Here, Gills once again illustrates why the mainstream anarchist movement is as great a failure as it is. He emphatically states that his primary commitment is not to fight the state, the ruling class, or the global capitalist/American empire. Instead, his primary commitment is to fight with other very marginal and powerless groups.
On one hand, it is not inherently illegitimate to have anarchist groups that are committing to fight with another fringe political or cultural tendency. For instance, there can certainly be “anarchist Red Sox fans” fighting with “anarchist Yankee fans,” “anarchist Goths” versus “anarchist hippies,” or even “anarchist Crips” versus “anarchist Bloods.”
I’ve long been of the opinion that anarchists should engage in outreach to bizarre, exotic cults that, whatever else could be said about them, are at least marginalized, out of power, and often in conflict with the system. However, it is certainly possible to have a faction of “anti-cult anarchists” or narrow it down even further to “anti-Scientology anarchists” or “anti-Jehovah’s Witness anarchists.”
Some other tendencies of these kinds do exist among anarchists, for example, “sex worker anarchists” versus “SWERF anarchists,” “transanarchists” versus “TERF anarchists,” “druggie anarchists” versus “straight edge anarchists,” and “veganarchists” versus “vegetarian anarchists” (who have actually engaged in violent classes).
In fact, as I have said before, there can even be paradoxes like “anti-national anarchist national-anarchists” or “anti-bolo bolos” or “anti-Hoppean Hoppean covenantal communities” (“Hoppeans will be physically removed”).
Yet, I doubt the overlords of the empire in Washington, New York, London, Brussels, or elsewhere, or the CEOs of the Fortune 500, or the execs of the World Bank or IMF feel very threatened by any of this.
