There are many people who devote their entire lives and work to anarchy, but there are a lot of people who get into it because it’s the “safest” radicalism because only rightist boomers bother to stigmatize it (via “antifa thugs” or whatever), though I honestly have a little more respect for them than the other “safe” radicalism of more precisely what I was talking about where you’re an anarcho-neoliberal-socdem who just says “radical” things but opposes any radical practice, who will attack Mao for not being left enough and then concern troll that some Berniecrat is unrealistic, which is extremely typical among certain kinds of academics. Like, they will simultaneously say “Oh, Stalin says that those who do not work, neither shall they eat. So much for ‘to each according to their needs!’ Also, collectivization stifles innovation.”

But talking to you rather than myself, what you are saying reminds me a little of the better parts of that essay “Why Marxism?” where faux-radicals in the west will denounce anything and everything, seeming to be the most radical of all but really supporting the status quo in the west by denying that there’s ever been anything better than it anywhere while certainly (and partially correctly) asserting that many things are worse than it. This lets them be at the apex, at a vast frontier where they have basically no one and nothing to learn from beyond liberal commentators and sometimes the most co-opted faux-left trash like Chomsky. The closest thing you’ll see to decency in these people is some default socdemist fetishization of the New Deal and of Nordic “socialism,” and that’s still a far cry from actual decency.

But yeah, if someone admits that they’re just running on vibes (and the people I’m talking about are mainly pretentious academics who could never), then I don’t see what could be better for them than to learn to exercise some epistemic humility until they have a framework by means of which to judge things that they can actually defend. If you aren’t acting on behalf of your own ideology, you’re uncritically acting on behalf of someone else’s.

Obligatory edit:

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

Personally, if I wanted to be a powerful fascist in a place like the US, I’d just be a fucking fascist because it seems to be working out great for them. Being a communist in order to be a fascist later just means the other fascists will seize on you and every faction of corporate media will be your enemy, and even once you achieve the fascist turn (assuming you aren’t jailed, killed, or otherwise crushed), your past is a liability that other rightists are liable to exploit and a huge segment of your original base of power will want to kill you almost as much as the fascists did. Being a secret rightist only makes sense in a communist status quo, like what Khrushchev did.