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.

The Prolewiki page for Prolewiki said it was first proposed on Lemmygrad, but I suppose it isn’t 100% correct to say Lemmygrad itself maintains Prolewiki, just that they are tied together by userbase and intentions.

Can you explain which part is “Russian Propaganda?” The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics are factually breakaway regions, which is the part you disagree with as “Propaganda?”

Lemmygrad.ml maintains Prolewiki, and like @comfy@lemmy.ml said dbzer0 hosts a Piracy Wiki.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

When you said “bookmarked,” were you referring to everything in the post, or one specific part? I’m the author of the linked Introductory Reading List so I can answer any questions you have regarding it.

Secondly, I’d recommend avoiding Capital until later in your theory career, but a good copy of Volume 1 can be found here.

Have you checked out my reading list (linked in the post body)? I believe I did a good job within the constraints of a Lemmy post, character limit and all, but am open to suggestions.

@TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 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.

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.

Absolutely clownish for the US diplomats to take the high-ground over China here. The US has utterly failed to take a leading role in green energy and climate action, and is calling on China to do better? Ludicrous.

Yes, it would certainly be a great thing if both countries do more to speed up the reduction of emissions and converting to green energy, but the US has failed miserably while China has not, so far.

While I wish them luck, the DNC is structured in a manner that retains power for those with the best ability to secure donations, and these donations come overwhelmingly from wealthy Capitalists. Moving the DNC to a more progressive platform has been the project of Bernie and the Squad for decades, and it seems to have little impact on the broader party line. The DNC isn’t really organized in a democratic manner, it operates more like a business.

Workers should instead focus on rapidly expanding their own organizations, which does make a meaningful impact on policy adopted. If you have something to bring to the bargaining table, the DNC is more likely to play ball, but you have to make them do it.

Gam*rs need reeducation.

Sounds like you need to become a Communist then, we have all the friends 😎

If only, we’d already be at lower-stage Communism globally if that were the case.