Talk:Vanguard party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Hi, I made a small change today to delete the text "I love it." from the end of the article.

I know that the phrase ", often seeking to create a single-party state" is inappropriate for many of the groups that would fall under the category of vanguard parties. I cannot speak of the Islamist party mentioned, but many Leninist parties do not seek the creation of a single-party state. That is a claim made by their detractors, particularly among right-wing critics, and hence would be a POV issue. I've removed the phrase on the assumption that anyone who wants to add it back can support it with clear evidence.

[edit] Reply

Historically speaking, I guess it depends on WHICH Leninist party assumes power. Contrary to popular belief, the original Bolsheviks banned only the Black Hundred immediately after the revolution (even the liberal Cadets weren't out of the picture). During the civil war, various parties were banned from and reinstated into the political process, depending on their stance towards small-s soviet power (the councils, not the latter "Soviet power" associated with the Soviet state). [forgot to put my signature] Darth Sidious 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superficial article -- fix this damned thing!

Is it just me, or is this article largely clueless and fundamentally flawed? It's not completely so -- only mostly so. And therefore a travesty of an encyclopedia article. In other words: this article needs expert attention immediately!

But since I'm tied up with revolutionary matters -- and not the expert I'd like to be on these important, involved details of broad theory -- I ain't gonna get into what isn't what, here, now. Just consider that someone has questioned the competency of the author(s).

I give this article a D+ for theory. B for effort (it's too short, for one thing).

Pazouzou 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two specific points: 1) Is it right to have "grassroots organization" in the header? A vanguard party is by definition a party, which is by definition not a grassroots org? (And a vanguard is by definition not a mass organization). 2) Shouldn't it mention some of the people who shaped Lenin's views on this matter, specifically Karl Kautsky and George Plekhanov? BobFromBrockley 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No answers. I'm acting on (1) and will get around to (2). BobFromBrockley 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experts needed

The article covers the subject with minimal detail. Now it's accurate after I added bits that show that the purpose of the party is not to wrest control, but to educate the workers. Before the article had indeed been bourgeois propaganda. Nonetheless it still needs work. Someone should read What is to be done? a few dozen times then start editing! Become one with the book, and you're a qualified expert on vanguard parties... (Demigod Ron 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC))