This is just supposed to be a general catch-all discussion thread.
The first thing that I wanted to talk about was that the revolution is not an end in itself. I think that a lot of Anarchists, mostly young people, are solely interested in the theory awaiting the prospect of revolution. While it is quite romantic, a revolution could also turn out to be quite terrible. It seems to me that a revolution ought to be for something. I don't think that acts should be considered à la "l'art pour l'art" as ends in themselves. Acts seek to take agency over historical events seem like they ought to have some sort of ideological content with which to substantiate them. A political act need not be a Populist appeal to some particular variant of Anarchism, but, I fail to see the point of attempting to wage some form of "pure" protest that seeks only to substantiate itself as an act. I guess I just mean to point out that politics does differ from art, I guess.
That's all that I've really got on that.
You can either respond to this or just talk about whatever you want. That was just the first thing that I wanted to address.