Anarchists are Marxists.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don't view 'anarchist' revolutions in the same light that I view their theories; I don't think that theories are exclusive with revolutions, considering that they are created by social forces, rather than some sort of ideology. I think the social organizations that we wish to replace the capitalist machinery with, such as soviets and syndicates, are all legitimate representations of workers' control; there is no difference other than semantics and minor historical representations that seperate the two. However, I see the political line that the leadership takes to be of the utmost importance. As so, I can find that many anarchists that could easily find themselves in bed with Bolshevism, Durruti for example, took the position of a Bolshevik from 1917.


“When an organization's whole existence has been spent preaching revolution, it has an obligation to act whenever a favorable set of circumstances arises. And in July [1936] the occasion did present itself. The CNT ought to have leapt into the driver's seat in the country, delivering a severe coup de grace to all that is outmoded and archaic. In this way, we would have won the war and saved the revolution.

“But it did the opposite. It collaborated with the bourgeoisie in the affairs of the state, precisely when the State was crumbling away on all sides. It bolstered up Companys and company. It breathed a lungful of oxygen into an anemic, terror-stricken bourgeoisie. One of the most direct reasons why the revolution has been asphyxiated and the CNT displaced, is that it behaved like a minority group, even though it had a majority in the streets....

“On the other hand, we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise. What happens is that the various aspects of revolution are progressively dealt with, but with the proviso that the class which represents the new order of things is the one with the most responsibility. And when things are done by halves, we have what presently concerns us, the disaster of July.”

So, where Durruti found himself more or less in agreement with Malatesta's deconstruction and criticism against Makhno's platform - either his practices in the 1917-1921 interval, or the 1926 Platform - we find this same Durruti making fast and rapid adaptations of the Platform - rightly seen by anarchist critics as a form of Bolshevism - into his neo-syndicalism which has seen the introduction of a 'slight variation'. His call for the creation of a “revolutionary army” characterized by “unity in the plan of operations and unity of common command”, had left him in the same boots as any other Bolshevik. Durruti recognized that the CNT betrayed the revolution. You can't lay all of the blame on Stalin, since the power of his intervention was only as strong as the utter weakness and confusion of the anarchist leadership. The quote doesn't mention a "faction" in the CNT, it condemns the CNT as a whole. It condemns it from the stand point of Bolshevism -a failure to take power when the time was right. But that failure stems from the paranoia of anarchism about states and power. It only ensures that the worst possible forces come to power. This is where the importance of theory derives from, and the reason why revolutions with anarchist leadership might find themselves in a conniption.

Do anarchists here agree with Durruti's position on the CNT? Would that not mean that you are taking the same position as a Bolshevik, and departing from your anarchist traditions?

[apathy maybe]

Just a quick compliant about the title of the thread.

Anarchism is such a broad "super-set" of ideologies, it is impossible to claim such a thing. Yes some anarchists are Marxists (agreeing with Marxian analysis). But so many more aren't (don't).

As well, simply because some anarchists are Marxists, doesn't mean that they are Bolsheviks.

I'll reply in more detail later.

Edit some time later:
Actually, I won't reply in more detail. The following posts make redundant any comment I could have made.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 15, 2007 05:18 pm
Just a quick compliant about the title of the thread.

Anarchism is such a broad "super-set" of ideologies, it is impossible to claim such a thing. Yes some anarchists are Marxists (agreeing with Marxian analysis). But so many more aren't (don't).

As well, simply because some anarchists are Marxists, doesn't mean that they are Bolsheviks.

I'll reply in more detail later.
I threw in that title to catch the attention of the anarchist audience on Revolutionary Left.

[TC]

the title of the thread makes little sense...anarchism is a broad rejection of state organized society, Marxism is a specific paradigmatic ideological position of scientific socialism developed by Marx and Engels.

It would be like saying "socialists are marxists." Some are, some aren't, socialism is a much more general concept, as is anarchism.

[gilhyle]

Dont get diverted by his title. Answer his question....please.

[abbielives!]

I think you misunderstand what we mean when we say we want to seize power. power being disingushed from state power. we want the masses take power. To answer your other questions, yes I agree with Durruti, no it does not represent a departure from anarchist tradition. and no anarchist are not marxists:

[Labor Shall Rule]

Do not divert this into a game of semantics.

What is power? You are refering to 'power' as if it is some sort of organization that 'the masses' would take a hold of. If the state is a monopoly of violence, if it acts as a body that flexes it's force over another, then I don't see the difference between your implied definition of 'power'. It seems obvious to me that, this 'power' is no different from the state power; you have offered no material or historical analysis that would differentiate between these two, so I have to make that conclusion.

Also, Abbielives, you have contradicted yourself.

Why revolution is not authoriarian (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66977)

You were the one that said, "an authoritarian action is something that violates others rights; if you are violating someones rights you must be stopped; revolution is not an authoritarian exercise unless you believe the capitalists have a right to their wealth or power." However, Durruti said that “on the other hand, we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise." This seems as a departure from anarchist theory; this makes Durruti an "authoritarian". Besides, Durruti was not correct, the CNT was not in the majority; the Union General de Trabajadores represented the majority of workers in actuality. Therefore, by demanding that the CNT should seize control, it is demanding that a revolutionary junta of the most advanced, class conscious section of the proletariat should seize the state power. So, 'the masses', an ambigous term for the majority, would clearly not be taking power in this occasion. The Bolsheviks in 1917 reacted the same way; the Socialist Revolutionaries were actually the majority as proven by the Constituent Assembly elections, but the Provisional Government threatened to wipe out the Soviets, so they seized control when the time was right.

[abbielives!]

defining basic concepts is not semantics. i have not contradicted myself i have changed my views somewhat.i would refer to mass power as self organization, different from state power where desion making is concentrated in the hands of a few. the differance lies in who has the desion making power.

as for not being the majority, i have founf that if you put two radicals in a room with 50 moderates or apathic people the radicals will dominate.

[Rawthentic]

different from state power where desion making is concentrated in the hands of a few
Thats not what state power is. It means that a certain class is in ruling position with the power to repress the subjugated class.

[rouchambeau]

Ever heard of post-structuralist anarchism?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by abbielives!@July 17, 2007 09:35 pm
as for not being the majority, i have founf that if you put two radicals in a room with 50 moderates or apathic people the radicals will dominate.
You are essentially taking the same position that a Bolshevik would take in 1917.

[chimx]

Ever heard of post-structuralist anarchism?

Probably not. They would get restricted or banned if they tried to come here.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 17, 2007 10:17 pm--> (RedDali @ July 17, 2007 10:17 pm)
abbielives!@July 17, 2007 09:35 pm
as for not being the majority, i have founf that if you put two radicals in a room with 50 moderates or apathic people the radicals will dominate.
You are essentially taking the same position that a Bolshevik would take in 1917. [/b]

i have a few disargeements with the structure of the bolshevik party at that point

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:56 pm
I don't view 'anarchist' revolutions in the same light that I view their theories; I don't think that theories are exclusive with revolutions, considering that they are created by social forces, rather than some sort of ideology. I think the social organizations that we wish to replace the capitalist machinery with, such as soviets and syndicates, are all legitimate representations of workers' control; there is no difference other than semantics and minor historical representations that seperate the two. However, I see the political line that the leadership takes to be of the utmost importance. As so, I can find that many anarchists that could easily find themselves in bed with Bolshevism, Durruti for example, took the position of a Bolshevik from 1917.


“When an organization's whole existence has been spent preaching revolution, it has an obligation to act whenever a favorable set of circumstances arises. And in July [1936] the occasion did present itself. The CNT ought to have leapt into the driver's seat in the country, delivering a severe coup de grace to all that is outmoded and archaic. In this way, we would have won the war and saved the revolution.

“But it did the opposite. It collaborated with the bourgeoisie in the affairs of the state, precisely when the State was crumbling away on all sides. It bolstered up Companys and company. It breathed a lungful of oxygen into an anemic, terror-stricken bourgeoisie. One of the most direct reasons why the revolution has been asphyxiated and the CNT displaced, is that it behaved like a minority group, even though it had a majority in the streets....

“On the other hand, we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise. What happens is that the various aspects of revolution are progressively dealt with, but with the proviso that the class which represents the new order of things is the one with the most responsibility. And when things are done by halves, we have what presently concerns us, the disaster of July.”

So, where Durruti found himself more or less in agreement with Malatesta's deconstruction and criticism against Makhno's platform - either his practices in the 1917-1921 interval, or the 1926 Platform - we find this same Durruti making fast and rapid adaptations of the Platform - rightly seen by anarchist critics as a form of Bolshevism - into his neo-syndicalism which has seen the introduction of a 'slight variation'. His call for the creation of a “revolutionary army” characterized by “unity in the plan of operations and unity of common command”, had left him in the same boots as any other Bolshevik. Durruti recognized that the CNT betrayed the revolution. You can't lay all of the blame on Stalin, since the power of his intervention was only as strong as the utter weakness and confusion of the anarchist leadership. The quote doesn't mention a "faction" in the CNT, it condemns the CNT as a whole. It condemns it from the stand point of Bolshevism -a failure to take power when the time was right. But that failure stems from the paranoia of anarchism about states and power. It only ensures that the worst possible forces come to power. This is where the importance of theory derives from, and the reason why revolutions with anarchist leadership might find themselves in a conniption.

Do anarchists here agree with Durruti's position on the CNT? Would that not mean that you are taking the same position as a Bolshevik, and departing from your anarchist traditions?
You talk alot but say very little. I don't understand what anyone is supposed to respond to or even why anyone should respond to it.

What is it you actually want to debate?

[Black Cross]

You talk alot but say very little. I don't understand what anyone is supposed to respond to or even why anyone should respond to it.

What is it you actually want to debate?



Originally posted by RedDali
Do anarchists here agree with Durruti's position on the CNT?

I'm pretty sure that's the question.... I may be wrong. His intro to the question may have lacked coherence, in your mind, but that doesn't change what the question is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Marxist-rev+July 18, 2007 07:02 pm--> (Marxist-rev @ July 18, 2007 07:02 pm)
You talk alot but say very little. I don't understand what anyone is supposed to respond to or even why anyone should respond to it.

What is it you actually want to debate?



RedDali
Do anarchists here agree with Durruti's position on the CNT?

I'm pretty sure that's the question.... I may be wrong. His intro to the question may have lacked coherence, in your mind, but that doesn't change what the question is. [/b]
I don't see what relevance that question has to anything? What is the point in answering such a banal question?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 18, 2007 06:04 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 18, 2007 06:04 pm)
Originally posted by Marxist-[email protected] 18, 2007 07:02 pm

You talk alot but say very little. I don't understand what anyone is supposed to respond to or even why anyone should respond to it.

What is it you actually want to debate?



RedDali
Do anarchists here agree with Durruti's position on the CNT?

I'm pretty sure that's the question.... I may be wrong. His intro to the question may have lacked coherence, in your mind, but that doesn't change what the question is.
I don't see what relevance that question has to anything? What is the point in answering such a banal question? [/b]
It has to do with the fact that anarchists, with their flowery critiques and intense hatred of 'vanguardism', are not so different from ourselves.

[syndicat]

First of all, RedDali's quote is not by Durruti but by Jaime Balius, the main writer for the Friends of Durruti group.


However, I see the political line that the leadership takes to be of the utmost importance.

What do you mean by "leadership" here? "Leadership" is a very slippery term. It can refer to a variety of things. It can be used to mean people who occupy the decision-making posts in a hierarchy. Managers are "leaders" of the production process in this sense. In this sense Jimmy Hoffa Jr. is "the leader" of the Teamsters union. The existence of "leaders" in this sense is not inevitable and is opposed by anarchists. That's because concentration of decision-making into a hierarchy is inconsistent with self-management. Durruti was not a "leader" in that sense.

Now you might mean by "leaders" those who are most influential, or people who are elected to represent people, as delegates at a congress for example. Those are other meanings of "leadership".


where Durruti found himself more or less in agreement with Malatesta's deconstruction and criticism against Makhno's platform

Evidence for this? In fact Durruti told Makhno he agreed with him when he met him in Paris in the '20s. i believe this is mentioned in Alexandre Skirda's book on Makno, "Anarchy's Cossack."

Makhno's Platform was not "a form of Bolshevism" tho it's true that some anarchists have tried to slam it that way. Makhno's group made it clear in the platform that (1) they were not proposing that the executive committee in an anarchist political organization would have a hierarchical authority over -- directing the work of -- members, and is thus not "democratic centralist", and (2) it advocates that the mass organizations of workers and peasants would be the means through which power would be attained by the masses, not thru a political organization. the political organization is not to concentrate power in its hands through things like central committees in mass organizations (as the Bolsheviks did with the soviets in the Russian revolution) but it is to work through the influence of its activists within those mass organizations.


His call for the creation of a “revolutionary army” characterized by “unity in the plan of operations and unity of common command”, had left him in the same boots as any other Bolshevik. Durruti recognized that the CNT betrayed the revolution.

This is simply false. Durruti was killed in November 1936, this was long before the betrayal by certain leaders in the May Days of 1937, which the Friends of Durruti criticized. Again, you're confusing Durruti with Balius.

Secondly, you seem to be unaware that the advocacy of "unity in the plan and operations and unity of command" was the official position of the CNT in Sept-October 1936. I've discussed this before in posts here on revleft about the Spanish revolution. The reason this didn't happen was because the CNT's proposal was blocked by the Marxists of the UGT (Socialists and Communists).


The quote doesn't mention a "faction" in the CNT, it condemns the CNT as a whole. It condemns it from the stand point of Bolshevism -a failure to take power when the time was right. But that failure stems from the paranoia of anarchism about states and power.

Again, this is completely incorrect. The Friends of Durruti were members of the CNT. So how would they be condemning the CNT as a whole? What they criticized was indeed the failure to take power in Catalonia in July 1936. What you fail to realize is that this led to a huge debate inside the CNT and led to the CNT proposing that the two unions take power, in Sept 1936. THIS IS THE ORIGIN OF THE FRIENDS OF DURRUTI PROGRAM. Balius was a writer on the big CNT daily in Barcelona in Sept-Oct 1936 when they were beating the drum for the CNT and UGT to jointly take power. When the decision for Popular Front collaboration was made in Nov 1936, Balius refused to go along and was fired. A few months later he helped found Friends of Durruti to revive the program for the unions to take power through defense councils accountable to worker congresses.

The reason they ended up in the Popular Front government in Nov 1936 is
because the unions taking power at the national level was blocked by the UGT (Socialists and Communists) and in Catalonia the CNT failed to carry out their own program (reflecting the fact that there was an internal conflict over direction inside the union in Catalonia).

Now, if the failure was due to "paranoia of anarchism about...power" why did the CNT officially propose that the unions take power in September? Why did their official program call for the unions, worker congresses, and assemblies to run everything? Moreover, in referring to "states" you're engaging in the usual Marxist confusion of power with building a state. Further, the Friends of Durruti, when they talked about the need to take power, they were NOT talking about building a state. They were also NOT talking about any political party taking power, but the mass union organizations. That's why they were in fact NOT "Bolsheviks."

Actually, i've already engaged in this debate with RedDali before, so he really has no excuse for his errors here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 18, 2007 08:41 pm--> (RedDali @ July 18, 2007 08:41 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 18, 2007 06:04 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 18, 2007 06:04 pm)
Marxist-[email protected] 18, 2007 07:02 pm

You talk alot but say very little. I don't understand what anyone is supposed to respond to or even why anyone should respond to it.

What is it you actually want to debate?



RedDali
Do anarchists here agree with Durruti's position on the CNT?

I'm pretty sure that's the question.... I may be wrong. His intro to the question may have lacked coherence, in your mind, but that doesn't change what the question is.
I don't see what relevance that question has to anything? What is the point in answering such a banal question? [/b]
It has to do with the fact that anarchists, with their flowery critiques and intense hatred of 'vanguardism', are not so different from ourselves. [/b]
If you honestly think that then you are deluded and I don't have the patience to convince you otherwise.

[RNK]

They're different enough. Anarchism appeals to me greatly, but I couldn't live with the sense of doing absolutely nothing of any long-term importance... we have the same enemy, but very different strategies; Marxists make plans, strategies.. anarchism, to me, seems to pop up here and there on one single-issue backlash against the bourgeoisie, but lacks any sort of overall strategy or specific future goal or idea of how to get to their goal; and half of the revolutionary "activities" I see from most Anarchists revolves around confronting Leninism at every possible oppurtunity.

Overall, from my own personal experience, Anarchism seems more of a young adults club that kids sign up to coming out of highschool and eventually abandon around the 25-year-old mark. Being an anarchist is more of a "coming of age" experience than a legitimate ideology for the advancement of revolution.

(Sorry for such a potentially inflammable post. I've seen anarchists on this board hold nothing back when going after Leninism for long enough, I really don't have the will to hold back on them anymore)

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:12 pm
They're different enough. Anarchism appeals to me greatly, but I couldn't live with the sense of doing absolutely nothing of any long-term importance... we have the same enemy, but very different strategies; Marxists make plans, strategies.. anarchism, to me, seems to pop up here and there on one single-issue backlash against the bourgeoisie, but lacks any sort of overall strategy or specific future goal or idea of how to get to their goal; and half of the revolutionary "activities" I see from most Anarchists revolves around confronting Leninism at every possible oppurtunity.

Overall, from my own personal experience, Anarchism seems more of a young adults club that kids sign up to coming out of highschool and eventually abandon around the 25-year-old mark. Being an anarchist is more of a "coming of age" experience than a legitimate ideology for the advancement of revolution.

(Sorry for such a potentially inflammable post. I've seen anarchists on this board hold nothing back when going after Leninism for long enough, I really don't have the will to hold back on them anymore)

I strongly disagree with what you've said about anarchists, and anarchism.
Firstly, I dont think that's it's fair to make the comparison between anarchists on this board and anarchists on the streets organising. Simply because of the context of this board.
Regardless of stating the obvious, this board is a board for leftists, it's completely understandable that you'd see anarchists combating Leninists - for obvious reasons, once more.
Whilst on the streets, and in organising, the main enemy is, of course, capitalism and the state.
(note: that is not to say anarchists on this board do not do organising on the streets, and what not. Just an explanation of why I think the reason for the combating of Leninists on this board occurs so often)

Hence the reason why, at least on this board, you'd see most anarchists spending "most of their time" combating Leninists rather than "the real enemy" as such.

As for anarchist organising and planning, what you've said is very disputable. Some anarchists do not wish to try and map out what happens after the revolution (such as Noam Chomsky) for their own reasons, some do. Someone would prefer things to flow organically. Some have completely different ideas. It's not as black and white as you're treating it.

I'd also say that you're understanding of anarchists "overall (...) revolution" is a bit of an over-the-top generalisation on anarchists, don't you think?
I mean, the anarchist bookshop I work at, for example, is made up of mainly people over 25 - or at least - with a few exceptions (such as myself).
And though, that collective is small (like really small), it has, for some time, had a tradition of having older anarchists involved.
Same with the other anarchist bookstore in our city, made up of mostly people 20 +(dont know everyone in that one, so I could be potentially inaccurate).

Those are 2 examples of collective bookshops run by anarchists which prove something quite different from what you've said.

(Sorry if this comes off hostile at all!)

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:12 pm
They're different enough. Anarchism appeals to me greatly, but I couldn't live with the sense of doing absolutely nothing of any long-term importance... we have the same enemy, but very different strategies; Marxists make plans, strategies.. anarchism, to me, seems to pop up here and there on one single-issue backlash against the bourgeoisie, but lacks any sort of overall strategy or specific future goal or idea of how to get to their goal; and half of the revolutionary "activities" I see from most Anarchists revolves around confronting Leninism at every possible oppurtunity.

Overall, from my own personal experience, Anarchism seems more of a young adults club that kids sign up to coming out of highschool and eventually abandon around the 25-year-old mark. Being an anarchist is more of a "coming of age" experience than a legitimate ideology for the advancement of revolution.

(Sorry for such a potentially inflammable post. I've seen anarchists on this board hold nothing back when going after Leninism for long enough, I really don't have the will to hold back on them anymore)
I used to be a Trotskyist before I was an Anarchist. Does this mean that Trotskyists usually abandon it around the age of 18?

Have you read anarchist literature? If you do, you'd realise that what you see of anarchism is simply the tip of the iceberg.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:12 pm
Overall, from my own personal experience, Anarchism seems more of a young adults club that kids sign up to coming out of highschool and eventually abandon around the 25-year-old mark. Being an anarchist is more of a "coming of age" experience than a legitimate ideology for the advancement of revolution.

That is because your "experience" of anarchism is practically negligible, obviously. There really is nothing more to say about it.

[co-op]

They're different enough. Anarchism appeals to me greatly, but I couldn't live with the sense of doing absolutely nothing of any long-term importance... we have the same enemy, but very different strategies; Marxists make plans, strategies.. anarchism, to me, seems to pop up here and there on one single-issue backlash against the bourgeoisie, but lacks any sort of overall strategy or specific future goal or idea of how to get to their goal; and half of the revolutionary "activities" I see from most Anarchists revolves around confronting Leninism at every possible oppurtunity.

Anarchism just "seems to pop up" whilst leninists stick to plans and have had massive success and 'led' the working class to emancipation!
Anarchists are fighting to destroy hierachy and bosses, so we will come in to conflict with all who seek to keep class structure intact in whatever shape or form.


Overall, from my own personal experience, Anarchism seems more of a young adults club that kids sign up to coming out of highschool and eventually abandon around the 25-year-old mark. Being an anarchist is more of a "coming of age" experience than a legitimate ideology for the advancement of revolution.


I've been an anarchist and an industrial worker for decades. According to your logic I should have abandoned anarchism years ago and adopted a doctrine that has generally destroyed workers revolutions by denying workers control. I don't wish to spill by blood in revolution in order to see workers led by other bosses with different masters.


(Sorry for such a potentially inflammable post. I've seen anarchists on this board hold nothing back when going after Leninism for long enough, I really don't have the will to hold back on them anymore)

It is not actually Leninism per se that anarchists dislike and distrust, its all plans or examples of hierarchical, authoritarian, tyranies. Don't fret, its not just your failed dogma that should be attacked by anarchists.

[KC]

I've been an anarchist and an industrial worker for decades. According to your logic I should have abandoned anarchism years ago and adopted a doctrine that has generally destroyed workers revolutions by denying workers control. I don't wish to spill by blood in revolution in order to see workers led by other bosses with different masters.

I think these kind of things supports Lenin's assertions in What Is To Be Done? that revolutionary theory isn't something developed spontaneously out of the class struggle but through the dissemination of revolutionary theory by those knowledgeable about it.

"We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia."
-V.I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, Chapter II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm#v05fl61h-373-GUESS)

[Leo]

First of all, RedDali's quote is not by Durruti but by Jaime Balius, the main writer for the Friends of Durruti group.

That makes it a more valid quote actually.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:11 pm


I used to be a Trotskyist before I was an Anarchist. Does this mean that Trotskyists usually abandon it around the age of 18?

Have you read anarchist literature? If you do, you'd realise that what you see of anarchism is simply the tip of the iceberg.


I used to be a trotskyist too, and also abandoned it before i was 18.
the anarchists are all 20somethings is a myth that comes out of the capitalist press, though anarchism has become a part of youth culture