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)
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. 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.