists want a fully horizontalized and decentralized network of cells such as cooperatives or communes. The Marxist critique of the Anarchist model is that that doesn’t actually abolish classes, as it turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie interested in the success of their own unit more than the global economy.
What are your thoughts on that?