#truly the Ayn Randists of the left

[ciswomenofficial]

Mkay, well, I don’t really care about the dishes on your anarchist commune—i mean I’m sure whatever compromise anarchism is capable of coming to will be misogynistic and in general let random charismatic people’s biases rule their social spaces—but I care much more about anarchism’s history of giving ground to the petty bourgeoisie, and how they keep doing that because they have liberal ideas about how to create freedom. I’m much more concerned about many anarchists celebrating the idea of the carceral system being replaced by spontaneous social ostracisation or even lynchings led by the will of a masses they aren’t willing to accept needs to be prepared and changed in order to rule (or else the masses they have little but vague nothings as a plan to change). I’m much more concerned that anarchism has achieved little in terms of strategic victory and yet that it has had an almost complete ideological stagnation and lack of meaningfully new ideas throughout its development, and has certainly made little progress strategically in that time as well. And most of all, I’m critical of how anarchists are unwilling to criticize their magic set of libertarian ideals imported from liberalism and take them as anything other than a set of dead stone-still sky truths that must never be questioned in social science with no regards or thought to which classes they serve. But sure. The mean tankies are just mad because they believe in forcing everyone to do dishes at gunpoint I guess and all the anarchist will vaguely work it out horizontally somehow (as though no revolution needs to happen in the domestic sphere until those contradictions become violent and acute and can only be solved with violence, as though there are no ingrained biases in the masses that will affect what they chose or negotiate, as though peoples forces of will and charisma are equal and they’ll all have an equal say without a formal structure). Anarchism wins apparently because if problems can’t be solved or aren’t solved suitably by talking it out, they must be solved by violence, unlike the scary tankies with their scary shadow states which will do things like have mass movements to confront these social problems a la the cultural revolution (imperfect and sometimes violent and therefore wicked by default.

Sometimes critiques of anarchism seem to come from a framework that asks anarchists to have a plan for what to do if half of their society suddenly decides to stubbornly refuse to cooperate with anything despite it being in the best interests of themselves and everyone around them; but for statists takes "we'll just force compliance from above" as an answer needing no justification, as if the use of force has only ever ensured perfect obedience and never sowed discontent.