I understand what you are saying very well. I did not however, describe myself as an anarcho-Marxist, nor would I. I pretty clearly stated that there are aspects of liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism that I agree with. I don’t adopt any of those as my political identity, however, because each of those ideologies has problematic ideas, theorists, adherents, and histories.

A lot of socialism’s problematic histories stem precisely from revolutionaries in agrarian monarchies ignoring the fact that it is supposed to be a post-industrial, post-capitalist economic system. The lack of existing industry in those countries led to authoritarianism in an attempt to compete economically with capitalist nations, and in most cases that predictably led to fascism with a veneer of socialist/communist marketing.

Anarchism is an ideal - I don’t want to say it is unachievable, but humanity is currently far from ready for the level of vigilance it would take to maintain such a system, and I have no good ideas for how to get there from here. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things we can do within our current societies to push things in that direction culturally and economically, but I don’t think that overcoming the entrenched state powers directly is likely anytime soon. And since it has become clear in the last decade that much of the world doesn’t remember or never properly learned the political lessons of the 20th century, I think that the best we can hope for in the short term is a more peaceful world in which wealth inequality is shrinking rather than growing and human/civil rights are expanding.

Yeah, no. I am familiar with poststructuralism, and even read some Foucault a couple of decades back. I’m also well aware of its historical ties to relativity and (to a lesser extent) quantum physics, and that, similarly to how those discoveries ruptured ideas of objective reality in physics, poststructuralism did so for objective meaning and the primacy of authorship in literature, history, and other humanities.

Poststructuralism is very useful for understanding how fascism takes hold and the power of propaganda. It allows us to better understand how Western colonialists shaped ideas of race to enforce their own supremacy. What it does not do is demand that we all choose to obfuscate and intentionally distort perspectives to obtain our goals. I would actually argue that, on the contrary, one of the important lessons of poststructuralism is that we should focus on the factual if we want to address the world’s problems in a non-zero-sum manner - it is often our attempts to codify subjective meaning into false narratives of supposed truth that are the source of strife and anomie when a society (or humanity at large) is capable of materially supporting itself.

All of which is to say, in a thoroughly roundabout and unnecessarily academic way, that’s its fucking annoying when you put words in people’s mouths and make assumptions about their beliefs based on things they didn’t even say. Please learn to take simple statements at face value, and don’t assume that everything is said for the purpose of trying to shape people’s understanding of the world. A prediction is not the same as an endorsement, and an acknowledgement of factual events is not a value judgement as to whether that reality is desireable or not.