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. This goal and critique precedes Lenin, and originates with Marx and Engels.
Imo the free market will always be more effective than state planning. Also under a syndicalist economy syndicates mostly work with eachother than against eachother. Im personally an Anarcho Syndicalist, I belive that whats good for the syndicates translates into direct benefit for the workers and by extension society as a whole.
The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you’re interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there’s no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.
I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely sympathetic to the theory behind it. What changed my mind was adopting a more Marxian understanding of economics and studying the history of AES structures more intimately. I don’t expect you to change your mind just because I said that, but I do think that it’s worth considering if you think competition and markets are good at all stages of society, or instead have their role in historical production and eventually Public Ownership might make more sense.
Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I’ll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!
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. This goal and critique precedes Lenin, and originates with Marx and Engels.
What are your thoughts on that?
Imo the free market will always be more effective than state planning. Also under a syndicalist economy syndicates mostly work with eachother than against eachother. Im personally an Anarcho Syndicalist, I belive that whats good for the syndicates translates into direct benefit for the workers and by extension society as a whole.
The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you’re interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there’s no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.
I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely sympathetic to the theory behind it. What changed my mind was adopting a more Marxian understanding of economics and studying the history of AES structures more intimately. I don’t expect you to change your mind just because I said that, but I do think that it’s worth considering if you think competition and markets are good at all stages of society, or instead have their role in historical production and eventually Public Ownership might make more sense.
Food for thought.
I will look into your sources, they seem interesting
Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I’ll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!