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