A Short Review of Anarchism _________________
Part 1: Redundant Post-Left observations
Anarchism has has had a long and tiresome history here in the west. Its gone through the natural phases of any ideology. Which basically consist of starting as something obscure, being seen as the second coming of Jesus, and then collapsing under the weight of its own bloated corpse. If you ask the average anarchist what the ideology means to them, you're likely to hear an annoyingly long speech with heavy Marxist undertones. Then followed by a suggestion to read Kropotkin. If you ask anyone else, they'd probably conflate it with punk rock and maybe mention the circumscribed “A”. But anarchism's failure doesn't lie in its lack of popularity. It lies in its lack of effect. Anarchism seems to be an unproductive outlet for young energy much like protesting. Like a lot of recent ideas, anarchism is eager to point out the flaws in the world, but less enthusiastic about implementation. A lot of anarchists are even aware of this, mainly the ones old enough to see the cycle of bullshit, and constantly call for the ever so nebulous action. Anarchism just isn't the soil for working solutions to the world's problems.
Part 2: Late Stage Anarchism
Because its failure has gone from being well kept secret to something worn on the collar, anarchists have had different reactions to it. Many anarchists have simply seceded. Frustrated from the lack of action, “tankie-ism” has become the resting place for many annoyed anarchists. They can be found wrapping themselves in Hegel, as well as referring to their past belief as an “anarkiddie” phase. Other anarchists have gone to an interesting place known as post-leftism. Post-leftism, essentially outlines the flaws of the old left and creates the foundation for something new and effective. Which many anarchists have interpreted as a sort of ethical hedonism, which lets them live their normal lives without the burden of a lofty cause. A more “radical” cell, which I affectionately refer to as the “incels of anarchism”, have turned to anarcho-nihilism. Anarcho-nihilism is an ideology so useless(to me at least) that it doesn't really warrant a name and is so edgy its tiresome. It really should've been followed with mass suicides after its conception and later followed by the peaceful lack of bitterness. The remaining anarchists are simply dropping like flies or going apolitical. Fragmentation is a big part of late stage anarchism and not even the oxymoronic anti-ideologies will be able to save it. I'd read the books, the blog posts, and the comments anarchists create. But couldn't recommend you engage in the culture.
Part 3: Anarchist “Culture”
Anarchist culture is so bad, it would be funny if it weren't one of the leading strains of anti-authoritarianism. When witnessing it, as well as hearing anarchists speak about it, one might think they were listening to two little boys playing “secret agent”. Its heavy with LARPing. Alot of anarchists like to believe that they're the only rogues in a world out to get them, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The action done by most anarchists is more than tolerated in most liberal democracies since it has so little an impact. Alot of it is writing and the distribution of said writing. Which they often pretend will reach the average person, when in reality its only going to people already convinced of their ideas. Anarchist organization is also something that hasn't been fleshed out yet despite years or work on it. Most anarchists projects have a tendency of either one person giving out orders/doing all the work or simply imploding. Which doesn't really bode well for their ideas. Manu anarchists also seem to take themselves and their “lore” too seriously. Insulting something like Rojava or Catalonia can get you an unearned accusation of being a fascist, one of the things I'd hope to escape when I left liberalism. Like liberalism, they also repeat alot of liberal behavior, replacing “support” with solidarity. Alot of anarchist action an the west can be summed up as feeling support of something someone else is doing. All these things can be seen as nitpicks, compared to the main issue of the closed nature of anarchist culture. Anarchist culture makes you take on a persona and use certain marxist language to engage in the mass LARPing. It can be extremely restrictive if you chose to go against mainstream anarchist thought. Which, despite the recent post-leftist tedencies, remains rigid and boring.
Part 4: A New Hope in Anarchy?
On the cutting edge of non-nihilist anarchist thought is the idea of anarchy. Rather than the closed box of anarchism, anarchy seeks to be open to interpretation and new ways of thinking. This was something I could get behind, but is already limited by the label. Anarchy is something that's tainted with anarchist culture and restricts thought to anarchist ways. The name doesn't mean new thought, just new anarchist thought, which continues to make the same tired observations and inspires the same useless action. Action under anarchy is still disappointing as its still done by anarchists. And as time goes by, anarchists become more old and stuck in their ways and less anarchists come in to flush out the cannon fodder. Whether this is good, as it means the death of the cult of anarchism, is yet to be seen as there is currently no successor for the ideological vacuum anarchism will be leaving. Anarchy seems to be the last heartbeat of the comatose victim that is anarchism. Lets hope its death leaves something better.
I give anarchism a 4.5/10. In its heyday it wasn't that influential and like leftism, has failed to recognize the times and seeks to drag the world back to its private bubble. They've earned the “utopian socialist” and “anarkiddie” pejoratives.