That's fair, I used that term loosely. I guess I meant 'becoming a new oppressive force, simply replacing the previous one (the state)'

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

That's helpful, thanks!

I see! Great explanation, thanks

Idk I feel kinda uncomfy about having bastardized such a heartfelt work of art- something the artist very likely may have cried while creating. It exists now though, so you're welcome to share it if you want!

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?

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 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

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 know the political compass is flawed but, to illustrate:

Maybe I should've said "less libertarian" rather than "more authoritarian"?

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.

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