Comradeship // Freechat

I don't live in the US, but speaking from experience as a self-labeled anarchist of three years in a western country, libs when I tell them I'm an anarchist will basically always be like, "I'm so glad you're not one of them tankies!", and will then patronize me as some sort of utopian. As opposed to treat me with active hostility and suspicion like they treat MLs ("tankies").

But, naturally, the libs don't know anything about anything, so the moment I start saying "tankie" stuff — like saying that violence is a justifiable way to fight against a violent system, saying that I don't care about optics or electoralism, saying that self-labeling as an ally for a marginalized group does not make it a fact, focusing more of my energy on critiquing liberal democracy than AES, saying that I openly ally with MLs, and telling libs to go read a book other than Harry Potter for once — that's when I'll often get met with more hostility per se, regardless of if what I'm saying is actually a deviation from anarchist thought or not.

So yes, in my experience, anarchism is essentially a low-barrier entrypoint into leftist thought in the west. Most anarchists will be seen as essentially just foolish little children who pose no real threat, but other anarchists will be faced with hostility and repression. Don't forget that the FBI Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide includes a section dedicated specifically to anarchist symbolism.

Many "baby leftist" anarchists in the west will be electoralists focused on optics, be bad allies and pacifists, never read theory, never form coalitions or join orgs, and most importantly, will focus more of their energy on critiquing AES than liberal democracy. This is what makes most anarchists be deemed as "less of a threat", a group that can be more easily compartmentalized and pacified under capitalism. And this was why whenever I would talk politics to libs, I would always feel like they saw me almost as if I were part of the status quo that they upheld.

Yes absolutely, this has been well-documented, and pushing anarchism and various other anti-soviet trends was an explicit COINTELPRO tactic. From an FBI memo:

Norton - How the FBI used Anarchism to attack the left.

Another good article about how the CIA actively pushed ultraleft, eurocommunist, and various other anti-soviet academic trends in leftist theory:

Gabriel Rockhill - The CIA reads french theory.

Also another good article, focused on women's liberation movement organizing:

The tyranny of structurelessness - The failure of anarchist-style organizing in the womens-liberation movement.

ML has historically been much more of a threat to the US' capitalist hegemony than anything anarchism has ever done. It's not so strange that the former is more persecuted.

Anarchist who are actively working against the status quo are attacked just as much as any other group seeking to destroy it.

The difference in this context is that anarchism often has a much lower "barrier for entry" than ML thought, and in turn, is far less vilified by our media (it mostly just begins and ends with "anarchy is chaos" and doesn't elaborate. How many anarchist figures can you name who have been vilified by the media?) It exists as a kind of comfortable "testing the waters" space in a lot of the west. A place that someone can claim to be against the system, but not actually do anything about it, because while they identify as an "anarchist," their actual contributions to any movement is wearing a $59.99 punk jacket and going to a RATM concert. Anarchism is easier to fold into capitalism and turn into another commodity. Even Marxist stuff isn't immune to this (just look at Che Guevara shirts) but the capitalist class deem anarchism as ultimately less threatening and easier to manipulate, and so spend far less of their resources trying to destroy it.

There are plenty of properly organised anarchist organisations, just like their are ML ones, who actually require their members to read theory and understand their goals and objectives, but in the west especially, anyone can just call themselves an anarchist without consequence. So for people "experimenting" with left wing thought, it is usually what they trend towards as they don't risk alienating their friends and family, or risking their job in the same way that being an open ML often will in the west.

There’s never been an anarchist country, but there’s been ML countries.

They aren't seen as a structural/systemic threat. They're relegated from intelligence agency targeting and complex infiltration operations at the highest levels to tasking it to local cops to let them burn off some of their excess anger and desire for unanswerable violence on an acceptable target.

Adventurism is useful to the capitalists. And anarchists are quite big on that. Smashed Starbucks windows while feeling good to the smashers are also useful to retaining and enhancing police powers and not in any way a systemic threat. Your average member of the imperial core after all is put off by the inconvenience of being unable to get coffee or what have you. They see it as childish hooliganism and it annoys and sometimes frightens them and makes them think perhaps those police have a function. As a relief valve allowing some proles to occasionally smash a few things and cry "fuck the state" is a small price to pay to have a relief valve.

Anarchists are also easily manipulated. If ML's are easily infiltrated because of our party structure and hierarchy then anarchists are easily turned to useful purposes by any account wearing the right signs and using the right language. Let's not forget Lenin was shot and later died as a result of an anarchist assassin so they could be useful even for taking out ascendant Marxist leadership.

Anarchists flatten things out. Hierarchy = bad so it's easy to rile them up against China, Russia, other "authoritarian" states which on the surface exercise more control over speech, activity, etc than certain parts of the west and convince them the west is the lesser evil. Heck look at their support for Rojava, Ukraine, HK riots, it goes on and on, they can be used as a tool. Color revolutions probably often start or are accelerated by anarchists so in this degree they're potentially very useful outside the west to the west as part of the initial stages of toppling unfriendly governments before rushing in prepared folks they like.

After all it's fundamentally an individualistic, individual-centered and idealistic ideology much like liberalism and unlike scientific Marxism. Neither Moscow/Beijing nor Washington is perfectly fine to the western capitalists as a mantra, saying where you are and its system is shitty is less than ideal but okay as long as all other existing examples are portrayed as as shitty or worse and any betters are purely hypothetical and idealistic with no path forward that actually threatens the flow of profits or the domination of capital.

Really I think the idealism and centering of the individual makes it less threatening to liberal capitalism because they can always speak their language, use appeals about freedom of the individual or this or that to appeal or direct a large amount of anarchists. Sure some small amount may be able to identify the primary contradictions and avoid all the chaff and false images created but most don't. And they do attack Marxists and anti-imperialist organizations, and join Nazis in Ukraine, and so on. So there's ample evidence they can be re-directed.

And really all of this is not without reason. This is an evidence-based approach for the capitalists. Name an anarchist revolution that produced a state which existed for any meaningful period of time? Name one that supported numerous other revolutions with arms, training, etc? Name one that lifted millions out of poverty and rocketed up to same level of scientific and industrial power as the west? Name one that endured decades of blockade and sanctions?

No, I’m not allowed to exist.

That’s why as soon as you all establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, you’ll shoot me in the head.

Coincidentally, that is also exactly the reason why I’m supporting you.

I would say that it's partly true, but mostly due to the co-opting of anarchist aesthetics to more surface-level rebellion combined with even more limited understanding of the ideology than ML combined with antielectroralism (if you were an ADULT you would understand that you need a political party to change anything)

It's seen as juvenile phase of rebellion not aimed at any concrete change outside of "no rules", and the aesthetics being co-opted so widely dilutes the actual praxis, so it's not seen as the same kind of threat for the status quo as MLs

On the other hand, people have had more hostile reactions when I've said that I am an anarchist than if I called myself a socialist or communist, since anarchists are more associated with direct violence (I've tried to break this misconception and explain that communists are just as willing, just doing my part)

Tbh I've never really planted my flag on either camp, and pick label based on either which one gets a funnier reaction or how much I have energy to explain theory at that point (older people usually need a 101 on anarchist theory and socialist scares them just as much)