Welcome to Gaia! ::

I had a long weekend (Reggae festival and now I'm a bit sick) so sorry if some of this is incoherent. Anyway, yeah I think for the most part we're in agreement (and yes, you can call me comrade or anything that you like really, I don't care much). On the subject of revolution there are many theories, from Permanent revolution to isolationism. In terms of Che he didn't go to another country to start a revolution, he went to join it and to lend a hand in waging it. I think it's absolutly wrong for outsiders to enter other countries in order to start a revolution, but fighting in it and giving advise to the leaders and such I think is good as it not only helps the revolution but keeps it national and without foreign direction or leadership. Of course, we all know how well it worked out with Che...

I think that it's important to have a cause, and to have a vanguard built off of alliances of many organizations with similar intrests. For instance, in the need for revolution many groups organize together in a network that works as one, larger and more powerful group. I also think that the most important thing to do immidiatly after a revolution is hold elections from multiple parties in order to keep the revolutionary group from becoming all powerful. On the "commies and nazis" quote I've gotta say that I really hate being grouped together with fascists of any degree, it's done enough by the media, I see no reason why anarchists should do it. In fact, the same could just as well be said of anarchist groups, although sometimes groups will use you, generally well intentioned organizations will not.

Yeah, it is risky, but there has to be organization, and organization is best directed out of a united front and a united organization, although I already said my ideas on what a vanguard should be as opposed to the often used interpretation of it.

I think hierarchy should be destroyed as completly and as effectivly as possible. To me I believe that that means giving everyone equality (not complete but staggered, if you don't work and can work then you don't get any more money then you need for instance). Proudhon said this on the matter-
"Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak."
In the case of the white Russians they were not supported internally, by the people I mean, so their only support was from capitalist nations and the formerly bourgeoisie minority. Unpopular revolutions are wrong, because when a revolution does not have the people's favor then its goal ceases to be just. Basically what I'm saying is that a revolution is not inherantly a good thing, a good example would be the revolutionary movement that killed Allende in Chile. Counter revolutions and right wing revolutions get foreign aid from nations that want to see the old order continue. The same can be seen in what JFK kept trying to do to Cuba. I think that hierarchy can be taken away by the removal of classes and the application of near complete democracy, especially in the workplace as was done in Argentina's worker run factories.

I'm afraid I'm not quite content to leave that vanguard topic alone.
Firstly, is there another thread where this discussion could be moved to? I don't want to clutter up the publication topic in here.
Secondly, how do you define a "Vanguard", because I believe part of the disagreement I still have there stems from a different understanding and definition of the term.