321

submitted 4 days ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/196

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] kittenzrulz123 5 points 2 days ago

You can have revolution without authority, the true question is should the workers truly own the nation they built or a self appointed "vanguard"? Do the ends truly justify the means? Also we shit on auths because for most of history they felt no need to truly work with us unless they were desperate (and then they proceed to backstab us when they get comfortable).

[-] zeroday 2 points 2 days ago

So, I think the workers should own the nation and that power should be held at the level of workplace unions and community organizations. I see being "the vanguard" of communism as similar to a 1st place designation in Mario Kart - it's a floating title that depends on who's doing the most for the effort and who other people look to. That vanguard shouldn't get any extra privileges, they're workers just like anyone else.

[-] kittenzrulz123 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In my opinion at that point why even have a vanguard when the power can be held exclusively by syndicates (just to clearify though I do respect your position).

[-] zeroday 2 points 1 day ago

Agreed, power should be held by syndicates, ideally with those syndicates/groups/unions/etc working together by sending delegates to a Congress and then abiding by the democratic decisions made by that Congress.

I think deciding who is or isn't the vanguard is something you can only do when you look back at history - you can point at different groups at different times when they were leading the movement, but if you were living through it things might not be clear. It's pointless trying to figure out who the vanguard is right now, instead we should be organizing.