I think that the whole issue of whether or not we need vanguards boils down
to how those vanguards act.
Early on (1905?), old Leon T. launched a critique of Lenin for being
"substitutionist." (See, e.g., Deutscher, THE PROPHET ARMED.) The critique
was very abstract (and self-described Trotskyist
> There is only one place in Lenin's writings where he specifically describes
> what a "vanguard" means. It is the section "The Working Class as Vanguard
> Fighter for Democracy" in "What is To Be Done". The notion of a vanguard
> emerges out of Lenin's struggle with the "Economists", *not* the
>
Michael Hoover:
>Volume 13 of Lenin's *Collected Works* (in English, Moscow: Foreign
>Languages Publishing House) includes a piece entitled "Preface to the
>Collection 'Twelve Years'" written in 1907 in which L warns against
>taking *What is To Be Done* out of context...he maintains that it was
>
At 03:53 PM 12/31/97 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
>I think that the whole issue of whether or not we need vanguards boils down
>to how those vanguards act.
>
>Early on (1905?), old Leon T. launched a critique of Lenin for being
>"substitutionist." (See, e.g., Deutscher, THE PROPHET ARMED.) The critiq
Jim Devine:
>Early on (1905?), old Leon T. launched a critique of Lenin for being
>"substitutionist." (See, e.g., Deutscher, THE PROPHET ARMED.) The critique
>was very abstract (and self-described Trotskyists have ignored it), but it's
>relevant. The problem of a vanguard arises when it starts sub
