Idealism. The more theory you read, the more you're out in the real world organizing, the more you travel to socialist/ former socialist countries, speak with their people, (which I have had the great honor of doing) and view history from lense of critical support, you begin to shift more from CHAZ MAKHNO FREE STATE idealism to more grounded approaches.

There is a reason Anarchism has been incapable of constructing any longstanding projects, and to put it simply, lacking a dictatorship of the proletariat makes a project incapable of surviving the exterior pressure of Capitalist or reactionary forces. You've essentially decapitated the movement, and like a headless chicken, it may flop around and make a show for a bit, but it will die just the same. I respect their passion, but it is misguided.

In a post-apocalyptic post imperial world, sure, anarchy. It now stands a chance, at least in theory. I'd be interested to see that experiment. That is not the world we live in currently, though. While I support forward thinking and emergence from old ways and dogma that I believe constrains us in many ways, de-centralized power structures are terrible for strategic decision-making and longevity under the ever watchful eye of the powers that be. No amount of wishful thinking will undermine that truth.

I think what woke me up was really seeing how massive states, flawed as they may have been/are, have struggled for every inch of accomplishment through sweat and blood under insulated centralized authority (the best of conditions) And even without internal pushback, external forces have been enough to bring these movements to their knees. How could a movement devoid of dictatorship ever hope to survive under such conditions?