Yeah, definitely! Once you win a revolution, you have to govern, and that inolves rules and tradeoffs etc.

You might like this essay: Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture

Another thing I find hilarious with Anarchists is that many of them are huge EU supporters. Turns out they're totally fine with centralization and large unelected bureaucracies in practice. These people are just LARPing.

Yeah, Anarchists don't seem to actually want to succeed in anything. They just want to perpetually feel superior about their morals as well as comfortable that nothing will ever change. They want to be cool, contrarian good guys, imagining a world that will only ever exist in books and stories.

A Psalm from the Apostle, Parenti: “They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. NO SURPRISE THEN THAT THE PURE SOCIALISTS SUPPORT EVERY REVOLUTION EXCEPT THE ONES THAT SUCCEED.”

They're pretty much more liberal ultras. They bang on about this wonderful utopia and tear down any attempts at socialist revolution or maintaining a workers state. And not only that, but they don't put in the needed work into building towards revolution or increasing class consciousness among the working class. They're entirely fine trying to build cooperative farms or doing performative mutual aid.

Aside from the what it is to be said by the already recomended text on western marxism and christianity by Jones Manoel on RedSails, which I find very fitting here, I have found out by experience that anarchists usually have a very strong tendency to romanticize the act of revolution in general, of sublevation to overthrow the existing hierarchies, and very little focus on what comes after, which is the organization of the new society that is to come.

Chances are that this lack of focus is the result of the development of an anarchist's conceptualization of a post-capitalist society falling an overwhelming majority of times in one of two fields: either authoritarianism (most of us have witnessed an anarchist accidentally developing the idea of vanguards in their search to defend their revolutions) or the most bizarre and impractical modes of production and self-defense that could be concieved, such as the idea that medicines and other highly complex products could ever be produced by individual people as a form of pastime.

This is, overall, too much hassle for the average western anarchist, who doesn't find the need to concern themselves with that simply because, for them, anarchism is just an aesthetic used as a form of expressing one's identity and individuality, and not as a project to work towards.

Edit: Grammar.

for the revolution to succeed, youll need some sort of mechanism to oppress the oppressors. Most anarchists seem to want the revolution, but dont want to secure it cause oppression /authoritarianism/hiearchies is bad. A problem with being an absolutist.

This article is a must read imo: https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/

Most self professed leftists don't actually have a plan for what happens if they get the revolution they want. I guess they think the point of the ideology is just killing people and burning shit, not creating a better society.

It is easy to support failed attempts because then they can imagine that this time those folks would have done things "perfectly" or in other words, the way the person imagining it would have done things. Without any of the messy details of having to work in the real world with real conditions.

Online anarchists are a flandering version of the ideology they preach.