Nothing confounds me more than the droves of “libertarian socialists” and “anarcho-communists” who insist on clinging to the world’s least relevant ideologies. Speaking as someone who used to be an anarchist (before I became old enough to drink), I can identify at least part of the reason being a vehement anti-Soviet and Sinophobic worldview cultivated by decades of malicious propaganda.
But I don’t think this critique gets to the core of their beliefs. The true operative factor is twofold. On the one hand, anticommunist “socialists” avoid the consequences that come from aligning oneself with actually-existing socialism. This boils down to the simple fact that no one, especially not the powerful, are actually threatened by western leftist “movements” which spend all of their time and resources owning the red fash tankies online. Functionally, radlibs and liberals are on the same team aside from some nominal points of disagreement. This is clear enough from the Ukraine news cycle and its predictable effects on the minds of these terminal losers.
But on the other hand, every single anarchist “revolution” ending in defeat and failure has advantages for those who wish to profess to the ideology. Within radlib mythology, the fundamental failures of anarchist movements can all be blamed on external sabotage. This, of course, is exactly what we have been shouting from the rooftops for decades upon decades. And yet this seemingly obvious point of weakness shields anarchists from having to prove that their ideas actually work. If you have no surviving socialist project, there’s nothing to criticize.
Obviously, this is in actuality a serious problem for every anarchist. When all “anarchist” socialist states are fanciful stories of flawless communism sealed in the distant past, there is no scientific socialism and no historical progress along those lines. Apparently, this suits them just fine, though it does make them deeply unserious.
Sorry, that was kind of a throwaway line. Of course anarchists do good work, and I know the infighting isn’t so bad in “real life.” Even so, I do think anarchism as a movement is driven by a desire to separate itself from AES, and that doing so entails the problems I’ve described. There’s a reason it’s a mostly western phenomenon. These are people who want to think of themselves as radicals, but have internalized too much propaganda to figure out when and how their media and schools lie to them. Consequently, they are pigeonholed into a movement which has effectively served as controlled opposition for American intelligence for the past sixty years or so.
Anyone can do good work. Even Democrats sometimes do good work. But at some point, we need to get on the same page as to what “opposing the bourgeois state” actually means. It means multipolarity. It means opposing NATO expansion. It means maintaining normal relations with China. There are those who drag their feet on these issues, and it’s not a mystery where that reluctance is coming from.
I feel ya. It’s maddening. But I think after anarchists are confronted with reality it’ll convert a lot of them. It’ll take some ugly lessons though.