Edit for clarity: I'm not asking why the Tankie/Anarchist grudge exist. I'm curious about what information sources - mentors, friends, books, TV, cultural osmosis, conveys that information to people. Where do individuals encounter this information and how does it become important to them. It's an anthropology question about a contemporary culture rather than a question about the history of leftism.
I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Newly minted Anarchists have to learn to hate Lenin and Stalin and whoever else they have a grudge against. They have to encounter some materials or teacher who teaches them "Yeah these guys, you have to hate these guys and it has to be super-personal like they kicked your dog. You have to be extremely angry about it and treat anyone who doesn't disavow them as though they're literally going to kill you."
Like there's some process of enculturation there, of being brought in to the culture of anarchism, and there's a process where anarchists learn this thing that all (most?) anarchists know and agree on.
Idk, just anthropology brain anthropologying. Cause like if someone or something didn't teach you this why would you care so much?
I find this a little weird because didn't Kropotkin ultimately hate Lenin and accuse him of not believing in anything or something?
There was definitely a lot of friction between Kropotkin and Lenin due to ideological differences. They saw things in a way that was basically diametrically opposed to the other's perspective and in that transcription of their meeting this becomes obvious, a lot like when HG Wells met with Stalin actually.
They definitely disagreed on lots of matters but Lenin really did have a lot of respect for Kropotkin at the same time. Whether that was reciprocated or not idk. But also this is something that you see when people or groups are deeply invested in something - politics, religion, a field of science etc. - they'll lambast and denounce one another, often in really vicious ways, and yet underneath that they will still have a genuine respect for each other. They'll write an article slamming the other person and then at a conference they'll greet each other as old friends and they'll dine and drink together. Obviously there are situations where people are just outright antagonistic to one another without having any respect (e.g. Lenin's sentiment towards Kautsky, as far as I'm aware) but I think it's important to remember that vehement disagreements with someone don't necessarily mean that there's enmity there as well. (A lot of people feel this way about parts of their family tbh - they disagree on most things but they still have love and respect for each other despite the fact that everyone in conversation around the Thanksgiving dinner table cautiously avoids bringing up those third rail topics.)
Honestly Lenin seemed to truly respect Kropotkin's work, his efforts, and his commitment to the struggle. He thought Kropotkin was utterly ideologially blinded, but then Kropotkin also thought the same thing of Lenin lol.
At least to me, Lenin's feelings on Kautsky seem kind of odd. Obviously he hated him, but he was still able to admit that Kautsky wrote useful and elucidating things.
I should have just dug up the Kropotkin quote the first time:
Idk, this doesn't seem like a professional disagreement in the manner of what is expressed in the transcription of their meeting.
Edit: Lenin of course had great respect for Kropotkin, but it seems like it was very one-sided by the end.