In a message dated 07/18/2000 1:21:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

what?  where did "self-proclaimed come" from?  (don't you ever tire of
changing and/or qualifying the arguments of others?  doesn't such dishonesty
resonate with you?)  are you suggesting that there haven't been political,
economic, literary, & historical vanguards that have been exactly that?  &
no, no no no no no no no no no no, all vanguards are not self proclaimed --
indeed, some are not even recognized as having been vanguards until much
later.  & vanguards, as the events in Tianiman Square show, don't always
succeed.  good lord, it's a wonder how you can see anything at all with your
myopic snake tracings!  it's been a long time since I've heard anything so
silly.  get a grip, wei.  you misspoke, & your inability to acknowledge it
only deepens my suspicions that you're as insincere as you are garrulous.

& no, I'm not too impressed with your examples of "democracy" -- they struck
me as either so small or so fleeting -- or not democracies at all -- so as
not to have much, if any, lasting impact.


jb...

[log in to unmask] writes:

<<
 Which self-proclaimed vanguards are NOT elitist?  Why is the very notion of
 a vanguard not elitist?

 All vanguards are "enlightened," or at least claim to be enlightened.  This
 is why the vanguard notion is so insidious, whether the "leading light" is a
 fascist vanguard, or a Marxist-Leninist vanguard.


 >>it could be a vanguard of another color, such as the Reagan Vanguard,
 >>which trumpeted freedom while doing everything in its power to diminish
 >>same.

 We agree on this point.  The Reagan Revolution, so-called, however, hardly
 merits discussion in this context, since it was not really led by any sort
 of vanguard (self-proclaimed or otherwise). I tend to see it simply as one
 of countless impositions by the plutocracy (or oligarchical forces) on the
 electorate.




 >>
 the Leninist Vanguard probably contained a number of participants who were
 surprised by what happened --especially to them.
 >>

 Quite true, if you are referring to such people as Trotsky, Bukharin, Radek,
 and Tomsky.  They did fare quite poorly.


 >>you
 could have, for example, chosen the democracy vanguard that was
 steamrollered
 in Tianiman Square.
 >>


 I could have chosen any number of examples to illustrate the concept of
 democracy. But I am not interested in "vanguards", only in indiviudals and
 movements who are loyal to the people as a whole and to the concepts of
 democracy and accountability.  Whenever they come to believe that they are
 special cases, who do not need to abide by the values they uphold for others
 , they become very uninteresting, and deserving of oblivion.

 The "democracy movement," so-called, which was mercilessly crushed near
 Tiananmen, was sorely lacking to qualify as a people's movement or a
 democratic movement.  It was a student's movement, and very little more than
 that.  It was good in and of itself, and the students did go so far as to
 make true democratic demands.  Some of the  students did, at first, organize
 themselves democratically, and make reasonable attempts to practice
 democracy.  But they did not make any real effort to link up with the labor
 movement and the peasants movements in China, and hence were doomed to
 failure.  The 1989 Tiananmen incidents cannot hold a candle to France's Mai
 '68, when the student's movement was closely allied with workers successes
 in taking over numerous factories, and running the factories on a democratic
 basis.  France came very close to creating "Sixth Republic", which could
 have inaugurated an entirely new phase in the development human social
 orders, placing humankind closer to the realization of a genuinely
 democratic and de-centralized socialistic society.

 You don't seem, JB, too attracted to any of the democratic movements I have
 cited.  I wonder if you could put forward what you might consider as one or
 two of the greatest approaches which mankind has made toward democracy.

 --Wei
  >>