This is a problem I have observed with anarchist/libertarian communist activism in the United States. It attracts people who want "action" by mobilizing campaigns, which are inevitably focused on issues and which mobilize people and get media attention, but the proper perspective of being opposed to "democracy" as it exists in capitalism is not promulgated, rather the horrors of that particular issue. This means a "united front" with the bourgeois left and inevitably turns these so-called radicals into bourgeois activists, whether or not they realize it. The better funded/organized bourgeois left organizations get the credit and airtime, while the anarchists are forgotten, turning them into mere foot soldiers for the bourgeois. Meanwhile as any radical knows the bourgeois left reformists are our worst enemies as they are the tricksters of the proletariat who trick them into believing the system can be "reformed", and is therefor somehow "legitimate". Anarchism as a philosophical current has seen a resurgence in America because of the anti-globalization movement, and this has been because of issue-based activism. But now I think that momentum is clearly waning while mass disillusionment with the established institutions of our society grows. I think that "anarchism" and the "revolutionary left" have to make a decision about whether or not they really are revolutionaries. If they are, they must clearly state their intentions are not reform, but overthrow, and clearly counterpose themselves to the bourgeois left rather than collaborate with them. Entryism is legitimate, especially in times of revolutionary isolation. But I believe now after Obama and the loss of steam of the anti-globalization movement, it is time for the revolutionary left to decide if that is what it is or if it is just the extreme bourgeois left, which is still a counter-revolutionary force. As I calculate it we are now in the most fertile times of our lives for a real revolutionary movement, because no one really believes in our established institutions, our faux-democracy has lost any semblance of vitality. People simply don't believe in it, but they also believe no alternative exists. If revolutionaries don't believe in revolution then they are pseudo-revolutionaries, revolutionaries in name only. I say if an "anarchist" group is to get involved in issue based activism it must from the perspective of disrupting the bourgeois march and clearly providing an alternative. As an Anarchist friend of mine stated on his facebook: "We all need to know what side were on. Democrats are explicitly not on our side." Then we must explicitly not be on their side.

At least that's my two cents, for what its worth.

Your posts get more and more interesting Sandman. Please keep going. I very much liked this bit, which made my heart beat faster. " As I calculate it we are now in the most fertile times of our lives for a real revolutionary movement, because no one really believes in our established institutions, our faux-democracy has lost any semblance of vitality. People simply don't believe in it, but they also believe no alternative exists. " I nearly erased the bit about they think there's no alternative. But we have to admit that I suppose. What can we do about this?