The vanguard is the proletariat, just the organized section of it. They do not constitute their own class, they come from the proletariat and have the same relations to ownership of the Means of Production. The vanguard is not to “relinquish power,” but instead raise up the level of political education of the rest of the proletariat to their level.
The vanguard is not to “relinquish power,” but instead raise up the level of political education of the rest of the proletariat to their level.
They will never lmao, that would be the same as giving up power. Power is subjective. The vanguard may not de jure “own the means of production”, but they de facto “own the right to tell everyone what they’re allowed to do”, which can be worse. Once everyone has the same amount of power, nobody has power over anyone else.
And yet in every socialist country, literacy rates and education was made a top priority. Using the USSR as an example, literacy rates jumped from 20-30% all the way to 99.9% in around a decade, and education was made free, with professors and teachers seen as incredibly valuable members of society. This pattern has been followed in every socialist country. The truth of the matter is that it’s very difficult to educate people, it’s a complex matter that requires nuanced decisions on how we teach, what we teach, and more.
Further, “power” is not subjective. There is no supernatural force called “power,” what exists is what is material. Administration and management of production and human labor is socially necessary for large-scale mass production, the type that is necessary for communism to begin with. To dogmatically oppose any and all hierarchical organization does not actually help the working classes in breaking their chains, so to speak, but instead holds them back.
Managers are objectively not an elevated class, assuming they have the same relations to ownership of the means of production, in Marxist analysis. You don’t need to read Capital for this, Marx’s Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy makes Marx’s position explicit:
Marx responding to Bakunin
Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government?
In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin’s constitution, will all ‘from bottom to top’ be ‘at the top’? Then there will certainly be no one ‘at the bottom.’ Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory.
The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.
The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.
If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.
Then there will be no government and no state, but if there is a state, there will be both governors and slaves.
i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense.
This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists’ theory. By people’s government they understand (i.e. Bakunin) the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people.
Asine! This is democratic twaddle, political drivel. Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character.
The universal suffrage of the whole people…
Such a thing as the whole people in today’s sense is a chimera…
…in the election of people’s representatives and rulers of the state — that is the last word of the Marxists, as also of the democratic school — [is] a lie, behind which is concealed the despotism of the governing minority, and only the more dangerously in so far as it appears as expression of the so-called people’s will.
With collective ownership the so-called people’s will vanishes, to make way for the real will of the cooperative.
So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists…
Where?
…will consist of workers. Certainly, with your permission, of former workers, who however, as soon as they have become representatives or governors of the people, cease to be workers…
As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor…
…and look down on the whole common workers’ world from the height of the state. They will no longer represent the people, but themselves and their pretensions to people’s government. Anyone who can doubt this knows nothing of the nature of men.
If Mr. Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers’ cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers’ state, if he wants to call it that.
Power and hierarchy is not class. Class is a specific relation to ownership of the means of production. Principals and teachers are both proletarian, yet the principal’s job responsibility is in managing teachers, while the teacher’s job is to educate. Administrative labor is socially necessary and compensated in wages, not via ownership and entitlement to the profits of accumulation and exploitation.
Your condescension is undue. You are free to take issue with administration and managerial labor, but to conflate those with class is a horrendous misreading of class dynamics and muddies the water when discussing Marxism and anarchism.
So then we were also talking about Marxism. Even if you were doing so from an anarchist perspective, for any Marxist reading your comment it comes across as absurd. Marxists have never claimed to be getting rid of any and all hierarchies, and to judge Marxism by its ability to do so is like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.
Even if you were doing so from an anarchist perspective, for any Marxist reading your comment it comes across as absurd. Marxists have never claimed to be getting rid of any and all hierarchies, and to judge Marxism by its ability to do so is like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.
I direct you back to my previous statement:
question whether what you’re reading is absurd in context. If it is, it’s possible it’s sarcasm.
The vanguard is the proletariat, just the organized section of it. They do not constitute their own class, they come from the proletariat and have the same relations to ownership of the Means of Production. The vanguard is not to “relinquish power,” but instead raise up the level of political education of the rest of the proletariat to their level.
They will never lmao, that would be the same as giving up power. Power is subjective. The vanguard may not de jure “own the means of production”, but they de facto “own the right to tell everyone what they’re allowed to do”, which can be worse. Once everyone has the same amount of power, nobody has power over anyone else.
And yet in every socialist country, literacy rates and education was made a top priority. Using the USSR as an example, literacy rates jumped from 20-30% all the way to 99.9% in around a decade, and education was made free, with professors and teachers seen as incredibly valuable members of society. This pattern has been followed in every socialist country. The truth of the matter is that it’s very difficult to educate people, it’s a complex matter that requires nuanced decisions on how we teach, what we teach, and more.
Further, “power” is not subjective. There is no supernatural force called “power,” what exists is what is material. Administration and management of production and human labor is socially necessary for large-scale mass production, the type that is necessary for communism to begin with. To dogmatically oppose any and all hierarchical organization does not actually help the working classes in breaking their chains, so to speak, but instead holds them back.
Thats objectively an elevated class imbued with power over others.
I know it’s hard but you really gotta question whether what you’re reading is absurd in context. If it is, it’s possible it’s sarcasm.
Managers are objectively not an elevated class, assuming they have the same relations to ownership of the means of production, in Marxist analysis. You don’t need to read Capital for this, Marx’s Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy makes Marx’s position explicit:
Marx responding to Bakunin
Power and hierarchy is not class. Class is a specific relation to ownership of the means of production. Principals and teachers are both proletarian, yet the principal’s job responsibility is in managing teachers, while the teacher’s job is to educate. Administrative labor is socially necessary and compensated in wages, not via ownership and entitlement to the profits of accumulation and exploitation.
Your condescension is undue. You are free to take issue with administration and managerial labor, but to conflate those with class is a horrendous misreading of class dynamics and muddies the water when discussing Marxism and anarchism.
I’m not discussing Marxism.
You were attacking the idea of a vanguard as has been utilized in Marxist-led revolutions.
Yes.
So then we were also talking about Marxism. Even if you were doing so from an anarchist perspective, for any Marxist reading your comment it comes across as absurd. Marxists have never claimed to be getting rid of any and all hierarchies, and to judge Marxism by its ability to do so is like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.
No I’m not discussing that.
I direct you back to my previous statement:
It’s feeling less undue with each reply 🙃