As a general principle, I am for an “open-ended” approach to anarchist theory and practice in the sense of letting “a thousand flowers bloom.” I certainly don’t expect all anarchists everywhere to adopt my approach, and there can certainly be separate but parallel tendencies to the ATS perspective within anarchism generally.
It is not inherently illegitimate from a theoretical perspective to have tendencies such as “anarcho-Democrats,” or anarchists who take seriously the Chomskyian line of voting for the Democrats as the “lesser evil” because “Orange Man is Literally Hitler!” or whatever. Although to be fair, I would say the same about right-wing anarchists who vote Republican for comparable reasons. In fact, there are both anarcho-Democrats and anarcho-Republicans in the ATS orbit.
It is not inherently illegitimate to have “anarcho-progressives” who essential parrot the “progressive party line minus the state,” e.g. identifying racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, anti-welfarism, and climate change as their primary targets of ire while tacking on “oh, and by the way, we’re also against the state” as an appendix to their manifesto. Although to be fair, having “anarcho-conspiracists” who look to David Icke rather than Chomsky as their guru would also be legitimate. I know people whom I consider to be sincere anarchists to hold to both anarcho-progressive and anarcho-conspiracist positions as well.
It is not inherently illegitimate to have anarchist tendencies that are primarily oriented toward street fights with “fascists,” or right-wing groups generally, any more than it would be legitimate to have anarchist tendencies that are about engaging in inner-city gang warfare with the Bloods or the Crips, or “anarcho-outlaw bikers” who engage in similar confrontations with the Hell’s Angels or the Outlaws.
It would also be fine to have “anarcho-Yankees fans” who are about confrontations with “anarcho-Red Sox fans” or vice versa, or “anarcho-emos” engaged in conflicts with “anarcho-death metalheads” or whatever.
And in international relations, it is not inherently “wrong,” for there to be anarchists who think a world ruled by the American empire is still preferable to a multipolar world ruled by states like Russia and China that tend toward autocracy. There can be “anarcho-Samantha Powerites” who, for example, take the US State Department line on Libya or Syria. I even know at least one fellow who seems to be an otherwise since anarchist who takes the Bill Kristol line on the relationship between the West and East.
But it’s still kind of sad to see “anti-authoritarians” taking the Hillary Clinton line on Russia or the National Review line on China, along with the MSNBC line on domestic US politics.