I came across this thread which had some interesting interpretations and posits that ML grew as a function of anarchism's failure to recruit/organize:

My sincere answer for why tankies reemerged five years ago is that movements are social hierarchies and newbie teens don't want to compete for status in existing illegible/inaccessible spaces like anarchism, so they resurrected a dead/empty scene that had trappings of status.

See also leftypol & the dirtbaggers. Folks get converted on one issue and then recoil about being expected to also learn / change their opinion on a variety of other topics. Respecting pronouns?! Never! You olds are a joke! We're making a new movement with hookers & blackjack!

Most of the anarchist movement had sneered at and avoided the internet (seen as an insecure tool of civilized alienation). Also it was illegible, most of the shit we expect you to learn/accept we don't even write down. And getting involved? We're terrible at helping folks join.

But ALSO the anarchist movement got up its own ass. We derided the internet and avoided utilizing it effectively. We embraced illegibility as resistance, forgetting that accessibility is critical to undermining hierarchies. And we corrupted into playing internal status games.

So what do we ascribe the sudden uptick in radicalization?

      • PhaseFour [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Here are my major disagreements:

        Anarchism is inherently more diverse.

        In my personal experiences, Anarchist collectives have been significantly more white than the ML/MLM/Maoist organizations I've been in contact with. This is true on an international level, where the strongest base for Anarchism is in the US & EU.

        Anarchism illegible to newbs.

        I wouldn't say "illegibility" is the problem. But it is incredibly difficult to join Anarchist collectives. None of the ones in my area have a formal recruitment process. It is all about meeting the right people at demonstrations, being in the punk scene, etc.

        In my experience, Marxist-Leninist are much better organizers than Anarchists. I think the rise in Marxist-Leninism and the decline in Anarchism is that simple.

        You can shroud it in language such as "we're oppose to hierarchies", "we prioritize individual agency", etc. But that's the inevitable consequence.

      • My_Army [any]
        1·
        3 years ago

        deleted by creator

        • spectre [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          If you’re a baby leftist, it’s way easier to get into anarchism than any flavour of Marxism.

          Yup, if you're American you can keep a lot of your worldview as an lib-soc and analyze a lot of things through the lens of "freedom" and such, but this time you get to acknowledge the inherent power dynamics at play during something like a salary negotiation (while liberal analysis just assumes both parties have equal standing). This is a good thing.

          First, because "socialism with American characteristics" is going to have a heavily libertarian component, for better or worse. The material and ideological environment isn't really there for something that resembles the Chinese or Russian revolutions. Of course that could change in the future.

          Second, any decent anarchist should be familiar with Marx, even if they may have some reservations. As a Marxist, I welcome and encourage them to dive deeper, and develop a materialist worldview along the way (don't really care about their political tendency which is distinct from that, in my opinion)

      • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        No one should be above criticism or be given special social privileges without recourse or oversight just because they’re popular. We do a lot to try and curb that on this site

        Sometimes I think it would be fun if anyone who hit 10,000 comments (or whatever number) made a thread about it and deleted their account at the end in celebration.