i have a suspicion that the idea of "you can't trust liberals, they can always surrender you to the cops" is, in actuality, less about people's weakness to law enforcement convincing or blackmailing them into ratting out their cohorts and more about the fact that if someone who otherwise identifies as an anarchist were to give in, the fact they cooperated with the authorities would give every other anarchist an easy way to disown them
0 Boosts
0 Likes
@woozle in this case, i don't think this is a difference between moderates and radicals, but rather a difference of approach
a social democrat (or even an authoritarian socialist) can believe very radical things on many issues, but still think that an existence of a state is necessary to get those things implemented, whereas an anarchist may have weaker beliefs on other issues, but support the idea of abolishing the state specifically
as i see it, the only thing is that an anarchist cooperating with the police would be inherently betraying their views in a way that a non-anarchist (whether they be a tankie, socdem, liberal or even fascist) won't, but that doesn't give them as a human being a 100% resistance to persuasion/blackmail/etc.
@rnd I may be thinking of a different meaning of "moderate" than the one you have in mind, then. I'm not really aware of any logically consistent political positions that could be called "centrist" in today's climate -- while in more normal times, that word would probably apply to me.
@woozle i'm just saying that by definition anarchism only requires believing that the ideal society would be stateless, and while a lot of anarchists today are far-left on a lot of economic and social issues (and strongly hate anarcho-capitalists, whose idea of an economically right-wing stateless society they find inconsistent or absurd), this is not an inherent quality of anarchism
in fact, believing that a society has to be stateless necessitates more moderate (relative to authoritarian socialists) views on things like media censorship, or freedom of religion, or other such positions that can only be meaningfully enforced by a powerful state
@rnd I suspect that does happen a lot, although there's also a certain amount of truth to the idea that someone who tries to take a "moderate" stance on certain issues is not really trustable. (See: "let's put only half the kittens in a blender, and then everyone will be happy!")