LO All,>>Consequently it would seem that Lenin's vanguardist elitism was a necessary tool.But the theory of the vanguard is predicated on Lenin's (false) assumption of an inherently revolutionary working class - i.e. that if the working class is objectively revolutionary, then the actions of the vanguard on their behalf - whether they consciously want it or not - is the fulfillment of their historical role.Strangely, this is also the argument used by many rapists.
This wasn't just Lenin's assumption. It was Marx's and Engels's
too. The same way as the bourgeoisie was inherently revolutionary in
relation to feudalism. The historical role of the bourgeoisie was to
emancipate itself from the chains of feudal property relations. Which
it did.
Now it's the turn of the working class.
The bourgeoisie took centuries. We'll do it faster -- and we'll
damn well have to to prevent the bourgeoisie from destroying our
world.
The rapist comparison is stupid. If any social force can be
compared to a rapist today it's the imperialist bourgeoisie. The
violence of the working class should be aimed at dispossessing this
bourgeoisie, ie at stopping its depradations. This is pure
self-defence and what the feminist movement (or the more militant
wings of it) have been advocating for women for a long time. The role
of the working class is that of women in general compared to militant
feminists in this particular comparison. And who would argue against
the mass of women being empowered to defend themselves against the
gender enemy?
Cheers,
Hugh
PS It's enough to speak of Lenin's vanguardism. Elitism has
nothing to do with it.
