Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Grace OP wrote

If the Vanguard party does it's job in defending socialism, there is nothign to be worried about. If the Vanguard party fails, then the people have a duty to rise up. When Evo Morales was in power for example, he definitely gave indigenous rights. Sex worker exclusion is disappointing but not surprising. If Socialism comes to the west, we must do everything we can to shape it to an acceptable form.

3

train wrote

But what socialism means to one person is different from another. What a vanguard party defends can never truly represent the conflicting desires, tendencies, and needs of a diverse populace. This is especially true when you recognize that the party line as prescribed to party members, not even the populace at large, is determined by majority rule.

Furthermore, Evo and the MAS party are far from what Lenin might consider a vanguard, particularly when it comes to their lack of democratic centralism. MAS achievements have also come by participating sincerely in liberal democracy. Additionally, their respect for indigenous persons and their political success is a result of their dependency on a marginalized indigenous populous that constitutes a majority of the Bolivian electorate.

So to me MAS is not a great example to use if you want to show that Vanguard parties can truly be representative. Lastly, if a vanguard becomes reactionary and the only remedy is armed insurection, that seems to me like a bloody waste of the potential that comes from abolishing a capitalist state.

5

Grace OP wrote

Socialism is a simple thing to define. When the workers control the means of production. Chinese socialism is the same. Marxism evolves, like every other ideology. We will see 'American' socialism even, eventually.

2

train wrote

There are a lot of assumptions built into any socialist ideology though. Like in order to consider the CCP as a socialist party you would have to assume that they are a true proxy for the will of the working class. Otherwise the working class would not effectively control the means of production. This is a point of debate amount socialists and so my point remains. Socialism does mean different things to different people.

5