|>> || 1503975380620.jpg -(79419B / 77.56KB, 706x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. |
The Kurds recently wrote a critique arguing just that, and they have a point. I think the critique was more apt a decade ago, since at that time it was mostly infoshops, summit-hopping, and issue-based organizing that didn't look beyond that specific issue.
The longer term strategy is mutual aid work and organizing popular assemblies that focus on local issues and practical solutions to them. Now with all the mutual aid work going on, the slow-and-steady game is gaining steam. The focus is spread out through many interconnected issues, from prison solidarity work, to aid for the houseless, tenant and worker unions, solidarity networks, environment and animal protection, police accountability, street medics, anti-fascism, food, and neighborhood organizing.
Not being aware of effective actions and organizing != lack thereof. Though more people could be participating in such, and the focus on helpful practical actions could be greater. This goes back to the question of media, corporate media will never support anarchist projects, and even when they cover such, its either negative or ridden with misrepresentations.
The grueling work of mutual aid gets little to no attention yet street battles with the police and/or fascists and white nationalists gets tons of attention. This is probably also because of ratings, organizing looks boring, but street actions are spectacular.
It'd be nice if others outside anarchist or anarchist-friendly circles were to chip-in and do positive work along side them, as some are, but not many. Is ideological purity or the stigma of anarchism too great a barrier to cooperation despite our differences? I think the focus on practical actions bridges the ideological divide.
How about US libertarians (or right-libertarians), are they too caught up in their own mechanizations to participate in positive work?
Its cool most US libertarians are for open borders, hopefuly not just for trade like how globalism is, but for the free movement of people as well. It does seem like a contradiction that they'd be for the government restricting the actions of people (gay marriage) yet against the government intervening in people's lives. Which is it?
The reason authoritarian communists (aligned with Lenin, Mao, and Stalin's line of thinking) are against anarchists is because anarchists are anti-authoritarian and wouldn't support a centralized party dictating from above what is right and what is wrong. Liberals' sentiment of anarchists seems more mixed. Recently support for anarchist projects and anti-fascists actions has been increasing hella, but there's plenty of disagreements, and as it should be, because there is no one way, but many ways.