Anti-anarchists sometimes like to accuse "anarchists" of having terrible opinions, and then if you're like "I'm an anarchist and that's not true" they say "Oh, I mean internet anarchists."
I've seen some of you mirroring this rhetoric and complaining about "internet anarchists." This is playing into anti-anarchist rhetoric that discredits anarchism and divides the movement. You don't have to prove you're one of the good ones.
We used to call those people "baby anarchists." They weren't pretenders who we had to distance ourselves from, they were uneducated people who needed some pointers on things like cooption, anti-imperialism, lesser evilism and the non-profit industrial complex.
Don't distance yourself from internet anarchists, educate baby anarchists.
deleted by creator
What!? No! That would be pragmatic, we can't have that! Our politics must be entirely based around aping the aesthetics of past revolutionaries, basing things around the material conditions of the time and place you are in is for armchairs! What are you, some kind of person who doesn't have the flag of an obscure revolutionary party behind them that they feel compelled to explain to everyone they get in a video call with at great length?
You don't have to do anything of course. Especially if you are in a place were nothing concrete exists movement wise.
But at the end of the day ,i think, in organizing and in propagandizing people "combining different aspects of various tendencies to fit your material conditions" isn't a thing and you would arrive at the same and better and more efficient actions by following the tactical approach of whatever analysis you view as the best and more concrete way forward and the correct and coherent stuff of what you are actually doing either way is still in line with what X approach and analysis would suggest, just without acknowledging it
There is no combination and synthesis of tendencies and approaches into new stuff that somehow works better and keeps everyone happy. Looking deeper into it every general set of organizing, tactical and rhetorical choices you or your group or org undertakes will be in line with some tendency and spawn from some ideology and worldview. Even of people personally might think "oh I'm just chosing what feels Like the best choice at the momment". Even if you personally refuse to take a label and think you are "picking and combining aspects of different stuff" when organizing etc truth is that in practice all that still falls under what some specific tendency or ideology would "suggest" and it would be counterintuirive, self sabotagingand inefficient to not,sooner or later, find which framework is that ,that best encompasses those beliefs and actions and preferences of yours, that would have led you to the same correct choices in organizing and rhetoric while avoiding and that bethe mistakes st traces the correct way forward . And to not proceed in your organizing and approach with all the mountains of tools ,theory, experience and history of that framework by your side, having something concrete that will point to the best courses of action and choices based on the material conditions of each situation.
That's what tendencies/ideologies do and you act under one despite not wanting to label yourself or wanting to label your choices as some new and distinct combination of aspects of tendencies . So it's better to acknowledge it, understand it and others, embrace it, hone it