Correct me if I’m wrong. The vanguard party theory states that evidently, not every single proletarian will have class consciousness at the point of the revolution, therefore the class-conscious proletarians should lead it, no matter if it’s a relatively small group, right?
There are so many radlibs despite worsening material conditions that sometimes I wonder if these people will ever be able to gain class consciousness. As far as I understand, the whole point of a vanguard party is that we can do without these people on our side, right?
From what I’ve heard from older party members here (P de los C and original PCM), they operate under the idea that a vanguard doesn’t need to be a specific size. Their strength instead comes from their capacity to educate, organize, and lead the masses that have recognized them as capable of doing so. Larger numbers of cadres are, of course, preferable to smaller (ideological and organizational coherence being equal), but increasing numbers also increases the likelihood of crackdowns by the state terror apparatus.
In this sense, it doesn’t matter if your party only has a couple hundred members if your work is sufficiently well known and trusted that you can mobilize thousands if not millions through connections with syndicates, popular organizations, etc. A vanguard party that says they have no need for the masses is no vanguard at all.
And don’t worry about winning over radlibs if, as you say, they’re that far from class consciousness. That just means the squeeze hasn’t happened to them yet.
Furthermore, I consider that America must be destroyed.
Great to see an answer from a fellow Mexican comrade specifically! It’s a lot more clear to me now. Thanks :)
As far as I understand, the whole point of a vanguard party is that we can do without these people on our side, right?
Not quite, I would say. I recently read one of the PSL’s publications, Revolutionary Education: Theory and Practice for Socialist organizers (very good book!), and it talks about how the Vanguard is like a spear head.
On it’s own, a spearhead isn’t very impactful. The handle and the butt of the spear are very important parts of what make a spear useful! The handle and butt in this scenario would be the mass support that we as socialists have to try and get from the masses.
It’s not enough that we have small knit groups where we all have good politics. That alone just makes us a book club, really. To seize power you need mass support. I don’t think there’s a specific number on how large/ small it needs to be, but I would imagine the larger the better. Of course, you do need to ensure ideological and moral firmness in your recruits!
deleted by creator
I believe it is in “Foundations of Leninism” where Stalin speaks about tactics to be used by a party. He talks a lot about timing. One must know when to retreat and when to strike. If your party must leave a country, if it is what is truly necessary, then you should. It would obviously be more preferable for the party to be directly on the ground, but sometimes this isn’t possible, and more indirect means must be used.
TL;DR if the material conditions requires it, then yes, excellent tactics are of great importance, and that includes knowing how to strike
