There is a well-known internet proverb, the bullshit assymetry principle:
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
Anyone who has been in a few software chatrooms, a political communities, or any hobby groups has probably seen the eternal fountain of people asking really obvious questions, all the time, forever. No amount of patience and free time would allow a community to give quality answers by hand to each and every one of them, and gradually the originally-helpful people answering get sick of dealing with this constantly, then newcomers will often get treated with annoyance and hostility for their ignorant laziness. That's one way how communities get a reputation for being 'toxic' or 'elitist'. I've occasionally seen this first hand even on Lemmy, and obviously telling people to go away until they've figured out the answer themselves isn't a useful way to build a mass movement.
This is a reason why efficient communication matters.
Efficient teaching isn't a new idea, so we have plenty of techniques to draw from. One of the most famous texts in the world is a pamphlet, the Manifesto of the Communist Party, a way for the Communist League to share the idea of historical materialism to many thousands using a couple of dozen pages. Pamphlets and fliers are still used today at protests and rallies and for general promotion, and in the real world are often used as a resource when someone asks for a basic introduction to an ideology.
However, online, we have increased access to existing resources and linking people to information is easier than ever. I've seen some great examples of this on Lemmy with Dessalines often integrating pages of their FAQ/resources list into short to-the-point replies, and Cowbee linking their introductory reading list. So instead of burning out rewriting detailed replies to each and every beginner question from a propagandised liberal, or just banning/kicking people who don't even understand what they said wrong (propaganda is a hell of a drug), these users can pack a lot of information into their posts using effective links. Using existing resources counters the bullshit assymetry principle. There's a far lower risk of burnout and hostility when you can simply copy a bookmarked page, paste it, and write a short sentence to contextualize it. No 5 minute mini-essay in your reply to get the message across properly, finding sources each time, getting it nitpicked by trolls, and all that. Just link to an already-polished answer one click away!
There are many FAQ sites for different topics and ideological schools of thought (e.g. here's a well-designed anarchist FAQ I've been linked to years ago). There are also plenty of wikis, like ProleWiki and Leftypedia, which I think are seriously underused (I'm surprised Lemmygrad staff and users haven't built a culture of constantly linking common silly takes to their wiki's articles. What's the point of the wiki if it's not being used much by its host community?).
Notice that an FAQ is often able to link to specific common questions, and is very different from the classic "read this entire book" reply some of you may have seen before - unfortunately when a post says "how can value com from labor and not supply nd demand?", they're probably not in the mood to read Capital Vol. I-III to answer their question no matter how you ask them, but they might skim a wiki page on LTV and maybe then read further.
(Honestly, I think there's a missed opportunity for integrating information resources into ban messages and/or the global rules pages, because I guarantee more than half the people getting banned for sinophobia/xenophobia/orientalism sincerely don't think anything they said was racist or chauvanistic - it's often reiterating normal rhetoric and ""established facts"" in mass media; not a sign of reactionary attitude. The least we can do is give them a learning opportunity instead of simply pushing them further from the labour movement)
Idk enough about Occupy & ArabSpring, but BLM seems like a terrible example of having leaders being a good thing
Edit: I'm an anarchist though, so I understand I'm a bit out of place here and may have different goals/motivations/priorities that influence my perspective on this
@[email protected] already gave a fantastic answer regarding Occupy, Arab Spring, and BLM, so I'll answer your edit instead. I know you're an Anarchist, but I really do recommend reading at least the basics of Marxist theory. If you're going to organize, you're going to run into Marxists eventually, and it will be useful to understand what we believe and why. I wrote an Introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List (also referenced in the post itself), and am willing to answer any questions you have.
I'm very familiar with Marx! I started out as a communist (like hella auth), then leaned into socialism, which ended up really just being a conduit for my auth-180 into anarchism
What turned you away from Marxism and into Anarchism? I don't think any Marxists consider Marxism to be "auth," rather, the centralizing of all property in the public sector allows for actual democratic participation.
Oh for sure, I just meant it acted as my pipeline away from authoritarian communism. Basically Marx got me to the point of "oh, state control shouldn't be the end goal" and then I just took that one step further
I don't really see how that fits, the Marxist concept of a State is entirely different from the Anarchist concept of a State. For a Marxist, States are implementations of class oppression, for Anarchists states are monopolies on violence and an extension of hierarchy. Again, this isn't Marxists being "authoritarian," unless you redefine everything non-Anarchist to be authoritarian.
For a Marxist, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned government is Stateless, but not for an Anarchist, as there is hierarchy.
For an Anarchist, a horizontal network of cooperatives and communes is Stateless, but not for Marxists, as there are classes.
If you went from Marxism to Anarchism based on the Marxist conception of the State, then I think you really should read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific | Audiobook as well as The State and Revolution | Audiobook.
I'm not saying Marxism is auth. If we had to place it all on a continuum though, it's certainly more authoritarian than anarchism. I'm not trying to say that that adjective is at all a good descriptor outside of this context though
I don't think it makes sense to use a continuum, I guess. I don't even thing auth is a good adjective even within this context. Additionally, I don't know what you mean by an "authoritarian Communist" if not a Marxist, considering you are contrasting it with Anarchism.
I know the political compass is flawed but, to illustrate:
Maybe I should've said "less libertarian" rather than "more authoritarian"?
The political compass exists so that right libertarians can feel good about themselves and call everyone else names. It was created by a right libertarian. It's really just a "how far away are you from (racist) Ron Paul?" map along two axes. And the vertical axis was invented just to distance them from the Nazis that they inevitably end up supporting anyways and in order to claim to be on equal liberationist footing as anarchists despite supporting the primary vehicle of oppression, capitalism. Right libertarians are not, in reality, libertarian at all. They never saw a CEO's boot they didn't want to lick.
When comparing anarchists and Marxists or communists, authority isn't really a distinguishing factor. It is about theoretical understanding, the goal towards which the group organizes, and what structures are used to advance that goal. Anarchists always have internal authority to deal with, there are always people with outsized impact and decision-making power, and when larger than 10-20 people, there is a need for hierarchy to actually accomplish anything for more than a week.
What is different is a few other things.
One is that Marxists tend to declare a party to be the best apparatus for advancing the goal of revolution, with decisive mass action by that party, while anarchists focus on free association and spontaneous waves in participation. There are aspects of each of these tendencies in the other, but it is distinguishing.
Another is that Marxists plan for a need to defend the revolution against the bourgeoisie both domestically and internationally and that this requires organized industry and a coherent internal politucal program. Anarchists do not always plan on defending the revolution at all, but focus on building communes here and now, during the revolution, and after the revolution. Some do plan on defending the revolution but only in a context where these collectives are primary over organizing industry or oppressing thr bourgeoisie.
That's helpful, thanks!
I'm glad!
I understand what you're getting at here, but in my PoV the political compass is so beyond useless that it adds confusion. There isn't really a continuum between "libertarianism" and "authoritarianism" and drawing them on an axis doesn't really make sense. Like, I get it conceptually, but when discussing actual real world systems and ideologies it gets more in the way of understanding than it helps.
That's fair. Though "more concentration of power <-> less concentration of power" seems like an appropriate continuum to me when discussing theory, which is how I interpret that axis. Am I wrong on that?
I think so. Let's compare end-game, idealized Anarchism vs Marxism.
In Anarchism, there is a decentralized network of cooperatives, communes, etc.
In Marxism, there is full public ownership and central planning.
The capacity for voice in Marxism is greater for the overall system, while allowing strong voice over local systems, whereas in Anarchism the capacity for voice is largely individual to local.
In this manner, Marxism's power concentration is spread over the entire planet, the entire society, whereas in Anarchism power is highly concentrated in each cluster, and potentially among related clusters if one has more power. This isn't a sliding scale, it's much more multi-faceted. Using a direct linear comparison doesn't make much sense IMO and obscures the actual mechanisms being compared.
Just my 2 cents.
I see! Great explanation, thanks
No problem, thanks for listening! 😁
BLM is a good example of what happens when you don't organize with any structure or leadership, actually.
For background, BLM flared up as riots and then protests and people's occupations in response to racialized police violence, of course. It was a reaction and not organized initially. Organization grew from on-the-ground experience as individuals and orgs shared spaces and developed political programming and actions. But this all happened locally. There was no national group that could legitimately claim to represent BLM, as every city had their own set of orgs and organizers. There was overlap, of course, as many of tge participating orgs spanned multiple cities, but no org or coalition could legitimately say, "these are our demands" at the national level.
Now you might be thinking, "hey, TheOubliette, what about the literal national organization called Black Lives Matter that published demands and spoke to the press?" Well, that group is exactly what you tend to get in the West with a left leadership vacuum: they just asserted they were in charge and started taking credit and raking in donations to their NGO. That national org was full of NGO veterans looking to advance their careers, not on-the-ground organizers. It was essentially a grift / cooption.
I've been unfortunate enough to see this kind of thing happen a few times. For example, there was a space that pledged horizontalism but then whoever brought a bullhorn to the next action ended up being the real person in charge. They weren't selected to do that, few people even knew who they were. But the crowd did what they said and people got arrested due to their bad instructions. I've seen other situations where a group declares itself representative unilaterally and begins speaking to the media and making demands or negotiating, and they end up saying and doing things completely at odds with the wishes of the collective. I've also seen situations where people tried a bit harder to have some structure, but ended up creating disconnected teams for different domains (press, logistics, action planning, security, etc) but the whole project blew up because one subset of one team declared themselves the only voices that mattered, using self-tokenizing and very inconsistently applied (most people of that identity there disagreed with them) liberal identity politics to justify their power grab. The project ended because they used those shenanigans to throw away leverage and told everyone to go home - it was too difficult to reassemble because communication methods were not solid and most attendees were not in organizations
This is a weakness that arises from having weak, inexperienced, and poorly-structured groups, especially when they create a leadership vacuum. Many things work very well autonomously. Mutual aid and black bloc, for example. But for a larger organizing effort, there are key functions that must be carried out on behalf of the larger group in order for it to actually succeed. There needs to be a deliberation process so that decisions can be made quickly enough without being illegitimate by being non-representative. There need to be people that organize the deliberation process itself. There need to be people that ensure the decision is carried out. There needs to be a way to have some kind of community discipline around some of the decisions - like what to so if a subset of people start doing their own thing at odds with the community decision and putting people at risk. Assuming the organizing effort has external components, like it is intended to change something or confront another party, you need to develop demands and messaging and then have people who deliver and share those things. If you don't have those things, the organizing effort is vulnerable to the disruptive factors already (and more). Decisions will get made and people won't understand them and will get very angry. Some people will try to enforce a decision and those who disagree will literally fight them. Without people designated for communication, you will be represented by whichever person gets in front of a TV camera first. Capitalist media is oppositional. With Occupy, they used the fact that the various people talking to them provided about 50 total demands to then suggest that Occupy had no realistic ides of what it wanted to accomplish. There is some truth to that, but mostly this is a consequence of having no media discipline.
Anyways sorry this comment is so long. I wanted to add a lot of context and examples so that it's clear I'm not being blindly dogmatic, but speaking to the fatal weaknesses of these efforts.
You have to have leaders and then do everything in your power to not let them succumb to vanguardism.
I also lean more in to an anarchist style of leadership, but decing everything by quorum can paralyze movements or leave them without a clear message.
What do you mean when you say "you have to have leaders" but in the same breath say "not let them succumb to vanguardism?" The Vanguard is the most advanced of the working class helping to organize and lead social change with the direct participation and consent of the masses, which part of that do you take issue with?
I understand that you have Anarchist sympathies, I myself was once an Anarchist, but I don't really see what you're trying to criticize here. What about "vanguardism" should be opposed if you also believe in leaders?
This sounds like a case of just fearing the associations with vanguardism and not with the structure and practical aspects themselves, which ultimately is a problem of aesthetics and not material reality. I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking.
I should probably just butt out, but
This sounds really icky to me. What is that supposed to mean? Given your outreach interests, I feel like it's worthwhile to share that that language immediately puts me off
The ones who have read theory, done the organizing, built up the party structure. The Black Panther Party was an example of a Vanguard, they were the ones doing direct organizing, feeding children, doing good work for their community while developing strong theoretical backgrounds.
Not everyone has read theory. When Marxists say "advanced" among the Working Class, we are referring to the ones that actually take theory seriously and help educate others, the Union Leaders that may not be Marxists but are well-practiced in labor organizing, and so forth. Not every member of the working class exists in the same conditions, the same understanding, the same experience with organizing, so it's the role of the more experienced to help guide the less experienced.
If I'm being honest, I think you latched onto "advanced" as icky because you're already hostile to Marxism by virtue of adopting Anarchism. I feel that this is unwarranted, honestly. What word would you have had me say? "Elite?" Surely not. "Experienced?" Maybe, would that help convey what I am saying?
Tbh I think that's the kind of thing that turned me away from Marxism
I wouldn't say I'm hostile to it- I'm quite fond of Marx. I think it comes more from being a social worker than an anarchist. it just sounded elitist to me, and I imagine it would feel that way to anyone who isn't themselves one of the "advanced"
Yes, I think "experienced" is a much better word!
When describing those who are "advanced", just think of it as Marxists being big nerds thst treat revolution as a discipline of study, a science, that is geared towards application: doing the revolution in the best way you can so it is more likely to succeed in all aspects. Just like anyone can become advanced in a science by accumulating degrees and publishing scientific results, the big nerd revolutionary can become advanced through theoretical study and intentional organizing work coupled with constructive self-criticism.
It is those who are advanced in this discipline - not just with experience, but also theoretically, e.g. being class conscious - who Marxists identify as those most ready to lead revolution. And realky, it just makes sense, as a simplified way of saying it is that those with the most exoerience and who are most knowledgeable in a more correct political understanding will make better decisive and have more impact.
The label is also used by contrast. It follows from an acknowledgement that when revolutionaries looked at their real capitalist societies, most people would not have this experience and knowledge. In addition, left formations are often banned or otherwise suppressed before they can gain mass "advancement". This is where vanguardism cones from, it's why it exists. It posits that you can function as a suppressed, even an underground, organization to foment revolution by specifically recruiting and developing those who are most "advanced", which will run a gamut of experiences and theoretical understandings, with the goal of having outsized influence via leadership positions in, for example, organized labor. And this can be done in many forms, including a union leader working with your front group rather than being a member of a Marxist party.
In lieu of this, when people try to organize without leadership by "advanced" members of the working class, you get the same mistakes and failures over and over again. It takes experience, theoretical understanding, constructive self-criticism, and a means by which to retain and use what is learned through each action in order to make increasingly better choices. A lack of "advanced" members or an appreciation of "advancement" is why so many of the US' left movements spin their wheels and offer only false catharsis rather than material change.
I will leave one final negative example, which is that the most "experienced" person, in this Western context, is often the last person you should listen to. Their experience is usually in failure and often this means they have become resigned to just trying the same thing over snd over again because they have found a way to rationalize failure as a success instead. And because of their experience, they can take up a lot of space for wrong ideas. This distinguishes experience from "advancement": the quality of experience matters but so does having clear eyes about our own work and the societies in which we are embedded.
Historically, vanguards have earned the trust of the masses by directly working with them and within them. I think you would be served well by reading up on successful revolutions and how they came to be.
The underlying theory seems sound to me- almost common sense tbh. I just think it could benefit from being reframed as simply a role, no more important/special than any other. E.g.: vanguards are the educators, motivators, organizers, representatives, etc.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, your problems with Marxism mostly stem from elitist aesthetics and attitudes? I can't say I agree with that view of Marxism and Marxists, but then I ask, why pivot to Anarchism, rather than trying to combat what you perceive as elitist aesthetics and attitudes within the Marxist current if you agree with the theoretical foundations? Unless, of course, you also disagree with those, but you haven't indicated that thus far so I have no way of knowing. Funnily enough, you may be interested in some of Mao's writing, Get Organized! and Serve the People, as well much of Mao's other works are directly focused on instilling humility in the Communist Party of China and focusing on a servile attitude. That's much of the purpose of the Mass Line as well.
Not trying to be overly critical, I am very openly trying to get more people to read at least a few sections in my reading list I made.
No, I just meant that reaching/uniting with anarchists might be improved by tweaks to the language used to describe things. My problem with Marxism is the (relative) hierarchy
(I don't think this describes you, I was mostly just reminded of it. Its more in the opposite direction, that changing the name does not change the thing itself, as I write bellow.)
What point is there in changing the names or language used? It will not change the thing itself. And, surely the anarchists do not oppose the things simply because of their names, because they sound bad, or because the vibes are bad. Calling the vanguard something else will not change the fact that it is the vanguard, organized hierarchically on Marxist lines.
Thanks for sharing! It's an interesting and relevant thought.
I would argue that changing the language though does, in a way, change the thing itself. By adjusting our language, it shifts our perspective, which affects our thoughts and behaviors. Like replacing "mankind" with "humankind" etc.
If we want to ensure the vanguard don't end up replacing the state, it seems like we ought not place them on a pedestal with our language
I suppose if you see all hierarchy as unjust then you aren't going to agree with Marxists, though I'm not sure how to reconcile that with you saying vanguardism is common sense.
I think having defined roles, some of which are educators/motivators/organizers/representatives, seems like common sense. You need those people for success. But putting those roles on a pedestal and giving them a fancy name and calling them "advanced" seems unnecessary and problematic to me
So we wrap back around to your issues with Marxism being largely based on aesthetics and connotations, rather than theoretical foundations, correct? It sounds like you agree with Marxism in theory but want it to have a more individualist veneer? I'm not trying to be condescending, I am trying to figure out at what point mechanically hierarchy becomes a problem for you, and based on your answer it has more to do with tone than mechanics.
I think it's similar to the relationship between deontological vs consequentialist ethics.
It's like I view the political/organizational aspects as a 'necessary evil' of sorts- something I refuse to participate in on principle, but want to be okay with happening around me.
Like how MLK was able to be the pacifist front of the civil rights movement while the black panthers filled the necessary militant role. (Huge simplification, I know, but still. Also backwards kind of in this scenario- I'd be working with the BPP).
I want the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people, but I don't want to feel like I'm sacrificing my values to get there.
So if the language around it is adjusted, I can get on board with filling my role. But the moment I feel like I have a superior- I'm out.
Edit: also, the thing I said here
I gotcha, that mostly makes sense to me. I can see where you're coming from, even if I disagree, in my opinion the structure itself is far more important than what you call it. One thing I do want to point out, is that vanguards don't "take place of" the state, and largely cannot unless they are a bourgeois vanguard against foreign imperialists. This circles back to the difference between Marxists and Anarchists in interpreting the State, a Vanguard even with weak democratic structures in place doesn't constitute a separate class, just like how managers in a business are still proletarian.
That's fair, I used that term loosely. I guess I meant 'becoming a new oppressive force, simply replacing the previous one (the state)'
That circles back to Marxists taking issue with class society and see the state's oppressive aspects as instruments in perpetuating class society. If you move beyond class society, the state's oppressive aspects whither away.
My concern is power's tendency to corrupt though
Corruption is taken very seriously in AES states, and is lessened by regulating wages of officials to those of skilled workers. There will always be corruption regardless of society, but Socialism gives more mechanisms to keep that in check than Anarchism.
"The Vanguard" as you describe it was an ideological justification to describe any and all criticism of the ruling class (and yes, to me, the upper echelons of the USSR were a ruling class) as counterrevolutionary. "The most advanced of the working class" shredded the countries military leader shit on the eve of the second world war not because of existing coups, but out of paranoia. "The vanguard" in the end served only to preserve their own interests.
"The people elected SRs or did not vote majority Bolshevik? What do they know, we are the vanguard, we know whats best, lets ignore the elections and abolish the soviets."
Thats why i dislike the concept of the Vanguard. Because never turned out the way it was promised and it never will.
There are a few issues here. First, the upper-level government employees in the USSR did not constitute a "class," that's a misframing of class analysis that you didn't justify. Secondly, a Vanguard is not an ideological justification for any actions by the Vanguard, I have no idea where you are getting that idea from but it certainly isn't Marxists. Thirdly, the SRs had a split right before the election and the information was not given to the public before the election in adequate numbers, and even then this was in the much less popular Provisional Government, and not in the more popular Soviet Government, the "Dual Power" that the Workers supported far more than the liberal Provisional Government, you are just arguing against popular revolution if the Bourgeoisie opposes it at this point.
I think you should read Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook. Marxist States have turned out how they were promised, not as the mythical "pure" Socialism untainted by reality, but as actually existing Socialist states.
Painting the SRs or the dismantled soviets as bourgeois is a bit rich.
I know that the marxist framework does not explicitly say "The Vanguard is always right", but for example in the GDR, the Vanguard itself said so. "Die Partei hat immer Recht." The Party is always right.
And im going to be honest: If shit like the great terror is how marxist states are supposed to be, maybe they are shit states.
I didn't paint the SRs or the Soviets as bourgeois, and I don't know what you mean by "dismantled" Soviets. I painted the Provisional Government as bourgeois. The SRs had a split, with left SRs and right SRs, right before the election, so the votes were largely uninformed anyways. It made more sense to legitimize the Soviet model and delegitimize the liberal provisional government, since many workers already didn't care about the provisional government to begin with and thus didn't vote. The revolution had immense popular support.
Again, read Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook. If you think post-revolutionary states are not dramatic improvements on the misery that preceded revolution, you haven't done enough research to speak on the subject authoritatively.