Unfortunately, if you want at least semi-coherent anti-imperialism you're also gonna need to reject a ton of socialists/commies. Also you'll need to embrace a bunch of ancoms who do far better than those Trots and MLs and vaguely Marxist people at not sounding like a CIA person.
IMO, the tendency of westerners being politically incoherent is the elephant in the room that makes it almost pointless to talk about tendencies. The bad takes onslaught isn't from people who have done a bunch of good reading that weigh their opinions against a real organizing effort against the national bourgeoisie. It is truly just liberalism and Western incoherent bias. It's people who call themselves socialist or anarchist that uncritically absorb New York Times narratives and use it to do nothing distinguishable from a fed or conservative Dem. It's baby leftists (again, liberals) who call themselves socialist while cheering on Zelensky and eating up every dumb pro-war propaganda effort on Ukraine. These people outnumber us and they do this shit in our name.
There is also a risk of reactionary takes more generally, including homophobic, transphobic, and misogynist takes in Western political orgs, especially ones that call themselves socialist / communist. These are also orgs that aren't concerned that in a community where white people make up 40% of the population, the org is 80% white and 80% cishet dudes. They fail to integrate with and learn from the masses, to gauge the local conditions, to be effective in any way, and end up just plain alienating people and fucking around. And they miss the opportunity to be an org of solidarity, to be a force against marginalization pointing the right fingers.
Anyways, my point is that it's almost pointless to spend much effort dunking on anarchists. 9 times out of 10 you're talking about liberals that have read 2 books, listen to V*ush or some shit, and have no idea what's happening. That really isn't an anarchist, just like the person who calls themselves a ML after reading The Communist Manifesto and skimming Twitter generally isn't a communist (and can be taken in by reactionaries like Haz). These are Western liberals reproducing their fundamentally reactionary upbringings, just in different flavors. To fight them, what we need to do is build orgs and effective propaganda against this liberalism, not rehash fights that generally turn into a discussion about the 1910s that no party even understands.
Unfortunately, if you want at least semi-coherent anti-imperialism you're also gonna need to reject a ton of socialists/commies. Also you'll need to embrace a bunch of ancoms who do far better than those Trots and MLs and vaguely Marxist people at not sounding like a CIA person.
IMO, the tendency of westerners being politically incoherent is the elephant in the room that makes it almost pointless to talk about tendencies. The bad takes onslaught isn't from people who have done a bunch of good reading that weigh their opinions against a real organizing effort against the national bourgeoisie. It is truly just liberalism and Western incoherent bias. It's people who call themselves socialist or anarchist that uncritically absorb New York Times narratives and use it to do nothing distinguishable from a fed or conservative Dem. It's baby leftists (again, liberals) who call themselves socialist while cheering on Zelensky and eating up every dumb pro-war propaganda effort on Ukraine. These people outnumber us and they do this shit in our name.
There is also a risk of reactionary takes more generally, including homophobic, transphobic, and misogynist takes in Western political orgs, especially ones that call themselves socialist / communist. These are also orgs that aren't concerned that in a community where white people make up 40% of the population, the org is 80% white and 80% cishet dudes. They fail to integrate with and learn from the masses, to gauge the local conditions, to be effective in any way, and end up just plain alienating people and fucking around. And they miss the opportunity to be an org of solidarity, to be a force against marginalization pointing the right fingers.
Anyways, my point is that it's almost pointless to spend much effort dunking on anarchists. 9 times out of 10 you're talking about liberals that have read 2 books, listen to V*ush or some shit, and have no idea what's happening. That really isn't an anarchist, just like the person who calls themselves a ML after reading The Communist Manifesto and skimming Twitter generally isn't a communist (and can be taken in by reactionaries like Haz). These are Western liberals reproducing their fundamentally reactionary upbringings, just in different flavors. To fight them, what we need to do is build orgs and effective propaganda against this liberalism, not rehash fights that generally turn into a discussion about the 1910s that no party even understands.