National Guard called into Minneapolis

[ObsidianJones]

A group holds their hands out to you and says that you're being oppressed and that they have the solution, that they'll help you with your struggle.

That seems like a familiar tactic

Or.

You've been saying you're being oppressed, you've been telling your neighbors and fellow citizenry forever but they ignore you, and a few people come up and recognize it.

The wording is frankly a bit galling. They say we're being oppressed? It's not something we've been shouting from the rooftops for generations? It is fairly apparent on where blacks stand in the social hierarchy. Antifa and the left are frankly the only people who go "Yeah, you're right."

Let's suppose that the issue above is solved. Would Antifa disband? I'd venture that the answer would be no.

You're right. And I don't see what's wrong with that. The fascism towards blacks in America being erased is just one fascist thing in this world. America being free of Fascism towards Blacks does not erase fascism in the world. Why would they disband?

 

[Hawki]

You're right. And I don't see what's wrong with that. The fascism towards blacks in America being erased is just one fascist thing in this world. America being free of Fascism towards Blacks does not erase fascism in the world. Why would they disband?

What's wrong with that, at least in my view, is that, again, Antifa's definition of fascism is far more broad than what's usually used. So in a world where no fascist government existed, and democracy existed for all, I have to ask, what would Antifa do? My own answer is that it would keep fighting against "fascists." And considering that Antifa is pretty much a mixture of anarchism and communism, pretty much everything on the political compass is right wing of them. FFS, I'm right wing of them, yet left of centre.

 

[Silvanus]

So in a world where no fascist government existed, and democracy existed for all, I have to ask, what would Antifa do? My own answer is that it would keep fighting against "fascists."

They're not merely interested in protesting fascist governments, but other fascist groups. There's a reason they turn out as counter-demonstrators. There's an uptick in racist and white-supremacist movements in the US and elsewhere at the moment, emboldened by the political situation, and counter-demonstrators are convinced they pose a threat. I would tend to agree that they do.

But if you have to ask that, I have to ask why d'you have to ask that? We're so far away from a situation in which fascism is non-existent and democracy exists for all, that it's a moot question, and your proposed answer just becomes pure idle speculation based on a situation we're never going to see. It's a little like asking, "Well! In a world in which women have the vote, what would suffragettes do?! Something bad, no doubt!"

 

[Neuromancer]

What's wrong with that, at least in my view, is that, again, Antifa's definition of fascism is far more broad than what's usually used. So in a world where no fascist government existed, and democracy existed for all, I have to ask, what would Antifa do? My own answer is that it would keep fighting against "fascists."

Demonstrably false. Antifa is a reaction to a perceived rise of fascist and totalitarian groups, and it only really sees a surge in members and allies when those groups show their face and gain traction. As an example, in Greece, Antifa as a movement only actually got large when Golden Dawn, an actual neo-nazi party, took 8% in the election and started organizing hit squads to beat immigrants and leftists up. Up until that point, Antifa as a movement would only come up in minor demonstrations against police brutality.

That is because anti-fascism is only part of the ideology, not the entirety of it. Antifascism serves as a rallying point for a large amount of leftist ideologies to band together against a common foe, a foe that is historically an existential threat to all of them. Also to note, is that people more moderately left than the anarchists and the communists joined Antifa, because the goal is something they agree on: stop fascism from spreading. Once Golden Dawn lost its traction, Antifa lost most membership, because that is part of its nature as a movement. It only gets big when the need arises.

Or to put it more simply, antifa is an alliance of convenience over the one thing that the left universally agrees on. Once the threat is gone they will fight among each other as they have across all of the left's history.

Your "point" (which, honestly, is on the verge of sophistry) belies your ignorance on the subject matter. Even the rout of it, that Antifa's definition of fascism is broader than usual, is a generalization. In what particular way does Antifa broaden the definition of fascism? And what exactly makes you think that they will keep fighting "fascists" that are not fascists, when they aren't a unified movement in the first place. Unless you believe that your average anti-fascist is an ignorant imbecile that will rally to any ideologue calling something fascist, which. firstly, is laughable, secondly, would be an ironic point, given your own ignorance, and thirdly, is a perception that comes from a right wing strawman that paints the left as nothing but thugs, a strawman that takes an extremely simplistic and reductionist view of the points being made, and conveniently lumps all violent and non-violent struggle together to disempower and devalue the objectives of movements. To bring an example that is very much topical with current events. have an old comic from the civil rights era:



Funnily enough, on a completely separate point that has nothing to do with your post, the people currently talking about how violence and protests are invalidating the BLM movement are echoing the same points people that opposed the civil rights movements made. The media is also echoing that time's media depictions of the movement. History is repeating.

And considering that Antifa is pretty much a mixture of anarchism and communism, pretty much everything on the political compass is right wing of them. FFS, I'm right wing of them, yet left of centre.

Yes, but they won't band together to demonstrate against you as antifa. You won't see Antifa demonstrations against social democrat groups, or liberal groups. You may see anarchists or communists do so, but not as a unified front, and definitely not as Antifa.

 

[Agema]

Antifa doesn't have a single pamplhet or flyer to my knowledge, but the Australian Antifa chapter has declared Scott Morrison a fascist. So here, at least, Antifa's definition of fascist is anything right of centre.

The obvious qustion is: who says they have declared Scott Morrison a fascist?

We're used to thinking of organised groups like the FBI or Nestle, with hierarchies and official positions and spokespeople. But that's not Antifa. Does it even have a spokeperson or official position to make such a claim?

Let's suppose that the issue above is solved. Would Antifa disband? I'd venture that the answer would be no.

Obviously not, because Antifa clearly has a wider remit than widespread mistreatment of American blacks.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Updates.

Woman who ran over Police officers is being charged with attempted murder

Philadelphia woman who allegedly ran over police officer is charged with attempted murder

A Philadelphia woman is facing multiple felony charges, including attempted murder, after running over a police officer while fleeing the scene during rioting last month, authorities said.

www.foxnews.com

Also one of the speeches from CHAZ

 

[Kwak]

Antifa doesn't have a single pamplhet or flyer to my knowledge, but the Australian Antifa chapter has declared Scott Morrison a fascist.

Mmmm, yeah?
Is he not?

 

[Hawki]

But if you have to ask that, I have to ask why d'you have to ask that? We're so far away from a situation in which fascism is non-existent and democracy exists for all, that it's a moot question, and your proposed answer just becomes pure idle speculation, based on a situation we're never going to see.

Because I think it says a lot about a person or group as to what they'd do when the battle is won.

There's the metaphor of St. George, having slain the Great Dragon, going to slay smaller and smaller dragons, eventually swinging his sword in thin air. Antifa is far from the only movement with this problem.

Your "point" (which, honestly, is on the verge of sophistry) belies your ignorance on the subject matter. Even the rout of it, that Antifa's definition of fascism is broader than usual, is a generalization. In what particular way does Antifa broaden the definition of fascism?

In that, at least by the standards here, they appear to regard anyone right of centre as being fascist.

Also, you said it yourself, that the Greek branch went from opposing Golden Dawn to opposing police brutality. Now, we can all agree that police brutality is bad, but linking it to fascism?

Antifa Australia was going on about the "fascist threat" at least as far back in 2017. Back in 2017, we had Malcolm Turnbull as PM, and he was a man who wasn't far enough right for his own party. I don't know what the equivalent of Reds Under the Beds is for fascists, but if Antifa tells us there's a fascist threat, and does violence to defend against the fascist threat, and assures us that there is a fascist threat, but we can't see a fascist threat, then one starts to wonder...This being the same organization that had already clashed with the Australian Christian Lobby because...Christians are fascists?

Christ, on a normal day, I'd happily have religion out of lobbying/politics altogether, but I'm not about to go around using the term "fascist" to describe everyone I disagree with.

and thirdly, is a perception that comes from a right wing strawman that paints the left as nothing but thugs, a strawman that takes an extremely simplistic and reductionist view of the points being made, and conveniently lumps all violent and non-violent struggle together to disempower and devalue the objectives of movements.

If you'd looked at my posts above, you'd have seen that I didn't equate Antifa to the people they're opposing, and that the people they're opposing are worse.

Yes, but they won't band together to demonstrate against you as antifa. You won't see Antifa demonstrations against social democrat groups, or liberal groups. You may see anarchists or communists do so, but not as a unified front, and definitely not as Antifa.

Maybe...

From a practical standpoint, I doubt it. From a philisophical standpoint? Antifa is basically anarcho-communist, but it gets most of its support (at least here) from college educated liberals. Now, Antifa isn't the be all and end all of how ideological lines have often replaced class lines (hence why many working class folks have gone to One Nation here, and Labour lost so many seats to the Tories in the UK), but somehow this is related to anti-fascism?

The obvious qustion is: who says they have declared Scott Morrison a fascist?

Troy Whitford, Lecturer in Intelligence and Security Studies

Yes, that's a copy-paste. But Antifa, here, is under observation. If ASIS says that antifa regards ScoMo as a fascist, I'm willing to believe them.

Obviously not, because Antifa clearly has a wider remit than widespread mistreatment of American blacks.

But how wide is that remit? It's clearly gone beyond simply fighting fascism.

Mmmm, yeah?
Is he not?

Is he?

Christ, I can't believe I'm doing this. I didn't vote for the LNP last election. I'm not overly fond of ScoMo. Yeah, he did a good job with the C-virus, but he's a dinosaur on climate change, and I can find other 'sins' in his resume as well. If the LNP has to lead the country, I'd at least prefer Turnbull back (but of course, being a leftie, that's what I would say). But fascist? Really?

Fascism: "A form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy."

When ScoMo starts yelling "Australia for the Australians," calls the media "enemies of the people," starts calling Labour likewise, and seeks to reshape society to his Christian ways (he prayed for rain during the drought in public, how dare he!), then I might be able to entertain the idea of ScoMo being fascist. But until that happens, I'd like to hold onto the belief that words should be used specifically, and not be a catch-all for "anyone I disagree with/anyone to the right of me." It's bad when the right uses "socialism" for anything left of centre, and it's bad when the left does it for anything right of centre.

 

[Hawki]

Also one of the speeches from CHAZ

Not sure if this speech is that "devisive" (in reference to the Twitter poster).

This isn't self-machochism, just that it's coming from a place of hurt. I can take being called soulless in this case.

 

[Neuromancer]

Also, you said it yourself, that the Greek branch went from opposing Golden Dawn to opposing police brutality. Now, we can all agree that police brutality is bad, but linking it to fascism?

You don't get why demonstrations against police brutality happen, do you?

Police officers get away with literal murder and gross abuses of power. They are not held accountable for their misgivings. If there is no demonstration against such brutality, then that shows that the police is welcome to continue it, and that politicians are welcome to add more to police powers. As an example, given we are on the subject of Greek police:

The killing of Zak: the astonishing violence and impunity of Greek police

Police were seen hitting him with a baton, kicking him, stepping on him, and finally handcuffing him – while he appeared motionless. He was pronounced dead on arrival.

www.opendemocracy.net

And I quote, in case you don't want to read about how greek police murdered a drag queen then tried to pass him off as a thieving junkie to absolve themselves, or their long history of power abuse that includes the killing of minors:

"To the general consternation caused by the footage showing police officers kicking and stepping on an already injured, motionless man on the ground, the most resounding answer to date has been the statement by the Chairman of the Athens Police Union, Dimosthenis Pakos, who said that “this is standard practice, whether you like it or not”"

Does this not denote an authoritarian, if not fascistic, tendency? To respond to criticism of police brutally murdering a man with "that's how we do things here, and I don't care if you don't like it."? This kind of behaviour and attitude, this kind of dismissiveness only appears when there is no check on police accountability, and the only way for there to be police accountability is through demonstrations against it, because politicians have shown time and again they are fine with it as long as there is no public outcry. The forcible oppression of opposition (by your own definition) is part of the authoritarian, if not fascistic, playbook. Violence against minorities and fringe groups is also part of it. Having a police force able to do as it wills without accountability is another part of it. If no demonstrations happen, and the population does not show that they do not accept such behaviour, then those fascistic tendencies are allowed to take rout, and the police force is given the power to not protect, but oppress as it wills. So the police may not be fascistic, but if not held accountable for its actions, it can grow into an authoritarian, if not fascistic, force.

Fun fact #1: A police officer shot a 14 year old in Athens 12 years ago. Originally him and his partner were let free, but after public outcry, demonstrations and riots, he got sentenced. Sound familiar?

Fun fact #2: During the election wherein Golden Dawn took 8% of the vote and became third biggest party in Greece, 8 out of 10 officers in Athens voted GD. So yes, in this case, the police has links to fascist groups. (And has had for many years, but that is another matter)

 

[Silvanus]

Because I think it says a lot about a person or group as to what they'd do when the battle is won.

There's the metaphor of St. George, having slain the Great Dragon, going to slay smaller and smaller dragons, eventually swinging his sword in thin air. Antifa is far from the only movement with this problem.

Maybe in a disconnected rhetorical sense. But that "problem" certainly doesn't present any issues in reality, where that scenario is purely hypothetical.

Also difficult to term it a problem when it's just idle speculation about their character.

Troy Whitford, Lecturer in Intelligence and Security Studies

Yes, that's a copy-paste. But Antifa, here, is under observation. If ASIS says that antifa regards ScoMo as a fascist, I'm willing to believe them.

D'you have a link? I looked for this, but could only find a (quite poorly written) piece by Mr. Whitford on the Daily Bulletin about how mean they were. It didn't provide substantiation, and nor did it make that particular claim.

 

[tstorm823]

They're not merely interested in protesting fascist governments, but other fascist groups. There's a reason they turn out as counter-demonstrators. There's an uptick in racist and white-supremacist movements in the US and elsewhere at the moment, emboldened by the political situation, and counter-demonstrators are convinced they pose a threat. I would tend to agree that they do.

You know who racist people are emboldened by? Groups like Antifa. Communism and fascism rise and fall together. It's a symbiotic relationship. Communists don't rise up to push down fascism. They opportunistically use fascism as a recruitment tool. And vice versa. Every single piece of communist violence being rationalized right now, every post saying "unfriend me if you disagree" or "being neutral is being complicit", all of them serve to push as many normal people into the waiting arms of fascists as much as they do the arms of communists. Antifa doesn't want fewer nazis, they need more nazis, because that's how they get support for their ridiculous politics.

 

[Silvanus]

You know who racist people are emboldened by? Groups like Antifa. Communism and fascism rise and fall together. It's a symbiotic relationship. Communists don't rise up to push down fascism. They opportunistically use fascism as a recruitment tool. And vice versa.

I think this is highly dubious. One of the most cynical and obvious ploys made by authoritarian movements like the fascists or Stalinists is to invent an enemy if one is not immediately available. Scapegoating is one of their most employed tools of mobilisation.

By which I mean to say that fascists do not need actual communist violence in order to fearmonger about it. Actual communist violence is so rare, and is of so little threat to most people, that it couldn't do much to scare anybody on its own. Those on the far-right will exaggerate and lie regardless, and they would do so even if the threat were nonexistent.

These are people who fearmonger about gay people corrupting the youth, or about women destroying the family by going to work, or about any number of other demographics. The threats don't have to be real.

Every single piece of communist violence being rationalized right now, every post saying "unfriend me if you disagree" or "being neutral is being complicit", all of them serve to push as many normal people into the waiting arms of fascists as much as they do the arms of communists.

That's not actually "communist violence", though, is it? This is just hyperbole and conflating groups you don't like very much.

 

[Hawki]

You don't get why demonstrations against police brutality happen, do you?

Are you seriously asking me that?

Okay, I'll tell you, it's:

Police officers get away with literal murder and gross abuses of power. They are not held accountable for their misgivings. If there is no demonstration against such brutality, then that shows that the police is welcome to continue it, and that politicians are welcome to add more to police powers.

Oh look, you answered it for me.

"To the general consternation caused by the footage showing police officers kicking and stepping on an already injured, motionless man on the ground, the most resounding answer to date has been the statement by the Chairman of the Athens Police Union, Dimosthenis Pakos, who said that “this is standard practice, whether you like it or not”"

Does this not denote an authoritarian, if not fascistic, tendency?

Authoratarian, yes, fascistic, no. To be the latter, the police would have to be the ones controlling the government.

To respond to criticism of police brutally murdering a man with "that's how we do things here, and I don't care if you don't like it."? This kind of behaviour and attitude, this kind of dismissiveness only appears when there is no check on police accountability, and the only way for there to be police accountability is through demonstrations against it, because politicians have shown time and again they are fine with it as long as there is no public outcry. The forcible oppression of opposition (by your own definition) is part of the authoritarian, if not fascistic, playbook.

Violence against minorities and fringe groups is also part of it. Having a police force able to do as it wills without accountability is another part of it. If no demonstrations happen, and the population does not show that they do not accept such behaviour, then those fascistic tendencies are allowed to take rout, and the police force is given the power to not protect, but oppress as it wills. So the police may not be fascistic, but if not held accountable for its actions, it can grow into an authoritarian, if not fascistic, force.

I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance here, because this thread has gone to discussing police brutality across three countries. I'm guilty of that myself, bringing Oz into this, but look:

Is police violence an issue? Yes. And when I say that, I'm not just referring to deaths or violence, I'm referring to over-incarceration, deaths in custody, and everything else. But facicistic? Well, I can't comment on Greece. But apparently the police in the US are so facicistic, they've just let an autonomous zone be set up. If the police are fascists, operating at behest of the state and quashing all opposition, they're extremely ineffective ones.

You know, at this point, you might say we're arguing semantics, and yeah, okay. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter whether police are fascists or not, what matters is that they're held accountable. But I'm also uneasy about the term "fascist" being thrown around willy nilly, for the same reason I'm wary about "socialist" or "communist" being thrown around willy nilly.

Want another example as to why language matters? The distinction between defunding the police, and disbanding the police. These are two separate things, and we should understand what these terms mean, because there's a tendency to conflate the two. Both from those making the demands, and those criticizing the demands.

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, if you'd like, I can toss up a bunch of quotes from the respective platforms of 1968 and 1980 and play a guessing game of when each quote was from.

Nah, let me have a try. Who proposed what would be called a UBI today? What about Universal Heath Care? What about Equal Rights? Bringing China into the West? Desegregated Schools? Okay, that last one was a clear indication who I'm talking about.

You know who racist people are emboldened by? Groups like Antifa. Communism and fascism rise and fall together. It's a symbiotic relationship. Communists don't rise up to push down fascism. They opportunistically use fascism as a recruitment tool. And vice versa. Every single piece of communist violence being rationalized right now, every post saying "unfriend me if you disagree" or "being neutral is being complicit", all of them serve to push as many normal people into the waiting arms of fascists as much as they do the arms of communists. Antifa doesn't want fewer nazis, they need more nazis, because that's how they get support for their ridiculous politics.

So, by this logic, if you get rid of the fascist, Antifa would disappear....
There has been many purges of Communists in US ranks. Thousands were ostracised, some on live TV, lost their jobs and family. You know what stayed on? Racism and Fascism. It didn't fall together. It became stronger. You wonder how someone could say 'Segregation now, Segregation forever' until you realise that things like Antifa were deliberately taken out, leading to the US having no protection.
Also, racist are emboldened by lots of things, not just one group. Getting certain laws passed would be one case. Or leaders blaming a countries woes onto particular races. Nazis are generally anti- communist, capitalist, unionist, libertarian. They are very good at co-opting Conservative ideals to boost their ranks. As can be seen by shitposters and their ok hand symbol, they can use those people, who think they are trying to get the libs, and turn their symbol against everyone.
Taking out Antifa wont stop the fascist.

 

[Trunkage]

Funnily enough, on a completely separate point that has nothing to do with your post, the people currently talking about how violence and protests are invalidating the BLM movement are echoing the same points people that opposed the civil rights movements made. The media is also echoing that time's media depictions of the movement. History is repeating.

Yeah, if you look at documentaries, or news reels of that day, you realise the rhetoric is almost exact carbon copy. None of this is new

 

[tstorm823]

By which I mean to say that fascists do not need actual communist violence in order to fearmonger about it. Actual communist violence is so rare, and is of so little threat to most people, that it couldn't do much to scare anybody on its own. Those on the far-right will exaggerate and lie regardless, and they would do so even if the threat were nonexistent.

Of course they try no matter what, but that doesn't mean it works well. When the boogeyman doesn't exist, a neo-nazi can flail about claiming the left wants chaos and destruction all he wants, and regular people are going to go "wow, what a nutjob." When the chaos and destruction actually arrives, and people on the left say "yeah, we support that" it becomes infinitely more difficult for regular people to identify the nutjobs.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Frankly, this isn't a bug, a glitch, an unfortunate sign of our times, a loophole, an unintended but foreseen consequence of the Trump administration, or even unique to the Trump administration. Scapegoating the left and painting civil rights, labor, and civil liberties protest as "socialism", "communism", "foreign influence", or any other buzzword of choice is a feature of the US government responds; hell, it's the go-to first response for nigh on a goddamn century since the first Red Scare and the Red Summer. What was the entire mission and directive of COINTELPRO? What was the Bush administration doing using the FBI to infiltrate war protest groups?

Only damn thing that's different today is "Antifa" has been added to the list of buzzwords.

Little off-topic, but when Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, the first thing he wrote about was everyone was calling their opponents communists and most people didn't know or care what communism actually was. Using "communist" as an attack to discredit people literally predates Marx writing the Communist Manifesto.

 

[Silvanus]

Of course they try no matter what, but that doesn't mean it works well. When the boogeyman doesn't exist, a neo-nazi can flail about claiming the left wants chaos and destruction all he wants, and regular people are going to go "wow, what a nutjob." When the chaos and destruction actually arrives, and people on the left say "yeah, we support that" it becomes infinitely more difficult for regular people to identify the nutjobs.

I think if a "regular person" sympathises with neo-Nazis because some protesters cause some damage sometimes, then they're not exhibiting sound judgement and aren't what I would call a "regular person".

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

*snip*

I'm gonna have to step in and correct a few misconceptions, since, to be blunt, you're quite off the mark. To start off with (1/2):

(1) Capitalism is defined primarily by material relations, not 'society' as such. The base state of capitalism is the sale of labour in a free market by the labourer in exchange for a wage, which is an approximation of the value of their labour relative to production. 'Making money' in this context is specific to wage-labour, however, as we all fully know, it's possible to earn a wage in a variety of ways. Artists for example, can make money through commissions, or through royalties, which are determined directly at the point of sale or are legally determined as a percentage of the exchange value of the item in question. These values are in the last instance represented by currency.

(2) The totality of capitalism is not that you simply have to work to survive, since welfare exists in the modern context, the issue being that it isn't robust, and that it is meant to help those who are the least able. The issue is more the constant push and demand for productivity from everyone, as this is simply a general economic principle of maximal exploitation. Everyone consumes commodities, aside from maybe monks in temples, and is therefore involved in the circulation of commodities by definition, however it is questionable under the principle of the profit motive why there should be anything that cannot be turned into a profit (hence for example, the push for privatisation of care homes for the elderly and the handicapped). It's more accurate to say that capitalism seeks to make a profit out of everything, though this may come at odds with a set of moral values we have on hand, that in themselves can nonetheless provide an opportunity for profit. I don't think for example, that there's anything wrong with say, maximally making use of land for agrictultural purposes, but it's a far cry from denying workers their bargaining power through union busting because it's unprofitable.

(3) Individualism/collectivism is a false dichotomy that goes as far back as Hegel and Kant. An individual is as much the rest of their individual proclivities as they are the sum of inherited factors, such as genes, and the socio-cultural context they are born into which can define attitudes and modes of thinking towards certain things. Somebody born in Addis Ababa is more likely to be an Orthodox Christian, and consequently being in a community of such people would influence this person to be more likely to believe in Christianity, and make them see it as a moral good, which can be at odds a person's personal choice to want to live a hedonistic life since the Church mandates temperance. As a result, the person may be more likely to view things as mediating between their faith and their personal desires, and would be likely to extrapolate this to their relations, their understanding of emotions and reasoning when it comes to personal and social obligation. In that sense, someone would be acting within the collective (Christian faith) and as an individual (weighing up their relation to society and the benefits it has against their own will, which is influenced by experiences they've had with the collective growing up). Least of all we see this in technology and in the notion of culture itself - America likes to believe that property is a God-given right because its constitution was inspired by John Locke and consequently became a part of public discourse in the pursuit of independence, that over the years has cemented into a belief that personal enterprise is a part of freedom itself. Marxists and communists maintain this line of reasoning in their criticism of capitalism and in their championing for communism.

(4) Leninism is a complicated issue, and what you described doesn't really explain what happened during the Russian revolution. Lenin was initially in favour of Soviet autonomy as a vehicle against the provisional government, which he viewed as having either failed or exhausted its role in bringing about a bourgeois revolution (France, America, Britain, Germany, etc. with the end of feudalism) and that thus it is up to the proletariat and the peasantry to form a union through the soviets, guided by a Vanguard Party of progressively minded thinkers (be they bourgeois or not) who will instruct the proletarian and lead the charge to the revolution. Vanguardism is something that Lenin did champion for, but it was more the party as a whole that maintained a grip, not him as some sort of CEO. It wasn't about the management of resources as much as it was, within his view and the view of the Central Committee of the RSDP and the Bolsheviks, that having the party dictate everything and abolish the autonomy of the workers' soviets was necessary to prevent the revolution from collapsing due to the material catastrophes that had happened during the Russian Civil War (such as wealthy peasants and the middle classes siding with the White Army, the massive education gap that prevented the supply chain from being taken over and managed autonomously by the non-Kulak peasants and the fact that the Whites were sponsored by wealthy countries eager to prevent the Revolution from carrying out its goals). So Lenin's authoritarianism was as much contingent on the situation in question as it was through his understanding of Marxism. Important to note as well, that Marxism is not about the abolition of hierarchies if they are justifiable, because Marxism is not about hierarchies, but about the social mode of production in terms of class dominance and class interests.