“The members of the Party are they who accept the principles of the Party programme and render the Party all possible support. This party could, in theory, be completely transparent: the “entire political arena is as open to the public view as is a theater stage to the audience.”
Obama NEVER promised ‘transparency” about himself or his records/documents.
The ‘transparency” is his agenda…..and it is in our faces for all to see. To name a few….
1. We KNOW and see the corruption that is being pushed on us.
2. We KNOW that he has demonized ALL that oppose his “transparent” agenda and unleashes his rabid dogs of hate on Patriotic Americans.
3. We KNOW that his CZARS are advocates for his agenda and they are corrupt and are ANTI-AMERICANS in their ideology.
Words REALLY DO Matter, for those that listen and understand the MEANING behind them.
Obama has stated repeatedly what he plans to do during his hopefully short stay in office. His agenda is very “Transparent” and in your face. Now the question is, who will stand up and fight the Anti-American ideology to protect what made our nation great?
Being PROUD to Be an AMERICAN means allot of different things wrapped up in one package.
Capitalism, the free market and our CONSTITUTIONAL rights and laws ARE what made this nation unique. The Anti-American’s have attempted to demonize even our founding fathers and our founding documents, and have even resorted to re-writing our American History to push these corrupt ideals onto our public school systems in order to indoctrinate our children.
Below are a few paragraphs from wipedia about vanguardism. It is only obvious to me that this is EXACTLY what we are seeing in this current administration. Now what do we do to stop these Anti-American’s from further corrupting and destroying our nation?
Awareness of their agenda is number one, then vote them out of office is two. Get involved in your communities and stop them locally by exposing them when they spew Anti-American ideals.
Lenin popularized political vanguardism as conceptualized by Karl Kautsky, detailing his thoughts in one of his earlier works, What is to be done?. Lenin argued that Marxism’s complexity and the hostility of the establishment (the bourgeois state or, in the case of Imperial Russia, the feudal state) required a close-knit group of individuals — the vanguard — to safeguard the revolutionary ideology. While Lenin allegedly wished for a revolutionary organization akin to his contemporary Social Democratic Party, which was open to the public and more democratic in organization, the Russian autocracy prevented this.
Leninists argue that Lenin’s ideal vanguard party would be one where membership is completely open:
“The members of the Party are they who accept the principles of the Party programme and render the Party all possible support.” This party could, in theory, be completely transparent: the “entire political arena is as open to the public view as is a theater stage to the audience.”
A party that supposedly implemented democracy to such an extent that “the general control (in the literal sense of the term) exercised over every act of a party man in the political field brings into existence an automatically operating mechanism which produces what in biology is called the “survival of the fittest”.” This party would be completely open to the public eye as it conducted its business which would mainly consist of educating the proletariat to remove the false consciousness that had been instilled in them.
In its first phase, the vanguard party would exist for two reasons.
Firstly, it would protect Marxism from outside corruption from other ideas as well as advance its concepts.
Secondly, it would educate the proletariat class in Marxism in order to cleanse them of their false individual consciousness and instill the revolutionary class consciousness in them.
“ “Our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries.” ”
If the vanguard is successful in this lofty goal, on the eve of revolution the entirety of the working class population would be enlightened, Marxist revolutionaries. Furthermore a great number of them, namely their most intelligent members, would belong to the vanguard’s inner circle as full-time revolutionaries. Thus the organization would quickly include the entire working class.
Once the proletariat gained class consciousness and thus was prepared to revolt against the ruling classes, the vanguard party would serve another purpose. The party would coordinate the proletariat through its revolution by acting as a military command hub of sorts. This is, according to Leninists, a vital function as mass revolutions can sometimes be easily crushed by the disciplined military of the ruling classes. The vanguards would serve as commanders of the revolt, chosen to their positions by “democratic natural selection”.
In Lenin’s view, after the revolution the working class would implement the dictatorship of the proletariat to rule the new worker’s state through the first phase of communism, socialism. Here it can be said that the vanguard disappears, as all of society now consists of revolutionaries.
Vanguardism continues to be used as a political strategy by Leninist parties of just about all varieties — Trotskyist, Stalinist and Maoist.
Although most anarchists and radical libertarians reject vanguardism in principle as inherently authoritarian, the practices of some anarchist groups have been criticized by their peers for constituting vanguardism of the intellectual, if not organizational, variety.
Vanguardism was in fact an intrinsic element of anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism in both France and Spain in the early 20th Century. Theorists such as Georges Sorel and vanguard groups such as the Spanish Federación Anarquista Ibérica viewed the ordinary worker as being too complacent to revolt spontaneously, due to his having been ‘brainwashed’ by capitalism and reformism, and it was thus seen to be the duty of the ‘enlightened’ anarchist to prepare a revolutionary situation in which spontaneous mass rebellion could erupt. At times, this even led to an ostensibly elitist anarchism: the French CGT’s reformist majority was excluded from input in the pivotal 1906 Amiens Congress, as the Union’s anarchosyndicalist leaders considered moderate workers to be unqualified to decide policy for a Union whose direction was to be revolutionary and apolitical.
Vanguardism may more generally refer to cooperation between avant-garde individuals advancing in any field. Innovative writers and artists are often described as being in the vanguard in development of new forms and styles of art.
“Transparency” campaign promise
Vanguard-ism and the Proletariat Revolution
“Argue with neighbors, Get in their face!”
Sen Obama speaks to ACORN and Community Organizers about “shaping his agenda”
“Panthers” posing as ‘security” with nightsticks at voter location
SEIU representatives attack a conservative
Concerned father ejected from townhall and threatened in his home by government ‘thugs”