Happy birthday, Lenin!

As a Marxist-Leninist, the biggest distinction is that Marxists and Anarchists have different views of what the State even is, to begin with. As a consequence, what a society that has abolished the state looks entirely different for Marxists and Anarchists. We can't all get behind the ideas you posited, specifically decentralization as the basis for the economy.

For Marxists, the state is an instrument of class oppression, and to eliminate it, you must eliminate class. An important note, class is not hierarchy. There exists inter-class hierarchy, such as bourgeois and proletarian, but also intra-class hierarchy, such as managers and workers. A fully publicly owned and planned global economy is what Marxists envision as "Communism." Without any property distinctions, there is no class, and thus no need for special bodies of armed men to uphold property distinctions, no need for things like property rights, while things like administration remain.

This is because Marx's view of Socialism is as it emerges from Capitalism. As Capitalism advances, large industry emerges, and with it cooperative production and increasing complexity in fewer and fewer firms. Marx therefore saw the Proletariat, growing greater in number and the bourgeoisie lesser and lesser as competition dies out, as taking control and directing this new economy in its own interests. It isn't about reversing trends into decentralized communes, as in Marx's eyes, this retains class distinctions, as each commune only owns itself, and thus there is no mechanism for equal ownership across communes, and therefore a necessity for a "state" in each commune to protect these rights and competition between communes for production and trade.

For Anarchists, the state is about hierarchy. Tackling this is the primary objective. This is why when Anarchists judge Marxists on their ability to abolish what Anarchists percieve as the state, they find Marxists invariably fall flat. However, when Marxists are judged on their own merits and own goals, we find Marxists to be quite successful.

As a side-note, the vanguard structure is a formalization of what already exists, the politically advanced among the revolutionary class. It isn't distinct from the revolutionary class. I recommend reading The Tyranny of Structurelessness.

I over-simplified a ton, but I hope this helps! I can also answer any questions you may have. I used to be an Anarchist myself, so that helps smooth miscommunication.

I also elaborate on this subject here.

Anarchist movements can very easily be hijacked by bad faith actors. Billionaires are reading your literature. But not to become your friend.

You should not confuse leftism as synonymous with anarchy and decentralization.

Decentralization does not work for large scale infrastructure that is needed to make a modern society function. Power concentrated invariably produces hierarchy, but you can still have power divided enough to combat that with a centralized system. Ranked choice voting, sizing your house correctly, and allowing many competing viewpoints to exist through campaign funding laws can stop most of the ills.

It's a large mistake to assume that smaller groups of people will not still oppress others. Decentralization aids supremacy groups by allowing them to carve out areas where they have greater control, giving them a stronger foothold to take over society at large.

Hey, I've argued this exact stance with my Marxist brothers a few times here and here. They seem sure of revolution and against market socialism. Anyways, I've created a community for us to talk more about it here - Collective Cake

And what a coincidence today being a Collective Cake day!

Yep, it's real.

Fascism has no ideology. They will just take any varnish that makes them look acceptable in the short term. Just like fake tan, it's just gold paint over a turd.

We don't need to dogmatically idolize, but I openly admire his contributions both to the Marxist Canon and to the working class movements in general. His contributions in theory and in practice have been vital for Socialism.

The lack in certainty at the extent of the excesses in the Russian Revolution primarily stems from separating what actually happened on the ground, and what was reported in Western countries via anti-communist propaganda. Revolution is bloody business, and the Tsarists resisting the Russian Civil War fought hard against the newly Socialist society emerging, as well as 14 Capitalist countries that had invaded to shut down the revolution.

All governments are oppressive, what matters is which class is doing the oppressing. In the Soviet Union, the Proletariat had taken control, and wielded the power of the state to shut down fascists, Tsarists, and the bourgeoisie. The outcome was quite positive for the Working Class. Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, immense strides were made.

Free healthcare, childcare, and education were provided. Literacy rates tripled to 99.9%, life expectancy doubled from the 30s to the 70s, and the USSR managed to go from feudalism to space in half a century as a consequence. Women's rights were expanded greatly. The Red Army also liberated the world from the threat of the Nazis, having been responsible for the taking of Berlin, and 90% of the total Nazi deaths. Wealth inequality shrank dramatically, while economic growth boomed. The USSR also supported national liberation movements against Colonialism and Imperialism, in countries like Cuba, Algeria, Korea, China, Vietnam, and Palestine.

All in all, Lenin indeed was an oppressor from the perspective of the bourgeoisie. However, from the perspective of the proletariat, he was a hero, and is celebrated as a liberator from the oppression of the Tsar.

[...] implementation of the dictatorship [of the proletariat] was clearly defined by Lenin as early as in 1906, when he argued it must involve "unlimited power based on force and not on law," power that is "absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever and based directly on violence."

Leszek Kołakowski