Um, what? This makes no sense.
Is this referring to Russia? Or more abstractly just dunking on communism? How do I unpack this?
creating a state
The Bolsheviks didn't create a state, the Russian federation already existed
just to solely provide a vanguard
That's not why either the February Russian revolution, or the October Russian Revolution happened, at all. The February revolution was workers seizing power and deposing the monarchy. The October revolution happened to prevent the provisional government from instituting martial law and restoring the Tsar to power. Tsar Nick filled the army with political opponents and sent wave after wave into suicide missions for years and years. The Bolsheviks were the only political group that could have kept the Tsar out of power, because they opposed the death penalty for deserting soldiers, supported land ownership for the peasants, and giving power to the worker councils (soviets). Every other faction would have sent the soldiers back to war, abolished the worker councils and sided with the large landowners over the peasantry; which would have quickly, intentionally degenerated back into a military dictatorship. Even anarchist historian Paul Averich blames the failure of the Russian revolution on the civil war and invasions that came after the revolution, rather than a failure of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
The failure of the Bolsheviks to preserve the socialist spirit of the revolution is due to the failure of the revolution in Germany, which was always a precondition to socialism in Russia. Some of this was the fault of the Bolsheviks, maybe. Between that and the utter destruction of the productive capacity of Russia during the civil war, it's clear that events and not "vanguardism" is responsible for the failure of the revolution.
The "vanguard" just means the revolutionary workers. Anarchists are often part of the vanguard in this sense. The vanguard is created by the excesses of capitalism. Organizing the vanguard into a "vanguard party" is a different matter, and I'm also usually critical of the way this gets defined by communists. But the vanguard exists with or without Leninism -- Lenin was just a big advocate of actually creating a serious and revolutionary org to overthrow the Tsar, not just to empower himself and his tendency.
of a moneyless, stateless, decentralized power structure
Isn't this actually the aim of most anarchists? Communists are not stateless or decentralized, in fact the inclusion of this phrase seems to contradict the premise of the whole post. I really don't understand it.
Counterrevolutionary but counterproductive
Why?? Because you don't like states? Neither do I but don't anarchists need to like control territory and defend it in a revolution? I don't have an axe to grind with anarchists ideologically, but this is the part that doesn't make any sense to me. Like, I think it's possible to have authentically working class, bottom-up management of national production. I think this can be achieved through robust democratic processes. But unless you can flip a switch to turn every bourgeois and self-interested petty bourgeois into a can of tomatoes instantaneously all over the world, which also educates and empowers the working classes to abolish divisions of labor, chauvinisms, etc., then there has to be some transitional period where the ruling capitalist class is suppressed and the aspirational middle class are liquidated into the larger working class. This just is not possible without a transitional state.
Except the post is arguing against a decentralized state for the vanguard? What does the post suggest we struggle for? Like this post makes no fucking sense and I don't understand the comments about it in this thread. Some people see the world "vanguard" used in a negative way, and choose to read this as a condemnation of communism. Except this post has nothing to do with communism or anarchism. If anything it seems like a defense of capitalism which shouldnt get any support in a left wing meme comm.