En Lin Wei wrote: > JB wrote: > > >>no. no no no no no no no no no. no. a vanguard is not, ipso facto, > >>elitist. it may be enlightened . . . > > Which self-proclaimed vanguards are NOT elitist? Why is the very notion of > a vanguard not elitist? Back about 115 or so years ago a New York reporter interviewed a minor Victorian economist living in exile in London. At the end of the interview the reporter, after pausing, asked, "What is?" After a pause so long he thought the old man had fallen asleep a reply came: "Struggle." You can't consider vanguards in the abstract. And in the concrete vanguards are not (in a frequent cliche) "self-appointed leaders" -- they are "self-*nominated* leaders." Just, for example, as the subscribers to this list are self-*nominated* guides to Pound. Whether they *are* guides or not is not theirs to decide, just as whether a vanguard is *followed* or not is not its to decide. The concept of a vanguard is really quite democratic. Human events are not very predictable, and struggles can go all whichways. Labels such as "elitist" or "democratic" are not always very helpful. Carrol Cox