That reminded me
> that despite anarchists' sometimes thinking otherwise, their ideas
> about politics and protests are in the first instance ideological,
> even if they are more likely than other leftists to base theirs on
> positive (creative) impulses.
>
My experience with anarchism, and you might say my problem with it, has been that its lack of coherent organizations, platforms, and strategies leaves it wide open to leadership from bourgeois, moderate elements (since they're the only ones who have it together against whom anarchists don't have a vendetta). Witness, for example, the legions of anarchists eager to fall into rank behind mildly reformist organizations like 350. That's the thing about structure - social organization demands it, and if revolutionaries aren't able or willing to provide it for themselves, any number of other elements will be more than happy to step in and fill the vacuum.
> During the
> alterglobo days, anarchists, particularly black bloc, were able to
> perform their disruptive tactics but still the protests had some sort
> of form because the more "responsible" participants sharpened the
> antagonisms and defined the targets.
>
That's unfair. Anarchists were the working class of those mobilizations - their communications and legal teams, kitchen crews, logistics geeks, medics, media workers, etc. (I remember the strange novelty of meeting a few fellow medics who weren't anarchists like the rest of us, but, of all things, Marxists!) In general, anarchists held it all together. But you're partially correct that political leadership generally flowed from a human rights-oriented NGO establishment, which ties into my first point above.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."