Like CNT did in 1936 when they got drunk on what essentially became grassroots market “socialism” and their leadership entered the bourgeois government thinking that there is no need to brutally and swiftly resolve the issue of proletarian/bourgeois dual power instead?
Or Zapatistas, who have literally captured the capital of such a huge country but then decided to compromise and go back to the jungle for some narrow-minded reasons and ban abortion while they were at it?
You forgot to make the point - you just vaguely gestured at examples of problems with those calling themselves anarchists… as though every last one of us hasn’t personally experienced problems with strong hierarchies.
I understand that relying on a point rather than implied threats of violence may be new territory for someone advancing the position you appear to be, so I’ll give you another try - try steering clear of transparent hypocrisy this time too.
Either you are a revolutionary and want to act decisively, boldly and with some cohesion to smash the state apparatus and brush off aspiring bureaucratic traitors or you either get offended at a large scale yet in what is mostly isolation and burn out or practice glorified reformism.
Nothing. But anarchism as a political movement is more divergent from Leninism (later rebranded by Zinovievites and Stalinists as “Luxemburgism” and “Trotskyism”) on the tactical matters which I find misguided, than anything else. Also I don’t love hierarchies and merely just view them through materialist optics like Engels did in “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, as opposed to the idealistic approach of anarchist apriorism. I’ve sadly seen many anarchists drift towards harmless individualism due to this rejection of a coherent (democratic) structure as a means of getting organized because “hierarchy bad” (even if the org is actually pretty horizontal)
Like CNT did in 1936 when they got drunk on what essentially became grassroots market “socialism” and their leadership entered the bourgeois government thinking that there is no need to brutally and swiftly resolve the issue of proletarian/bourgeois dual power instead?
Or Zapatistas, who have literally captured the capital of such a huge country but then decided to compromise and go back to the jungle for some narrow-minded reasons and ban abortion while they were at it?
You forgot to make the point - you just vaguely gestured at examples of problems with those calling themselves anarchists… as though every last one of us hasn’t personally experienced problems with strong hierarchies.
I understand that relying on a point rather than implied threats of violence may be new territory for someone advancing the position you appear to be, so I’ll give you another try - try steering clear of transparent hypocrisy this time too.
Either you are a revolutionary and want to act decisively, boldly and with some cohesion to smash the state apparatus and brush off aspiring bureaucratic traitors or you either get offended at a large scale yet in what is mostly isolation and burn out or practice glorified reformism.
What’s this got to do with your apparent love of rigid hierarchies, exactly?
Nothing. But anarchism as a political movement is more divergent from Leninism (later rebranded by Zinovievites and Stalinists as “Luxemburgism” and “Trotskyism”) on the tactical matters which I find misguided, than anything else. Also I don’t love hierarchies and merely just view them through materialist optics like Engels did in “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, as opposed to the idealistic approach of anarchist apriorism. I’ve sadly seen many anarchists drift towards harmless individualism due to this rejection of a coherent (democratic) structure as a means of getting organized because “hierarchy bad” (even if the org is actually pretty horizontal)