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)
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.