Why anarchism as a method of action doesn't work.

[dennisr]

Tried to unite in SA & RESPECT. My honest opinion. Think they may have been too hasty, didn''t spend enough time winning people to common cause ie the SP in the SA. Having said that, not sure the SP were winnable, as the SP and the SWP had different agendas for the Socialist Alliance. In the crudest terms, the SWP saw the Socialist Alliance as some kind of alliance of revolutionaries and reformists seeking to build a mass alliance occupying the ground of old Labour where the revolutionaries would have been in a minority, but at least in the organisation, whereas I think the Socialist party, I emphasise I think, the SP saw Socialist Alliance as being in alliance of revolutionaries, or at least those to the left of the Labour Party. This left everybody suspicious of why the Socialist workers party was bending over backwards to accommodate reformist style views. Some involved the Socialist Alliance and respect accused the SWP of wanting to control the organisations, but this is in contradiction to its clearly stated, and often stated position, of wanting revolutionaries to be a minority in a mass [well at least big] working-class alliance.

This one win must dishonest post of 2012? ... and its only February...

You are either incredibly naive RMP3 or a liar

 

[barney_pig]

as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings. By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from democratic labour party?

 

[dennisr]

as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings. By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from democratic labour party?

indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.

So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.

You couldn't make this up. After blunderingly and inainely making even the most basic anarchist arguments look more appealing (to put it frankly) on this thread - he ends up making a pop at the socialist opposition to SWPs stupidity by trying to turn history on its head. We warned everybody at the time....

 

[Athos]

indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.

So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.

You couldn't make this up. After blunderingly and inainely making even the most basic anarchist arguments look more appealing (to put it frankly) on this thread - he ends up making a pop at the socialist opposition to SWPs stupidity by trying to turn history on its head. We warned everybody at the time....

It's 'the will of the majority' you know. RMP3 said so.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Fuck me, you've understood the meaning of the expression well enough to object to it before, and all of a sudden you don;t know what it means?

Define what you mean for clarity, and what you think SWP members are doing, that is 'wrong'?
did I object to it? What I said?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Violent Panda

You say this not very long after coming out with (w/r/t your perception of anarchists, and how "socialists", which of course is your code for the SWP, are so much more, well, socialist than anarchists) "Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class, even when the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]"
See those bolded words? "With the working-class"? You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class", and yet there you are, trying to influence the working class as to how/when/why they emancipate themselves.

I also talked about anarchist not working with the working class on the March organised by workers, and fucking off and doing their own thing. So what? by your twisted logic, this must mean they are working class???
so let me make this absolutely clear, socialists worked/marched with the working class in Seattle, anarchists didn't. That's it.

btw Socialist is socialist, and the Socialist workers party is the Socialist workers party. you cannot just insert your own words. And you cannot tell me my words had a meaning they didn't.

I notice you have not responded to this, perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps you concede my words can be interpreted differently.





-----------------------------------

ATHOS & Violent Panda .
FMPOV an interesting developments on this demonstration was that prior students and workers had chose to organise separately. On the demonstrations they marched separately. Some Socialist's remained with workers and students and some argued for unity, but I acceded to the will of the student and workers majority.

Then on the demonstration students and workers chose to unite and fight the police onslaught. The socialists were vindicated, and so better placed to suggest to workers and students to listen to the arguments that more than demonstrations, ie en masse working-class direct action, was needed to actually knock the state back. And where would the anarchist be while this debate was taking place, oh yes off doing their own thing.*

Don't get me wrong again, I'm not saying anarchists have no right to do their own thing, I am saying it is logically more efficacious to be with the working-class to suggest alternatives to the ideas Athos pointed to as dominating their ideas [when he mentioned MLK, and correctly in my opinion raised intentionally or inadvertently the notion of the dominant ideas in society being those of the ruling class.] Towards ie the en masse direct action of the working-class, instead doing your own thing away from the working-class mass movement.


*In fact the debate never took place. Why? Because the police used to volunteer agent provocateur actions of the anarchists as an excuse to pulverise the workers and students, and the debate went off in that direction. In my opinion the actions of the anarchists actually helped the state.
1. The state physically defeated the workers and students.
2. This undermined the argument for unity.
3. This undermined the argument for any type of action, let alone occupying smashing banks, as even the demonstration would be physically stopped.

 

[barney_pig]

it is a bit rich for the defenderof the swp, who promoted David Shaylor on the platforms and in their publications, to hark on about agent provocateurs

 

[chilango]

Violent Panda I notice you have not responded to this, perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps you concede my words can be interpreted differently.





-----------------------------------

ATHOS & Violent Panda .
FMPOV an interesting developments on this demonstration was that prior students and workers had chose to organise separately. On the demonstrations they marched separately. Some Socialist's remained with workers and students and some argued for unity, but I acceded to the will of the student and workers majority.

Then on the demonstration students and workers chose to unite and fight the police onslaught. The socialists were vindicated, and so better placed to suggest to workers and students to listen to the arguments that more than demonstrations, ie en masse working-class direct action, was needed to actually knock the state back. And where would the anarchist be while this debate was taking place, oh yes off doing their own thing.*

Don't get me wrong again, I'm not saying anarchists have no right to do their own thing, I am saying it is logically more efficacious to be with the working-class to suggest alternatives to the ideas Athos pointed to as dominating their ideas [when he mentioned MLK, and correctly in my opinion raised intentionally or inadvertently the notion of the dominant ideas in society being those of the ruling class.] Towards ie the en masse direct action of the working-class, instead doing your own thing away from the working-class mass movement.


*In fact the debate never took place. Why? Because the police used to volunteer agent provocateur actions of the anarchists as an excuse to pulverise the workers and students, and the debate went off in that direction. In my opinion the actions of the anarchists actually helped the state.
1. The state physically defeated the workers and students.
2. This undermined the argument for unity.
3. This undermined the argument for any type of action, let alone occupying smashing banks, as even the demonstration would be physically stopped.

Were you at Seattle rmp3?

Or any of the other protests during that wave?

 

[TremulousTetra]

indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.

3.So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.

What was said;

Tried to unite in SA & RESPECT. 1.My honest opinion. Think they [THE SWP] may have been too hasty, didn''t spend enough time winning people to common cause ie the SP in the SA. Having said that, not sure the SP were winnable, as the SP and the SWP had different agendas for the Socialist Alliance. In the crudest terms, the SWP saw the Socialist Alliance as some kind of alliance of revolutionaries and reformists seeking to build a mass alliance occupying the ground of old Labour where the revolutionaries would have been in a minority, but at least in the organisation, 2. whereas I think the Socialist party, I emphasise I think, the SP saw Socialist Alliance as being in alliance of revolutionaries, or at least those to the left of the Labour Party. This left everybody suspicious of why the Socialist workers party was bending over backwards to accommodate reformist style views. Some involved the Socialist Alliance and respect accused the SWP of wanting to control the organisations, but this is in contradiction to its clearly stated, and often stated position, of wanting revolutionaries to be a minority in a mass [well at least big] working-class alliance.


there is so much distrust going in all directions, I am not picking on anyone in particular, that I don't think United left is possible. I am quite glad Socialist worker seems to have moved away from this line with the expulsion of John Reese Lindsey German, etc. [though very sorry to loose such fine comrades.]

If Anarchist's seem more united wherever you are, good. Get involved with them, and do stuff.

1. I laid the blame with socialist worker, NOT the SP.

2. I made clear, and emphasised I may be mistaken about events years and years ago. correct it.
3. more you rewriting my post, than I rewriting history imo.

In fact, IMO if the SP's position was as I outlined [think workers power had a similar position], I think history has proved the SP&WP right, and the SWP WRONG!

I now think history has shown a mass left of new labour alliance/party was,,,,,,,,,,, I think impossible is a strong word, there are some interesting counterarguments to my position, but I think history has shown a mass left of new labour was very close to impossible. So the SWP's agenda for the Socialist Alliance, a mass left of new Labour workers party, was wrong.

I also now think prior to the SW joining the SA, cooperation around the war in Yugoslavia etc [mine's a manchester centric experience.] showed there was a possibillity for some unity. with hindsight, I think building this type of unity would have been more productive. Chasing an ideal, a mass left of new labour alliance/party, SW fucked this opportunity. Some argue a left if Labour unity is impossible, some experiences in the SA made this claim very real.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I also talked about anarchist not working with the working class on the March organised by workers, and fucking off and doing their own thing. So what? by your twisted logic, this must mean they are working class???
so let me make this absolutely clear, socialist worked/marched with the working class in Seattle, anarchists didn't. That's it.

Seattle?
Learn some fucking history. The Seattle WTO protests were organised and peopled by a broad coalition of people, from the working classes affected by the city's attempts to re-zone them out of existence, to students and staff from the two universities. That some anarchists chose not to work within the "rules" of the coalition had as much to do with those rules being imposed by the authorities on the coalition, as anything else.
Ever been to Seattle? Know any activists there? I have and I do. They have to deal with a police dept with a deserved reputation for being the most violent north of the Mason-Dixon line. That is the overwhelming reason why some anarchists went outside the agreed rules.

btw Socialist is socialist, and the Socialist workers party is the Socialist workers party. you cannot just insert your own words. And you cannot tell me my words had a meaning they didn't.

No, "socialist" isn't "socialist". There is no single definition of socialism, there are many definitions. Socialisms.

 

[ViolentPanda]

as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings.

Thanks for independently confirming that, barney.

By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from democratic labour party?

It was just resting in the SWP account, honest!

 

[ViolentPanda]

This one win must dishonest post of 2012? ... and its only February...

TBF that is the "official line" for SwapTrots.

They don't like it if you mention that it's a line of reasoning formed after the events had taken place, though.

You are either incredibly naive RMP3 or a liar

Option 3 - a willingly-indoctrinated dupe.

 

[mk12]

as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings. By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from democratic labour party?

The final SA conference wasn't at ULU, was it? I was there and I remember turning the other way outside Euston station to get to it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.

So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.

You couldn't make this up. After blunderingly and inainely making even the most basic anarchist arguments look more appealing (to put it frankly) on this thread - he ends up making a pop at the socialist opposition to SWPs stupidity by trying to turn history on its head. We warned everybody at the time....

Ah, I see that we both recall history from the same perspective.

Still, we're all wrong, and the Swaps (and their dupes) are peddling the only true version of history. You can read all about it in their Holy Book newspaper!

 

[ViolentPanda]

The final SA conference wasn't at ULU, was it? I was there and I remember turning the other way outside Euston station to get to it.

Conway Hall, Red Lion Square?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Define what you mean for clarity, and what you think SWP members are doing, that is 'wrong'?
did I object to it? What I said?

"Packing meetings" - having plenty of members to hand to ram through resolutions that favour the SWP over other parties to alliances/compacts/whatever. It happens way too often to be incidental (which is what Swappies tend to claim if you tax them on it), and it's a manipulation of supposedly-democratic fora by a supposedly democratic (ha-fucking-ha!) organisation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

it is a bit rich for the defenderof the swp, who promoted David Shaylor on the platforms and in their publications, to hark on about agent provocateurs

It's a bit rich that his viewpoint on Seattle is straight out of the Globalise Resistance! songbook, and doesn't accord with many other accounts from anarchists, socialists and members of unions who protested there.

 

[chilango]

It's a bit rich that his viewpoint on Seattle is straight out of the Globalise Resistance! songbook, and doesn't accord with many other accounts from anarchists, socialists and members of unions who protested there.

That's why I asked what his experience of it was.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's why I asked what his experience of it was.

I know, but I thought I'd give him another prod.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's 'the will of the majority' you know. RMP3 said so.

Interestingly true.

I went to a big meeting, I think it was in Sheffield, about setting up for the election. I think workers power, and others, wanted ' disarming of the police' to be some kind major issue in the manifesto in the SA election [something like that]. SW agree with disarming of the police, and a SW comrade of mine couldn't understand why SW were throwing our majority behind defeating something we clearly agreed with.

You know the point you made about MLK etc, the point Chomsky made about Manufacturing consent, and the point Marx made about the dominant ideas in society? Well the majority of workers that would join a mass left of Labour Alliance do not necessarily agree with disarming of the police. SWP felt it better to get them in the organisation, and win the argument in the process of United struggle, rather than allowing disarming of the police to be imposed upon working-class people wanting to join.

so yes, once again it was about socialists wanting to work with the working class, rather than in splendidly politically correct isolation. ie anarchists. ;p

SWP chose to submit to the will of the working class, rather than that of revolutionaries. Surely, after all that you have said, you should support this freedom. Respect this right "to do what you think is in the best interests of achieving freedom"? Surely you should support this diversity of tactics?

 

[chilango]

SWP chose to submit to the will of the working class, rather than that of revolutionaries.

Are you saying this about the SA, Seattle or both?

...and with a straight face?

 

[TremulousTetra]

The SWP are not, for the most part, of the working classes. Who the fuck are they to interpose themselves between the working classes and their emancipation?

And middle class anarchists I presume?

I wouldn't know. I don't currently know any, and those I did know usually turned out to be people going through a rebellious phase before wholeheartedly embracing capitalism.

So;

No. Not sure why you thought that. I am a solicitor by profession, though no longer practice; I used to think that the law was a way to change things for the better, but realised it is actually a smokescreen to maintain the status quo.

Is a solicitor middle class Violent Panda?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Have I ever claimed to be an expert?
Nah, you're just building your straw men again.

so if you are not an expert how can you claim

The SWP are not, for the most part, of the working classes.

you need to define what you mean by working class.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Thanks for independently confirming that, barney.

You still haven't defined "packing meetings"! Shall I help?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You still haven't defined "packing meetings"! Shall I help?

Post #316, made nearly an hour ago.
Going blind now too?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So;

Is a solicitor middle class Violent Panda?

Depends whether you judge someone on income, on social class, or on relationship to the means of production. Are you stating that Athos is middle-class because he practiced as a solicitor?

 

[Athos]

Violent Panda I notice you have not responded to this, perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps you concede my words can be interpreted differently.





-----------------------------------

ATHOS & Violent Panda .
FMPOV an interesting developments on this demonstration was that prior students and workers had chose to organise separately. On the demonstrations they marched separately. Some Socialist's remained with workers and students and some argued for unity, but I acceded to the will of the student and workers majority.

Then on the demonstration students and workers chose to unite and fight the police onslaught. The socialists were vindicated, and so better placed to suggest to workers and students to listen to the arguments that more than demonstrations, ie en masse working-class direct action, was needed to actually knock the state back. And where would the anarchist be while this debate was taking place, oh yes off doing their own thing.*

Don't get me wrong again, I'm not saying anarchists have no right to do their own thing, I am saying it is logically more efficacious to be with the working-class to suggest alternatives to the ideas Athos pointed to as dominating their ideas [when he mentioned MLK, and correctly in my opinion raised intentionally or inadvertently the notion of the dominant ideas in society being those of the ruling class.] Towards ie the en masse direct action of the working-class, instead doing your own thing away from the working-class mass movement.


*In fact the debate never took place. Why? Because the police used to volunteer agent provocateur actions of the anarchists as an excuse to pulverise the workers and students, and the debate went off in that direction. In my opinion the actions of the anarchists actually helped the state.
1. The state physically defeated the workers and students.
2. This undermined the argument for unity.
3. This undermined the argument for any type of action, let alone occupying smashing banks, as even the demonstration would be physically stopped.

What the fuck's going on with the RED INK?!

Anyway, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree: you believe that the actions of some anarchists militated against the success of that protest; I believe that centralised control of a working class movement by a self-appointed ruling body (even if that is 'the will of the majority', is a class system by another name, and is anathema to revolution.

Even more so when the will of the majority is cynically manipulated by an entryist group. Especially one which uses the working class to justify its own existence, but is not of the working class, and offers it nothing. This en masse movement you talk about isn't a tool for a vanguard party to wield; it is made up of individuals working to bring about their own freedom - 'doing their own thing' you'd call it.

You always seem to miss the point that revolution is about freedom (from capital and it's corollary, the state). To my mind, the freedom of the working class will best be achieved by workers acting freely, not by submitting to the will of others, even comrades. However, you see freedom as an endpoint, and seem to think a curtailment of freedom - which is what surrendering one's individual agency to the will of others is - in the short term is the way to achieve it.

I guess in some ways that this in an important distinction between your Leninist ideology and the anarchism to which I subscribe; I see the ends and means as inseparable, whereas you seem to focus on the endpoint of the struggle. This difference in emphasis is why you miss the importance of employing means which are consistent with the ends, and seem to struggle with the idea that many anarchists define their ideology more in terms of a direction of travel than an endpoint.

In my opinion the focus on the endpoint i.e. revolution, has two significant flaws:

First, it disenfranchises the working class, by making the revolution seem like a remote paradise to come at some far off point in the future (which also creates an environment of navel-gazing); this can be contrasted with the strain of anarchism which entails workers trying to live as freely as we can, every day, in the here and now.

Secondly, it can allow an 'ends justifies the means' mindset, whereby tactics are used to achieve the goal are inconsistent with it, thus pushing it further way than ever. You only need to look at what was done in the Soviet Union in the name of workers' freedom to see that it ultimately had the opposite effect.

To me, revolution means freedom. Freedom will only come when every worker lives freely. Each of us will have to exercise that freedom himself or herself; it cannot be bestowed upon us by another entity (even one which claims to represent the collective interest of the class). And certainly freedom cannot be granted to a class by actions which curtail the freedoms of the members of that class.

 

[ViolentPanda]

so if you are not an expert how can you claim...

The SWP shies away from explicating the demographics of the membership, but from my own observations, from knowing members and from the observations of others, the SWP has a tendency to draw from student bodies (as do many political organisations - students are activism fodder par excellence!), and the rank-an-file has a preponderance of graduates that most businesses would be proud of. It also has a Central Committee that is (and has been historically) dominated by a mix of members of the ruling class, the professions and the political classes, people whose perspective on "the working class" (that's "classes", by the way. we're not a homogeneous mass) is at a remove from our lived experience.

you need to define what you mean by working class.

Actually, I don't.

 

[Athos]

Depends whether you judge someone on income, on social class, or on relationship to the means of production. Are you stating that Athos is middle-class because he practiced as a solicitor?

On the measures you set out, I would define myself as working class:

Income - After you took out what I paid to service the loans I'd taken out to go to university and law school I was poorly paid.

Social class - I am the son of two non-professionals; the first in my family to get even an A Level, never mind a degree. I come from a working class area, and was educated at the local comp. And I never had a foreign holiday until I left home!

Means of production - To pay my bils, I had to sell my labour exactly the same as I would have done if I'd gone to work on the production line at the local Vauxhall factory; I wasn't a partner or shareholder etc.

I am well paid now (relative to the national average), and that is reflected in my tastes e.g. good food etc, but that doesn't mean I'm no longer working class, does it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What the fuck's going on with the RED INK?!

It makes him feel like he's asserting control.

Anyway, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree: you believe that the actions of some anarchists militated against the success of that protest; I believe that centralised control of a working class movement by a self-appointed ruling body (even if that is 'the will of the majority', is a class system by another name, and is anathema to revolution.

Even more so when the will of the majority is cynically manipulated by an entryist group. Especially one which uses the working class to justify its own existence, but is not of the working class, and offers it nothing. This en masse movement you talk about isn't a tool for a vanguard party to wield; it is made up of individuals working to bring about their own freedom - 'doing their own thing' you'd call it.

According to RMP3, the SWP aren'tvanguardist, you know.

You always seem to miss the point that revolution is about freedom (from capital and it's corollary, the state). To my mind, the freedom of the working class will best be achieved by workers acting freely, not by submitting to the will of others, even comrades. However, you see freedom as an endpoint, and seem to think a curtailment of freedom - which is what surrendering one's individual agency to the will of others is - in the short term is the way to achieve it.

I guess in some ways that this in an important distinction between your Leninist ideology and the anarchism to which I subscribe; I see the ends and means as inseparable, whereas you seem to focus on the endpoint of the struggle. This difference in emphasis is why you miss the importance of employing means which are consistent with the ends, and seem to struggle with the idea that many anarchists define their ideology more in terms of a direction of travel than an endpoint.

In my opinion the focus on the endpoint i.e. revolution, has two significant flaws:

First, it disenfranchises the working class, by making the revolution seem like a remote paradise to come at some far off point in the future (which also creates an environment of navel-gazing); this can be contrasted with the strain of anarchism which entails workers trying to live as freely as we can, every day, in the here and now.

Secondly, it can allow an 'ends justifies the means' mindset, whereby tactics are used to achieve the goal are inconsistent with it, thus pushing it further way than ever. You only need to look at what was done in the Soviet Union in the name of workers' freedom to see that it ultimately had the opposite effect.

To me, revolution means freedom. Freedom will only come when every worker lives freely. Each of us will have to exercise that freedom himself or herself; it cannot be bestowed upon us by another entity (even one which claims to represent the collective interest of the class). And certainly freedom cannot be granted to a class by actions which curtail the freedoms of the members of that class.

But surely, comrade, one needs fellow-workers who will submit to the will of the people and guide the class along the path of freedom?