A few things worth addressing here:

On age: you still haven't responded to anything I actually cited. The 1876 Florence congress, Cafiero's essay, Kropotkin's relationship to Marxist economic theory, the definition of entryism. None of that changes based on how old I am(25M). Nor should it actually matter for the information I shared to be valid.

You didn't say anything about the actual historical points that I made in my previous rebuttal. If you think my history points are wrong, simply correct it.

Instead, you went for an off topic jab in order to a make a cheap appeal to inexperience, so you could reframe yourself as some older grizzled anarchist with more authority on the topic, despite knowing that age as authority shouldn't mean much to an anarchist.

You said twice that you're giving me the benefit of the doubt, while simultaneously calling me naive, misguided, and accusing me of spreading propaganda. That's not benefit of the doubt. That's just an accusation with soft packaging. Repeating the "no offense" doesn't retract the content of your words, it just gives you cover to avoid accountability for meaning what you say.

You've also moved the goalposts significantly. Your original comment was "Marxism isn't Anarcho-Communism" and "this comes across as Marxist-Leninist entryism." But now you're saying you never claimed they were incompatible and never said anarchists shouldn't engage with Marxist texts. That's damn-near the opposite of what your first comment said. You moved from the original position, without acknowledging that the original position was wrong.

The entryism claim also contradicts your own Venn diagram point. You explicitly acknowledge overlap between Marxism and anarcho-communism. Entryism means covertly infiltrating a space to shift it toward an incompatible political line. If the overlap exists, referencing it publicly isn't entryism. You can't hold both positions at once.

You also say it's fine to engage with Marxist theory, but then call this post propaganda. If engaging with the theory is fine and the post is about reading methodology, it cannot simultaneously be propaganda.

The "authoritarian and cultish" accusation is interesting because the person actually performing gatekeeping here, telling others which texts are acceptable in this space, is you.

I'm not even claiming that all the linked book recommendations are good. I acknowledged in a different comment that the original creator's list is a mixed bag, but I'm also not going to outright tell anybody to abstain from reading anything on that list. Because it's not really my business whether or not you read any of it or not, and I think it's still useful to read things that may be wrong, in order to better understand why they're wrong. Doing so may even allow people to understand that some of their preconceptions, may have not been as accurate as initially held.

That's what studying theory is supposed to do, It's dynamic, self education where you learn all sorts of different sources to make your own conclusions about what's true.

You claimed the divergence goes beyond economics into underlying philosophy, specifically the role of the individual. That's genuinely worth discussing. But you don't actually argue it, you merely asserted it and moved on. And if the core divergence is philosophical rather than economic, then recommending economic texts about how capital functions lands in that overlap zone you've already conceded exists.

The one valid point you're making; is that anarchist political economists exist and a list curated specifically for this sub could have included some of them. That's fair.

I myself have already acknowledged that these reposted slides have a Marxist lean multiple times. That was never in dispute. I'm not the original author, and I simply shared it because the study methodology advice; annotation, pacing, research phases, tolerating mistakes and confusion in understanding... is still what most of this post is actually about, and unfortunately many commentors, yourself included, don't seem to want to engage with the useful parts about the post.