This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vanguardism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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))
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))
In light of some of the recent work by Lars Lih, would it be more appropriate to attribute Lenin's alleged "creation" of vanguardism to Kautsky?
http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm
It must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class-struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party.
Darth Sidious ( talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all vanguard party is a sub-topic of the vanguardism, and a major one. Presently, most of the content of both articles overlap in its spirit, if not in letter, so I see no sense in maintaining two separate articles (Wikipedia is not a dictionary - no need to keep a separate article for each "term" if the contents can be easily merged). Of course as usual Vanguard party should be kept as a redirect to Vanguardism, so existing links will still work. Looking at dictionaries and sources, it seems to me that Vanguardism might be a better name than Vanguard party for the merged article, basing on WP:COMMONNAME policy. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 13:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
The quote that is provided in the article, preceded by the statement "Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx presented the concept of the vanguard party as solely qualified to politically lead the proletariat in revolution; in Chapter II: "Proletarians and Communists" of The Communist Manifesto (1848), they said...", while entirely relevant, is actually a quote saying that a vanguard party is not the role of a communist party, but rather they must help the masses to come into revolution themselves: A vanguard party's goal is not the "formation of the proletariat into a class", or "conquest of political power by the proletariat". As I believe someone has already written in the talk page, Lenin was the first person to come up with the idea of a vanguard party, Marx and Engels were against any such ideas. 58.6.244.131 ( talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
A joke set at a Komosol course:
Does anybody know of a citation for this joke? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ The Blue Rider, I read the Template:Page needed and it seems like it fits. What is your issue with me using the page needed template, but also, why won't you just add a page number if it is easy to localize for you? It's not easy to localize for me and I'm unable to find the content you're referring to. You added the frankfurt school to the lede without citations on December 25th, 2023 which was reverted on December 27th, 2023 which you quickly reverted, again without providing a citation. I removed the uncited content which you reverted and then added the current source, which is 744 pages and in portuguese. It seems apparent that your claim is controversial and requesting a page number while leaving the edit up is a reasonable request. Please respond to this and I will happily self-revert. There is no mention of vanguardism or lumpenproletariat on the frankfurt school page so this information could be useful if others are able to read it as well. Thanks. Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 23:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vanguardism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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))
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))
In light of some of the recent work by Lars Lih, would it be more appropriate to attribute Lenin's alleged "creation" of vanguardism to Kautsky?
http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm
It must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class-struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party.
Darth Sidious ( talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all vanguard party is a sub-topic of the vanguardism, and a major one. Presently, most of the content of both articles overlap in its spirit, if not in letter, so I see no sense in maintaining two separate articles (Wikipedia is not a dictionary - no need to keep a separate article for each "term" if the contents can be easily merged). Of course as usual Vanguard party should be kept as a redirect to Vanguardism, so existing links will still work. Looking at dictionaries and sources, it seems to me that Vanguardism might be a better name than Vanguard party for the merged article, basing on WP:COMMONNAME policy. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 13:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
The quote that is provided in the article, preceded by the statement "Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx presented the concept of the vanguard party as solely qualified to politically lead the proletariat in revolution; in Chapter II: "Proletarians and Communists" of The Communist Manifesto (1848), they said...", while entirely relevant, is actually a quote saying that a vanguard party is not the role of a communist party, but rather they must help the masses to come into revolution themselves: A vanguard party's goal is not the "formation of the proletariat into a class", or "conquest of political power by the proletariat". As I believe someone has already written in the talk page, Lenin was the first person to come up with the idea of a vanguard party, Marx and Engels were against any such ideas. 58.6.244.131 ( talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
A joke set at a Komosol course:
Does anybody know of a citation for this joke? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ The Blue Rider, I read the Template:Page needed and it seems like it fits. What is your issue with me using the page needed template, but also, why won't you just add a page number if it is easy to localize for you? It's not easy to localize for me and I'm unable to find the content you're referring to. You added the frankfurt school to the lede without citations on December 25th, 2023 which was reverted on December 27th, 2023 which you quickly reverted, again without providing a citation. I removed the uncited content which you reverted and then added the current source, which is 744 pages and in portuguese. It seems apparent that your claim is controversial and requesting a page number while leaving the edit up is a reasonable request. Please respond to this and I will happily self-revert. There is no mention of vanguardism or lumpenproletariat on the frankfurt school page so this information could be useful if others are able to read it as well. Thanks. Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 23:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)