When you say "political struggle" are you talking about engaging in the political system? If you are, then anarchists aren't "quick" to absent themselves from the political system. We reject all statist political systems.
Anarchists participate in social struggles instead of statist politics.
If you look at how anarchists are involved in social struggles, you'll find that anarchists are more engaged in struggles than other people are involved in politics. When "direct action" is one of your primary forms of practice, that guides anarchists into being engaged in a proactive way in social struggles.
> Cuba would be a case in point. Here is a conflict between the US and Cuban
> governments. Should one stand aside and take no position because both are
> governments? Such a position would only reinforce the authority of both
> governments, because the anarchist has abstained from a struggle that means
> a lot to the Cuban people.
Who has stood back and taken no position on this issue?
My position as an anarchist has been quite clear. I oppose both the U.S. and Cuban governments, like I oppose all governments. I oppose all U.S. imperialism and interventionism against Cuba and in the region. I'm critical of other imperialism practiced by other countries in the region. I support self-determination and freedom for the Cuban people. I think the best way for me to show solidarity to the Cuban people is not to travel to Cuba as a revolutionary tourist, but to focus my dissent and activism against the U.S. state on American soil. One way that I've done this is through my work with the anti-globalization movement.
> There are political positions that do not abstain 1.) Support Castro 2.)
> Support America 3.) Overthrow Castro to save Cuba etc, etc. I can imagine a
> case for any one of these, but to take no view at all on the conflict seems
> pointless to me. Your beautiful soul has kept itself spotless, but the
> mundane world remains drenched in blood.
See above for a concise overview of my position.
Chuck