They rescue(d) and support(ed) refugees, fed people all over the world, setup bail funds and so much more.
This is all great - but lots of organizations and movements are doing direct action of all kinds. Can you seriously tell me that this represents a functional political movement that would be capable of surviving and thriving if a convulsive revolution were to kick off tomorrow?
Perfectly true.
But anarchism hasn't exactly been very productive over the last century when it comes to providing alternatives, has it?
Shouting down fascists is child's play in comparison to their liberal cousins.
You need to make those eye-holes bigger.
Graeber is dead wrong on this. It wasn't the antiwar movement in the US that caused "Vietnam Syndrome" - being militarily defeated by a nation the US viewed as "inferior" did.
And it also wasn't 9/11 that overcame "Vietnam Syndrome" - the invasion of Panama and the first Gulf War did that.
If the antiwar movement in the US achieved anything, it was to provide the US military with a pretext - ie, somebody to blame - for extracting themselves from a war they had decisively lost.
Only man?
Gross.
.world is a festering mess of liberalism, you say?
Colour me surprised.
The only people that regularly say that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist are stirring shit,
Israel doesn't have a right to exist.
A personal philosophy is a fine and dandy thing to have - but it's not much of a security measure to protect against the very thing OP says they are concerned about, is it now?
Imagine encouraging members of activist groups to unilaterally POLICE the behavior of their fellow members - in an anarchist community.
Imagine being unable to bring up very real security concerns within an activist group so that the group can solve the problem in an appropriately DEMOCRATIC manner - again, in an anarchist community.
Are you TRYING to cultivate a culture of suspicion in your orgs?
Imagine turning “here, read this book”
Oh, look, it's the standard "read my fave Beardy McDeadguy's book" answer edgelords that are completely out of touch with the people they (purportedly) wish to liberate offers to those they assume to be too ideologically "impure" for their glorified counter-culture club they mistake for a political movement.
Do you seriously think the CNT-FAI was built this way? Or the movements in Chiappas, or Rojava?
bell hooks wrote her books to inform - not to be used as a way to purity test people because you don't know how to democratically normalize common-sense security measures in organizations.
Can you show me anywhere in the world where anarchism is as strongly represented in labor movements as it was in Spain during the 1930s?
Looking at the past does not make the present any better.
So what should it be then? A vanguard in everything but name?
I'd love to... but where is it? Every time I ask anarchists this, they point me to social projects such as that happening in northern Syria and Chiappas in Mexico - social projects that reject the anarchist label. And I don't exactly blame them for rejecting it, either - trying to "preconfigure" something when your theory is too damn orthodox to even allow you to understand what "preconfiguring" should actually look like is a pretty obvious sociopolitical dead-end.