Talk:Vanguardism

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 is all wrong, and is not at all what Lenin said. The vanguard party is supposed to train workers to think and act at the level of revolutionaries. It's not supposed to act as some sort of dictatorship, its there to built the foundations of the revolution. (Demigod Ron 03:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix it. Anyone can edit, you know. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In What is To be Done Lenin cites Kautsky and the German Social Democratic Party extensively.  However, vanguardism has been seized on by critics as being the theoretical basis for the ills of Communism.  Because of this, it is portrayed as a uniquely Leninist idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely Inaccurate 

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.  

message: A joke set at a Komosol course:
:Teacher: Comrades, what is the definition of an automobile?
:Students (unison): A four-wheeled motorized vehicle driven by the entire working-class through its Vanguard Party.
Does anybody know of a citation for this joke? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it written on a piece of toilet paper once, but I don't know where that piece of toilet paper is now.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR Joke 

message: By all rights, this whole article should be deleted and redone from scratch. I did my best to redo the introduction and the "foundations" section, but it will be hard work to eliminate the liberal bias from it completely. Funny how everyone who's NOT a Leninist loves to thump "What is to be done?" as if it were the Bible in order to discredit Lenin and his organizational model, when it was written before both the 1905 AND the 1917 Russian Revolutions. Learned experience counts for something, and Lenin's views did change change over time. Besides, "What is to be done?" was never meant to be used as a universal template for party-building. Lenin intended it to be understood in the context of 1902 Russia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veovis523 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, What is to be Done does not use the term "vanguard" and refers to the German Social Democrats as a model party.  It is not extreme in its view of party organisation at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reeks of liberalism 

message: Communist history is a difficult subject, especially for beginners.  I would suggest placing the related contemporary applications of Marxism-Leninism in its own section near the end, separate from the history, which need only give a simple chronological description of how Vanguardism emerged from the International, naming major players and publications.  If Lenin didn't use the term Vanguardism in his pamphlet, just note that fact without comment.  Readers requiring extensive detail or concerned about philosophical controversies in the historiography can go to comprehensive sources elsewhere, and they know that.  Concision is easiest and best when there is uncertainty about how to proceed.-Jessegalebaker (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The structure certainly needs improvement, but as most of the material deals with Lenin, I'm not sure that chronology would be very helpful.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A chronological approach would improve the article 

message: The current use section has no citations whatsoever, and the section's only purpose that I can see is to claim that vanguardism is a feature anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism without any evidence. If it can't be cited then it should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.247.151 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been tagged "citation needed" since 2009, so I think removal would be justified.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current use 

message: The "Other use" section is very weakly sourced. The kibbutz citation is only a passing reference to term "vanguard". It's as if someone has searched Google Books for the word. The Islamic references don't seem to contain any mention of "vanguard" at all. I think this section should cite thorough analyses of vanguardism in other contexts, not passing references, and we certainly need sources that explicitly refer to the concept.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other use 

message: I think a lot of the similar topics are only superficial and the connection might be best removed or analyzed more. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar topics 

message: Formally: In the subheading "Marxism-Leninism", the first sentence is overly long.
Informally: I started thinking about other shit halfway through reading it. Nitr0smash (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial comment (apolitical)