Talk:Vanguard party

message: Historically speaking, I guess it depends on WHICH Leninist party assumes power.  Contrary to popular belief, the original Bolsheviks banned only the Black Hundred immediately after the revolution (even the liberal Cadets weren't out of the picture).  During the civil war, various parties were banned from and reinstated into the political process, depending on their stance towards small-s soviet power (the councils, not the latter "Soviet power" associated with the Soviet state). [forgot to put my signature] Darth Sidious 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: Is it just me, or is this article largely clueless and fundamentally flawed? It's not completely so -- only mostly so. And therefore a travesty of an encyclopedia article. In other words: this article needs expert attention immediately!
But since I'm tied up with revolutionary matters -- and not the expert I'd like to be on these important, involved details of broad theory -- I ain't gonna get into what isn't what, here, now. Just consider that someone has questioned the competency of the author(s).
I give this article a D+ for theory. B for effort (it's too short, for one thing).
Pazouzou 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two specific points: 1) Is it right to have "grassroots organization" in the header? A vanguard party is by definition a party, which is by definition not a grassroots org? (And a vanguard is by definition not a mass organization). 2) Shouldn't it mention some of the people who shaped Lenin's views on this matter, specifically Karl Kautsky and George Plekhanov? BobFromBrockley 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No answers. I'm acting on (1) and will get around to (2). BobFromBrockley 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's largely clueless.  In particular, this: "Lenin's ideas about the proletarian revolutionary party differed from the ideas of Marx. According to Marx, the working class, merely by following its own instincts [citation needed], would gain rational insight into its plight as the downtrodden product of capitalism.  This strikes me as incredibly oversimplified and really quite biased against Leninism.  I edited in the phrase "[citation needed]" manually, because I can't figure out how to add an official citation needed notice, sorry.  But really, the claim that Marx believed in a spontaneous simultaneous uprising of the workers is more than a bit silly, and the fact is that mass Marxist parties existed in pretty much every country of Europe in 1917, not just in Russia, so clearly the vanguard party idea cannot be either solely the invention of Lenin or entirely counter to Marx.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.36.154 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Superficial article -- fix this damned thing!''' 

message: The article covers the subject with minimal detail. Now it's accurate after I added bits that show that the purpose of the party is not to wrest control, but to educate the workers. Before the article had indeed been bourgeois propaganda. Nonetheless it still needs work. Someone should read What is to be done? a few dozen times then start editing! Become one with the book, and you're a qualified expert on vanguard parties... (Demigod Ron 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts needed 

message: This article talks about the origin of the concept (which is rather vague), but not about the origin of the term.
Lenin did not use the term "vanguard party" in What Is To Be Done and going by the Marxists Archive (www.marxists.org) used it very rarely elsewhere.  In What Is To Be Done his model party is the German Social Democrats.
So who first used the term?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Term 

message: Dear West Viginia Editor No. 184.9.175.144:
Please, do not vandalize the article (" ’cause I say so”). Your argument is specious solely because the term “vanguard party” does not feature in Marx's text; the Communist mention is the starting point whence Lenin proceeded. After all, if what you anonymously claim is true, surely, you can substantiate and demonstrate your point. C'mon, abide the Wikipedia rules, and prove your point with facts and a citation.
Regards,
Mhazard9 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantiate your claim . . . please.