<<I don't think criticising current political movements is done to make oneself sound more "radical", but to increase the tactical effectiveness of real movements that exist in the here and now [at least it should be]. If theory isn't being tied to practice, then it is dead anyway, and there is no need to waste time discussing it here.>>
<<So, when we criticise existing tactics, we are not saying they shouldn't engage in fierce revolutionary struggle, we are saying the opposite. We are saying that their form of struggle will, in the end, prove counter-productive to revolutionary aims. It is not a question of "organisation vs. non-organisation" or "struggle vs. non-struggle", but rather of "whose organisation and struggle will most effectively implement libertarian socialism?".>>
But, my point was that, too often it seems, much of the anarchist "critique" seems to be criticism in the negative without posing any theory-- let alone praxis-- in the positive. Thus it seems that a lot of far-left posturing is going on without any substantive discussion on what should be done.
-- David