I'm curious about the validity of the claim that anarchism is an acceptable form of anti-status quo politics in the US because they're not actually a threat.
Is this true? Have anarchist groups not been infiltrated as often as MLs have? Is it easier to take them down?
I only ask because I feel like any form of left wing/anti-capitalist thought would be heavily suppressed here but I don't know
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)