@almaember@flawed@palestine@israel I mean, while I agree that that's where most self-proclaimed anarchists come from. Not all anarchists are bound by the language of radlibs. Many anarchists simply renounce the Marxist revolutionary methods, disillusioned or skeptical of vanguard parties being led by incompetent or bad faith actors, who are subject to the same biases and oversights that many well-meaning but counterproductive liberals tend to have due to their shallow, dogmatic personal understanding of dialectical materialism (or framework of choice)-- much like prophets declaring themselves saviors, and purposely or unwittingly (makes no difference) throwing everybody but their small group under the bus.
The idea is that without the masses being as well-versed in dialectical materialism as the would-be vanguard, the masses do not have a failsafe way to identify a good vs a bad actor within the revolutionary movement, such that the same mechanisms of social coercion and manipulation employed by social capital remain the pathway for the vanguard to become the vanguard in the first place. This necessarily gives bad faith actors a disproportionate advantage whether assuming leadership or enacting sabotage.
Because of this, many anarchists perceive leftist organization as an inherently doomed and fruitless endeavor that diverts effort away from more useful and fulfilling acts of genuine rebellion and care within their immediate proximity, at least within the imperial core-- that is, at least, until the material conditions change so much that it couldn't be the imperial core anymore.
For this reason, anarchists tend to simply act through free association and more 'spontaneous' acts of rebellion and care, while being wary of their initiatives ossifying into time-wasting, cannibalizing institutions.
Sadly, this also ends up sounding just like what self-centered, privileged redscare radlibs with an affinity for radical aesthetics pretend to believe in.